I realize we recently hosted an anti-Annan thread, but this latest outrage is just too much.
I understand fully the need to be diplomatic in his particular job. But diplomacy shouldn’t mean completely papering over the violence and bloodshed caused by a terrorist.
There are reports out of New York that the UN flag is at half-staff.
Forgive me, but some acknowlegement of his actions in the past seems to be warranted here. Arafat killed thousands of people directly, inspired, through his methods, other terrorist groups that killed many more, and destabilized Arab governments that would have been sympathetic to his cause. Then too, he can’t be seen as an effective leader for his people after he was “elected” to lead the Palestinian Authority.
It’s crap like this that lead so many people to fundamentally distrust the UN.
Now, this too doesn’t explicitly mention terrorism. But it makes clear that Arafat wasn’t one of our favorite people, in the tortured language of diplomacy.
Bill Clinton expressly stated that the Palestinians don’t have a state today because of Arafat’s actions. This is entirely correct, and needs saying. Too bad Jimmy Carter can’t bring himself to say it.
::shrug:: I’m, uh, no fan of Annan or of the UN[sup]1[/sup], but I can’t get upset about this. Arafat was the leader of a member non-state of the organization, and he’s dead. There are and will be plenty of opportunities to remember him as the brutal terrorist thug he really was, but it’s not Annan’s job to note it in his remarks immediately following the death.
Look. Arafat’s death is the best thing to happen to the Palestinian people since Israel’s creation and allows for the real hope for peace and a country of Palestine. It just doesn’t make any sense to jeopardize that by bad-mouthing a dead guy simply because the Palesinians see him differently. Mr. Annan did exactly the right thing here.
[sup]1[/sup]: All you other guys can stop trying to win the Understatement of the Month award – I’ve got it all wrapped up.
And this sort of crap is what makes the world fundamentally distrust the U.S. Since Arafat was elected and since Israel is an aparteid (sp?), why shouldn’t Annan mourn the passing of the only democratically-elected leader in the Middle East? The world looks a lot differenc when you drop the racism and start to think.
Really? When were the most recent Palestinian elections, and did the people know they ‘voted’ Arafat leader for life? And you do know that Israel has regular elections, don’t you?
Sorry about the hijack, but this bit of baloney seems to come up in every thread that even mentions Israel. :mad:
Israel is not guilty of apartheid, OK? Yes, non-Jewish citizens tend to get the short end of the stick in many cases, but this is like Blacks, Mexicans, Native Americans… in the present day US - not like historic South Africa, or even the Jim Crow days of US past.
The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are not Israeli citizens, and therefore do not have citizens’ rights… they are under occupation. Like millions of people in Iraq. There have been all kinds of attempts to figure out what to do about this occupation. Ultimately, there probably will be a Palestinian State where they can (hopefully) live their lives freely… but they are not second-class citizens because they are not citizens of Israel at all!!!
There is no such thing as second-class citizen status under Israeli law. NO SUCH THING. Non-Jewish citizens of Israel are full citizens with full rights (even if they tend to suffer from popular discrimination - which is a problem but is not apartheid). O.T. Palestinians are not citizens. It’s that simple.
Diplomacy by its nature is the art of courteous deception. If you like frank, open discussions and candid statements, stay away from diplomats. The cool, neutral tone of the statement from the Bush administration struck exactly the right note - civil without gushing all over Arafat.
In any case, here are some pertinent opinions on Mr. Arafat:
I like what Bush said. He paid the amount of homage necessary to be diplomatic, and yet was able to avoid saying something overly nice about a man whose life was devoted to the terror bombing of children’s school busses (among other things). He was polite but noncommittal. Carter’s speech sucked. I would rewrite it to say:
“He was the father of the modern terror movement and its methods. A powerful human symbol of what can be accomplished by murdering noncombatants and forceful advocate of wanton destruction, Palestinians united behind him in their pursuit of annihilation.”
You guys watch Nixon’s funeral. I think your heads might have exploded. Conspicuous omissions of peoples past wrongdoings on the day of their death is the order of the day in politics, as it should be.
And for the record, I don’t think I disagree with anything Annan or Carter said (that you quoted). Certainly some glaring omissions, but then I’m not sure I want an honest accounting of my faults in my eulogy either.
And as we all know, a complete lack of citizenship is, of course, a far superior condition to second-class citizenship.
For my stance on Arafat, see Mtgman’s post re: Reagan. When a bad leader dies, he (or she) gets honored. That’s just the way it is. There will be ample time for smack-talking and even celebration in thirty-nine days.
Deliberately represent what other people have said much? :rolleyes:
I noted very specifically that having a large number of people under military occupation is a problem that needs resolving. Most likely by (ultimately) giving them their own state. But that is not a case of racial/ethnic segregation - You may have two brothers, one who stayed in Israel in 1948 and one who didn’t - one of which will be a full-fledged citizen, the other not a citizen at all. The one who is a citizen is equal to me before the law. Which part of my post did you misunderstand? Either that, or you have no idea what “apartheid” really means.