the Arafat file

May 10, 2002 10:59 AM

the Arafat file a complete listing of the Arafat connection to terror, terror groups, and economic corruption. Materials taken by IDF. Of course if one wants to disbelieve this, one merely says to look at the source. But then here are the documents and the Arafat actions are in total keeping with these materials. Unless you can show/prove otherwise.
posted by Postroad (60 comments total)

here we go...
posted by SweetJesus at 11:01 AM on May 10, 2002

Ahh, so this excuses the Zionist bloodshed and the Jenin massacre. Way to go Israel! You are one super country!
posted by fleener at 11:13 AM on May 10, 2002

So what's to discuss? Are you ignorant enough to claim that you couldn't put something like this together for Sharon?

I'm pretty tired of hearing pro-Israel people yelling "Arafat's an '"evil-doer'" etc. Fine, press charges, bring it in front of the UN. Maybe he would end up in jail. Who cares?

The problem is, Israel doesn't actually care about what Arafat is doing wrong. Focusing on Arafat is just a way of drawing international attention away from the fact that Israel is repeatedly breaking UN violations, not only with their military actions (which are quite arguably much more grotesque violations of UN charter than anything Arafat's done), but in their very presence in the occupied West Bank territories.
posted by zekinskia at 11:14 AM on May 10, 2002

You know, after the Jewish Holocaust it is downright anti-Semitic to not support anything Israel does.

Heil Sharon.
posted by Mondo at 11:21 AM on May 10, 2002

I thought of many witty, longwinded retorts to this post, but in the end, I decided that brevity would be the best response:

Fuck off Postroad, you Israeli apologist troll.
posted by salmacis at 11:22 AM on May 10, 2002

Here's uncle Robert Fisk on that story. You don't want to read it do you ... riddled with errors, omissions and deliberate misinformation well he would say that ....

You pays your money, you takes your choice. Here are (1 2) articles from Haaretz which provide a bit of balance (as always from this excellent source).

Oh and here's a very dispiriting leader explaining what the Likud is up to.
posted by grahamwell at 11:24 AM on May 10, 2002

Both sides are doing things wrong. The Palestinians in their suicide runs, and culture of anti-Semitism, the Israel's in their acts of overkill. The US in paying 3 million to arm and equip Israel (when most can at least partially agree, aren't being handled well), Sadom and the Arabs who DO, support terrorist acts. Blowing up innocent people in suicide runs is bad, killing civilians in defense is bad. Thier are no innocents here, accept perhaps the people who die for just trying to live life as they see fit (which doesn't mean at the expense of the next person).
posted by madmanz123 at 11:29 AM on May 10, 2002

Well, boy, you convinced me, Postroad. Arafat is evil, Palestinians are less than animals, and Israel is lily-white and guided by God.

Silly me, thinking that both sides are at fault.

Say, does anyone remember saying that Arafat is a good guy who deserves no blame?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:38 AM on May 10, 2002

What I said to mapalm also applies to Postroad. Let it not be said that I favour one side over the other in this fucking endless Metafilter I/P tirade.

How exactly are we supposed to discuss this, given the way you've framed this post? Other than the usual shit, I mean. Just another pointless shouting match. Enough.

(This could have been a useful link if I/P posters weren't constantly trying to score points on the opposition, and instead were more thoughtful and dispassionate — the technical term is disinterested, i.e. interest without being partisan. High school debate club is over, kiddies.)
posted by mcwetboy at 11:39 AM on May 10, 2002

Troll.
posted by signal at 11:40 AM on May 10, 2002

The Onion just summed all this crap up.
posted by madmanz123 at 11:41 AM on May 10, 2002

Fuck off Postroad, you Israeli apologist troll.

Are you ignorant enough to claim that you couldn't put something like this together for Sharon?

I don't tend to agree with Postroad's views on Israel/Palestine, but he is, IMO, one of the more thoughtful contributors to MeFi. So easy with the ad hominem, people.

