Arafat: We are all martyrs

December 19, 2001 9:02 AM

Arafat: We are all martyrs Three days ago, Arafat declared that violence and terror mujst stop. Then Saudi Arabia called him a turn-coat. Now Arafat calls for massive martydom for Palestinians.
posted by Postroad (34 comments total)

Bad link. Oh, and what else is new?
posted by laz-e-boy at 9:10 AM on December 19, 2001

Can we get the corrected link please? I'm interested to know what this is actually about.
posted by buddha9090 at 9:25 AM on December 19, 2001

I'm trying to find the source for this, too.

So far all I've turned up is this headline at debka.com:
"In Ramallah, Arafat Said Tuesday, Two Days After Publicly Banning Suicide Attacks:
'I Would Sacrifice 70 Martyrs to Kill One Israeli'
He Added: 'A Conspiracy Brought the Jews to Palestine' "

But there's no related article at the site.
posted by Tubes at 9:52 AM on December 19, 2001

Martyrdom?
J.D. Salinger of all people put it best:
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one."
posted by jonmc at 9:54 AM on December 19, 2001

Here it is. For the moment anyhow as the link is in the "breaking news" section.
posted by Real9 at 9:55 AM on December 19, 2001

Whoops, maybe this is it:
WorldTribune.com

Arafat said he is willing to sacrifice 70 Palestinians to ensure the death of one Israeli. The speech was broadcast several times on PA radio. "We will defend the holy land with our blood and with our spirit," Arafat told supporters from Jerusalem. "We do not only wear uniforms; we are all military. We are all martyrs in paradise."
posted by Tubes at 9:56 AM on December 19, 2001

(Jinx!)
posted by Tubes at 9:57 AM on December 19, 2001

What is "World Tribune"? Reliable? Anyone have this from reliable source?
posted by malphigian at 10:07 AM on December 19, 2001

However thin a silver lining it may be, I'm enjoying this final chapter in Arafat's shameful, disgusting career. Lets just hope that the Palestinian Arabs can come up with someone serious to represent them.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:09 AM on December 19, 2001

Don't count on it, PP. When Arafat is gone, things may well get much much worse.
posted by jpoulos at 10:11 AM on December 19, 2001

In my experience the World Tribune is not horribly reliable. It's very right-wing and alot of stories it puts in 'breaking news' either turn out to be misunderstandings or are never heard of again.

That said, if Arafat said this he has given up all pretense of being a peacemaker. Does anyone really believe peace is possible with Arafat at the helm?
posted by revbrian at 10:16 AM on December 19, 2001

I'm going to go out on a limb and call bullshit on this... its only reported by this one crackpot source, and that'd be pretty amazing consider he "said" these things on the same day he arrested several members of his own police force for terrorism.

I'm not buying that a guy in Falls Church, VA scooped the wire services and the BBC.
posted by malphigian at 10:19 AM on December 19, 2001

That said, if Arafat said this he has given up all pretense of being a peacemaker. Does anyone really believe peace is possible with Arafat at the helm?

Hard to believe, I agree, NOT because of "pretense", but because he doesn't ACTUALLY have the power to enforce peace. The harder he cracks down, the more likely it is he gets himself killed by Hamas, and he seems to not have the will to risk that.

With that said, his failure smells of cowardice, where as Sharone clearly has never had peace as a goal -- I've supported past Israeli govs, but Sharone is a maniac, and he is getting exactly what he wants.
posted by malphigian at 10:22 AM on December 19, 2001

jp: they probably will get worse, but the "society" over which the PA has presided is so dysfunctional, so masochistic, that "worse" seems necessary before "better." Frankly, there's so much de-programming which has to go on before the emergence of "better," that I am at a loss to imagine how they get to "better." At least with communism, a majority of the people knew they were being fed lies.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:25 AM on December 19, 2001

[...he doesn't ACTUALLY have the power to enforce peace.]

Who does then? If he doesn't then why bother involving him in the 'peace process' at all?

[Sharone is a maniac, and he is getting exactly what he wants.]

