Arafat is really dead this time

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: ThePresence

The US saved millions of lives by doing that. Not only American lives, but Japanese lives too.

so are you saying the ends justified the means?

if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good, I assume people will feel that his acts were ok? and he was a good leader??

"so are you saying the ends justified the means?"

the ends vs. the means debate in wartime is somewhat irrelevant. Any country, when engaged in war, will do whatever is within its power to ensure victory, thinking that that end would justify almost any means--otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting at all in the first place.


"if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good"
The problem is he was not.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
RIP you SOB

Let's just hope his legacy doesn't live on - in a bad way. A few billion $$ of his money could end up in the hands of terrorists.

Good riddance, Mr. Arafat.

 

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Hey ManSnake, any chance of an explination/essay/list of reasons on why you think that manipulative piece of camel droppings was a great leader as opposed to one of the biggest disruptive influences of that region?

What's the point of providing 'explination/essay/list of reasons' as you put it, when I am not trying to convince you of anything?

Different people see things differently, right and wrong are not absolute.

The death of a great leader :(

even though I dont agree with you, I respect your opinion. I also understand how some people might think that he is a great leader.
 

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: ThePresence

The US saved millions of lives by doing that. Not only American lives, but Japanese lives too.

so are you saying the ends justified the means?

if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good, I assume people will feel that his acts were ok? and he was a good leader??

"so are you saying the ends justified the means?"

the ends vs. the means debate in wartime is somewhat irrelevant. Any country, when engaged in war, will do whatever is within its power to ensure victory, thinking that that end would justify almost any means--otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting at all in the first place.


"if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good"
The problem is he was not.

but some people do think that arafat is a great leader, because if he didnt do what he had done, palestine will simply fall to the israelis. He believed in something, and some people also believe what he thought

so in a sense he DID something good, to his followers at least



 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Hey ManSnake, any chance of an explination/essay/list of reasons on why you think that manipulative piece of camel droppings was a great leader as opposed to one of the biggest disruptive influences of that region?

What's the point of providing 'explination/essay/list of reasons' as you put it, when I am not trying to convince you of anything?

Different people see things differently, right and wrong are not absolute.

The death of a great leader :(

even though I dont agree with you, I respect your opinion. I also understand how some people might think that he is a great leader.

Or, maybe, the media has presented him in a light as a great leader. The real Arafat, we may never know.

 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Hey ManSnake, any chance of an explination/essay/list of reasons on why you think that manipulative piece of camel droppings was a great leader as opposed to one of the biggest disruptive influences of that region?
What's the point of providing 'explination/essay/list of reasons' as you put it, when I am not trying to convince you of anything?
Different people see things differently, right and wrong are not absolute.
The death of a great leader :(
Well, I hate to burst your enlightened "I can see all sides" bubble, but when someone sees the murder of innocent people shopping, kids on their way to school, a bride on the eve of her wedding etc. etc. etc. etc. as the RIGHT thing to do, that's when right and wrong ARE absolute. Whoever sees that as the RIGHT thing to do deserves the fate of their victims.
 

mcveigh

Diamond Member
Dec 20, 2000
6,457
6
81
Originally posted by: Shame
If there was a poll for how we is to be burried, I would vote that he be tossed off the side of a cruise ship. Seems fitting...

good idea :) of course I don't ecpect most of the kiddes here to get it.








The world is better off with out him.:disgust:
 

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: ThePresence
The US saved millions of lives by doing that. Not only American lives, but Japanese lives too.
so are you saying the ends justified the means?
if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good, I assume people will feel that his acts were ok? and he was a good leader??
I don't see what one can possibly have to do with the other. The US was preparing to attack the Japanese mainland. The Japanese were prepared to die to the last man. The war might still be going on today. Don't forget, it was the Japanese who attacked the US, not the other way around. I didn't say anything about the ends justifying the means, oit wasn't just a means to an end, it was the PRESENT at that time. It was the reality they were faced with. It's very easy to look back now and say it was the wrong thing to do. I can't say that, I wasn't there. Now what does that have to do with intentionally blowing up innocent children on their way to school?

