ARAFAT - TERRORIST OR HERO?

[Chicago Democrat]

[Selwynn]

1. Neither.

[fshrink]

2. Fuck heroes OK!?

The real ones don't want to hear about it.

[baldguy]

3. Both

[Chicago Democrat]

5. I added that one for yu...Please explain how a person can be both

a Hero and a Terrorist. I assume you are saying that sometimes he was a Hero and then sometimes he was Terrorist. Or could you be a Hero and a Terrorist at the same time?

[baldguy]

9. What Uncle_Ho_Ho said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2671205#2671355

Let me add that the Palestinian people aren't a nation of fools (unlike some others we know). They are perfectly capable of selecting their heroes. And they have a right to mourn them.

At the same time he's done nothing to curtail the suicide directed at Israelis, and while I don't believe he actually ordered the attacks and didn't have control over those who did - he never took a stand against them. Israel has the right to celebrate today.

There are no absolutes and nobody’s' point of view is more valid than another'. INSISTING THAT IT IS HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM. Arafat clung to power like a pit-bull. And Sharon used his as a club to beat any hopes of peace out of the Israeli electorate. Hopefully, Palestine will ELECT a new leader who goes forward with a NEW Israeli leader and find peace in the future.

If we had a real US President, it would be a lot easier.

edit: (ugh) spelling

[Chicago Democrat]

14. Thanks

[Caution]

4. D.) No better than Ariel Sharon. Both are flat out evil men.

Gettign really sick of the term terrorist being thrown around. A terrorist is someone who attacks civilian populations in an attempt to affect policy. By that definition both Sharon and Arafat are terrorists.

[Nicholas_J]

6. Definitely hero

Arafat had to try to knit together his own people who comsisted of any number of people with widely differnt positions, differnt religions, and attempted to forge a single national entity out of the. Virtually alone. He had no impartial partner in the peace process, as the U.S. leaned and leans much more heavily on the side of Israel than it does in acting as an impartial party devoted to finding an equitable solution. Even under the best of circumstances the U.S. provides Israel with a military force capable of putting down every other state in the region and essentially expects a peace process in which the Israeli's list their demands and the Palestinians are expected to acceed to them. Any Palestinian who will not agree with allowing Israel sticl it to them is deemed as a partner that the UI.S. cannot work with.

Arafat had his work cut out for him. Alone, he had to keep his people from armend revolt, and had to fight the U.S. and Israel to keep his people from being slaugtered or consigned to South Africa like homelands by the U.S. and Israel. A far better leader of his people than the one we are supposed to have. He was truly able to unite the vast majority of his people.

[sui generis]

7. Both Sharon and Arafat are products of their respective cultures

and I mean local cultures, not religious.

It's really unwise to hold them up to our squeaky clean ideas of what good guys and bad guys are, because you're talking apples and oranges.

Personally, I despise the public policies of Israel and of any group of people who seize property based on "divine right" as "the chosen people". By that logic all of us pasty white folks should be living on reservations and in "refugee camps".

And while I dislike the idea that Arafat came to prominence through violence, it is also important to understand that Arafat took the the correct "first steps" in renouncing violence.

He should have followed that with the establishment of a process for a regular hand-off of power, and then handed it off, because regardless of how his ideology might have changed he lacked the credibility and the political chops to confront the worst aspects of the Israeli state in a productive way.

[ShaneGR]

8. I'll go with dumbass....

Clinton had a deal with Israel for a Palestinian state and the moron took a pass.

[seraph]

10. Arafat walked away from peace twice.

But I find it hard to judge to his actions.

[aprillcm]

11. Rabin&Arafat

I believe had Rabin(sp) lived there would be peace in Israel already, people need to remember it wasn't some outraged crazy Palestinians that assassinated Rabin but some outraged crazy Israelis.

I say this because Arafat had respect for Rabin and they both wanted to make the situation better for their people.

Arafat was neither all good or all bad, he had fought his battle long and hard and he deserves some respect. Regardless of how you feel about the way he battled.

I asked someone who called him a terrorist once what would they do if they felt their people were suffering at the hands of brutal oppressors?? would they lay down or would they themselves become terrorists. Very little in this world is as black and white as some would have it be. The reason there has not been peace already is because both sides have legitimate reason for their feelings and anger. The difference is the Israelis have a huge military at their disposal to push down the Palestinian People, and alls the Pals have is themselves. I weep for the people over there. There has been so much blood shed.