What would that be? If it's war with the PA you could argue that it was started by the PA and simply joined by Israel. Sad to say it but when I get a CNN NewsAlert that says that suicide bombers have killed another Israeli it's hard to consider that news. Seems like it happens nearly daily. Something has to be done, no? What do you suggest?
posted by revbrian at 10:32 AM on December 19, 2001

***If anyone's interested I've just opened a thread over at MetaTalk, as I find the fact that Tubes and Real9 found Postroad's missing link - if indeed it was this one - very interesting and worth discussing.***
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:36 AM on December 19, 2001

Another source: Jerusalem Post
posted by HTuttle at 10:39 AM on December 19, 2001

Arafat Urges Matyrdom

I am very sorry about link thinie. I have abolsutel y no tech skills. And I am over 70 (that will make the shits feel bad)...so forgive me.
In the meantime, on TV Arafat is said to have rounded up 7 "terrorists"--Hard to keep up a guy that, like my ex wife, keeps jumping all over the place and seems to have no position that is real--he ought to run for our Congress.
posted by Postroad at 10:40 AM on December 19, 2001

I heard the Arafat quote repeated by several news organizations; it also arrived in todays HonestReporting.com e-mail. I'm looking for a link which reports it. But really, Arafat has been doing this for years, so why is it so hard to believe?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:42 AM on December 19, 2001

I heard the Arafat quote repeated by several news organizations; it also arrived in todays HonestReporting.com e-mail. I'm looking for a link which reports it. But really, Arafat has been doing this for years, so why is it so hard to believe?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:47 AM on December 19, 2001

Suicide bombing began in 1994 as a direct reaction against Arafat joining the Oslo accords with Israel, led by Rabin.

Palestinian extremists decided that Arafat had compromised too much, so they started attacking in the most vile way possible, a way sure to derail the peace process.

Israeli extremists felt Rabin had compromised too much by even suggesting land-for-peace, and he was assassinated by a fanatic.

This led to the elections of Netanyahu and Barak, who both expanded settlements (by moving over 100,000 new people into occupied land), thus negating 'land for peace' and death of the Oslo peace process. On the Palestinian side, terrorist continued their drive against peace.

On both sides, extremists eventually won-- Palestinian bombers gained support they had never enjoyed when peace was on the table, making them rivals to Arafat, and Sharon, architect of the Settlement policy and firmly anti-Oslo (just as Hamas is), became Prime Minister.

According to the most conservative estimates by Israeli group Btselem, 574 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli security forces' gunfire in the Occupied Territories, of whom 159 were minors under the age of 18. In that same period, 83 Israeli civilians were killed in Palestine, and an additional 83 inside Israel. There have been 5 major suicide attacks in the past year, and around 30 major attacks in the past 7 years.
posted by cell divide at 10:49 AM on December 19, 2001

For some reason, the text which follows, minus the HREF, would not post:

I heard the Arafat quote repeated by several news organizations; it also arrived in todays HonestReporting.com e-mail. I'm looking for a link which reports it. But really, Arafat has been doing this for years, so why is it so hard to believe?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:49 AM on December 19, 2001

ParisParamus meant to say:
in todays HonestReporting.com e-mail. I'm looking for a link which reports it. But really, Arafat has been doing this for years, so why is it so hard to believe?
posted by nprigoda at 10:50 AM on December 19, 2001

The Jerusalem Post has Arafat's spokesman denying it, the other sources are completely biased.

The other sources "honestreporting" and "worldtribune" are franly not worth considering as sources.

Whatever you think of Arafat, do you think he's *that* stupid? It makes zero political sense to make a statement that inflamatory right now, and he's a better politician than that (take that as both insult and compliment, I'm no lover of Arafat).

"Whoever translated it, translated it wrong," Abu Sharif said.

He said Arafat was responding to a question about his cease-fire order despite continuing Israeli attacks. According to Abu Sharif, Arafat said if Sharon continues the attacks despite our opposition, it means that he doesn't want negotiations and he doesn't want peace. Then, Arafat added, the Palestinians will always defend themselves and will never capitulate.
posted by malphigian at 10:51 AM on December 19, 2001

cell divide: so what? Should we have called off the war in Afghanistan once 3000 Afghanis were killed? Or maybe the Palestinians are entitled to a Kill 425 Israelis Card?

P.S. I'll assume "occupied territories" doesn't include the dozens of suicide bomber victims on Israeli soil (assuming you accept there is such a thing).
posted by ParisParamus at 10:56 AM on December 19, 2001

The point, Paris, is that both sides are killing civilians, and both sides have extremists who are not interested in a negotiated solution. Also, you'll notice that I provided statistics for Israeli deaths as well, both inside Israel and inside Palestine.

Another interesting thing to remember is that more than three dozen Palestinians were shot and killed by the Israeli army before a single shot was fired on the Palestinian side (source: Ha'artez, May, 2001).

There is no moral high ground here-- an army that plants bombs in civilian areas leading to the death of 5 children and a terrorist who does the same are morally inseparable. That is not to say that all Israeli army actions are wrong-- but enough of them are that I find it difficult to say that one side is not giving into its extremists. The fact is that both are, and to deny that is a grave mistake for the future of both all people in Israel/Palestine.
posted by cell divide at 11:08 AM on December 19, 2001

Yes there is a moral high ground. And low ground. And parents who encourage their children to throw rocks, and are proud when they detonate themselves are low, very low.

