Arafat is dead.

November 10, 2004 9:11 PM

Arafat is dead. I cannot help to think that the fact that he had an iron grip on the PLO for so long made this issue so hard to resolve...but maybe after all this time there CAN be a final resolution on the question of the Palestinian state? Will we see massive internal warfare amongst his followers after he gets put in the ground? Interesting times, indeed.
posted by PeteyStock (113 comments total)

Growing up, Arafat was both a Foreign Devil and a Hero of Peace.

When he was the Shoiuting Guy as seen on NBC, he was a spooky Foreign Devil. When he gave face (not much more) to Clinton's peace effort, he was Angelic.

If this Pythonic Not Dead/Getting Better stuff is done, then I'm concerned. If not, I for one welcome our Zombie Arafat Overlord.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:18 PM on November 10, 2004

When Arafat was in the head of the PLO, they had Qurei and Hamas with power in the Palestine struggle as well. During this time, Arafat was a terrible leader, an awful negotiator and did pretty much nothing to help his people. With him gone, there is hope that the life of the Palestinians and thusly everyone else involved in this will improve. Then again, it could get much, much worse in the near future with a power struggle. At any rate, nothing was getting better for Palestine when he was alive and at least there is now some hope that things can maybe get better.
posted by graventy at 9:24 PM on November 10, 2004

Oh gah, the only thing worse than Skeevy Old Living Grinning Imbecile Arafat Overlord is Zombie Arafat Overlord.
posted by Dreama at 9:25 PM on November 10, 2004

I'd like to remind our Zombie Arafat Overlord that as a trusted net.personality, I ould be helpful in rounding up sweet, delicious Jewish BRAAAAAINNNNSSS.
posted by keswick at 9:29 PM on November 10, 2004

At low estimates, Arafat's fortune represents $400 for every Palestinian. At high estimates, up to $4000. That's 1-10 years of an average Palestinian's net income. At a documented bare minimum it's about 3 months income. Here's hoping that his pirate booty will go to better use than his wife's shopping sprees or the gluttony of other PA officials.
posted by loquax at 9:34 PM on November 10, 2004

I now have two hits on my 2004 dead pool list, Arafat and Reagan.

There's some sort of ironic connection there, but I'm not sure what it is.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:44 PM on November 10, 2004

Q: This Arafat...it vibrates?
A: Not anymore!
posted by davidmsc at 9:45 PM on November 10, 2004

jew braaaaaiiiinnnnnsssss


(first zombie arafat image)
posted by bob sarabia at 9:45 PM on November 10, 2004

May Allah bless his soul.

And guide his people to peace and freedom.
posted by wah at 9:57 PM on November 10, 2004

May Allah bless his soul.

Because no one else will.
posted by kickingtheground at 10:05 PM on November 10, 2004

Good riddance.
He lived much longer than he should have.
posted by flatlander at 10:09 PM on November 10, 2004

This guy is a fucking crook. Here is a man rich beyond belief and what did he do for his people? Absolutely nothing. He has kept them in absolute poverty. He has kept them from freedom. He has stalled when any sign of potential for progress came. He has paid the families of suicide bombers. He has thwarted peace plans and kept his people in endless cycles of violence and for what? For a legacy? His legacy is the blood of hundreds of Palestinians and hundreds of Israelis. His legacy is the blight on his people who may never escape their binds that his actions and his greed have placed on them.

And before you write me off, I'll say that I feel an equal animosity for Sharon.

Good riddance Arafat. May the Palestinian people see this as a glimmer of hope for a future that he has kept from them for so long.
posted by xmutex at 10:11 PM on November 10, 2004

Let me quote jonmc from here, changing a key name and cause of death: "Regardless of what I thought of [Arafat] the man, or his politics, it's obvious that [a brain hemorrhage] is a pretty sad way to go, especially when you've had a life as unique a [Arafat]'s.... RIP. Condolences to his family."

If we can set aside politics for Reagan, even for a second, maybe we can do the same for Arafat.

Alternately, we can just piss on his grave.
posted by louigi at 10:23 PM on November 10, 2004

About 4 days ago, I told my wife he was dead already. I thought I'd heard that on the news. Well, now Arafat's officially dead.

Whatever. We're all on the chopping block.
posted by troutfishing at 10:25 PM on November 10, 2004

posted by bob sarabia at 10:31 PM on November 10, 2004

If we can set aside politics for Reagan, even for a second, maybe we can do the same for Arafat.

Did you read that thread? It was politics as usual, despite jonmc's quote.
posted by justgary at 10:33 PM on November 10, 2004

Because no one else will.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. I know you haven't had a chance to learn this, but it appears that Yasser Arafat has passed away.

THE PRESIDENT: Really?

Q: And I was just wondering if I could get your initial reaction? And also your thoughts on, perhaps, working with a new generation of Palestinian leadership?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. My first reaction is, God bless his soul. And my second reaction is, is that we will continue to work for a free Palestinian state that's at peace with Israel.

[Nov 4, 2004 : 11:17 A.M. EST]
posted by wah at 10:59 PM on November 10, 2004

Armchair quarterbacks all around. He kept his people together in the face of overwhelming odds and force. Godspeed.
posted by letitrain at 11:10 PM on November 10, 2004

Now let's hope Sharon kicks the bucket too so we'll have 2 less war mongers in a war mongering region.

Regarding the corruption: I have no doubt that Arafat jacked public funds, but let's face it: lots of foreign leaders are crooks by American standards. Sharon has a messy real estate scandal of his own, the UN has the oil-for-food thingy, my French sister-in-law keeps telling me Chirac would be in jail if he weren't the president (and the only reason he won the election is because he was running against a Nazi. Seriously) and the list goes on and on.

Republican or Democrat, our dirt is nothing in comparison. Remember how big a stink it was when Clinton took some china from the White House? We should feel blessed.

We can be proud that when American leaders make shady and unethical deals, it's only to impose our fucked up world view on other countries and NOT to line their own pockets.

Yay.
posted by b_thinky at 11:27 PM on November 10, 2004

i saw guns that shot swords in the hands of young children

palestine is icky icky evil. israel is icky icky good.

god bless america.
posted by Satapher at 11:30 PM on November 10, 2004

Who do we send to the funeral - Carter?
posted by crunchburger at 12:01 AM on November 11, 2004

I always remember the Hunter S. Thompson piece where Arafat, Nixon and Castro had a clandestine meeting (one of several) in Las Vegas... They all wore disguises, of course... but it sounds like they had a good time.

Love those guys.
posted by wfrgms at 12:34 AM on November 11, 2004

Robert Fisk: Arafat died years ago.

b_thinky: you're forgetting the whole Carlyle group, Halliburton etc. debacle.
posted by talos at 1:22 AM on November 11, 2004

He has kept them in absolute poverty. He has kept them from freedom. He has stalled when any sign of potential for progress came.

