Arafat died today...

[Brian2by2]

uh oh

[PHOEN$X]

Well no one lives forever...

[bsudiro]

hmm .. where did all the 'palestinian money' go ??

[Sig]

Originally Posted by bsudiro

hmm .. where did all the 'palestinian money' go ??

More like where did the world's money go? The Palestinians, due to many factors(many not their fault), were not generating funds of their own. The money that was funnelled in to support humanitarian, military, and security functions came from all over the world. As has been the case since the beginning, the Arafat 'controlled' government was highly corrupt and a big chunk of the funds was diverted to personal projects, the wallets of their friends, and to terrorsist organizations. His Parisian wife, Sufa Arafat, had a nice allowance in excess of 1 million per year. I got to believe she could have been fine with half that and that the other half could have bought a large quantity of food and medical supplies for the Palestinian people. And that 1+ million allowance to his wife is just a rounding error when compared to the true dollar amounts skimmed off the top by the PLO/Arafat.

For the betterment of the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, hopefully this void will open the way for new leadership to come to power who truly want peace. Arafat, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades, PLO's Fatah, and many others' existence is/was defined by war and conflict. You remove the conflict and all of a sudden much of what necessitated their existance is gone. Thus, many of these groups fear the end of the conflict for it will potentially spell the end to them and their perceived power. There is now the possibility for a new rise to power by some that are not defined by the conflict and may be able be the ones to be defined by a future peace.

Unfortunately, if a democratic vote was taken today with Palestinian people.... the Hamas leadership holds the largest share of support. A few of the guys that will be in the limelight for the next 60 days during the interim leadership apparently have a real desire for peace and Palestinian soveirgnty. Hopefully, they will be able hold power after the 60-day interim period.

On the flip side, hopefully the Israeli govt. will seize upon this new chapter to be more effective in dealing with the Palestinians.

For the good of the common people on both sides of the conflict, lets hope that the next chapter in the Arab/Israeli conflict has a better ending than the most recent one.

[bsudiro]

Eloquently said, Sig!

On the other hand, this conflict between Israel & the Palestinians have been going on for such a long time that there is so much distrust between the two parties that will be hard to erase, no matter who's in control.

It takes two to tango ... and if one side is still too suspicious of the other .. it will not happen.

Let's just hope that the outcome is not as bleak as that. The world will be a better place with one less long-lasting conflict ....

[Eric5273]

My girlfriend is Israeli -- she's been here in the U.S. for 5 years. Her family still lives in Israel and her brother is in the Israeli Army. She also has lots of friends here in NY who are Israeli immigrants. After talking with her and many of her friends about this subject, I can tell you that American perception of what Israelis think is way off. They are way more critical of their own government than Americans are. The common Israeli people feel bad for the Palistineans and desire peace. They see the extremists on both sides as being in the way of a peaceful solution. Ariel Sharon is about as popular in Israel as George W. Bush is here in the U.S. -- he's a very controversial leader and much of the Israeli public dislikes his policies. There are pro-peace marches/protests all the time and there have even been groups of Israeli soldiers who have refused to be deployed into the occupied territories. Not all Israelis and Palistineans distrust eachother.

Since the Palistineans are not united, there will continue to be small factions that support terror. Because of this, it is up to the Israelis to make the peace process happen. The Israelis do have a single government that represents the people, and thus they can take the initial steps to make this happen if they wish to. Once the Palistineans have their own country, there will continue to be groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad that refuse to accept the 2-state solution. However, the large majority of the Palistinean public will support the 2-state solution and the few extremist groups will lose support among the people. Only then can these groups be successfully defeated. The way to defeat terrorism is not to kill all the terrorists, but to conduct your policy in a way that will result in the terrorists losing their support among the public. Once that happens, their power will be reduced to that similar to many of these small militia groups that exist here in the U.S. -- they will simply be a small annoyance rather than a major problem.

[Sig]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Because of this, it is up to the Israelis to make the peace process happen. The Israelis do have a single government that represents the people, and thus they can take the initial steps to make this happen if they wish to. Once the Palistineans have their own country, there will continue to be groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad that refuse to accept the 2-state solution.

