Kind of puts that Nobel Peace Prize in perspective.
Number of people in the Western nations concerned with the future of the Palestinian people before Yassir Arafat shoved it down people’s throats: 5? Maybe 6?
Not to be branded an OMGTERRORISTLOVER or anything, but billions and lacking ability to move the process past a certain point or no, what he accomplished for the Palestinian people is quite a-ways above what most leaders do.
He was good at getting attention, not so good at doing anything useful with it.
He didn’t deserve the peace prize, though.
Well, if the peace process had worked out, he would have. Didn’t happen, unfortunately; not sure who’s to blame for that.
So for 20 years, he stole 5% of all palestinian income? I guess it’s possible, but even Suharto wasn’t that big of a thief.[/quote]
Another story about Yasser Arafat and the Case of the Missing Billions, from today’s NY Times:
Hoarding Billions, blowing things up to stay in the headlines…
He didn’t want peace. He wanted power, fame, and fortune.
Well, Arafat did turn down a 99%-of-demands deal. What was it, the entire Gaza Strip, and then 98% of the West Bank? I don’t seem to remember there being any poison pills in that one, either, except that the Israelis have this stubborn desire not to absorb double their population in Palestinian refugees. It would have worked out well, too - before the intifada, Palestinians regularly commuted across the border to jobs in Israel.
I heard that too, but they were being creative with their 98% definition. I can’t remember where I saw the proposed map - google isn’t producing it - but it was absurdly honeycombed with Isreali territory. They’d be about as soveriegn as Tibet.
More details on the “Arafat turned it all down” thing:
It would have turned the West Bank and Gaza into swiss cheese, with the the Palastinians separated into little pockets surrounded by Israeli roadblocks, checkpoints, and other security. If he’d have signed that treaty he would have been signing his death warrant, because no Palastinian (nor anyone in the right mind) could have supported it.
Similarly Arafat’s role in terrorism is always overplayed. He was not involved with Hamas and their suicide bombing campaign, so comments about blowing himself up to go to heaven with virgins (another stupid myth about Islam) are misplaced. He was traditionally a guerilla fighter, most famous (in Palastinian eyes) for courageous defences of Palastinian towns against Israeli attacks. While Israel has always maintained his involvment in terrorist acts, like the killing of Israeli athletes in Munich, he has always denied it. He has no doubt killed civilians, especially in the attacks he organised from Egypt in the Lebanon against Israeli border towns, but as far as I am aware he has never accepted his involvement in direct attacks against civilians, and in recent years has consistently condemned them.
This isn’t to say he was an angel: far from it. He had a huge ego, and it was this as much as his image of evil he had with Israelis that got in the way of negotiations for peace. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find he was corrupt, although I’ve not read up enough on the subject to be sure. He did, however, as Anders said, raise the profile of the Palestinian cause like few others could. Many groups of people in the world suffer similar plights to the Palestinians, but he succeeded in making sure their cause was highlighted, and that is an achievement in itself. He also deserved the Nobel Peace Prize as much as Begin who, although it is rarely mentioned, was also a terrorist/guerilla in his past. Begin was responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1947 which killed over a hundred people.
The prize is often awarded to people who attempt to make peace in long-running conflicts, not to very moral people. I wouldn’t say Arafat was less deserving than Kissinger, for example; another very controversial award. At the time the prize was awarded, the whole climate around the peace process was very different, and the atmosphere was one of hope. The prize is awarded for efforts towards making peace, and it would be wrong to say Arafat did not make an effort towards peace.
I don’t think there are any definite maps of the final Camp David offer. FMEP has a projection:
http://www.fmep.org/maps/2001/jaasherc2palstate.jpg
Note that there were more issues than just the partitioning of the West Bank that led to the collapse of negotiations.
Well, Arafat did turn down a 99%-of-demands deal. What was it, the entire Gaza Strip, and then 98% of the West Bank? I don’t seem to remember there being any poison pills in that one, either, except that the Israelis have this stubborn desire not to absorb double their population in Palestinian refugees. It would have worked out well, too - before the intifada, Palestinians regularly commuted across the border to jobs in Israel.[/quote]
It wouldn’t have worked. The 2000 deal gave the Israelis…
Complete control over all the resources in the West Bank.
All of the large settlements, most of which overlook major highways, so the Israelis would control those as well.
Control over “Palestine”'s borders.
No responsibility regarding even compensation for the refugees.
Jerusalem.
And so on. It really was an impossible deal for Arafat to make. But he probably should have tried harder to make it, regardless, and kept the final terms open. Once the state was established and the two countries secure, perhaps things would have improved. A one-state solution is the only possible conclusion for all this anyhow. Israel can’t let Palestine become wholly independent, or even give Palestine a chance to raise its standard of living, because that would be the end of the West Bank water.
There is no way that Israel can allow the creation of a true, autonomous Palestine. So the current tensions are going to linger, until demographics and common sense finally force all these idiots to realize that the only real solution is a single-state plan with Jews and Arabs building a democracy in the Middle East together. Yeah, I know. It’s a long way off.
A one state solution would be wonderful, only for one significant problem: the Palestinians would be, or would very soon be, the majority in that singular state. This is untenable for most Israelis, as they, understandably considering recent history, do not want to be a minority in their own country ever again.
But they will be, given Arab population growth rates within Israel.
What do you suggest we (the French) do ? As the President of the Palestinian authority, he had the right to have the guard treatment, as you said. Plus our President wasn’t event here, and will not attend his funeral today (I think it’s over now I’m not sure).
While I’m not necessarily disputing this fact, what kind of growth rates are we talking about? The current population of Israel is divided about 80/20, with the Jewish population in the majority. What kind of growth rate or time scale are we talking about to see this kind of eventuality?
While the arabs citizens of Israel do have a higher growth rate than the Israelis, it’s not nearly as high as the growth rate of the non-citizen arabs. The demographic problem is a huge one for Israel, and one of the main reasons for the fence. If people start seeing Israel as an Apartheid state like South Africa was, that’s the end of the Jewish State. A one-state solution is not acceptable to Israelis currently, since it would lead to equal rights for the people calling for the Jews to be driven into the sea.
That was one respectful and somber funeral procession. I do not understand how such a placid folk has not made more headway in the peace process. Because of its similairities, it put me strongly in the mind of our own recent sad event we had for Reagan.
They were so dedicated to settling disputes they were emptying their guns of all of their ammo into the air where I can only assume the bullets dissapear and never fall to earth…or through peoples arms and skulls.
A one-state solution is not acceptable to Israelis currently, since it would lead to equal rights for the people calling for the Jews to be driven into the sea.
Recent polls show the vast majority of Palestinians would accept simply a return to the 1967 borders. Even Hamas have said they would accept that for now and let their children worry about the rest. However, don’t let that stop the hyperbole.
Tim, you can’t distance Arafat from suicide bombers by claiming that they’re all from Hamas. The Al-Aqsa martyr brigades were Arafat’s baby, and he signed every one of their checks, and bought the explosives.
Arafat was a mob boss that used the political struggle to buy himself some legitimacy. He then milked it for fame, money, and power.