This is kind of a simplistic view of Arafat's role. I mean, no doubt, the guy made a shitstorm of cash when a lot (read: most) of his people continue to live in conditions that border and sometimes surpass poverty. But Arafat had to constantly juggle the reasonable, middle-road Palestinians and keep the militant, no-compromise ones in check. That couldn't have been easy. As someone said about Kerry, "he had a very complex position on a complex subject."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:49 AM on November 11, 2004

Now, the question is: who will rise to lead the Palestinians?

Despite being aware that Palestinians have a political mechanism in place to deal with Arafat's death, one feels that perhaps they will chose their own man, someone different than the one the PA chooses.

In any case, Arafat's death could spell out a new era of peace negotiations with fresh faces; or, a new era of unorganized violence, unchecked by any authority.
posted by ruelle at 3:16 AM on November 11, 2004

Only the good die young (R.I.P. Yasser Arafat - aged 75).
posted by DrDoberman at 3:23 AM on November 11, 2004

i think that arafat's presence was a moderating influence on many palistinians ... and before i get criticized for calling him moderate ... yes, we really ought to be scared now ... i don't think there's going to be any central authority to control the radicals or have negotiations with ... this has all the makings of a huge mess
posted by pyramid termite at 4:25 AM on November 11, 2004

May Allah bless his soul.

Because no one else will.

Here in France, President Chirac raced to the hospital to pay his last respects. He wasn't alone in expressing concern: Pres. Bush: "We express our condolences for the Palestinian people." More reactions by world leaders.

Sure, there's a lot of hypocrisy and politicking. And yeah, maybe this will lead to changes for the better, or for the worse, etc. But many people are sincerely sad and mourning, all over the world, particularly in Arab countries. Some respect for their feelings might be in order, no matter what you think of the man.

I guess I just mean singing "Ding dong, the witch is dead", while understandable, is a little superficial and facile.
posted by Turtle at 5:02 AM on November 11, 2004

Weekend at Yasser's!
posted by adampsyche at 5:39 AM on November 11, 2004

Godspeed? Satanspeed. But one should not rejoice at the demise of one's enemies.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:41 AM on November 11, 2004

"Some respect for their feelings might be in order, no matter what you think of the man."

Yeah, right. Sure.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:42 AM on November 11, 2004

I think it's fair to say that if he was 'in it for the money', he'd have taken it and ran a long time ago. Dedicating your life to a cause, only to spend your last years confined to your half destroyed headquarters by an invading force? Not my idea of a fun.

Sure, maybe someone else could have led the Palestinians better. But it's certain that under someone else the concept "Palestinian" could just as easily have become a historical footnote by now.

Meanwhile Israel is still up to its old tricks.
posted by cell at 5:44 AM on November 11, 2004

Can someone point me to a good history of Arafat. I've heard it said that he isn't even Palistinian. How did he end up leading their cause then?
posted by Eekacat at 6:12 AM on November 11, 2004

According to CatholicExchange.com, Arafat died of AIDS because he had videotaped "orgies with his body guards", this is all hush-hush and he was being treated in Paris "because he could trust the French to protect his intimate secrets".
posted by graventy at 6:27 AM on November 11, 2004

Eekacat - it depends on what your definition of "Palestinian" is, but he was born in Egypt. The Wikipedia article is a good place to start.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:53 AM on November 11, 2004

Now Ringo Starr is the sole owner of that Look.
posted by Frank Grimes at 7:02 AM on November 11, 2004

Hey, thanks PrinceValium. That helps, and it is an interesting read. His heritage is convoluted to say the least. As you say, it depends on how one defines "Palistinian". I should have known to check out Wikipedia. I have no geek cred.....
posted by Eekacat at 7:41 AM on November 11, 2004

Arafat: born and schooled in Egypt: is that as authentic as Palestinians get? I don't even think that.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:50 AM on November 11, 2004

graventy, thanks for Pipes' AIDS story. I had missed it, and it really is unmissable
posted by matteo at 8:00 AM on November 11, 2004

Arafat died of AIDS because he had videotaped "orgies with his body guards"

You can't get AIDS by videotaping orgies. You can only get Visual AIDS that way.
posted by kindall at 8:21 AM on November 11, 2004

But it's certain that under someone else the concept "Palestinian" could just as easily have become a historical footnote by now.

I don't know if it's certain, but it's very likely.

The legacy of Arafat is impressive, troubling, and (conservatives cover your ears) complex. In many ways, he helped usher in the era of international terrorism in which we are now living. He also personified the just aspirations of a wronged people.

In any case, when the history of Palestine is written, the use of terrorism will be seen as having been instrumental in its creation, just as it was instrumental in the creation of Israel. A moral conundrum, that.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:03 AM on November 11, 2004

Here's a long litany of offenses.
posted by loquax at 9:27 AM on November 11, 2004

But many people are sincerely sad and mourning, all over the world, particularly in Arab countries. Some respect for their feelings might be in order, no matter what you think of the man.

If Bin Laden dies, there will be sincere sadness and mourning, particularly in Arab countries.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:30 AM on November 11, 2004

As human beings, you should feel sorry that anyone would be so deluded to look up to or mourn this guy.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:37 AM on November 11, 2004

But one should not rejoice at the demise of one's enemies.
WTF? Damn straight I can and will rejoice when international terrorists meet their end.

In many ways, he helped usher in the era of international terrorism in which we are now living.
Exactly. In fact, Arafat could be considered, in a way, the great-grandfather of 9/11. Burn in hell, Arafat.
posted by davidmsc at 9:41 AM on November 11, 2004

If Bin Laden dies

do you mean that "Arafat = Bin Laden"?
it's an unusual equation
posted by matteo at 9:57 AM on November 11, 2004

Regarding the famous joke about Arafat's death, I'd just like to wish y'all a Chag Sameach (Happy Holiday).

And I'm donating to Magen David Adom today in his name. It seems fitting.
posted by Asparagirl at 10:01 AM on November 11, 2004

do you mean that "Arafat = Bin Laden"?
it's an unusual equation

Not if you're a nitwit.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:09 AM on November 11, 2004

Arafat: born and schooled in Egypt: is that as authentic as Palestinians get? I don't even think that.

Spoken like the authentic Brooklyn Zionist arsehole you are.

And I'm donating to Magen David Adom today in his name. It seems fitting.

Well, that's nice. I'll put aside a few coins for the Sabra-Shatila Fund when Sharon finally shuffles off to his own day of judgement. I hope that there's a sealed room for him and Arafat to spend eternity together.
posted by riviera at 10:29 AM on November 11, 2004

I hope that there's a sealed room for him and Arafat to spend eternity together.