I agree with much of what you said with the exception that the Israeli government has not extended more olive branches than the PLO. There was no deal that would have been good enough for Arafat to sign. He single handidly blew the nice deal that was put forward at Camp David. As a result, even the progress that Oslo brought the two sides has been extinguished. The conflict defined Arafat and he was not willing to risk the possibility he would not be needed any longer.

Clinton's quote on Arafat bailing on the Camp David accords:
"I regret that in 2000 he missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace."


Remember the real work begins once you have soveirgnty. Arafat was unwilling or perhaps unable to succesfully run a soveirgn Palestine.

As stated above for the good of the folks on both sides, hopefully the Palestinian leaders who truly desire peace will be able to hold on to power. In addition, hopefully Sharon will continue to modify some of his hardline positions to meet the Palestinians somewhere in the middle. Though it wasn't perfect, the recent legislation to leave most of their settlements was at least a move in the right direction seeing that it was done in the face of no concessions from the PLO.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by Sig

There was no deal that would have been good enough for Arafat to sign.

Did you ever take a look at the proposed deal? It offered the Palistineans only part of the West Bank, and it was not even a continuous part. There were isolated sections which would require Palistineans to enter Israel in order to travel between parts of their own country.

A new Palistine should include all (100%) of the lands acquired in the 1967 War -- as stated in UN Security Council Resolution 242.

Do you agree that all countries should comply with UN Security Council Resolutions? When Iraq did not comply with the resolution to leave Kuwait, we attacked them. What if Saddam had offered to give back some of the country? Would such an offer be accepted?

And when Iraq did not comply with resolutions to allow UN inspectors into their country, we attacked them once again. (actually, they did finally comply and inspectors were allowed in November 2002, but we still attacked anyway).

Yet Israel has thumbed their nose at the UN time and time again. They are in violation of more UN Resolutions than even Saddam Hussein's Iraq was, and yet nothing is done. There should be no negotiation. Israel should be forced to comply with both of the following UN Security Council resolutions, and if any further problems are encoutered by Israel or Palistine, they should be brought before the UN Security Council. That is the purpose of the UN -- to resolve such conflicts. By passing such resolutions and doing nothing to enforce them, the UN is becomming useless.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967
Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

UN Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979
"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

[Sig]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Did you ever take a look at the proposed deal? It offered the Palistineans only part of the West Bank, and it was not even a continuous part. There were isolated sections which would require Palistineans to enter Israel in order to travel between parts of their own country.

The Camp David deal was so good that Arafat never disclosed to the Palestinians what exactly was offered. Additionally, the major Arab leaders supported the deal. However, they were forced to silence on the subject after Arafat backed out because of fears of a what a vocally absorbed Arafat would say publically. Arafat was not a reveared leader among the Arab nations. With one notable exception, Sadaam Hussein, Arafat was disliked by just about the entire Arab League.

As to your statment of the Camp David deal being bad for Palestinians, let's examine what Ambassador Dennis Ross, the chief negotiator for Clinton had to say about the matter:

"To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan."

"However, it is worth pondering how Palestinians would have reacted to a public presentation of Clinton’s plan. Had Palestinians honestly known what Arafat was unwilling to accept, would they have supported violence against the Israelis, particularly given the suffering imposed on them? Would Arafat have remained the “only Palestinian” capable of making peace? Perhaps such domestic pressure would have convinced Arafat, the quintessential survivor, that the political costs of intransigence would be higher than the costs of making difficult concessions to Israel."

Arafat's entire life was based on lies, he never even came clean to the Palestinian people about his birthplace. I am much more inclined to listen to the non-Palestinian Arab diplomats on the matter than I am to the word of the PLO officials that were knowledgable of the deal. Not to mention Arafat and all his buddies were disgustingly rich as a result of they way they handled the ongoing conflict.

Once again the real hope is that the leadership on both sides will moderate and genuinely work towards peace. Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen now heading the PLO will hopefully work for the Palestinian people and not himself as Arafat did. In parallel, Israel will need to hold a similar motive.