I can easily use ur arguments to justify arafat's followers, but I simply wont since I also strongly disagree with terrorism
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: ThePresence

The US saved millions of lives by doing that. Not only American lives, but Japanese lives too.

so are you saying the ends justified the means?

if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good, I assume people will feel that his acts were ok? and he was a good leader??

"so are you saying the ends justified the means?"

the ends vs. the means debate in wartime is somewhat irrelevant. Any country, when engaged in war, will do whatever is within its power to ensure victory, thinking that that end would justify almost any means--otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting at all in the first place.


"if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good"
The problem is he was not.

but some people do think that arafat is a great leader, because if he didnt do what he had done, palestine will simply fall to the israelis. He believed in something, and some people also believe what he thought

so in a sense he DID something good, to his followers at least

I disagree. Would have life under the Israelis been that bad? Remember the Israeli population includes Arabs which makes up about 20 percent of the population and they are very well treated.

Instead Arafat has kept them fighting for his own personal gain.
 

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Hey ManSnake, any chance of an explination/essay/list of reasons on why you think that manipulative piece of camel droppings was a great leader as opposed to one of the biggest disruptive influences of that region?
What's the point of providing 'explination/essay/list of reasons' as you put it, when I am not trying to convince you of anything?
Different people see things differently, right and wrong are not absolute.
The death of a great leader :(
Well, I hate to burst your enlightened "I can see all sides" bubble, but when someone sees the murder of innocent people shopping, kids on their way to school, a bride on the eve of her wedding etc. etc. etc. etc. as the RIGHT thing to do, that's when right and wrong ARE absolute. Whoever sees that as the RIGHT thing to do deserves the fate of their victims.

and why do terrorists able to blow up innocent people? because they feel what they are doing can potentially lead to something. Terrorism is just like war, it depends which side you are on

 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Originally posted by: mcveigh
Originally posted by: Shame
If there was a poll for how we is to be burried, I would vote that he be tossed off the side of a cruise ship. Seems fitting...
good idea :) of course I don't ecpect most of the kiddes here to get it.

The world is better off with out him.:disgust:
It wasn't Arafat who killed Leon Klinghoffer, it was Abbas. Just another terrorist scumbag.
 

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: ThePresence

The US saved millions of lives by doing that. Not only American lives, but Japanese lives too.

so are you saying the ends justified the means?

if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good, I assume people will feel that his acts were ok? and he was a good leader??

"so are you saying the ends justified the means?"

the ends vs. the means debate in wartime is somewhat irrelevant. Any country, when engaged in war, will do whatever is within its power to ensure victory, thinking that that end would justify almost any means--otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting at all in the first place.


"if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good"
The problem is he was not.

but some people do think that arafat is a great leader, because if he didnt do what he had done, palestine will simply fall to the israelis. He believed in something, and some people also believe what he thought

so in a sense he DID something good, to his followers at least

I disagree. Would have life under the Israelis been that bad? Remember the Israeli population includes Arabs which makes up about 20 percent of the population and they are very well treated.

Instead Arafat has kept them fighting for his own personal gain.


Would have life under the Israelis been that bad?

To them? YES! that is why they are fighting

I dont know if arafat kept fighting for his own personal gain, but his followers certainly believe that he fought for independence


 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: ThePresence

The US saved millions of lives by doing that. Not only American lives, but Japanese lives too.

so are you saying the ends justified the means?

if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good, I assume people will feel that his acts were ok? and he was a good leader??

"so are you saying the ends justified the means?"

the ends vs. the means debate in wartime is somewhat irrelevant. Any country, when engaged in war, will do whatever is within its power to ensure victory, thinking that that end would justify almost any means--otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting at all in the first place.


"if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good"
The problem is he was not.

but some people do think that arafat is a great leader, because if he didnt do what he had done, palestine will simply fall to the israelis. He believed in something, and some people also believe what he thought

so in a sense he DID something good, to his followers at least

I disagree. Would have life under the Israelis been that bad? Remember the Israeli population includes Arabs which makes up about 20 percent of the population and they are very well treated.

Instead Arafat has kept them fighting for his own personal gain.


Would have life under the Israelis been that bad?