Performing accordion duets, no doubt.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:30 AM on November 11, 2004

As human beings, you should feel sorry that anyone would be so deluded to look up to or mourn this guy.

If you cannot mourn the passing of your enemies, I would question the claim that you are even a human being*.

You have failed the Turing Test, I do believe.

*one would certainly, however, be a human hating.
posted by wah at 10:31 AM on November 11, 2004

what letitrain said
posted by scarabic at 11:41 AM on November 11, 2004

I'm not the kind of get upset if people don't show a whole lot of respect in obit threads, but let me just say that bob sarabia has been his usual self in this one, except perhaps moreso.
posted by scarabic at 12:38 PM on November 11, 2004

Spoken like the authentic Brooklyn Zionist arsehole you are.

Spoken like the generic anti Brooklyn Zionist arsehole you mindlessly are, riviera .
posted by semmi at 1:02 PM on November 11, 2004

What's the difference between Arafish and OBI? OBL has directed the murder of LESS people, but that's about it.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:05 PM on November 11, 2004

And Sharon's got 'em both beat. So what's your point?
posted by Ty Webb at 1:09 PM on November 11, 2004

Paris, really off on a running start here, aren't you? Yes, the evil-doer is dead. Yay. Have a beer, celebrate. But understand his death does not make the situation any better. Think a little broader; I know you're capable of it.

Do you really think the PLO is suddenly going to disappear now that he's dead?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:16 PM on November 11, 2004

No celebration--just relief. Certainly the situation is better now. The whole order of things needs to be chucked in the countries surrounding Israel.

Why no celebration, it is satisfying the his funeral will be in Egypt, and no closer to Jerusalem.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:21 PM on November 11, 2004

(While no celebration)
posted by ParisParamus at 1:22 PM on November 11, 2004

I'm not the kind of get upset if people don't show a whole lot of respect in obit threads, but let me just say that bob sarabia has been his usual self in this one, except perhaps moreso.

Well, he is just about the dimmest bulb in the MeFi marquee.
posted by y2karl at 1:52 PM on November 11, 2004

Great photo over at LittleGreenFootballs.com
posted by ParisParamus at 1:54 PM on November 11, 2004

can somebody get PP a kleenex? it smells like spunk in here.
posted by mr.marx at 1:57 PM on November 11, 2004

I understand GazaParamus' gloating, but for those who are marginally less insane -- or marginally smarter, which means about 99.9% of the population of this community -- it is inexcusable to spin the tired BS that Israelis are now safer.

I mean, certainly GazaParamus in Brooklyn and LikudGirl in LA are as safe now as they were a week ago. and when it comes to actual Israelis who actually live in that -- ironically -- Godforsaken land, Israel, well the smart money says they aren't any safer now that Arafat's dead.

so, go ahead and gloat gloat gloat -- you don't seem capable of doing anything more complex than that. but the occupation goes on, the suffering goes on both sides. and the situation didn't change: either there's a way to create a viable Palestinian State (key word: viable, ie not a patchwork of Bantustans crisscrossed by Israeli-only highways and settlements) or the pain will go on. indefinitely. Arafat or not.

even those who dream of a complete ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, well, guys, your dream of a Palestinian-free Greater Israel ain't any closer to coming true today. not at all.
posted by matteo at 2:02 PM on November 11, 2004

who's gloating? I gloated a little when Kerry lost. I'm just optimistic that Palestinian Arabs may be realize how ripped off they've be, and seek out a real homeland. And, according to you, be able to call Sharon's bluff.

GazaParamus? That's so lame it's funny.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:08 PM on November 11, 2004

One question for ParisParamus: Does Israel need to change anything about its policies in order to bring peace and justice to the Levant? If every single country bordering Israel were a stable, liberal democracy, would that bring peace and justice to the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation?
posted by skoosh at 2:24 PM on November 11, 2004

either there's a way to create a viable Palestinian State (key word: viable, ie not a patchwork of Bantustans crisscrossed by Israeli-only highways and settlements) or the pain will go on.

B'Tselem: Settlements control 42% of West Bank

B'Tselem - Publication Summary - Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank, Comprehensive Report

B'Tselem's Map of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank [small]

B'Tselem's Map of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank [large]

The brown, ochre and yellow are under Palestinian control, the blue and green under settler control.

asparagirl and Paris Paramus don't favor expansion of the settlements, so you do have to grant them acknowledgement for that generous noblesse oblige.
posted by y2karl at 2:27 PM on November 11, 2004

Sure, Israel would need to change if Israel's neighbors got their civilization act together, but that's a hypothetical.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:33 PM on November 11, 2004

matteo, in a thread where Asparagirl didn't even comment, why would you throw an insult her way? Scream that the "other side" is intolerant and resorts to namecalling all you want; your comments clearly reflect indisputable hypocrisy.
posted by BlueTrain at 2:54 PM on November 11, 2004

BlueTrain
in a thread where Asparagirl didn't even comment

*snicker*
posted by matteo at 2:59 PM on November 11, 2004

Shit, I read this thread twice and didn't see that. My fault.

::splat::

Noise tags are the "in thing" here, right? I've been away for a bit and can't keep tabs on the trends. Do things still vibrate here as well? :-)
posted by BlueTrain at 3:05 PM on November 11, 2004

Followup questions for PP: First, given that every person deserves the right to participate in choosing and shaping the government that rules him, and presuming that we can all agree that Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories do not really enjoy that right in practice (since the IDF holds de facto power there), which outcome do you favor that would grant them that right to democratic autonomy? (i.e. two states, one state, binational federation, or something else.)

Second, what, if anything, about the lack of democracy in Arab states is preventing Israel from moving to implement that outcome?
posted by skoosh at 3:33 PM on November 11, 2004

What's the difference between Arafish and OBI?

Uh, that would be a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, you ignorant slut.

Now please shut up, unless you're intent on your own bunnyfire burnout.
posted by scarabic at 3:35 PM on November 11, 2004

straight from "reality-imitates-The Onion" dept:

Local Man Remembers Yasser Arafat
An Atlanta-area man who knew the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said he doubts he'll ever understand him.

_______

on a more serious note, interesting stuff (as usual) in the New York Review of Books

Sharon and the Future of Palestine
posted by matteo at 4:31 PM on November 11, 2004

haha, that Arafat Nobel is still a funny.
posted by xmutex at 4:36 PM on November 11, 2004

Uh, that would be a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, you ignorant slut.

Kissinger has one too.

Also, a general observation:
From what I've read, the Israeli left seems to have been much better at adapting to the (surprising but real) promise for progress under the Sharon government than the international left has. I bemoaned Sharon's election as well, and I'm certainly well aware of his often ugly past, but current events have forced a reevaluation. What I've seen from the Sharon administration so far is Sharon taking real risks (personal and political) for positive change - and the comparisons to Arafat above are really inaccurate and unfair.

