Implications of Yasser Arafat's death

[The Last Conformist]

You've not heard of PLO terror attacks up to the '80s?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

At least now Israel can't blame Arafat every time anything goes remotely wrong over there.

 

[h4ppy]

I always thought that Mr. Arafat was a great man, a man on wich the palestinians could look up to, he was a natural leader.

Even though I haven't seen the complete list of potential successors, I dont think that the next one will be able to keep the palestinians strong and united ( without impling that they were under Arafat's). This might just be the beggining of the end for Palestine.

That doesn't mean that Palestine will be gone though. to be quite truthful I think a weak leader is just what they need. They will hopefully stop the violence. A shrunken Palestine is way more good (IMO) than a war torn one.

 

[The Last Conformist]

A weak leader, as in one unable to control Hamas and IJ?

 

[h4ppy]

Well, yes if they wear themselves out and die too often they will be marginalized. The main reason they still exist is because they haven't gone to far.(assassinating people or killing moderate Palistinians)

 

[Rhymes]

You've not heard of PLO terror attacks up to the '80s?

Nope, my culture lacks those, whats it about?

 

[Xiahou-Dun]

Looking back and seeing one side change leadership (muiltpy times) in a attempt to find peace and seeing the other side send the same person out (Again and again), with little progress in sight (10 years and more dead), I would think it's time for one side to learn from the other and send someone else forward. Arafat IMHO was blocking the process and wouldn't step aside to let others try.

Not to be a cold hearted (edit), I would have liked it better if he had retired and let others come forward. Sadly some get in a place of power and forget the good of the all. 95% is better than nothing, especially when you are on the side who has few chips to bargain with.


Arafat, Freedom Fighter in the eyes of Palestine, Terrorist in the eyes of Israel, a man past his time in my eyes.

 

[Dan-Beersheba]

I agree with a few of the other posters here, that the focus is shifted towards Israel now that this brickwall is gone. Bush should be able to use some of the capitol he earned on the roadmap now.

"Good riddance because he was a terrorist."

 

[G-Man]

Nope, my culture lacks those, whats it about?

The PLO and its sub groups took responsibility for tens of thousands of attacks, most of them unsuccessful or small attacks. The more high profile ones were:
1972 - Terrorists from the PLO's black september group kidnapped Israeli athletes in the Munich olympics, killing 11 of them
1972 - The kidnapping of a Sabena plane by PLO terrorists. The plane was landed in Israel's lod airport. A group of 16 Israeli elite soldiers were sent, dressed as mechanics. They managed to kill two terrorists and capture two others. Three passangers were injured, and one of them later died.
1972 - The PLO trained Japanesse Red Army terrorists in Lebanon and sent them to make an attack in Lod airport. The terrorists used AK rifles and grenades, killing 25 and injuring over 70 others. One of the dead was prof Aharon Katzir, an important chemist.
1974 - PLO terrorists from the PFLP group took over a school in maalot. It was during the night, but a group of children from another school was sleeping there at the time. The attack left 26 people dead, 21 of them children, and 66 people injured.
1976 - PLO terrorists took part in the kidnapping of an Air France airplane carrying 250 people and took it to entebbe, Uganda. Israel made a surprise attack and managed to rescue most passangers, though one soldier and several passengers were killed.
1978 - PLO terrorists coming from Lebanon landed on the Israeli shore south of Haifa. They killed an American photographer which was at the scene and hijacked a bus going south. They were eventually stopped just north of Tel Aviv and in the battle that took place 36 people were killed and 17 injured.



Back on the original topic, Arafat made peace impossible, and as such his death will probably have a good effect on the peace process. He's succeeded by fairly moderate leaders which ave negotiated with Sharon in the past, and if they can get a hold the peace process can be set back on track.

 

[yoshi]

Even if it is true, maybe my respect towards him will lower, but I'll still believe he has done great achievments trhough his life.

What achievments? As I see it, the PA would have achieved more had Arafat not been there.

(But, to be fair, even he was still less of an impediment to a peace deal than right-wing Isrealis given the circumstances.)

 

[AVN]

The PLO and its sub groups took responsibility for tens of thousands of attacks

(Bolding is mine)

Aren't you exaggerating a little bit here ?