To them? YES! that is why they are fighting

I dont know if arafat kept fighting for his own personal gain, but his followers certainly believe that he fought for independence
Untrue. The terrorists don't give a fvck about the plight of their people. If they did, they would stop fighting. They bring the Israeli tanks and helicopters into their towns. You think the Israelis would be fighting there if the terrorists weren't hiding among the civillian population? They fight for the destruction of Israel, they don't even deny this.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: ThePresence

The US saved millions of lives by doing that. Not only American lives, but Japanese lives too.

so are you saying the ends justified the means?

if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good, I assume people will feel that his acts were ok? and he was a good leader??

"so are you saying the ends justified the means?"

the ends vs. the means debate in wartime is somewhat irrelevant. Any country, when engaged in war, will do whatever is within its power to ensure victory, thinking that that end would justify almost any means--otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting at all in the first place.


"if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good"
The problem is he was not.

but some people do think that arafat is a great leader, because if he didnt do what he had done, palestine will simply fall to the israelis. He believed in something, and some people also believe what he thought

so in a sense he DID something good, to his followers at least

I disagree. Would have life under the Israelis been that bad? Remember the Israeli population includes Arabs which makes up about 20 percent of the population and they are very well treated.

Instead Arafat has kept them fighting for his own personal gain.


Would have life under the Israelis been that bad?

To them? YES! that is why they are fighting

I dont know if arafat kept fighting for his own personal gain, but his followers certainly believe that he fought for independence

But just because you percieve something to be true, does not mean it is.
 

ManSnake

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
4,749
1
0
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Hey ManSnake, any chance of an explination/essay/list of reasons on why you think that manipulative piece of camel droppings was a great leader as opposed to one of the biggest disruptive influences of that region?
What's the point of providing 'explination/essay/list of reasons' as you put it, when I am not trying to convince you of anything?
Different people see things differently, right and wrong are not absolute.
The death of a great leader :(
Well, I hate to burst your enlightened "I can see all sides" bubble, but when someone sees the murder of innocent people shopping, kids on their way to school, a bride on the eve of her wedding etc. etc. etc. etc. as the RIGHT thing to do, that's when right and wrong ARE absolute. Whoever sees that as the RIGHT thing to do deserves the fate of their victims.

Still a matter of perspective. What you have stated is your view of the world, and it's just that, nothing more.

The death of a great leader :(
 

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: ThePresence

The US saved millions of lives by doing that. Not only American lives, but Japanese lives too.

so are you saying the ends justified the means?

if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good, I assume people will feel that his acts were ok? and he was a good leader??

"so are you saying the ends justified the means?"

the ends vs. the means debate in wartime is somewhat irrelevant. Any country, when engaged in war, will do whatever is within its power to ensure victory, thinking that that end would justify almost any means--otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting at all in the first place.


"if the end of arafat's acts lead to something good"
The problem is he was not.

but some people do think that arafat is a great leader, because if he didnt do what he had done, palestine will simply fall to the israelis. He believed in something, and some people also believe what he thought

so in a sense he DID something good, to his followers at least

I disagree. Would have life under the Israelis been that bad? Remember the Israeli population includes Arabs which makes up about 20 percent of the population and they are very well treated.

Instead Arafat has kept them fighting for his own personal gain.


Would have life under the Israelis been that bad?

To them? YES! that is why they are fighting

I dont know if arafat kept fighting for his own personal gain, but his followers certainly believe that he fought for independence
Untrue. The terrorists don't give a fvck about the plight of their people. If they did, they would stop fighting. They bring the Israeli tanks and helicopters into their towns. You think the Israelis would be fighting there if the terrorists weren't hiding among the civillian population? They fight for the destruction of Israel, they don't even deny this.

now that is untrue. Do you actually think they are blowing up people just for fun, without a cause? no. they are fighting for something. The israeli tanks and what not are a RESULT of their acts. Yes they are fighting for the destruction of Israel, because they believe its the only way to gain true palestine independence

again I am STRONGLY against terrorism. what I am arguing is that what is right and wrong is relative and depends on which side you are on. Since we are in the US, we strongly believe that terrorism is WRONG. but they feel that what they are doing is RIGHT.