[For those who haven't been paying attention - Sharon's coalition nominally holds only 55/120 seats in the Knesset - and, in reality, even less, since much of his own Likud party is in open rebellion against him. The only reason the government has not yet fallen ahs been support from the centrist/secular Shinui party, and the center-left labour party. Consider that in the light of this article, for example. The current situation is truly remarkable - and I fear many here have not been paying close enough attention.]

On preview: I haven't read the NYRB article matteo links to, but it looks very interesting.
posted by kickingtheground at 4:43 PM on November 11, 2004

What I've seen from the Sharon administration so far is Sharon taking real risks (personal and political) for positive change - and the comparisons to Arafat above are really inaccurate and unfair.

No, they're not. Sharon's crimes against non-combatants are well known. He also deserves a large portion of the blame for the current situation, if only because of his long-time patronage of the militant settler movement, one of the most significant impediments to peace.

Further, Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan is a transparent attempt to give cover to consolidation of illegal settlements in the West Bank. That anyone could refer to the Gaza plan as a "compromise" in any sense is absurd. Having stolen $100, Sharon now proposes to return $20. Does that sound like a compromise?
posted by Ty Webb at 4:57 PM on November 11, 2004

Jonathan Alterman: A Force For Order

Admittedly, there was not much to like about Yassir Arafat. Like some of Israel’s founding fathers, including Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, though to a far greater extent, he condoned terrorism as a means of reaching his goal of an independent state for his people. And like those same revanchist leaders, he preferred, in the end, to continue to stick to outlandish demands rather than undertake the necessary compromises to achieve a half loaf and build from there. (Israel was blessed at the time of its founding with more far-sighted leadership in the Labor camp, who wisely adopted the compromises offered and laid the groundwork for what is now a kind of mini-superpower.) Clinton and Barak screwed him at Camp David but he screwed himself too. Arafat did nothing to prepare his people to give up their dreams of achieving justice at the expense of inflaming the Israelis’ security fears and he did nothing to convince the Israelis that he meant business when it came time to for both sides to face up to the hard decisions. He also did nothing to prepare the way for a future leader. I do not mourn him as a leader; I do not mourn him as a human being and I certainly do not mourn him as a force for peace—which he wasn’t. He excelled at one thing; staying alive.

But he was a force for order and we are about to enter a period of instability that could make matters even worse. Ariel Sharon will likely use it to continue his master plan to turn Israel into a mini-version of South Africa of the bad old days, with weak and untenable Bantustans on its borders. Bush will invite him to do just this and whatever else he wants. No one will soon emerge within the Palestinian camp to control the predictable terrorist reaction to this and everything, for a while, will get worse.

Daoud Kuttab: A blessing and a curse

While much of the power struggle will take place within the nationalist camp, one must not overlook the Islamist camp led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Although the Islamists are unlikely to interfere in the post-Arafat power struggle, they will not sit idly by if the new leadership moves in what they consider the wrong direction. Of course, the new leadership will have to reach some agreement with the Islamists regarding the rules of the game, both domestically and vis-à-vis Israel. If no such agreement is reached and the new leadership cracks down hard on the Islamists, a violent civil war could erupt.

Most important, to consolidate his leadership the next Palestinian leader must make some hard decisions and show some tangible results quickly. The experience of the first Palestinian prime minister, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), who resigned largely because of his inability to deliver any improvements to his people -- whether strengthening personal and collective security, restoring the rule of law, or bringing an end to chaos in Palestinian areas -- remains fresh in the public's memory.

Which is why an Israeli freeze on settlement activities, the release of Palestinian political prisoners, and the removal of the hundreds of checkpoints between Palestinian cities would revive a feeling of hope, without which no Palestinian leader can negotiate what the world wants: a peace settlement.

The problem is that no Palestinian leader, no matter who he is, can deliver these changes without help from other players. The Israeli occupiers, the neighboring Arab countries, and the international community, led by the United States, face a challenge. They all must help out if they expect the new leadership of Palestinians to be able to withstand the pressures they will be under to raise the bar higher than Yasser Arafat did during a lifetime dedicated to the cause of Palestinian freedom.
posted by y2karl at 5:45 PM on November 11, 2004

it is inexcusable to spin the tired BS that Israelis are now safer.

Who was saying or spinning anything about "safer" here? Oh, I get it, it's another gen-you-whine matteo strawman argument. My bad.

Paris, and many other commenters, used the term "better" to describe the future without Arafat, not safer. I would throw in "hopeful", personally--xmutex summed up my thoughts almost exactly. While in the shorter term, there's probably going to be chaos in the West Bank and Gaza as various Palestinian groups try to jockey for control, in the longer term, most people think there's a much, much better chance that the two sides can start moving towards some sort of an agreement. Even incremental and slow progress could mean such a positive difference for both sides, better than the bloody awful stalemate they've got going on right now. I hope the new Palestinian leadership, whoever it ends up being, is given a fair chance to prove themselves. I hope the Palestinian people will now get the financial aid they need that was siphoned off by Arafat for so long; they need food, medical care, infrastructure, and so on, and I would like to think that so many have backed terrorist organizations like Hamas over the years more for their ability to provide such basics than for their ideology.

asparagirl and Paris Paramus don't favor expansion of the settlements, so you do have to grant them acknowledgement for that generous noblesse oblige.

And at least one of us is a proponent of an independent, democratic Palestine. And at least one of us has posted a thread to MetaFilter before about the crazy-ass settlers who are refusing to accede to Sharon's 2005 Gaza pullout plans (which the Knesset finally approved last month)--settlers who are (credibly) threatening civil war and political assasinations against the Likud members who back the pullout. And at least one of us has also been known to get into spats with and grumble about settlers on her blog.

But I'm sure it's not as though all of us icky-poo Zionists are constantly lumped together, undifferentiated, whether we're in the minority of MeFites' opinion, or the world's.
posted by Asparagirl at 5:54 PM on November 11, 2004

And there's an interesting discussion of the possible post-Arafat era over here:

"Thus far, the signs are mixed. Rawhi Fattouh, the speaker of the Palestinian legislature and a Fatah stalwart, has been sworn in as interim president pending elections, and will likely rule in a triumvirate with Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and former Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. At the same time, the Fatah faction leadership has been taken over by former Foreign Minister Farouk Qaddumi, who is widely regarded as a hard-liner. The triumvirate, which doesn't share Arafat's lingering aura of revolutionary legitimacy, will have to take into account the views of power brokers like Qaddumi as well as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and other armed factions.