Au contraire, the Israelis have taken an approach of restraint; one which no other nation would in similar circumstances. Also, Israel's actions are the product of a democratic process, where Left and Right have thrashed it out. Until the Palestinians have something resembling a democracy, rather than a thuggery (sp?), and until a free press has been allowed to work its way through their society, to expose to lies taught Palestinians, including Palestinian children, there's no one to negotiate with; no one to form a new country (a country which, heretofore, has NEVER existed). Palestinians of good will know their best chance for a better tomorrow comes from Israel, not from eliminating it.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:26 AM on December 19, 2001

And parents who encourage their children to throw rocks, and are proud when they detonate themselves are low, very low.

Wheras a society that conscripts its young adults and turns them into butchers of children and civilians has the high ground, right?
posted by hipstertrash at 11:42 AM on December 19, 2001

Wheras a society that conscripts its young adults and turns them into butchers of children and civilians has the high ground, right? like The American army in WWII? or in Afghanistan?

Beware of people who claim "there's no moral high ground." That was said about the cold war. There usually is a moral high ground, or at least a higher ground. The lies about Israel and Ariel Sharon you read on Mefi will eventually be exposed for what they are. Unfortunately, a lot of clueless Palestinian Arabs and Israelis are going to die in the process.

PS: I salute President Bush for refusing to ever meet with YA.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:51 AM on December 19, 2001

like The American army in WWII? or in Afghanistan?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of Serbia, East Timor, or any other time and place where a racist programme of ethnic cleansing and/or persecution is the order of the day.
posted by hipstertrash at 12:01 PM on December 19, 2001

There is of course a moral high-ground-- what I said is that I don't see one between the Israeli extremists who do not subscribe to the two-state solution (Sharon, Settlers), or Palestinian extremists who do not subscribe to the two-state solution (Hamas, Islamic Jihad).

It is clear to almost everyone in the world, including the US Government, the UN, dozens of independent bodies, the majority of both Palestinians and Israelis, that negotiation and a two-state solution is the only way to move forward. Unfortunately they are blocked by fanatic Jews and fanatic Arabs in the US and in Israel/Palestine who do everything they can to inflame passions because deep down they want to WIN-- win all the land that is rightfully 'theirs', show the other side who is boss, and eventually push the Jews into the sea or the Arabs into Jordan. They are in it for the long haul, and a negotiated settlement would mean peace and therefor loss for their side, because they won't get it all. Hamas and Sharon are twins in this effort, two sides of the same coin of total victory and thus total destruction of the other side.

It is up to people of conscience, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, athesists, whoever, to speak out against the actions that further poison the well and make a settlement impossible. Otherwise the entire world will eventually be dragged into the moral sewer both sets of extremists wallow in.
posted by cell divide at 12:04 PM on December 19, 2001

by fanatic Jews

Agreed there are some, including, probably, most of the settlers. I just don't think you can put the current Prime Minister in that group. Moreover, I think the settlement question is a non-issue for the simple reason that the PA/Palestinians have never showed their good faith. A majority, including those in power, want Israel GONE--all of it, even though it was duly, legally created. Moreover, they continue to insist that East Jerusalem is theirs. Even though, it never belonged to them, and only belonged to Jordan, and before that, the UK, and before that, the Ottoman Empire (and Gaza was Egyptian--those Palestinians are such ingrates! Israel gets them some land in a defensive war, and then then seeks to destroy Israel!). So, until they get rid of the those claims, there's no "partner" with which to negotiate.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:28 PM on December 19, 2001

When Arafat says "..we are all soldiers," he's negating his (rather effective, imo) argument that the hamhandedness of the Israeli military kills civilians. It also issues carte blanche to the Israelis to start shooting for quantity, rather than for quality. And they do have tactical nuclear weapons. Regardless, it's a hard fence to straddle, when the Israeli shooters wear uniforms, and the Palestinian shooters wear masks.
posted by UncleFes at 12:29 PM on December 19, 2001

When Arafat says "..we are all soldiers," he's negating his (rather effective, imo) argument that the hamhandedness of the Israeli military kills civilians. It also issues carte blanche to the Israelis to start shooting for quantity, rather than for quality. And they do have tactical nuclear weapons. Regardless, it's a hard fence to straddle, when the Israeli shooters wear uniforms, and the Palestinian shooters wear masks.
posted by UncleFes at 12:29 PM on December 19, 2001