 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
<-- Isn't a "very" political individual, but I am shocked at some of the responses in this thread :confused:

He stole a $billion from his own people's international aid relief and what he didn't keep for himself, spent on funding terrorism. You want I should feel bad for the guy?

sad but true. and yes, its billions he stole, not millions
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Originally posted by: z0mb13
now that is untrue. Do you actually think they are blowing up people just for fun, without a cause? no. they are fighting for something. The israeli tanks and what not are a RESULT of their acts. Yes they are fighting for the destruction of Israel, because they believe its the only way to gain true palestine independence

again I am STRONGLY against terrorism. what I am arguing is that what is right and wrong is relative and depends on which side you are on. Since we are in the US, we strongly believe that terrorism is WRONG. but they feel that what they are doing is RIGHT.
We are in the US presently, but I have lived there and I served in the Israeli military. What I know is from what I have seen, not from a soundbite on CNN. I have picked up an arm off the street in Ben Yehudah. I saw little kids shredded to pieces. I guarantee your prespective would change if you would be there and see it yourself. Yes, they are fighting for something, the destruction of Israel, nothing less. Israel can give them their own country with whatever demands they wanted, but it would not be enough for them until Israel is destroyed. It has NOTHING to do with Palestinian independence anymore, maybe it did at a time in the past, but today it is all about hatred. They send their young to blow themselves up, why? So that they can live free? BS! The kid is dead! It's about hatred, pure, blinding hatred. Yes, the tanks in their cities are a result of their act, that's precisely the point! If they cared so deeply about the plight of innocent Palestinians, they would not commit acts which cause tremendous difficulties to them as a result of their actions.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: z0mb13


now that is untrue. Do you actually think they are blowing up people just for fun, without a cause? no. they are fighting for something. The israeli tanks and what not are a RESULT of their acts. Yes they are fighting for the destruction of Israel, because they believe its the only way to gain true palestine independence

again I am STRONGLY against terrorism. what I am arguing is that what is right and wrong is relative and depends on which side you are on. Since we are in the US, we strongly believe that terrorism is WRONG. but they feel that what they are doing is RIGHT.

As ElFenix said:
here is a hint: there weren't any arabs there until the jews came, then the arabs came to sell them stuff.

another hint: palestinian is actually a roman vulgar slang term for jew.

And from 1948 to 1967 that land was in control of Jordan and Egypt. Why didn't they give the land to the Palestinians?

The other Arab nations are using the Palestinians to destroy Israel when they couldn't do it themselves. That is the real tragedy of this whole thing.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: z0mb13
now that is untrue. Do you actually think they are blowing up people just for fun, without a cause? no. they are fighting for something. The israeli tanks and what not are a RESULT of their acts. Yes they are fighting for the destruction of Israel, because they believe its the only way to gain true palestine independence

again I am STRONGLY against terrorism. what I am arguing is that what is right and wrong is relative and depends on which side you are on. Since we are in the US, we strongly believe that terrorism is WRONG. but they feel that what they are doing is RIGHT.
We are in the US presently, but I have lived there and I served in the Israeli military. What I know is from what I have seen, not from a soundbite on CNN. Yes, they are fighting for something, the destruction of Israel, nothing less. Israel can give them their own country with whatever demands they wanted, but it would not be enough for them until Israel is destroyed. It has NOTHING to do with Palestinian independence anymore, maybe it did at a time in the past, but today it is all about hatred. They send their young to blow themselves up, why? So that they can live free? BS! The kid is dead! It's about hatred, pure, blinding hatred. Yes, the tanks in their cities are a result of their act, that's precisely the point! If they cared so deeply about the plight of innocent Palestinians, they would not commit acts which cause tremendous difficulties to them as a result of their actions.