As I've mentioned before, this could lead any of a number of ways. On the one hand, it could lead to anarchy, balkanization or the formation of a radical Palestinian government committed to armed struggle at all costs. On the other hand - especially if the Abbas-Qurei faction succeeds in obtaining significant electoral support and if Egypt leans on the Islamist factions - the hard-liners could themselves face pressure to moderate and join a national unity government. Alternatively, the status quo pitting a relatively weak PA government against unaccountable radical factions could continue relatively unchanged. The odds aren't impossible, but they are daunting.

In the long term, the Palestinians are a resilient people, and they will survive the damage done by both Israel and their own leaders. In Randa Jarrar's words, "Palestine was here before Arafat, and it will be here after him." I am convinced that, sometime in the relatively near future, there will be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. I am equally convinced, however, that Arafat is one of the primary reasons why such a state does not exist today, and why it is in many ways farther from realization now than a decade ago."

posted by Asparagirl at 5:58 PM on November 11, 2004

I am equally convinced, however, that Arafat is one of the primary reasons why such a state does not exist today, and why it is in many ways farther from realization now than a decade ago."

from matteo's NYRB link:

According to many of these same observers, it is not only Sharon who has been transformed, but the Palestinian side as well. They point to a Palestinian "Young Guard" that is challenging the so-called "Abus" who came from Tunis with Yasser Arafat, leaders seen as corrupt and inept by members of the younger Palestinian generation, who earned their right to be heard by taking part in the first intifada and doing time in Israeli jails. The Economist editorial cited above concluded that this younger generation of Palestinians has learned that "they cannot erase Israel by force."

Unfortunately, these views are based on a misreading of both Israeli and Palestinian realities. Sharon is not about to agree to the minimal conditions for a workable Palestinian state. His unshakable resolve to avoid dealing with the Palestinians—even to prevent chaos in the wake of the promised withdrawal from Gaza—and to widen Jewish settlement activity throughout the West Bank, which has increased following the announcement of his disengagement plans, gives the lie to such wishful thinking...

For Sharon, withdrawal from Gaza is the price Israel must pay if it is to complete the cantonization of the West Bank under Israel's control. Just as important, Gaza is to be turned into a living example of why Palestinians are undeserving of an independent state. Under the conditions attached by Sharon to the disengagement, Gaza —an area that makes up only 1.25 percent of the Palestine Mandate but contains 37 percent of the Palestinian population—will exist essentially as a large prison isolated from the world, including its immediate neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and the West Bank. Its population will be denied the freedom of movement essential to any possibility of economic recovery and outside investment. Sharon's insistence that withdrawal from Gaza will be entirely an Israeli initiative and will not be negotiated with any Palestinian leaders seems designed to produce a state of anarchy in Gaza, one that will enable him to say, "Look at the violent, corrupt, and primitive people we must contend with; they can't run anything on their own."

Until recently, many would have rejected such a harsh reading of Sharon's intentions as defamatory. But this is now impossible, for Sharon's closest friend and colleague, Dov Weissglas, who has been intimately involved in the formulation and execution of Sharon's policies as the prime minister's senior adviser and chief of staff, has described in great detail the content and purpose of Sharon's proposed disengagement from Gaza. In a long interview that appeared in Haaretz, he asserts bluntly that the disengagement, which he and Sharon had persuaded President Bush and both houses of Congress to endorse, was actually intended to prevent a peace process, to consign Bush's road map to oblivion, and to preclude the emergence of a Palestinian state of any kind.
posted by y2karl at 6:11 PM on November 11, 2004

Spoken like the generic anti Brooklyn Zionist arsehole you mindlessly are, riviera.

Oh, fucking yawn. It's a bit rich for PeePee to scoff that Arafat wasn't really Palestinian, when he himself is just a one-way ticket to Tel Aviv away from being granted an Israeli passport and a nice bit of confiscated olive grove. And yes, the stench emanating from his corner is pretty rancid.

One hopes that a real settlement in the region will come when national politics ceases to be an acting-out of old personal emnities, but that's going to be hard when you have 7000-mile-distant idiots who treat them as their very own vendettas, like fourth-generation Boston Oirish passing the hat for a 'cause' they neither understand nor have to live with.

So take that plane trip, PeePee. Show your commitment to this one fucking obsession of yours and make use of the Law of Return. Either that, or shut the fuck up, and be content with your wet-dream fantasies about tank warfare with Arik Sharon.
posted by riviera at 6:19 PM on November 11, 2004

It can't smell of PP's spunk in here, Mr.Marx; the poor boy is one of those impotent armchair generals. ParisParamus is but a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:20 PM on November 11, 2004

And yet people keep taking his limp bait.
posted by Ty Webb at 6:28 PM on November 11, 2004

It's just that being against the expansion of settlements is fairly easy position to take. Being for giving them up is another story entirely. Just out of curiosity, asparagirl, how much of the well over 42% of the West Bank--after all, B'Tselem wrote that paper and drew that map in way back in 2002--do you think Israel should have to give up ? 5% ? 10% ? 25% ? Or the whole magillah ? And how much do you think it can ?

Personally, I think Israel should evacuate all of it but I fear that the threat of civil war over the evacuation of Gaza will not hold a candle to the one that looms should a future Israeli government be forced or choose to cough up what their successive predecessors have swallowed of the West Bank. I fear that two civil wars erupt, should any deal be struck or forced, because too many people have been promised too much for too long on both sides--two civil wars with one inside a nation with over 600 nuclear warheads. I think the chances for this are far larger than the chances for a just peace. I wish it were otherwise, I really do.
posted by y2karl at 6:43 PM on November 11, 2004

7000-mile-distant idiots who treat them as their very own vendettas, like fourth-generation Boston Oirish passing the hat for a 'cause' they neither understand nor have to live with.

Right, like my girlfreind, who's cousin was blown up in a bus bombing while vacationing in Israel. Or conversely, my Lebanese brother-in-law who's uncle was shot by the Mossad. And I know plenty of people here in the US who still have family in various dangerous places in Europe. About 90% of my mothers family is still on the Continent.