[Eric5273]

I've never heard 97% before. Both the Israeli & Palistinean newspapers reported 91% at the time. But 91% or 97% is not 100% and the UN Security Council resolution calls for 100%. If Saddam Hussein had offered to give back 91% of Kuwait in 1990, do you think the UN Security Council would have accepted his terms?

It's very simple....the UN Security Council (in which the United States is a member) ruled on this and the vote was unanimous. There will be peace when Israel disbands all (100%) of the settlements as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 446 and gives back all (100%) of the land as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 242. Until that time there will be no peace. The Israeli public knows this and so does their government. The Palistinean position is not a "hardline" or "stubborn" position, unless you consider "wanting international laws to be followed" a hardline or stubborn position.

[Dave Hardy]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I've never heard 97% before. Both the Israeli & Palistinean newspapers reported 91% at the time. But 91% or 97% is not 100% and the UN Security Council resolution calls for 100%. If Saddam Hussein had offered to give back 91% of Kuwait in 1990, do you think the UN Security Council would have accepted his terms?

There is one HUGE difference that you aren't acknowledging here. Iraq was the invading country in Gulf War 1. Of course it's not acceptable for him to give back part of it. Israel was the invaded country in '67. The parallel doesn't fit.

If Kuwait had been able to kick Saddams ass and take part of Iraq as a buffer against another invasion, that would have been fine.

[peiserg]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I've never heard 97% before. Both the Israeli & Palistinean newspapers reported 91% at the time. But 91% or 97% is not 100% and the UN Security Council resolution calls for 100%. If Saddam Hussein had offered to give back 91% of Kuwait in 1990, do you think the UN Security Council would have accepted his terms?

It's very simple....the UN Security Council (in which the United States is a member) ruled on this and the vote was unanimous. There will be peace when Israel disbands all (100%) of the settlements as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 446 and gives back all (100%) of the land as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 242. Until that time there will be no peace. The Israeli public knows this and so does their government. The Palistinean position is not a "hardline" or "stubborn" position, unless you consider "wanting international laws to be followed" a hardline or stubborn position.

You seriously think there will "be peace" if israel hands over all the occupied territory, when there are several groups in existence whose sole purpose is the extirpation of israel, regardless of any political happenstance between israel and palestine? And what exactly is your definition of hardline? Any chance it includes blowing up school busses, or kids relaxing in a restaurant? It would be nice if israel hands over the occupied territories, but along the lines of "no one ever said life was fair" they wouldn't even be there if they had not been invaded (and won) in 1967. You don't hear about mexicans blowing up our city buses and shooting civilians because they lost the mexican-american war and want arizona, texas, etc etc back do you?

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by Dave Hardy

Israel was the invaded country in '67.

This is a total lie. Israel was NOT invaded in '67. Israel invaded Egypt and that is what started the "Six Day War". Israel justified the attack by claiming they were taking "preemptive" action. A couple of weeks earlier, Egypt had closed the Suez Canal to Israeli ships. So this was Israel's excuse.

Israel's invasion of Syria and Egypt was no different than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (also justified as a "preemptive" action) except that many more people were killed in the 1967 war. Both wars were land grabs. In the case of Israel, they were taking land for strategic position -- land that would help them better defend and secure their country. In the case of Iraq, they were taking land that was rich in oil and good access to the Persian Gulf.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by peiserg

You seriously think there will "be peace" if israel hands over all the occupied territory, when there are several groups in existence whose sole purpose is the extirpation of israel

Yes, and so do most Israelis. Those groups will still exist, but once there is a Palistinean state, those groups will lose most of their support among the Palistinean population. Every society has extremist groups. There are some Neo-Nazi groups right here in the United States. What makes Hamas so powerful is that 20% of the Palistinean population supports them over the PLO. If Hamas had 1% support among the population, their ability to carry out attacks would greatly diminish to the point that you probably would not even know they exist.