*dismounts*

also: Arafat? A terrorist? I'm shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on here!
posted by Ty Webb at 11:52 AM on May 10, 2002

The fascination with murders and murderers but not the victims and the families of the people who are killed. In a study of murder in Romantic literature the theater scholar Laurence Senelick used a phrase, "the prestige of evil," that goes a long way toward explaining why our culture has become obsessed with the murderer while ignoring the victim.
We want to maintain an illusion of safety. Our refusal to acknowledge the plight of murder victims and their survivors is a dangerous form of denial -- a flight from reality that allows lethal violence to flourish.
posted by semmi at 12:02 PM on May 10, 2002

Well, it's a good thing Isreal's first leader wasn't a terrorist, otherwise they wouldn't have any leg to stand on.

Oh, wait.
posted by delmoi at 12:09 PM on May 10, 2002

At this point, after a bilion Middle East discussions here on MeFi,
a FPP like this, with this wording and this source, equals to de facto trolling.
Even if it comes from good and sincere intentions
(same thing for a shamelessly pro-Palestian FPP)
posted by matteo at 12:14 PM on May 10, 2002

The point Arafat meets somone's definition of terrorist. So? He is the democratically elected leader of the Palestinians deal with it. (maybe like Chavez)
The real point is this provides an excuse for not addressing the issue of settlements and a palestinian state. CNN's poll yesterday was if removing Arafat would be helpful. Does anyone believe todays will be if removing Sharon will be helpful. Of course we report (frame) the news you decide. Oh thats Fox, shucks they are all starting to sound the same.
posted by onegoodmove at 12:18 PM on May 10, 2002

onegoodmove: what were the results of the poll? (do you have a link?)

I wonder what the results of a poll on removing Sharon would be. I don't think his poll numbers are that high amungst the Americans
posted by delmoi at 12:21 PM on May 10, 2002

my feelings on the entire situation are summed up in one comic.
posted by o2b at 12:24 PM on May 10, 2002

I’m for tying Arafat and Sharon into a sack and throwing it into the Red Sea. They deserve each other, but their people don’t deserve them.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:25 PM on May 10, 2002

Funny you should mention that Delmoi...I was thinking the very same thing. Hmmm, I wonder how Mr. Sharon defines the good ol days in the Hagana, or the glorious days of blowing up hotels in the Irgun. But ya know, one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, no?

And on preview...what matteo and ob2 said.
posted by dejah420 at 12:31 PM on May 10, 2002

http://www.cnn.com/


Should Yasser Arafat step aside to promote the Mideast peace process?

Yes
81%
122918 votes

No
19%
28016 votes

Total: 150,934 votes

This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.
posted by onegoodmove at 12:43 PM on May 10, 2002

Wow, this may be the ugliest thread I've seen on MeFi in quite a while.
posted by solistrato at 12:55 PM on May 10, 2002

Let's spell it out: Ad hominem. Ad hominem attacks are personal attacks on one's opponent, a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Any discussion on the substance of the link?
posted by semmi at 1:02 PM on May 10, 2002

Any discussion on the substance of the link?

No. Because you don't answer trolls.
But, "one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist" explains the point some posters are trying to make.
And rational people (i.e., non militant people) understand that namecalling is useless. Arafat is certainly close to terrorists, maybe a terrorist himself. Sharon's problems with old and new war crimes allegations (Sabra, Chatila, maybe Jenin?) are not very pleasant either, especially for the leader of a Nation who rightly cherish its democratic system, unique in the region.
But as of now they are the two leaders in charge, these two old men. They are.
Either they try to agree on something, or the slaughter of civilians (both sides) wil go on.
And on.
And on.
And on.
And on.
And on.
And on.

Anyway the post was a troll.
posted by matteo at 1:21 PM on May 10, 2002

Actually, semmi, the only true Ad Hominem was: Fuck off Postroad, you Israeli apologist troll. by Salmacis, which I don't think was meant to be construed as an actual argument, but rather a direct insult.

The rest of the posts refer mainly to the lameness of the FPP, and on the tiredness of the whole subject.

