I think what the politician meant after the siege of his HQ, Yasser Arafat is enjoying a very high level of support amongst the palestinians.
Home | I think what the politician meant after the siege of his HQ, Yasser Arafat is enjoying a very high level of support amongst the palestinians.
Originally posted by takeo
the struggle isn't a rightous struggle, it is the struggle of the democratically elected and all over the world recognised PA against terrorism (and against zionist expansionism). A reasonable Israeli would choose the side of its natural allies, as the left-wing does. The PA is recognised by the whole world AND still by the silent majority of Palestinians, as opinion polls suggest.
That's why Sharon is so desperate to destroy it, it remains the biggest challenge for his "greater Israel" plans.
Nobody will step up against Arafat, who will almost certainly win the upcoming elections.
Oh puleeeze turn down the volumn knob on the 'Internationale'. There is no more anti terrorist sentiment among the PA than there was in Che.
First time he's been among his own people without being killed since the end of Jenin. Face it Arafat is the Pals Karzai - he is the mayor of Ramallah and can't travel around his own country w/o being assassinated.Originally posted by jcsd
I think what the politician meant after the siege of his HQ, Yasser Arafat is enjoying a very high level of support amongst the palestinians.
I'm not denying that, he is corrupt.
Your standards are so low you could get behind any tinpot dictator. And that's the best they've got to offer and their hope and salvation.Originally posted by jcsd
I'm not denying that, he is corrupt.
I'm not a supporter of Yasser Arafat.
Whatever Arafat is or was, he IS the leader of the Palestinian people, as karzai is the leader of afghanistan, and will use his legitimate power to reestablish his autority in the whole country, once the israeli occupation ends.
There is a difference between terrorism and liberation struggle. I think Che was not a terrorist, as George Washington wasn't a terrorist either. Sometimes armed struggle is the only way to achieve change (didn't the US support the kla?), it can only be conducted however against an occupying power or against a dictatorship. Terrorists use civilians as target, and generally do not have a good reason to kill and destroy certain targets, who are choosen at random.
in this case the difference is easy, the PA and al-fatah and arafat struggle to end israeli occupation, a goal which is endorsed by the whole world, and they use occupying forces as target. hamas, al-quaida, jihad, and to a lesser extend also PFLP and al-aqsa use terrorist methods. Sometimes the difference is not so clear, because some people are member of both groups, but in general it is clear.
according to the uN-charter struggle against the occupying force is NOT perceived as terrorism. The Palestinians have as much the right to kill Israeli soldiers as the Soviets had the right to kill german soldiers during WWII.
I don't really object to hisstyle of leadership, my main objection to him is misappropiation of aid.
takeo
how quaint, let's only talk about the good killers and ignore the not so good killers. you sir are sounding increasingly hollow.
"Arafat is the elected such and such" that's your savior? Man can't run a newspaper stand w/o shooting someone let alone a country. You too have boxed yourself into supporting someone so low as to be interchangable with virtually any cheap despot long since disgraced, shot or eaten.
Bully for you.
His style of leadership rips a page from John Gotti.Originally posted by jcsd
I don't really object to hisstyle of leadership, my main objection to him is misappropiation of aid.
Misappropriation of aid is possible, but it is not the main issue here, what we were discussing is the legitimacy of Arafat to be the leader of palestina and have the legal monopoly on the use of force, as (the army of) the leader or government of a state always should have.
"how quaint, let's only talk about the good killers and ignore the not so good killers. you sir are sounding increasingly hollow. "
according to me your honorable president belongs to the not so good killers... sometimes killing can be legitimate, as in the case of a country resisting occupation or a mass-murderer on the electric chair... unless you're a pacifist, which i'm not, neither are you, so you believe as well in "good killers and not so good killers".
Arafat has only shot people who collaborated with the occupying ennemy, such people got shot in WWII as well! And i'm sure israeli collaborating with hamas or al-aqsa will not receive lobster with frensh fries either in prison...
He is no despot, as there are upcoming elections, and political opponents have the possibility to join and openly criticize arafat. I'm not saying that i'm particularly fond of the man, nor that he is above corruption and the greatest leader ever, but he is not a tirant, nor is he a terrorist, he is the president of Palestina, if you like him or not, will have to live with him, the Palestinians choose their own leaders, not Israel.
Snip:
Oct. 10, 2002
20,000 march in slain Palestinian police officer's funeral in show of force
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - In the biggest display of Palestinian firepower in years, 20,000 police officers and militiamen marched Thursday in the funeral procession of a police colonel - a clear warning to his Hamas killers that they must end their challenge to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's government.
The funeral was a show of force by Arafat's police and security after a flare-up of violence that started when members of a Hamas militia kidnapped and killed a senior Palestinian police officer on Monday.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1034014736349
Originally posted by takeo
He is no despot, as there are upcoming elections, and political opponents have the possibility to join and openly criticize arafat. I'm not saying that i'm particularly fond of the man, nor that he is above corruption and the greatest leader ever, but he is not a tirant, nor is he a terrorist, he is the president of Palestina, if you like him or not, will have to live with him, the Palestinians choose their own leaders, not Israel.
*LOL*
Minus, I could not have said it better myself!!Originally posted by minusthejihad
I vote and push for civil war. Those innocent that seek asylum and who want to escape the violence should be settled in France, they love their downtrodden there. When they are gone, I wish that the PA and the Hamas and all the fringe groups have an all out bloody battle until the last man falls.
Man, I loved the Iran-Iraq war. More of these should be encouraged and financed by the same outside entities.
You read my mind!!
France is my first choice for an exile location for them aswell!
Yes, they just love Arabs in France. Rifaat Al Assad, brother of Syrian Tyrant Hafez, enjoyed an excellent and luxurious exile in the south of France. Why not allow the Palestinians the same?
France is a fine choice!! Let the punishment fit the crime. France, afterall, has the biggest mouth of all European countries, and is the first to criticise Israel. They are even a sorry excuse for a Nato ally. So, they love the Palestinians, let them have the Palestinians.
As for the Iran-Iraq war, I say "LIGHT IT UP".
The days when Iran and Iraq went at it, we did not hear about a threat from either country. Since there is much lingering indemnity between them, why not return to a second Iran-Iraq war? Only, this one should last 100 years.
It's great when APES BLEED EACH OTHER DRY.
Last edited by IsraelAdvocate; 10-11-2002 at 08:17 PM.
Ofcourse. It is natural for Monkeys to need a Zookeeper.Originally posted by jcsd
I think what the politician meant after the siege of his HQ, Yasser Arafat is enjoying a very high level of support amongst the palestinians.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks