PalmerWMD wrote:Sorry Vicki, but I must repectfully disagree.He was one of the most moderate leaders on his side.
Many of younger guys arent interested in talks anymore and just want the enemy off their lands by any means neccessary.
After decades of ethnic cleasning & summary expulsions, I am not sure I can blame them.
On this note: RIP for a man who dedicated his life to his peoples national survival and who resisted oppression and ethnic cleansing to his last very day.
Quite unlike the cowards in many national governments whose personal comfort and privileges are more important to them, than justice for their people.
Fred
PS: Justice is more important than peace.Peace sometimes just makes it easier for the bad guys to get away with it.
Fred, while I agree with a lot of what you said - particulary in regards to the need for justice - I'm not sure that the death of Arafat necessarily - or likely - portends the rise of a more intransigent stance. The fact is that while, yes, Arafat was a freedom fighter, he was also corrupt and engendered much of the political turmoil. That said, and corrupotion aside, as the occupation persisted, he made some shrewd political calculations, but was always walking a thin line as between political and social factions. He had need to balance the defiance and despair and destitution of the subjogated - and clearly their natural rage - with the hope and optimism of a settled agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state. As to whether or not this situation will change, it is up to the new leadership to shape and frame ideas in a manner that makes it possible. The borrom line, I guess, is that while Arafat's fight was noble, I'm not so sure he was.
Another crititcal issue is the framing of Arafat as the intransigent party. The fact of the matter is that Camp David was not nearly the magnanimous offer that the Clinton Adminstration and Barak - not Peres as was said above - would have you think. It was a bungled effort to begin with on Barak's part in terms of his negotiating stance as well as the ultimate conception of "concesssions." The land to be returned was not contiguous and many aspects of sovereignty were to be witheld.
The problem is is that the perceptions of the situation on the ground is shaped by media reports - i.e. Cyberise's clearly uninformed statement in regards to Camp David II - with little real understanding of the history. social context or of the actual diplomatic exchanges. Read more, then form opinions.
Modified by NY94J30 at 1:27 PM 11/11/2004
Modified by NY94J30 at 5:26 PM 11/11/2004