I don't know how many of you caught this on TV, but I was very disturbed to see groups of Israelis dancing on the streets and passing out candy celebrating the death of Yasser Arafat. That just proves my ongoing point that neither side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Arab or Jew, is civilized. Both sides are filled with savages and we need to be more balanced in our view of the Middle East. On a side note, I'm surprised that Fox News, the network that's "fair and balanced" didn't show Israelis celebrating on the streets. They never fail to show Palestinians celebrate the death of Israelis.
Wouldnt you be celebrating if Hitler died - Arafat is an absolute piece of scum from the rat-infested holes of terrorism - if you think Israel has uncivilized people, then what do you call palestinian terrorists/arafat followers? I'd call them the feces and vomit swimming in the sewers/drains underground.
The only thing that would make me happier would be to know that he suffered greatly as he was dying. He had a chance in 2000 for peace and he pissed all over it. With a net worth in the 2-6 BILLION DOLLARS range, he paid his suicide bombers' families 800 dollars. Forget the fact that he basically started state sponsored terrorism, but if he believed killing the "infidel jews" was justified he couldn't give more? The world is better without garbage like him in it. Of course, thats just my opinion.
hhhmmmmmm . . Some folx feel strongly about Bush Would we be happy if his death was celebrated What if when Reagan did all the Arab world had a big ole party or the russians How would u feel Put it this way. . . . You trying to make peace. . .you do not celebrate the death of someone your enemy respects Rocket River If write folx celebrated the death of MLK . . .. I don't think the olive branch of peace would have been taken all that seriously
FOR THE RECORD MLK and ARAFAT are a billions points of light on the opposite ends of the spectrum . . . I'm just saying .. . the road to peace is not paved like this Rocket River
I'll be the first to agree with you that Arafat was scum. I'll add on to that saying that Israel's government is also scum. But Arafat was no Hitler and celebrating the death of Hitler is not the same as celebrating the death of Arafat. Hitler killed 6 million innocent people that did nothing against him. He picked out these people solely for their beliefs and killed them without cause. He was clearly the tyrant out of the two parties. With Arafat, that is not the case. Arafat fought against people that he and the Palestinians saw as occupiers. Arafat killed innocent Israelis, but Israel killed just as many if not more Palestinians. Arafat supported suicide bombers, but he credited Israel for teaching him the art of gaining independence through the use of terrorism. Whether we like it or not, Israel created the art of terrorism and the Israeli government is just as vile and disgusting as the PLO. In a nutshell, when you do not have a clear and defined bad guy amongst two parties (which we do not have here), you do not cheer a man's death. The man was vile, but the conflict is not one-sided. No rational person thinks that it is. I did not cheer the death of Yitzhak Rabin and I do not cheer the death of Arafat.
Arafat did not start state-sponsored terrorism. That was Israel and that fact is undisputed. Irgun was an Israeli terrorist group during the 1920's and 1930's that attacked Arab and British establishments in order to secure a Jewish state in Palestine. It was led by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Attacking establishments through terrorism to secure an independent state...that sounds like the PLO. We don't like the PLO, now do we The fact of the matter is that Israel did the same to secure their freedom that the PLO has done/is doing today. We need to stop being hypocrites by condemning one and condoning the other.
Americans thought our election was personal. Those who point the finger at Arafat while condoning the Israeli's use of force either do not thave enough info or are simple closeminded. I know a few Israelis, a bunch of Palestinians and lots of American Jews who have taken a level headed approach towards the creation of a Palestinian state and the achievment of peace. I also know countless Egyptians who pray for the same outcome. I pray that these feelings will become more prevelant but I'm discouraged as so many Americans have recently entered the fray with deep anger and resentment towards Arabs and Islam. I would hope Americans could keep a more educated and objective point of view.
it would have been so much easier to blame arafat for 9/11 than saddam, then we wouldnt have had to do all the dirty work.
If you think that the intentional targeting of civilians is the same as targeting terrorists then you are the simple-minded one.
Irgun was not a state and neither is the PLO. You cannot call one state-sponsored terrorism and forgive the other. They both fall in the same category. Menachem Begin was the Israeli Yasser Arafat. Both organizations used terrorism to help secure an independent state for their people. THe only difference is that one succeeded and the other did not.
Originally posted by AggieRocket Irgun was not a state and neither is the PLO. You claimed: 'Arafat did not start state-sponsored terrorism. That was Israel and that fact is undisputed. ' The statement sounded so definitive. Now would you like to retract or defend it? You cannot call one state-sponsored terrorism and forgive the other. I forgive no terrorism, and terrorism was committed by both sides early on. Not all Jews or Arabs agreed with or supported such tactics at the time. But since we cannot do anything to change history, it is more important what terrorism is occuring today. They both fall in the same category. Menachem Begin was the Israeli Yasser Arafat. Both organizations used terrorism to help secure an independent state for their people. THe only difference is that one succeeded and the other did not. Was Begin really as bad as all of these decades of Palestinian terrorism (which I hold Arafat responsible for)? Whatever, it's beside the point. The salient difference is that one stopped about 50 years ago and one continues to this day.
I do believe I take a level headed approach to the peace process. But when one side gives in to 90% of the other side's wishes and that side STILL doesn't accept, who's really at fault. It's so easy for you to say that those of us that dislike Arafat do so out of hate for Islam or Arabs, but that is ENTIRELY false. I don't believe we should be celebrating the life of a man who is responsible for the TARGETING of innocents. Targeting terrorists who happen to use innocents as defenses is different. You can't expect that you can attack another group of people and not be attacked in retribution because you decide to hide out in holy places. To say that I don't know what I'm talking about based on one post seems to be jumping to conclusions. Plus, to say that because I don't agree with your points that I somehow must hate Arabs or Islam seems to be rather close minded as well.
With respect to my statement about Israel starting state-supported terrorism, that was in response to someone's statement that Arafat started state-sponsored terrorism. Perhaps a better statement on my part would have been just stating that Arafat was not involved in state-sponsored terrorism. He was involved in terrorism, just not the "state-sponsored" variety. About Menachem Begin, he was just as bad as Arafat. Arafat never did anything close to what Begin did with the King David hotel. And the reason that one stopped 50 years ago is because Israel became a free state. Begin's goal was achieved. I guarantee that if the Palestinians get a free state, suicide bombings and terrorism will stop. Just because something is history does not exonerate those who commit atrocities and acts of terror. If the Palestinians get a free state, that does not mean that Arafat's action are all forgotten and as you state, besides the point. The same principle applies for Begin and Irgun. Ultimately, Israeli terrorism and PLO terrorism are remarkably similar. I really do not think that anyone can deny that.
That 90% number is very misleading. I do not know if you read the proposal or not, but if you do, I'm sure you will agree with me. It is true that Israel offered 90% of the land in dispute, but the land offered was not contiguous. It's like you giving me Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia , while you keep New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida. I am sure that you would agree with me in saying that what you are offering me is hardly an independent state. You would have territory within my land. That is not plausible for a sovereign state. If you give me the Western half or the Eastern half, I take it. Moreover, Israel kept all water rights from the Jordan River, which is the only source of water into Palestinian territory. Thus, the Palestinians would be at the complete mercy of Israel.
To be fair, it's a big difference in celebrating over the deaths of innocent civilians than that of Arafat, who was perceived by many Israelis as a liar and terrorist at heart.
Does that mean a free state on the West Bank & the Gaza Strip or does that mean a free state from <i>the River to the Sea</i>?