Just though I'd clear that up for you :)
posted by signal at 1:25 PM on May 10, 2002

Mr. Sharon will go shortly after Arafat goes (is deposed, shot, exiled). Sharon is in power to respond to thugs. He's a military man, sans subtlety, perhaps. But please, don't confuse effect with cause. Arafat+PA+Hamas+Hezbollah = cause. Sharon=effect/response. Not the other way around.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:43 PM on May 10, 2002

Aas, I did not expedct to be called this many names. A bit like my ex wife. What I was trying to do was to make it very clear that Arafat was not the guy he pretends to be --someone seeking a peaceful resolution to the mess that is the middle east. There are many people who assume that Arafat was duly elected (sure) and therefore represents the Palestinian people...when was the last election held? If so, then he is what the documents suggest him to be. And thus one asks: if he does not change his ways can he sit down and attempt to work out a peace accord?
If Sharon got into office it was because of Arafat's wal from the peace offer and the beginning of hostilities. If the Israelis dislike his approach--guess what? they will change leadership. Will the Palestinians?
I had not planned a troll but rather offering up some info that might be of interest. To suggest because you dislike one or the other side in this dispute that anything posted is a troll seems an easy dismissal of what might be useful information.
And PS: I do not support Israel in much of what it does or has done.
For those who I might have upset, I am deeply sorry. But if the topic bores or annoys you, simplyh do not post to it.
posted by Postroad at 1:50 PM on May 10, 2002

C'mon Postroad, you know better. This is not some pro-Israeli analyst, with whose opinions one could disagree and/or attempt to debunk. This is military wartime propaganda for chrissakes, notoriously unreliable under all circumstances.
If I remember well, you had refused to take the "Independent" seriously due to its "bias". Now, in that case, we had professional journalists with no personal commitment to either side (their personal opinions on the issue aside) reporting from the ground. If that was one-sided (it wasn't really) than how can one argue seriously about this...
But wait! we have argued about this before (through a Fox News article). And I had posted this debunking of quite a few of the report's claims.
But, let me be the first to say, that although I disagree virulently with postroad on the I/P issue, he is not a troll and presents serious (but flawed IMHO) arguments. The choice for a FPP this time was kind of off target though...
posted by talos at 1:59 PM on May 10, 2002

Arafat+PA+Hamas+Hezbollah = cause

And what is their cause? To liberate the land inside the 1967 borders, and idea that is recognized and supported by the entire international community, including the United States. Some will say that they want to take all of Israel, but that is neither feasible nor the goal of virtually all Palestinians. The rhetoric from the terror groups may include that kind of talk, but no one in the year 2002 takes it seriously outside of the extremists and, seemingly, most Israelis and many Jews. Even the most extreme groups have made statements to the effect that they would endorse a 'cease-fire' if Israel withdraw and stopped hostilities. They know that once Israel withdraws, support for their movements as terror groups drops to virtually nothing. Only someone who regards Palestinians as sub-human animals would think they are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause which has no support in the international community and is completely outside the realm of attainability.

What is Sharon's cause? To expand Israel outside of the 1967 borders, a cause which is specifically denounced by the entire international community but has support among a radical faction of Israelis.

Both men are using or allowing terror to advance their causes, however one cause is just and is in theory supported by the entire world, including the United States and many Israelis, while the other is internationally condemned, violates international norms, conventions, and treaties, and requires Israel to maintain a brutal military rule over 4 million innocent people.

There is no excuse for terrorism, and anyone who engages in it has only themselves to blame when the inevitable retaliatory strike comes. However the only clear way to end the violence and maintain a Jewish state is for Israel to get in line with the rest of the world and withdraw from Palestinian land.
posted by cell divide at 2:14 PM on May 10, 2002

3. Cost of sticking photos of martyrs on wooden boards and also of the martyrs Thabat Thabet and Mahmud Al Jamil (addition in handwriting of 1000 shekels).

Someone's getting ripped off . . .
posted by hackly_fracture at 2:14 PM on May 10, 2002

...after Arafat goes (is deposed, shot, exiled...

Oh.
Now I get it.
I couldn't see the whole mess was so simple to sort out: if all those unruly Arabs just leave Gaza and the West Bank (exiled or maybe get "shot", like you wish for Arafat), old Grampa Ariel will retire and we'll all be happy again.

Sharon is in power to respond to thugs.
I mistakenly thought that the new Intifadah began AFTER Sharon's election, thanks for the correction

cell divide,
I understand but you're falling in the trap. The thread was damaged from the beginning, by the FPP's source and wording. Troll troll troll
posted by matteo at 2:20 PM on May 10, 2002

Matteo, I know what you're saying but I still like to write these little treatises just because it's there and I have free time. Kind of like every post I write, haha.