But, we's all just po' dumb Americans, why don't you edjumacate us, massa?
posted by jonmc at 6:52 PM on November 11, 2004

Oh, I get it, it's another gen-you-whine matteo strawman argument. My bad.
...
Paris, and many other commenters, used the term "better" to describe the future without Arafat, not safer. I would throw in "hopeful"

better can only mean safer. too many people are dying -- or enduring unacceptable standards of living -- as of now, on both sides. the illusion that after Arafat you'll find a Palestinian leader who'll just gladly accept to leave most of the West Bank to Israel and pack his people's bags to that shithole of Gaza -- or better yet, to Jordan -- is just an unfunny Likudnik wetdream.

it's not about which leader Palestinians choose, asparagirl. it's about what Israel has to offer. you will never find a Palestinian leader who accepts your land grab. Arafat, Barghouti, mr. X. nobody will. deal with it.

you like a perpetual war? the Palestinians have nothing to lose at this point. Israelis have more to lose. but of course from California one has perspective. one must feel safer than in Tel Aviv.

you also have very thin skin for someone who often likes to talk tough, AG. just don't hide behind the "oh I'm all for a democratic Palestinian State" -- we all know your posting history, your -- at best -- indifference for unarmed civlian's deaths when they're not Israeli, your constant cheerleading for Likud no matter how bad they fuck Israel up. you've seen the maps, the Gaza pullout is a sham. as karl pointed out, read the NYRB story I linked. Gaza'll be just a big jail for Palestinians, as Israel puts the finishing touches on the West Bank land grab. in the name of the good Book of Genesis, of course
posted by matteo at 6:53 PM on November 11, 2004

> I'm just optimistic that Palestinian Arabs may be realize how ripped off they've be

jpost

: Yasser Arafat's widow, Suha, is expected to receive a sum of $22 million a year out of the Palestinian Authority budget

: According to Palestinian officials, the money that Suha is expected to receive will come from secret accounts held by Arafat and his cronies in various countries. They estimated that at least $4 billion were being held in these secret accounts.


posted by dand at 7:09 PM on November 11, 2004

"It's just that being against the expansion of settlements is fairly easy position to take."

Well, in Israeli society or politics (and in some politically-active Jewish-American circles), it obviously isn't that easy, or else it would have been adopted and widely accepted by now, right?

As for pulling out of the West Bank--it's a hell of a lot more problematic than pulling out of Gaza. Just as some Palestinian refugee camps are now de facto cities (or new quarters of the cities in which they were originally established), some of those West Bank settlements are now de facto cities, too. They're also considered the buffer zone that would prevent yet another west-to-east invasion attempt--though I think pro-Palestinian activists could and should make the case that there's far less fear of that with a more moderate, peaceful Jordan, which is what there is now. And there's a far bigger number and percentage of Israelis who live in the West Bank as compared to Gaza; if relocating the Gaza settlers will cost into the billions of NIS in reparations, there's a monetary limit to what Israel could similarly do for the West Bank. Basically, I just don't know how many can be given up, or swapped for land elsewhere. But I don't think Israel will ever agree to split Jerusalem--they might agree to share control over part of it as an International city, maybe, but never as a capital of Palestine.

And yeah, I get depressed and pessimistic about the chances for long-term peace in the region too. Which is why an event like Arafat's death has the potential for a glimmer of hope--because it represents a chance to change the chessboard, or change the societies, or build trust on both sides, or something beyond the same-old same-old.

"it's not about which leader Palestinians choose, asparagirl. it's about what Israel has to offer."

And you know perfectly well that the Catch-22 is that Israel can't and won't offer anything without a Palestinian leader at least a smidgen more palatable than Chairman Arafat. They may not offer all pre-'67 land, but at least now there's a chance they can start somewhere. I'm not willing to be so cynical to think that they would never, ever try for an opening at peace--nor so historically ignorant. Remember a little thing called Oslo?

"the Gaza pullout is a sham...Gaza'll be just a big jail for Palestinians"

So, wait, it's all a smokescreen and it's never going to happen, but when it does happen, it will still be bad for the Palestinians, or worse (in your eyes) it will be good for Sharon? Damned if they do, damned if they don't? Do tell: if you were the prime minister of Israel, facing the same opposition that Sharon is now, how would you organize a pullout from Gaza and a handover to the PA?

Face it, matteo, I could argue for a complete pullback to '67 borders and a lifetime's supply of free falafel for everyone, and I think you'd still decide that I'm being crafty and disingenuous because I'm not also shedding crocodile tears for terrorists and the people who support them with arms, physical cover, ideological cover, funds, and child soldiers. Do you want land and sovereignty for a free Palestine, or the hearts and minds of every Zionist? You'll have better luck winning the former.
posted by Asparagirl at 8:36 PM on November 11, 2004

They're also considered the buffer zone that would prevent yet another west-to-east invasion attempt--though I think pro-Palestinian activists could and should make the case that there's far less fear of that with a more moderate, peaceful Jordan, which is what there is now.

Especially with Jordan east of Israel.
posted by y2karl at 8:50 PM on November 11, 2004

And that's an example of why I keep getting lost on the California highway system.
posted by Asparagirl at 10:30 PM on November 11, 2004

But, we's all just po' dumb Americans, why don't you edjumacate us, massa?

If you want to hold PeePee's hands and play ring-a-rosie, jonmc, then that's fine by me. But I wouldn't recommend it. Have you heard PeePee display any kind of personal knowledge of the region, or any detailed thoughts on its future? Nah. He runs away when placed in that spotlight. Which makes him an ignorant, delusional fuck, to be ranked in the same category as those delusional fundamentalist fucks who believe that Eretz Israel will bring back Jesus, forcing Jews to either convert or be damned. He's worse than someone with old, personal grudges: he's someone who's freely adopted the personal grudges of others.

Anyway, Asparagirl is demonstrating a fair bit of clue here (which I don't mean at all to be condescending, so forgive me for any impression otherwise). Gaza's a fucking mess. It will be a Bantustan under the withdrawal plan, and probably one in the de facto hands of Hamas, because no successor to Arafat is going to have more clout there. But that's the only game in town right now, and anything that separates the lunatics who chose to raise kids in Gaza settlements from the fuckheads who use them as easy targets is a step forward. This is a no-brainer.

The West Bank's social geography has been permanently altered. Can't escape that one either. What do you do with it? Gahd, I dunno. The devil's advocate in me makes me think that Israel should just annex it all, while at the same time establishing immediate municipal autonomy in those contiguous areas that wouldn't be subject to cartography disputes. More Bantustans? Yup. But perhaps Bantustans are the -- albeit ironic -- precursor to a one-state solution, which I do think is the only feasible final settlement, given that a Palestinian statelet composed entirely of enclaves has less chance of success.

(There'd be something oddly fitting, too, if a huge fuck-off casino resort were built in Ramallah along the lines of Sun City.)

What's intriguing here, of course, is that you have Bibi and other vaguely telegenic Likud ministers suggesting that 'there's a chance for a responsible Palestinian leadership to move forward'. Well, yes: but there are not so many excuses for you now, are there?
posted by riviera at 11:47 PM on November 11, 2004

a lifetime's supply of free falafel for everyone

if somebody had made a crack about "free bagels for everybody" you would have screamed anti-semitism. and, for once, rightly so. lose the anti-Arab shit for a change, will ya? or you really can't avoid it?
or, better yet, you share Bill O'Reilly's falafel fetish?


