Oddly, the BBC link does not make the claim that Israel is targeting civilians. Talking about the same operation, the BBC says "The raid began at dawn, with a missile from a helicopter fired at a group of gunmen outside a mosque in Tel Sultan, killing three of them." and "Seven Palestinians, most of them gunmen, were also reportedly killed in street fighting.", while Al-Jazeera says, "The number of civilian victims exceeds by far the number of resistance fighters killed." and "Dhahir accused the Israeli army of "knowingly and deliberately" targeting civilians, particularly children."
I hope that Yassar gets to the hospital and is served a nice Bacon, Lettuce, and Tamoto sandwhich, just before he croaks. DD
At the very least Fox offers Allan Colmes... and they do report the news good and bad. Your agenda is becoming a caricature. Yes, really.
Allan Colmes is Hannity's lap dog, not a liberal. They should get my father on that show, he is the biggest liberal I know and would tear Hannity a new one (figuratively) with ease.
I hope that, after he dies, the 72 virgins he receives in heaven are the illegitimate offspring of Rodney Dangerfield and Rosie O'Donnell.
Actually Al Jazeera offers up opposing viewpoints frequently. Condi Rice has been on, Collin Powell has repeatedly been a guest. They have Arab view points from all over the spectrum on. They have debates on women's rights with progressive and traditional view points. There is no doubt they do report from a particular point but contrary to popular belief, they are quite unrestricted, don't hold on to one agenda and talking points like FOX news does. There has been a lot of bias toward Al Jazeera because they have braodcast news stories not favorable to the U.S. They aren't a propoganda arm for any political party, government, or terrorist organization, and have even been praised by Ariel Sharon as a means for Israel to get its message out to a broader Arab populace. The case against Al Jazeera is vastly over-hyped. There is fascinating documentary called Control Room that I recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it yet.
Although I could scarcely be characterized as an Arafat fan, he adopted many of the tactics that the Israelis used to forge a nation. History tends to be kind to winners and harsh to losers. Despite his many transgressions, and as implausible as it may seem, Arafat had become a "moderating" force in Middle East politics in these, his final years. With his passing, I fear the militant radical wing will be completely unfettered and certainly unhampered by any need to pay homage to public opinion. I fear another, greater danger looms on our nation's horizon.
There certainly are more radical militant potential leaders than Arafat. On the other hand Arafat was a crook, and played fast and loose with government money. He was corrupt. I hope that if he passes or can no longer head the PA that it won't be a violent struggle for the next leader to fill the power vaccum. I do have a hope that the next person to come in will be someone with a realistic view of the situation, and who is willing to progress forward in the peace process with honest intention.
FranchiseBlade, do you think Arafat rejected a pretty good cookie during his meeting at Camp David with Clinton overseeing the process?...
Arafat was a fool at that meeting. It wasn't because he rejected the deal offered. The deal offered was a horrible one for the Palestinians. But to walk out was ridiculous. I honestly think that Arafat doesn't have the guts to agree to a real peace deal. I think he has been so worried that if it turns out that the Palestinians don't like it, he will lose his job and his money traint. I think that deal showed that at that time the U.S. and quite probably ISrael were serious about getting some kind of deal done. Arafat was willing to walk through the motions but didn't have the guts to pull the trigger on a deal. He was right not to accept that deal, but he was wrong to walk away without making a legitimate counter-proposal. Claims that he was offered 95% of what he asked for are exaggerated. I remember reading a quote from the ISraelis saying it was really only about 66-70% of what he wanted and the land offered to the Palestinians was totally unworkable. But none-the-less it was an offer, and something that could have possibly been tweaked.
I'd be very surprised if the Israeli govt. ever lets Arafat back into Israel/Palestine again now that he has left for Paris. Only after his death will they allow the body back for burial and even then they will not permit the burial to occur within Jerusalem. And FB is correct about the legitmacy of the deal offered to Arafat at Camp David. It was an offer of 5 reservation/ghetto type parcels of principally undesirable and non-contiguous land that would be sealed off with Israeli manned checkpoints between them. But that was not even the bad part. The real deal-breaker was that the Israeli contingent was not willing to negotiate whatsoever on water rights. From a water reservoir which was ironically in the West Bank, but that the Palestinians would have no guaranteed access to. This would effectively leave the Palestinian side at the mercy of their Masters across the border in future decades. If a drought were to occur, under the deal even Palestinian drinking water would essentially play second fiddle to Israel's irrigation needs. Still it does seem Arafat was foolish to just walk out instead of trying to engage further negotiation. Then again, the subsequent years have shown that neither side really wanted an agreement in the first place. Both govts. want all the land and nothing less.
If, God forbid, Mr. Arafat does pass away in the next few days...how will it affect our election, if at all?
One can hope for realistic Palestinian (and Israeli) leadership, and I do. Being a sanctimonious crook seems to be a way of life in the Mideast. Unfortunately, the people there do not have a monopoly on crookedness. Here I can cite the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Saudis, the Americans (Haliburton, anyone?) ad nauseum. But, as I said, I can hardly be characterized as an Arafat fan or an apologist for his villainy.