And yes I'm aware that Arafat killed a number of innocent people in his fight for freedom of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately the Israeli governments did the same (although I'm afraid that the number of innocent Palestian victims is much higher) in protecting the Israeli people.

 

[King Alexander]

In reality, there're no implications of Arafat's death - none, zero. The area will be forever doomed because both sides have their reasons for not wanting a "solution".

 

[yoshi]

That's only because the solution Isreal wants is the removal of Palestinians from their lands and the Palestinians won't accept that (I wonder why).

Of course, the reality is that Isreal is right-wing (and has been throughout most of its short history). Right-wing = bad stuff happens to you if you don't agree. So, the Palestinians should take any deal...even if it is with the devil. With Arafat out of the way, Isreal may offer another deal (although highly unlikely) and the PA should take it even if the very basis of such a deal is unjust and has been since the creation of the Isreali state.

[For the record, the best deal IMO would be that the Palestinian territories become part of Isreal as an autonomous community (i.e. they speak Arabic, not Hebrew except when working in Isreal) and Palestinians be given Isreali citizenship in return for full acceptance of the deal--end to hostilities. This of course is a fantasy with or without Arafat and the like.]

 

[G-Man]

(Bolding is mine)

Aren't you exaggerating a little bit here ?

http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/9/21829.doc

And yes I'm aware that Arafat killed a number of innocent people in his fight for freedom of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately the Israeli governments did the same (although I'm afraid that the number of innocent Palestian victims is much higher) in protecting the Israeli people.

For someone who fought for "freedom of the Palestinian people" he sure had an easy time in creating a centralized dictatorship.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You're mixing up two senses of "freedom" there. I'm tempted to think it was deliberate, too.

 

[G-Man]

That's only because the solution Isreal wants is the removal of Palestinians from their lands and the Palestinians won't accept that (I wonder why).

If that's what Israel wants why did it offer the Palestinian nearly all the west bank and all of gaza? Why is it withdrawing from gaza? Why doesn't it kick away the Palestinians?

Of course, the reality is that Isreal is right-wing (and has been throughout most of its short history).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Israel

Right-wing = bad stuff happens to you if you don't agree. So, the Palestinians should take any deal...even if it is with the devil. With Arafat out of the way, Isreal may offer another deal (although highly unlikely) and the PA should take it even if the very basis of such a deal is unjust and has been since the creation of the Isreali state.

Two people, two nations. How is this not justified?

[For the record, the best deal IMO would be that the Palestinian territories become part of Isreal as an autonomous community (i.e. they speak Arabic, not Hebrew except when working in Isreal) and Palestinians be given Isreali citizenship in return for full acceptance of the deal--end to hostilities. This of course is a fantasy with or without Arafat and the like.]

So your "best deal" is to put jews at the mercy of a populations which considers killing them on a racial base to be a good thing?

 

[G-Man]

You're mixing up two senses of "freedom" there. I'm tempted to think it was deliberate, too.

Why? Where's the mixing? What kind of freedom did Arafat achieve, or wanted to achieve, for his people? He only took away freedoms that they had under Israeli rule - freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc. Only now, with his death, there are leaders who need the legitimacy of an elections process so they can actually vote.

 

[The Last Conformist]

He tried to achieve freedom in the sense of national independence. "Freedom" as in "freedom fighter".

 

[G-Man]

He tried to achieve freedom in the sense of national independence. "Freedom" as in "freedom fighter".

But the whole point of national independence is that a people has the freedom to control itself. What difference does it make if you're controlled by a foreign policy caring about its interests or by a dictator caring about his interests? In both cases the people are in the exact same position.

 

[The Last Conformist]

But the whole point of national independence is that a people has the freedom to control itself. What difference does it make if you're controlled by a foreign policy caring about its interests or by a dictator caring about his interests? In both cases the people are in the exact same position.

People take better to oppressors if they at some level can feel they are of their own. Additionally, the "stakeholder" theory of political organization would hold that the interest of a domestic dictator are more likely to coincide with those of the people than a those of a foreign ruler are.

But the main point is one of usage; national independence is commonly described as freedom regardless of whether it brings any personal freedom or political influence for the masses or not.