Right. The Palestinians have been offered their own country but keep rejecting the offer. Co-existence with Israel is not an option with them.
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: z0mb13
now that is untrue. Do you actually think they are blowing up people just for fun, without a cause? no. they are fighting for something. The israeli tanks and what not are a RESULT of their acts. Yes they are fighting for the destruction of Israel, because they believe its the only way to gain true palestine independence

again I am STRONGLY against terrorism. what I am arguing is that what is right and wrong is relative and depends on which side you are on. Since we are in the US, we strongly believe that terrorism is WRONG. but they feel that what they are doing is RIGHT.
We are in the US presently, but I have lived there and I served in the Israeli military. What I know is from what I have seen, not from a soundbite on CNN. Yes, they are fighting for something, the destruction of Israel, nothing less. Israel can give them their own country with whatever demands they wanted, but it would not be enough for them until Israel is destroyed. It has NOTHING to do with Palestinian independence anymore, maybe it did at a time in the past, but today it is all about hatred. They send their young to blow themselves up, why? So that they can live free? BS! The kid is dead! It's about hatred, pure, blinding hatred. Yes, the tanks in their cities are a result of their act, that's precisely the point! If they cared so deeply about the plight of innocent Palestinians, they would not commit acts which cause tremendous difficulties to them as a result of their actions.

Right. The Palestinians have been offered their own country but keep rejecting the offer. Co-existence with Israel is not an option with them.
I don't bunch all Palestinians together with the terrorist organizations. There are innocent Palestinians who suffer as a result of what the terrorists do.
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Hey ManSnake, any chance of an explination/essay/list of reasons on why you think that manipulative piece of camel droppings was a great leader as opposed to one of the biggest disruptive influences of that region?
What's the point of providing 'explination/essay/list of reasons' as you put it, when I am not trying to convince you of anything?
Different people see things differently, right and wrong are not absolute.
The death of a great leader :(
Well, I hate to burst your enlightened "I can see all sides" bubble, but when someone sees the murder of innocent people shopping, kids on their way to school, a bride on the eve of her wedding etc. etc. etc. etc. as the RIGHT thing to do, that's when right and wrong ARE absolute. Whoever sees that as the RIGHT thing to do deserves the fate of their victims.
Still a matter of perspective. What you have stated is your view of the world, and it's just that, nothing more.
The death of a great leader :(
You know what's ironic? You sit here and lecture about different views and perspectives depending on someone's outlook, yet you call him a great leader. Makes me wonder. Shouldn't you be saying that to some, he was a great leader and to others he was a terrorist bastard?
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: z0mb13
now that is untrue. Do you actually think they are blowing up people just for fun, without a cause? no. they are fighting for something. The israeli tanks and what not are a RESULT of their acts. Yes they are fighting for the destruction of Israel, because they believe its the only way to gain true palestine independence

again I am STRONGLY against terrorism. what I am arguing is that what is right and wrong is relative and depends on which side you are on. Since we are in the US, we strongly believe that terrorism is WRONG. but they feel that what they are doing is RIGHT.
We are in the US presently, but I have lived there and I served in the Israeli military. What I know is from what I have seen, not from a soundbite on CNN. Yes, they are fighting for something, the destruction of Israel, nothing less. Israel can give them their own country with whatever demands they wanted, but it would not be enough for them until Israel is destroyed. It has NOTHING to do with Palestinian independence anymore, maybe it did at a time in the past, but today it is all about hatred. They send their young to blow themselves up, why? So that they can live free? BS! The kid is dead! It's about hatred, pure, blinding hatred. Yes, the tanks in their cities are a result of their act, that's precisely the point! If they cared so deeply about the plight of innocent Palestinians, they would not commit acts which cause tremendous difficulties to them as a result of their actions.

Right. The Palestinians have been offered their own country but keep rejecting the offer. Co-existence with Israel is not an option with them.
I don't bunch all Palestinians together with the terrorist organizations. There are innocent Palestinians who suffer as a result of what the terrorists do.

I agree with that too. I didn't mean to lump them all in one group. A majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel, but Arafat and other leaders don't. Hopefully Arafat's death will bring a moderate into power.
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Great article in The Boston Globe
Arafat the monster
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | November 11, 2004

YASSER ARAFAT is dying at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He will leave this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

Arafat has always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and the past two weeks have been no exception.

Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.

Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:

"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why are they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch? How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead childrenof Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousahds of who died at Arafat's command.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
I'm not terribly thrilled to see that Israel denied his request to be buried in Jerusalem. It does sound kind of absurd, but to do so would certainly ease some tensions - now we're going to see a long, drawn out fight towards getting him in Jerusalem.