Originally Posted by peiserg

It would be nice if israel hands over the occupied territories, but along the lines of "no one ever said life was fair" they wouldn't even be there if they had not been invaded (and won) in 1967.

WOW!! That's the 2nd time somone has said that here. What history books are you reading? I'll state this again: The Six Day War began with the Israeli Air Force attacking Egypt and completely destroying their entire Air Force. That was the first attack of the war.

Here's a little trivia question for anyone who knows some details of the war. How many American soldiers were killed in the Six Day War? And who (which country) were they killed by? (Positive Reputation for anyone who can answer these 2 questions correctly )

[lemansnsx]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Here's a little trivia question for anyone who knows some details of the war. How many American soldiers were killed in the Six Day War? And who (which country) were they killed by? (Positive Reputation for anyone who can answer these 2 questions correctly )

34 killed, 172 wounded on the U.S..S. Liberty by Israeli air and sea units.
No reputation points please. It's a stupid "feature" IMO and high time it went away.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by lemansnsx

34 killed, 172 wounded on the U.S..S. Liberty by Israeli air and sea units.
No reputation points please. It's a stupid "feature" IMO and high time it went away.

Very good.

[nkb]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

This is a total lie. Israel was NOT invaded in '67. Israel invaded Egypt and that is what started the "Six Day War". Israel justified the attack by claiming they were taking "preemptive" action. A couple of weeks earlier, Egypt had closed the Suez Canal to Israeli ships. So this was Israel's excuse.

Israel's invasion of Syria and Egypt was no different than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (also justified as a "preemptive" action) except that many more people were killed in the 1967 war. Both wars were land grabs. In the case of Israel, they were taking land for strategic position -- land that would help them better defend and secure their country. In the case of Iraq, they were taking land that was rich in oil and good access to the Persian Gulf.

Alright, I get to correct Eric for once

Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran in May of '67, not the Suez Canal. These straits were strategic to Israeli shipping. Some might call that an excuse to declare war. Others might label it an act of aggression, and a provocation.

The situation was not quite as cut-and-dried as you are portraying it. There were a lot of hostilities between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria). The territories that Israel captured had been used numerous times to stage guerrilla attacks on Israeli military and civilians. And, the combining of Jordanian and Egyptian forces under Egyptian control was an overt threat to Israel.
Did Israel attack first? Yes. Was there a credible threat to Israel? Yes, again. I think the parallel to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait is a stretch.

I'll readily admit that I knew almost nothing about this conflict (I was still crapping my diapers when this happened), and I had also been under the impression that Israel had been attacked first. Live and learn. Here's the link I was just reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by nkb

Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran in May of '67, not the Suez Canal.

I stand corrected. I was writing this all from memory and got the two confused.

Originally Posted by nkb

These straits were strategic to Israeli shipping. Some might call that an excuse to declare war. Others might label it an act of aggression, and a provocation.

In 1990, Kuwait went against OPEC policies and began to dump massive amounts of oil onto the market causing the a huge price drop. Just as the bocking of Israeli shipments through the Straits of Tiran was an act of economic war, so was this. Iraq had a huge debt after their war with Iran and oil was 90% of their economic revenue. Causing such a large drop in oil prices would have terrible consequences for their economy. Iraq also accused Kuwait of cross-drilling under the border and stealing their oil. In both cases, these were economic attacks, not military attacks. While both were used as excuses for war, under international law neither qualifies as a valid justification to attack another country. Would North Korea be justified in attacking the United States because our economic sanctions have caused their economy great harm? Of course not.

Originally Posted by nkb

I think the parallel to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait is a stretch.

I think they are very similar in almost every respect. The only major difference is how the international community responded. Due to a continuous US veto in the UN Security Council, all attempts to enforce Resolution 242 have been voted down -- every time by a US veto. I always thought it would be funny if the French complained about this by accusing the United States of being "anti-French". (when the French vetoed our resoultion on Iraq, we accused them of being anti-American).

Originally Posted by nkb

I had also been under the impression that Israel had been attacked first.