Do tell: if you were the prime minister of Israel, facing the same opposition that Sharon is now, how would you organize a pullout from Gaza and a handover to the PA?

ah, no, LikudGirl, too easy: good old Ariel made Israel's bed in these last few disaster years, don't ask me to fix it now. also, with that nice Wall there's a new border, with the demolitions and murders and whatnot the situation has changed completely. it's all, probably, hopeless. my guess? Riviera has a point: bantustans are to a certain extent unavoidable now. and they'll make a terrible State.
my hunch? there will be no Palestinian State because you'll never find a Palestinian leader you like (unless they choose to send, Bibi Netanyahu as their negotiator), or one who'll accept to take, like, 22% of the actual pie.
it is a war for land, and water, after all.


Do you want land and sovereignty for a free Palestine, or the hearts and minds of every Zionist? You'll have better luck winning the former.

you don't understand, even if I try to be clear about this point in I/P threads, or maybe you choose not to. I don't want anything, because basically I don't care, because I don't have a dog in this fight, even if I'm not a fan of occupations (just as, ironically, those First Century CE Jews were vey much against occupations, too) -- it is not my war. not my war. also, I don't care about -- God forbid -- anybody's hearts and minds. I'm just very displeased that a little bloody ruthless war between neighbors who've been hating each other's guts for centuries has had to become a geopolitical sore thumb, and a petri dish of terrorism and other bad shit for the rest of the world.

don't drag me into your war, Asparagirl. I'm a secular goy, remember?
posted by matteo at 6:46 AM on November 12, 2004

If you want to hold PeePee's hands and play ring-a-rosie, jonmc, then that's fine by me. But I wouldn't recommend it. Have you heard PeePee display any kind of personal knowledge of the region, or any detailed thoughts on its future?

I don't like PP's positions anymore than you, but your comment said that Americans have no ability to understand foreign conflicts or rights to opinions on them. (I imagine you make exceptions for those who rigorously conform to yours). I called bullshit on that. You don't like it that's your problem.
posted by jonmc at 6:51 AM on November 12, 2004

also, self-described neocon cheerleaders should know better than to make jokes about winning hearts and minds.
posted by matteo at 6:52 AM on November 12, 2004

no jon, riviera said something very different:

"7000-mile-distant idiots who treat them as their very own vendettas, like fourth-generation Boston Oirish passing the hat for a 'cause' they neither understand nor have to live with".

faraway people who treat very delicate geopolitical conflicts (like Ulster or Palestine) as their personal vendettas do more harm than good. it's not the same as saying that "Americans have no ability to understand foreign conflicts or rights to opinions on them".
riviera's comment is spot-on, when you consider what many Irish Americans and many American Jews are doing lately. funding illegal West Bank outposts from the safety of California is pretty much indefensible -- it means throwing fuel into a faraway fire, and other people will get burnt.
posted by matteo at 6:58 AM on November 12, 2004

or, as the famously anti-semitical NYTimes wrote:

CALIFORNIA BINGO HALL PLAYS ON WORLD STAGE
By Charlie LeDuff
New York Times
November 25, 2002

This is a rundown town in the rundown eastern corner of Los Angeles
County. Besides the palm trees, little here suggests Hawaii.

This stamplike city, the smallest in California, is nine-tenths of a
square mile and is bounded by the 605 Freeway and a drainage ditch. It
is a poor place; the population of about 15,000 has an average yearly
income of less than $10,000.
...
But it is this sagging bingo hall that holds one of the deepest
intrigues in the state. Few among the working-class players who gamble
away their nickels and quarters and dollars here in what is billed as
the "fastest game in town" suspect where their money goes. The games'
profits go to building Israeli developments on Arab land that Israel
occupied during the 1967 war and then incorporated within Jerusalem's
boundaries.
The money makes its way there through the Irving I. Moskowitz
Foundation, which owns the bingo hall. The foundation's benefactor is a
reclusive and wealthy doctor, Irving I. Moskowitz, who lives neither in
Israel nor California, but in Miami Beach. He is the largest landowner
and employer in town. Among his holdings are the Hawaiian Gardens Bingo
Club, the neighboring Hawaiian Gardens Casino, which, in fact, is a
card club, and a hospital.
...
Twice, legislation has been introduced in California to rein in the
Moskowitz foundation's bingo operation, which takes in $30 million to
$40 million a year, according to the foundation's disclosure forms.
Each year the bingo hall pays $25 to the city for its license, while
millions go to groups like Ateret Cohanim, a religious nationalist
group that promotes a Jewish presence in the Arab portion of East
Jerusalem. The foundation gives money to a food bank here, Dr.
Moskowitz's hospital and the Little League. It also provides free
dental care for the indigent.

"Look, it's very simple," Dr. Moskowitz's lawyer, Beryl Weiner, said.
"You need Moskowitzes to have an Israel, you need Moskowitzes to have a
Hawaiian Gardens. He's one of the few men who walks the walk. But does
he rule by fiat? Absolutely not. Is there a Moskowitz machine?
Absolutely not."

The California law governing bingo is a leaky one, requiring only that
bingo halls be sponsored by a charity and staffed by unpaid volunteers.

posted by matteo at 7:02 AM on November 12, 2004

your comment said that---

My comment spoke of '7000-mile distant idiots', and was directed towards a 7000-mile distant idiot. Where, exactly, was I talking about Americans per se? Really, if you want to hold up PeePee as an archetypal American (or an archetypal American Jew, or even an archetypal American Zionist) you're quite welcome, but that's an insult I want no part of.

PeePee talked about 'the demise of one's enemies'. What the fuck is that all about? This is someone who, to my knowledge, has never posted anything suggesting more than a caricature understanding of the region (contrast: Asparagirl). And as I said (and, on preview, matteo reiterates) the biggest obstacle to a lasting settlement is having people, especially outsiders, keeping alive the personal emnities of a dying generation. Let them die with their owners, okay? Because that way, it's just a little bit easier for later generations to stop and say: hang on, we're stuck here in this very small strip of land, and killing each other is getting us nowhere fast.

I called bullshit on that. You don't like it that's your problem.

Actually, I think a remedial reading level is very much your problem, jonmc.
posted by riviera at 7:19 AM on November 12, 2004

My reading level is remedial? You're the one who keeps accusing me of being PP's ally, something I explicity denied.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from an arrogant windbag like yourself, riviera.
posted by jonmc at 7:37 AM on November 12, 2004

Riviera. Until the Arab world gets its own house in order, until thugocracy and terrorism are not the region's biggest accomplishments, Israel should not be expected to do very much. And until you understand that, you remain clueless.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:38 AM on November 12, 2004

And a troll.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:08 AM on November 12, 2004

Hello? Pot?

It's the Kettle for you on line 2...
posted by longbaugh at 8:22 AM on November 12, 2004

Troll troll troll troll troll troll.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:32 AM on November 12, 2004

You're the one who keeps accusing me of being PP's ally, something I explicity denied.

Er, no: you're the one who conflated PeePee with 'Americans'.