If Bush is under the impression that this simplifies the peace process he has no understanding at all of the region, or the people. There were and are more radical fractions there and they will not give up their battle easily and now any control Arafat had over them has been removed. Arafat cried when Rabin Died who will cry now that Arafat is dead? I can give you the answer not to long in the Future the world will weep.

And no I am not a professor of the middle east nor have I ever been there but I am human and while I do not agree with the methods used on either side I have paid attention because what happens there ultimately affects the world.

[sir_captain]

17. Please

Ehud Barak was Rabin's protege and just as willing a partner in peace, and Arafat spit in his face.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Agreed.

Best thing I could say about Arafat is that he came close to being remembered as a man of peace. He could have been, but he chose instead to be remembered as a man of war. Piss-poor way to leave this world, if you ask me.

[MattWinMO]

12. I'd say a little of both...

Before Arafat the Palestinian cause wasn't even a blip on the radar screen. However, once he got the Palestinians some recognition his time was up. He hasn't brought his people much progress since then.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. The Minutemen - Terrorists or Heroes?

In response to the British attempt to capture the arms in Concord, the Minutemen fought the British troops by using guerilla tactics seen as unfair and unmanly by the Brits.

Also, the "Sons of Liberty" employed "terror" against loyalists by burning down their house and torture.

What's that saying about casting the first stone?

[getoffmytrain]

20. What do you make

of the fact that Arafat virtually commanded the Al-Aqsa Matrys Brigade, responsible for dozens and dozens of attacks that intentionally targeted civilians...

Arafat was a terrorist... perhaps the most famous of them all.

[Sympleesmshn]

15. well...

sorta both but more like a "freedom fighter".....
It all depends on which side of the issue you fall on.

[sir_captain]

16. Sure, Sharon isn't much better, if at all

but Arafat has been in "power" a hell of a lot longer than Sharon. He was there doing his same shit under Rabin, Barak and Peres, when he *did* have a willing partner in peace. So, in short, fuck him.

[MattWinMO]

21. Sharon was also...

Democratically elected to office.

[sir_captain]

24. Also a fine point... n/t

[RichardRay]

18. What creates terrorists?

Why do people choose terrorism as a tactic?

Is it similar to the choice a wealthy white male makes when he decides to become a murderer?

Or is it similar to the choice a drowning man makes when he climbs up the body of another swimmer to get to the air, thereby drowning the other person?

Maybe it's something else entirely? If so, what?

And, can ther person who becomes a terrorist be a hero? At the same time? At some other time? In spite of utilizing terrorism to pursue and end? As a result of using it?

And where, into all of that, does Arafat fit?

I don't have an easy answer, and I don't think there is one. I voted for 'both'.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[MattWinMO]

19. The PLO used terrorism because...

It got them the attention they wanted. The world paid attention when PLO affiliated groups attacked people.

[itsrainingkarma]

22. terrorisms

is the tool of the weak and oppressed.... if they could field an army and simply beat us they would... look at the tactics our founding fathers used against the British they could be considered terrorist tactics... they hit and ran... they fired from cover... the british were used to standing on a field and firing at your opponent from a certain distance... the same thing happaned in vietnam... terrorism and guerilla warfare are pretty much the same thing... i think the only diffirence is that terrorist don't distinguish soldier from civilian... as far as they're concerned your all equally liable...

[RichardRay]

25. Bingo - Powerlessness creates terrorism

Thank you Mr. Karma.

For those who want a more explicit presentation I refer you to Franz Fanon and a book entitled _The Wretched of the Earth_.

Short of genocide it is probably impossible to defeat a committed terrorist organization through force alone. It requires the apparently bassackwards act of giving the people from whom the terrorists recruit and draw their support more power and the hope for change.

Arafat understood terrorism. I don't know that he was willing to accept a transmission of power to the Palestinians if it reduced his control. He was sort of like a cat that never learned to kill a mouse - he was great at stalking and pouncing, but he short cicuited before he could complete the behavior.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[FatSlob]

23. I vote for "piece of shit"

[chefgirl]

27. Human

Just that - Human.

I do believe he always did what he thought his people wanted of him, for good or bad.

-chef-

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

28. Basically a terrorist. No hero.,

Although he did a lot for his people, his inability to put aside his anti-Semitism, and his inability to stand up against terror, ultimately ruined his legacy. Ultimately the good he did was tarnished by his many flaws. Hopefully his replacement can truly finish the work.

Keeping in mind, that Sharon's made mistakes as well. Big ones. God I've stepped in it now, haven't I?

On edit, I picked the third option, because it seemed the closest to what I was thinking.