I am jewish and I am the last one who would like to admit this, but the American media goes out of their way to bury or distort any story that makes Israelis and/or any Jewish Group look bad. Here's a short list of some major stories from the last couple of years that have either been burried or have been distorted by the American media:

1. Israeli Spy Scandal in November 2001 -- 120 Israeli spies were arrested, detained and later deported by the FBI. Only Fox News reported the story, and later they removed the trascripts from their website.

2. Pentagon Spy Scandal this past summer:

Possible Israeli Spy In Pentagon

Pentagon rocked by Israeli spy case

Well, apparently they were not "rocked" since most Americans never even heard about this story.

3. The Irv Rubin/JDL terrorism trial

For those who are unaware, the JDL is a group of American Jewish extremists not much different than Hamas or Islamic Jihad. In the past, their members have been found guilty of blowing up mosques, killing Arabs, etc. A couple of years ago Irv Rubin (the group's leader) and Earl Krugel (a JDL member) were arrested in an FBI sting operation. The FBI uncovered their plot to assasinate Arab-American congressman Darrell Issa by blowing up his office in Los Angeles. Explosives as well as the plans for the operation were found. Krugel later agreed to testify against Rubin in exchange for a 20-year prison term, and Rubin committed suicide last year while in prison. Since then, Krugel is being tried on further charges and faces another 55 years in jail.

Can you imagine all the press this would get if Rubin had been a muslim? The Los Angeles times was the only major newspaper in the entire country to cover this story.

4. Stories like this which appear in Middle-East newspapers all the time:

Israeli Security Minister Warns of a Jewish Terrorist Attack on Al-Aqsa Mosque By Crashing a Plane on the Islamic Holy Site, Or Killing a Muslim leader

In most cases the American media simply does not report such stories. In the case of the "Six Day War", they had to report something since this was a major war, so they twisted the facts. As a result, most Americans are walking around with a false picture of what happened. This kind of reminds me of the poll taken last year in which 72% of Americans believed that one or more of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. If you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it.

[NeoNSX]

Lovely weather we're having...

[nkb]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

In 1990, Kuwait went against OPEC policies and began to dump massive amounts of oil onto the market causing the a huge price drop. Just as the bocking of Israeli shipments through the Straits of Tiran was an act of economic war, so was this. Iraq had a huge debt after their war with Iran and oil was 90% of their economic revenue. Causing such a large drop in oil prices would have terrible consequences for their economy. Iraq also accused Kuwait of cross-drilling under the border and stealing their oil. In both cases, these were economic attacks, not military attacks. While both were used as excuses for war, under international law neither qualifies as a valid justification to attack another country. Would North Korea be justified in attacking the United States because our economic sanctions have caused their economy great harm? Of course not.

Blocking of crucial shipping lanes and amassing armies on your borders are a little different than changing market dynamics by increasing oil production. How can you compare the two? Let's also not forget that the territories that were invaded by Israel were launching areas for guerrilla attacks on, among others, civilians. Show me the parallel in the Iraq/Kuwait situation.

The fact that Iraq was in debt was nobody's fault but their own, how does that figure into the equation? That's like getting myself in debt by buying an expensive car, then firebombing a competitor of my company for lowering prices, which in turn cuts into my profits and making it difficult to make my car payments.

And, of course, Iraq's claims of wrongdoing by Kuwait, like stealing their oil, should be taken with a 5-pound chunk of salt. I remember someone called Hitler blaming the Jews for all the problems in Germany, then shipping them off to concentration camps. Propaganda is a powerful tool (as you have argued many times).

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by nkb

And, of course, Iraq's claims of wrongdoing by Kuwait, like stealing their oil, should be taken with a 5-pound chunk of salt.

Perhaps. But the matter was brought before the UN General Assembly by Iraq in 1989 and was ignored. No vote on the matter ever took place. There's no way to know if this allegation is true of false as it was never investigated. Today, the oil wells in question are actually part of Kuwait. After the Gulf War, this region which had been part of Iraq, became part of Kuwait.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by NeoNSX

Lovely weather we're having...

It's raining here and is supposed to snow later.