Israel should not be expected to do very much. And until you understand that, you remain clueless.

LOL. You'd come across as less of a fool, PeePee, if you admitted you're just plain fucking ignorant. You're a very simple man indeed.
posted by riviera at 8:35 AM on November 12, 2004

I am fucking ignorant--just a lot less ignorant than thee.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:37 AM on November 12, 2004

The fact the you must resort to name calling--"PEEPEE" says much about the lack of importance you place on decency. Why is entirely consistant with your support of odious governments and terrorist deathstyle.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:41 AM on November 12, 2004

Oh, really? Prove it. Discuss this topic in something other than facile slogans that draw ridicule to yourself. Show a milligram of maturity. Because it's other-people's-grudgebearers like you that perpetuate the old order.

Got that? Every stale, rancid, stagnant cliché from your fingertips serves to keep the era of Arafat alive. Which I strongly suspect you actually want, because you really wouldn't know what to do with all that bottled-up hatred, should a new generation of Palestinian leaders emerge from this, wanting a lasting peace.

For some perverse reason, you appear to love the idea of the old guard in Israel perpetually facing off against the old guard of Palestinians, by passing their vendettas down to the next generation and the next, because you've soaked them all up -- without having any contact with them -- like a festering sponge. It's you, PP, who embraces the rhetoric of war without end -- of terrorism without end.
posted by riviera at 8:52 AM on November 12, 2004

I could watch this thread all day.
posted by adampsyche at 9:07 AM on November 12, 2004

No Rivera. You ascribe to me everything you hate about Israel. Most of which you assume I believe I've never said. Stop the violence, and something of a viable (second) Palestinian state can arise--without Jerusalem, of course. Stop the violence, and they'll be a large consensus for dismantling a goon number of the settlements.

But it's fantasy to think that Israel is going to just "hope" there's something other than thugs and terrorists to deal with at this point. Israel has a healthy, economically vibrant society, and across the border, one has terrorism, poverty, fanaticism, and G-d knows what else. Don't blame Israel and Jews for the dysfunction and cancers that flourish in Israels neighbors.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:18 AM on November 12, 2004

oops/ goon = good, above. Or, maybe goon is more accurate?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:19 AM on November 12, 2004

Most of which you assume I believe I've never said.

Oh, I beg to differ. This site does have archives. Of course, my point is that you barely ever address things in a way that suggests even the slightest engagement with reality. It's always 'Israel Rules, Palestinians Drool' with you.

Want to suggest who the new leadership ought to be in order to bring an end to violence? Got a favoured candidate? Are you prepared to say 'this is a welcome move' for any political development from the Palestinian side other than, say, mass suicide or a decision to up sticks and move to Jordan?

In short: do you actually give a shit? Because as much as my politics here disagree with Asparagirl's, I have no doubt whatsoever that she gives a shit. With you, it's all just slogans to be lathered, rinsed and repeated. Clinical. Dehumanised.

You're very fond of telling people to 'get real', ParisParamus, but you don't show any great desire to do so yourself. So. Perhaps, accepting that, perhaps you ought to tone down the rhetoric from your nice, safe distance? It'd be understandable if you were a seventy-something Israeli war veteran with raw memories of 1948. But you ain't.

(Honestly, if I could have one wish for the region, it would be that anyone over 40 be prevented from holding political office.)
posted by riviera at 10:00 AM on November 12, 2004

--without Jerusalem, of course

Jesus Christ.
posted by matteo at 12:37 PM on November 12, 2004

Nope. He got Bethlehem.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:59 PM on November 12, 2004

The Death of Arafat and the Myth of New Beginnings

In the weeks leading up to Palestinian President Yassir Arafat’s death American politicians and pundits have repeatedly called on the Palestinian people to use the opportunity of his passing to transform the intifada from a violent uprising into a non-violent, democratic and pragmatic program for achieving independence. This is very good advice, needless to say, except for one small problem: Palestinians have been trying to build such a movement for the last two decades, and the Israeli Government, IDF and American policy-makers have done everything possible to make sure it could not be heeded.

One of the first exponents of Palestinian non-violence the Palestinian-American doctor Mubarak Awad, founded the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence in 1985. His innovative ideas and training of Palestinians in the tactics of non-violent resistance to the occupation was considered dangerous enough by Israel that it expelled him from the land of his birth in 1988. During the same period, the government supported the rise to power of militant religious groups such as Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO (which that year recognized Israel’s right to exist).

Since the outbreak of the “al-Aksa intifada” in September 2000 most Palestinians I know--and increasingly, their comrades in the Israeli peace movement--have exerted incredible energy trying to build grass roots non violent movements that could somehow check the inexorable advance of the occupation and the slow death of the national dream of an independent state. The response by the Israeli military has often been brutal. Not just Palestinian activists, but foreign peace activists and even Israelis are routinely beaten, arrested, deported, and even killed by the IDF, with little fear that the Government of Israel would pay a political price for crushing non-violent resistance with violent means.

In this environment the very act of going about ones daily life without losing all hope and “joining Hamas” (something former Prime Minister Barak admitted he would have done if he were Palestinian) has become perhaps the supreme, if unheralded, act of non-violence against the occupation. The Israeli Government is quite aware of this, which is why it does its best to make daily life as difficult as possible for Palestinians.

A Difficult Visionary, a Stubborn Vision by Benny Morris

But on the political front Mr. Arafat's achievements have been nothing short of stupendous. Over the decades he orchestrated an unrelenting terrorist-political campaign that has placed the Palestinian problem at the top of the international agenda and garnered for Palestinian sovereignty and statehood almost consensual international support (compare this with the almost complete lack of interest in the Palestinian problem between 1949 and 1967). Within two decades of assuming the chairmanship of the P.L.O., Mr. Arafat managed to forge the political tools and alliances, despite military setbacks, that were to carry the Palestinians to the brink of statehood...

Mr. Arafat's death most certainly will result in a succession struggle, between the generations inside the Fatah and between the Fatah and the Islamic fundamentalist parties (which may lead to complete anarchy in the Hamas stronghold of Gaza). But it is unclear whether it will bring the Middle East any closer to peace. His disappearance removes a major rejectionist obstacle from the scene.

But it also leaves us with a paradox. For Mr. Arafat was probably the only Palestinian of our time, given his historical and political stature, capable of persuading the Palestinians, or most of them, to accept the concessions necessary to achieve a two-state solution. On the other hand, his successors - Mahmoud Abbas, Ahmed Qurei and some of the younger Fatah leaders - may be more amenable to a territorial compromise but they lack the stature to intimidate or persuade their people to accept a two-state settlement or to crush their terror-minded colleagues. So Yasir Arafat's death may have done us no good at all.
posted by y2karl at 2:09 PM on November 12, 2004