Well, only in the sense that you don’t call Michael Jordan a mere basketball player.
Yassir Arafat founded al-Fatah. According to the 1995 Patterns of Global Terrorism (United States Department of State Publication 10321):
In fact, this site awards Yassir Arafat’s Fatah with the distinction of having killed more people than any other terrorist organization. Anywhere. I don’t know if bin Laden’s group has managed to surpass al-Fatah with their day in the sun.
Back in the day, al-Fatah was right up there performing acts of international terrorism alongside Black September and other Palestinian terrorist groups. But it is true that Fatah has since spun off its terrorists like the Tanzim Militia and Abu Nidal’s confusingly named al-Fatah Revolutionary Council. So I guess you could say that Arafat is sort of in retirement, just like Michael Jordan is.
I think it would be wrong to call him anything else.
Please explain your assertion that he is not a terrorist (I see that Sofa King has already showed some evidence that he is). The way he got the World’s attention was through acts of violence. He may still be supporting such acts, according to Israeli and U.S. experts.
The low point in all this was when Barak was in power, he presented Arafat with an very generous offer, and Arafat refused. Violence took a tunr for the worse. This looks quite bad for Arafat.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the Israeli attack on Arafat’s headquarters was some sort of message like;
“If you were home here, you’d be dead by now.”
I have never been able to perceive Arafat as anything but a terrorist. However risky his foray into negotiations with Israel may have been, and however inflammatory Israel’s own policies are as well, I have never gotten the sense that Arafat was able to or even really wanted to make peace a reality in the Middle East. I do not think that I will ever be able to view him as anything other than a complete scumbag. How is it that he can suddenly be absolved of facilitating so many murders just because he has decided to further aggrandize himself in his role as a so-called statesman defies belief.
If he so desperately wants peace, let him make good on his word. Hasn’t happened yet and I don’t see it happening in his (increasingly shortened) lifetime. Saddest of all, I do not see any other candidate who has the remotest chance of championing peace in the region either. I have to wonder if either side even wants peace, despite claims to the contrary.
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; "
It also happens to say the following:
“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
Aha, so what Israel must do is abandon any situation in which it could viably defend itself from the Arab states which openly state that they intend to destroy it (including many folks in the PA), while the Arab groups can simply ignore their part of 242.
Brilliant!
Oh, and you forgot that there was clarification aplenty available
Because the terrorists would be so totally right all along, and the US and Israel would be totally wrong. And in the public relations war, it would be most disatrous.
Yes, Arafat is a terrorist all right. He’s a bloody-handed murderer. Everyone in the Palestinian leadership is a terrorist, even if they didn’t pull the trigger themselves. They supported it and the profited by it.
Yes, Menachem Begin was a terrorist all right. He was a bloody-handed murderer. Everyone who participated in the creation of Israel was a terrorist, even if they didn’t pull the trigger themselves. They supported it and the profited by it.
Oh yes, there’s plenty of blood to go around. But if everyone’s to blame, no one’s to blame. Or more to the point, “blame” is meaningless. It doesn’t matter who started it, only who’s willing to finish it. It’s just as true in the middle east as it is in Bosnia and Kosovo. To twist a phrase, **“Those who cannot forget the past are doomed to repeat it.” **
Arafat’s past is completely irrelevant. The only question is what he holds for the future. I have a certain amount of sympathy for Arafat because it’s clear that he has lost a good deal of control over events and that he risks complete collapse of the PNA if he tries to vigorously crack down on extremists. He risks the same thing if he doesn’t. Having said that, if he can no longer deliver the Palestinian support necessary for a deal, I don’t care if he’s Mother Teresa in a kaffiyeh. He’s got to go.
I just wish Rabin was still at the helm. It was the only period in which I kinda wished I was an Israeli.
Ehud Barak lacked the, um, “politianhood”, but damn, he made some brave overtures. My respect for Arafat (which was actually decently high, in a provisional wait-n-see sense, at that time) plummeted when he didn’t take up Barak’s offers and run with them. I wanted to hit him upside the head: “You idiot, you think these offers were easy to make, politically speaking? You can’t manage to close a deal? Hey now, that’s politically astute! You want, maybe, oh I dunno, ::thinking hard to come up with Arafat’s worst nightmare:: hey, how about Israeli PM Ariel Sharon?”
I really hope you folks out yonder in the mideast work this shit out. C’mon, war sucks.
A “politianhood” is a garment worn on alternate Fridays if it ain’t raining and Mercury is not in ascension, and which has textured exterior lining to facilitate the climbing of random kitty cats.
Fine word that it is, it isn’t the word I intended to put in the above post. Kindly replace “politianhood” with “politicianhood”, a word equally recognized by your dictionary, I’m sure.