Oh, and the Intifada II started before Ariel Sharon was elected, after a couple of dozen of unarmed rioters were shot and killed in Jerusalem after "The man of peace" visited the Holy sites with 1,000 armed guards and a smirk on his face.
posted by cell divide at 2:27 PM on May 10, 2002

Arafat+PA+Hamas+Hezbollah = cause. Sharon=effect/response. Not the other way around.

sure, sure. Hamas and Hezbollah started up because a bunch of guys were bored, right?

Arafat is every bit as much an "effect" as you claim Sharon is. Israel's inability to negotiate in good faith is what drove the Palestinians to support a criminal like Arafat, just as Arafat's tactics gave Israeli's a reason to vote for someone like Sharon.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:35 PM on May 10, 2002

Anyway the post was a troll.

The thread was damaged from the beginning, by the FPP's source and wording. Troll troll troll

Fine, matteo, your opinion is noted. Who is now forcing you to continue reading?
posted by Ty Webb at 2:37 PM on May 10, 2002

Here is a very interesting and relevant article on the failings of Arafat, Israel, and the Int'l community by the great Israeli historian Tom Segev. Definitely should be read by anyone expressing opinions in this thread.
posted by cell divide at 2:51 PM on May 10, 2002

Some will say that they want to take all of Israel, but that is neither feasible nor the goal of virtually all Palestinians.

OK. It's the goal of a majority of Palestinians. OR at least those who have assumed power using the power of the machine gun.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:18 PM on May 10, 2002

...those who have assumed power using the power of the machine gun.

If there's one thing Irgun taught us, it's that terrorism works.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:25 PM on May 10, 2002

Only someone who regards Palestinians as sub-human animals would think they are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause which has no support in the international community and is completely outside the realm of attainability.

People who hijack a religion and use it to convince their co-religionists that the way to heaven is through murder are subhuman. As for those who go along with it, they may be subhuman too, depending on their age. As for those who have to remain silent in the face of such because they fear for their lives, they deserve compasion. And as for those who attempt to justify or rationalize the aforementioned murderers or their persuaders, they are certainly subhuman.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:26 PM on May 10, 2002

People who use the term "subhuman" are subhuman.
posted by signal at 4:10 PM on May 10, 2002

people who listen to The Subhumans are subhuman.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:17 PM on May 10, 2002

I don't think anyone has a problem with humans in subs.
posted by euphorb at 4:25 PM on May 10, 2002

I guess the reason Sharon is hated by so many on this board is because he is a man of action, while, alas, most of you are mere quibblers of no import whatsoever.
posted by mikegre at 4:41 PM on May 10, 2002

I guess the reason Sharon is hated by so many on this board is because he is a man of action, while, alas, most of you are mere quibblers of no import whatsoever.

ZINGGG! Bravo, bravo! Hey, mikegre, can we say the same of the Arafat haters?
posted by Ty Webb at 4:46 PM on May 10, 2002

I guess the reason Sharon is hated by so many on this board is because he is a man of action, while, alas, most of you are mere quibblers of no import whatsoever.

Hey! Conrad Black's on Metafilter!
posted by mcwetboy at 4:47 PM on May 10, 2002

I guess the reason Sharon is hated by so many on this board is because he is a man of action, while, alas, most of you are mere quibblers of no import whatsoever.

Hey! Conrad Black's on Metafilter!
posted by mcwetboy at 4:49 PM on May 10, 2002

Crap. Gotta stop using IE 5.1 for Mac.
posted by mcwetboy at 4:50 PM on May 10, 2002

Okay, mikegre, tell us where you live and we'll be around with bulldozers to give your neighbourhood a bit of the Sharon treatment. Would that convince you?
posted by riviera at 5:54 PM on May 10, 2002

Though I don't agree with your view on the IP topic, I'd just like to thank you Postroad on the tone of your response to the criticism. I thought the initial FPP was a bit trolling but your post in the thread is the sort of thing which might bring some light to these topics (not because/if it was an apology, just the gesture). I guess it's all in the wording of the FPP, which in these times is very hard to accompany with just a "What do you think?" (and may I be the first to say that sometimes I've gone too far). Now I'm even convinced we'll one day have a worthwhile thread on the IP thing here. I just hope we don't have to wait for lasting peace to see it.
posted by Zootoon at 6:22 PM on May 10, 2002

riviera wrote: "...Would that convince you?"

