Would someone please explain to me the differences between Mulah Omar and Y. Arafat? Is Arafat not at least as responsible for the suicide bombers in Israel as Omar was for the 9/11 attacks on NY and Washinton D.C.? Is it not a double standard for the US to call for Israel to pull out of the PA while at the same time continuing to occupy Afghanistan? This isn’t meant to be a GD, I am really puzzled and feel I must be missing something.
You may not mean it as a Great Debate, but that’s what it is. GQ is for questions with factual answers. I doubt very much you will be able to get a single “right” answer to this question, so I’ll move this thread to GD.
Mullah Omar - Afghan Pashtun. Religious and political head of an ultr-orthodox religioys militia, the Taliban, that until recently ruled much of Afghanistan. To the best of my knowledge, not directly implicated in any terror activities, other than assassinations of Afghan rivals. Close ideological and political ally of Osama bin Laden, who his organization sheltered in Afghanistan.
Yasser Arafat - Palestinian Arab. Not particularly religious, to the best of my knowledge, though he is technically a Muslim ( but with a Christian wife ) and has ( I believe ) made use of Islamist rhetoric from time to time when it suited him. Leader what was traditionally the largest armed faction of Palestinian guerillas, al-Fatah. Definitely implicated in numerous past incidences of terrorism and possibly implicated in some of the current terrorist actions, though he has mainstreamed quite a bit and most terrorist violence these days seems to emanate from Palestinian groups hostile to his own.
In the sense that both have harbored and sheltered terrorists? Partly, yes, I think you can draw parallels. But the difference is that Arafat’s power is much more limited. He no longer has the commanding political dominance he want has and control over the more militant elements of Palestinian society ( and Arafat has never been the most extreme of them anyway, there were numerous splinter fractions even in the early days of Palestinian militancy ), has increasingly passed to organizations like Hamas ( most prominently ) and Islamic Jihad. These are groups that are a direct threat to him and he would likely cheerfully liquidate if he had the ability to do so. So Arafat’s ability to intervene, both actually and politically, are far more circumscribed.
In contrast, Mullah Omar was closer to a virtual absolute monarch in some respects. Though in practice he tended to rule by committee.
I’m sure some see it that way and you could make an argument of it. But it is a bit of a different situation, in the sense that Omar had plenty of quiescent opposition that was willing to ally with the U.S. . The major opposition Arafat has is mostly much worse than he is. Though Arafat is increasingly becoming an irrelevance, there is still a real fear that finally undermining him fatally might worsen the situation even more.
Also there’s still hope that a negotiated settlement can be reached. Remember that many Palestinians have “western” educations and can at least negotiate from a similar cultural background as their opponents and mediators. Whereas the Taliban was far more insular, backward, ragingly xenophobic, and radically fundamentalist.
It’s a debatable point and I’m unsure myself where the answer lies.
- Tamerlane
[Fixed quoting. – MEB]
You may not intend your question to be a Great Debate, but that’s what it is. GQ isn’t the right forum for this.
FWIW, however, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is far, FAR more complex than the US/Afghanistan one. Basically, the Palistinians are pissed off because the Israelis came in and stole half of their land and reduced them to second-class citizens. The Palestinians would like to get their land back.
Wow, I sure made a mess of that one.
- Tamerlane
Jesus, the coding and extra letters are bad enough, but who substitutes “want” for “once” :rolleyes: ? I obviously need a drink 
.
- Tamerlane
Nothing I can do about that drink, Tamerlane, but I did unscramble who said what.
Thanks man . I’ve got the drink situation covered.
By the way, I’m not always a big fan of “Table Wines”, but I do recommend Peju’s Provence. Very light, fruity, but not overly sweet wine. Reminds me a bit of a beaujolais. It was either that or Guinness - I decided to go light 
.
Errmm…Okay, back to Arafat and Omar.
- Tamerlane
Ah, right then, well it seems I made a bit of a mess there with the original post. Thought I was right to go with GQ, apologies all around for the inconvenience. That’s what you get when you type before you think I suppose. What I really wanted to say was that I am curious about the differences between *** US *** policy towards Arafat and Omar. Many thanks to Tamerlane for the nice summary. I think if I look at the situation from that perspective I am better able to understand what the US is doing. Thanks again.
Tamerlane Quote:
though he has mainstreamed quite a bit and most terrorist violence these days seems to emanate from Palestinian groups hostile to his own.
I personally think that this statement could be Tamerlane’s subjective opinion. Just because Arafat has been given some status of legitimacy from the international community does not necessarily mean he himself has mainstreamed. We could also debate the definition of MOST. I will concede that the SLIGHT majority of the terrorist activity that has been covered by the western media since 9-11 has been commited by Jihad or Hamas I think the action for action count since the intifida began would find that Arafat’s own groups have commited as many or more terrorist operations than the two previously mentioned groups.
Tamerlane Quote:
there were numerous splinter fractions even in the early days of Palestinian militancy ), has increasingly passed to organizations like Hamas ( most prominently ) and Islamic Jihad. These are groups that are a direct threat to him and he would likely cheerfully liquidate if he had the ability to do so.
That last statement just seems to be WRONG. There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that Arafat would cheerfully liquidate the threat to his power that Jihad and Hamas or PLFP for that matter pose to him. He had 8 years to consolidate his power. I am not aware of ANY attempts by him to do such.
The rest of your post seems to be pretty well balanced so I am done with the nitpicking for now.