Actually, I take it back. You are men of action. Look what one of your comrades did to Pim Fortuyn. Oh, you boys are brave ones, aren't you?
posted by mikegre at 7:03 PM on May 10, 2002

OK, I'm coming back swinging. My version of a neutral post:

"Israelis present documentation, allegations against Palestinian Authority: Corruption, vehicle and identity theft, direct Arafat command of suicide bombings, collaboration with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, use of civillians to shield fighters, direct Saudi, Iranian, and Iraqi finanacing, intimidation of Bethlehem Christians."

I would like to see a bit more insight in our discussions along these lines-- if Arafat and the people in his organization are involved in all of the above, to what level does this pose a problem for continued public service? If all individuals involved in armed activities are arrested, and all families of suicide bombers banned from public office, who would this leave in local government to pick up the trash, walk the beat as a cop, or keep the teenagers in line as an assistant principal?
posted by sheauga at 7:08 PM on May 10, 2002

Oh, you boys are brave ones, aren't you?

See, this is what happens when siblings fuck.
posted by riviera at 7:25 PM on May 10, 2002

mikegre, is there any point at all to your goading?
posted by mcsweetie at 7:33 PM on May 10, 2002

Okay, mikegre, tell us where you live and we'll be around with bulldozers to give your neighbourhood a bit of the Sharon treatment. Would that convince you?

I doubt very much mikegre is building bombs and dispensing machine guns to children, so the bulldozers probably aren't warranted in his case.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:26 PM on May 10, 2002

Wow, this may be the ugliest thread I've seen on MeFi in quite a while.

Yes. It is.
posted by joemaller at 9:18 PM on May 10, 2002

My goodness, this is quite a descent...
Sort of like a cockfighting pit for the thoughtful.

Few subjects have the polarity power that this one does. The infighting we see here illustrates, to some degree, how easy it is for this conflict to rage out of control for those who actually have to live in the maelstrom of it.

The Arafat files are nothing new. Arafat's deplorable leadership is, also, nothing new.

Look, Arafat has always wanted to be every Palestinian's man--which makes it impossible for him to lead effectively. He began nurturing the various militant factions because A) it works for his ego, and B) it provided insulation from his having to bear the sole burden of decisive leadership.
Just one of the problems with Arafat's strategy (and I'm using that term very loosely here) is that it always--without exception, every single time--backfires. So, now, he's legitimized militants in a way that has become a very credible threat to his leadership and, indeed, to his very existence--to say nothing of how it has jeopardized the existence of peaceful Palestinians. Thus making it even more difficult for him to do an about face and start working with sigular purpose towards a peaceful conclusion to the conflict.

Someone eluded to the fact that Sharon will be negated along with Arafat. There's a lot of truth in that. Sharon and Arafat have a deeply symbiotic relationship in this conflict.

Arafat's inability to move decisively towards peaceful resolution is precisely the reason that Sharon was elected to replace Barak. Sharon (and his trademark heavy hand) was knowingly elected as a direct result of the repeated bottoming out of diplomatic efforts to negotiate peace with Arafat--plain and simple. Denying the historical context of Sharon's rise to PM is pure delusional idiocy.

Arafat does not have to be strictly evil to be a perfectly horrid leader. He doesn't need to lay awake at night hoping that Palestinians will suffer as a result of his ineptitude--but they have. Arafat is looking to fulfill the needs of his ego in ways that are inappropriate for a state leader. He'd be better suited to something like spiritual leadership; something that allows him to be a staunch proponent of Palestinians without requiring him to be decisive to the point of having to alienate anybody (from whom he seeks approval and/or reverence).

I think it's fair to say that Sharon is there to push him into line or out of the way. Now, whether you personally have the guts to be the iron fist that forces Araft or not, is beside the point--there is no question that it is absolutely necessary to the end game of resolving the conflict. Because without it, the conflict will drag on ad infinitum, and the death and destruction will be far greater in that scanario than it has to be.

If Sharon has the courage to escalate the conflict to peace or death proportions and, furthermore, trusts that Arafat's instincts will incline him toward seeking approval and historical gratification from the greatest number of Palestinians (which are noncombatants) then the death and destruction to civilians on both sides will be exponentially reduced in the long run.

I can hear the groans already--but stay with me on this...

There's a kind of numbness that accompanies protracted conflicts like this one. Sharon is a former commando and a military man through and through; from his perspective, each of these deaths (on both sides) is a failure of strategy--and worse--it's a slow building of a relationship with victimology which can only lead to one thing: perpetual war.
So, the general in Sharon wakes up and sees that Arafat loves Palestinians enough to do the right thing--but grapples with how to get Arafat into a position to override his habitual equivocation and placation of militants and follow, instead, his instinct to be a great Palestinian leader.
Sharon knows that there's only one way to do that: you've got to push Arafat so deep into a corner that he has to ride one wall or the other to get away from the pressure that Sharon is bringing to bear on him. Sharon is gambling a bit, because though he may loathe the man, he still believes that Arafat's instincts will be to ride the wall toward peaceful resolution.

That's pretty much what Israelis were banking on when they elected him--his generalship--and they're getting it.
posted by Tiger_Lily at 11:31 PM on May 10, 2002

Tiger Lily, that makes perfect sense and is very well written, until you add in the mix that Sharon and his party have designs on the very land Arafat and his people live on. To him Palestinians are something in the way of a strong , powerful, and bigger Israel. He is the architect of the settlement policy, he is against an independent Palestinian state, and he has never shown interest in giving Palestinians the same rights that his people enjoy. On the contrary he has worked to crush those aspirations at every stage of his career.
posted by chaz at 1:25 AM on May 11, 2002

Chaz,
Your criticisms of Sharon may be true; although, his personal agenda would be a lot more significant in the overall picture if he weren't being overseen by a democratic society.
But the main problem I have with your argument is that it neglects to acknowledge that when the conflict is viewed from a longitudinal perspective, the only significant factor in this conflict that hasn't changed over the years (other than the fact that there's been no resolution) is Arafat.

Sharon's influence has phased in and out. The influence of a series of Israeli Prime Ministers and cabinets have phased in and out. Settlements have been erected and dismantled over the years. The only thing that hasn't changed throughout--is Arafat.
posted by Tiger_Lily at 2:27 AM on May 11, 2002

Tiger_Lily: Arafat's permanence, although significant, is simply not exceptional. I can think of no national liberation movement in the habit of changing its leaders often. Mandela was the leader of the ANC for quite a few years, while a succession of S.A. prime-ministers went in and out of office. That in itself does not mean anything, continuity is important for liberation struggles. In fact the only way that Arafat (corrupt indeed, characterized as such by Palestinian intellectuals such as Edward Said, and friendly observers such as Robert Fisk) can imaginably lose power is after the establishment of a real Palestinian State.
But let me also add that if Arafat is corrupt (and considered an Israeli collaborator until recently by Said again- certainly not an Islamist) he is also political. As such Sharon wants to weaken him because he much prefers to "deal with" Hamas and Jihad- militarily they don't stand a chance- than Arafat, who is considered world wide the "political spokesman" of the Palestinian cause and is ready to bargain. It is much easier justifying eliminating your opponent if they are after your own elimination (i.e. Jihad) than if they want to make a deal. In the latter case UN resolutions matter, international law matters, history matters and precedents matter and they are all overwhelmingly against Sharon's major goal which is to annex the occupied territories (and maybe get rid of the local population as well).
So let me suggest that Arafat's corruption (useful to Israel initially BTW) is simply not an issue now, and that as Palestinians rallied around their leader after the Israeli Army's murderous campaign, an increasingly discredited (to his own people) leader became a symbol of national resistance overnight.
posted by talos at 2:56 AM on May 11, 2002

mikegre
man of action figure
appears larger than real size on tv internet
posted by y2karl at 3:55 AM on May 11, 2002

the only significant factor in this conflict that hasn't changed over the years

Is Arafat, but also the occupation and consistent land-grab policies by Israel, even during Oslo.
posted by chaz at 4:58 PM on May 11, 2002