Arafat right now is the only thing that holds most of the palestinian because he was known as a leader to them and widely listened, if he dies... It's going to be hell in that corner of the world.
Marine, regardless of Arafrat's role in the various actions of the Palestinians over the years, the guy is a damn sight better than a lot of the alternatives. I personally don't believe that Arafrat has the level of control required to stop all the suicide bombings, and despite the position of the PLO there are Palestinian factions that will fight Israel regardless. Laying everying Palestinian groups have done on his shoulders is rather like blaming Indonesia for the Bali bombings.
Arafrat's death could trigger a massive wave of chaos across Palestine as various groups fight for control. Alternatively a fair dinkum advocate of peace and stability could come to power who's first act would be to call for an end to attacks against Israel. Of course, chances are he'd be assassinated within a week. Alternatively, a bloodthirsty despot hell bent to exterminating Israel could come to power who's first act would be to call for all-out war. Chances are he'd be assassinated within a week as well.
The simple fact is that Arafrat represented something close to the middle ground. Removing him from the fragile situation in the Middle East isn't cause for celebration. Mainly because the alternatives to Arafrat have the potential to be a whole lot worse.
I hope all of you realize that Sharon's "dis-engagement" is not actually "disengagement" - leaving one part of Palistinian land to fortify the other occupied area is not exactly a step towards peace. He just plays it out to the media.
Once Yasser is dead, actual diplomacy could erupt! OMG, DIPLOMACY FTW!
Seriously though, Yasser Arafat is a common criminal. He runs the PLO like the Mafia, without the coolness part. Netanyahu practically bent over and said "screw the lube" like 6 years ago and Arafat said "no." He killed the chances of peace because <i>peace is bad for business and for him</i>.
The Palestinians are being used as an anti-Jewish pawn by the extremist Arabs. Why else would the Arabs treat Palestinians worse than the Israeli's have ever even thought about doing and act like Israel is made up of little Hitlers.
I wouldn't go so far and say that. Arafat controlling the palistinian 'terrorists' or 'liberators' or whatever is not as clear cut as Sharon controlling the Israeli military.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously though, Yasser Arafat is a common criminal. He runs the PLO like the Mafia, without the coolness part. Netanyahu practically bent over and said "screw the lube" like 6 years ago and Arafat said "no." He killed the chances of peace because peace is bad for business and for him.
And again, Arafat's power is not absolute. Do you seriously believe that Hamas and their ilk would simply abandon their fight against Israel just because Arafrat says so? Odds are that if Arafat told them to stop, he'd be dead within a week.
The power of the PLO is fairly shaky. The various Palestinian groups do what they want with or without sanction from the PLO. Laying the crimes of Palestinian groups on Arafat and the PLO simply isn't justified.
Now there is a chance that once Arafat is gone, someone more committed to peace will come to power. But as I've said, I question the ability of said new person to actually change anything. They can debate and discuss with Israel all they want, but at the end of the day the Palestinian groups are more powerful and they won't care what the PLO says. Plus, there's a very real chance that a leader who tried that would be killed almost immediatly. And as I pointed out, chances are equally high that a radical who is far, far more committed to war than Arafat would come to power and really turn the PLO into a terrorist organisation.
The fact of the matter is, no matter who comes into control next, he is still going to be torn in two directions just like Arafat was. Either direction would have the other side ready to murder him.
Power struggle? Should have killed him ages ago? Pah.
Arafat's death would be a Very Good Thing for the region (especially if it's from natural causes), and Israel shouldn't\couldn't have removed him earlier. I doubt this is going to cause a power struggle, either (and if it does, that's fine by me. Let them blow <i>each other</i> up, for a change.)
Israel won't assassinate him for several reasons. They were the ones that installed him in the first place (that was Rabin's great idea - bring in an ex terrorist leader to head a newly created Palestinian Authority, so Israel would have someone to officially negotiate with, and delegate some responsibility over the Palestinians to rather than be seen as the bad guy <i>all</i> the time.). Also, it would make him a martyr in the eyes of the Palestinians, which would make the situation worse.
Anyway, if he does die I don't think it will cause a power struggle. Probably, some other member of the Palestinian Authority's leadership will take his place. Anyway, even if there way a power struggle it wouldn't cause more tension in the region - hostility between Israel and the various pro-Palestinian entities are hardly going to escalate because one of the pro-Palestinian entities is embroiled in infighting.
But the whole thing is balanced on a needlepoint. We hardly need anything that even has the chance of causing more instability to come in and unbalance the situation for these people. Ethnic tension is stupid and pointless, but no one will ever come to that understanding while they are involved in it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Nov 4 2004, 10:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Nov 4 2004, 10:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Christ, the middle east is so screwed. Not now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In the immortal words of REM, "Its the end of the world as we know it..."
Anyone remember hearing about that guy who claimed to be a time-traveler? And how he said a war would break out in 2005, and that the reasons would become fairly apparent in 2004? Wouldn't it be kind of scary if it were true? Because, right now, the world is in a bad shape. It looks as if its close to the breaking point.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Nov 5 2004, 01:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Nov 5 2004, 01:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Nov 4 2004, 10:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Nov 4 2004, 10:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Christ, the middle east is so screwed. Not now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In the immortal words of REM, "Its the end of the world as we know it..."
Anyone remember hearing about that guy who claimed to be a time-traveler? And how he said a war would break out in 2005, and that the reasons would become fairly apparent in 2004? Wouldn't it be kind of scary if it were true? Because, right now, the world is in a bad shape. It looks as if its close to the breaking point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Link to his predictions please? I never even heard the story.
Comments
Arafrat's death could trigger a massive wave of chaos across Palestine as various groups fight for control. Alternatively a fair dinkum advocate of peace and stability could come to power who's first act would be to call for an end to attacks against Israel. Of course, chances are he'd be assassinated within a week. Alternatively, a bloodthirsty despot hell bent to exterminating Israel could come to power who's first act would be to call for all-out war. Chances are he'd be assassinated within a week as well.
The simple fact is that Arafrat represented something close to the middle ground. Removing him from the fragile situation in the Middle East isn't cause for celebration. Mainly because the alternatives to Arafrat have the potential to be a whole lot worse.
I hope all of you realize that Sharon's "dis-engagement" is not actually "disengagement" - leaving one part of Palistinian land to fortify the other occupied area is not exactly a step towards peace. He just plays it out to the media.
<!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Seriously though, Yasser Arafat is a common criminal. He runs the PLO like the Mafia, without the coolness part. Netanyahu practically bent over and said "screw the lube" like 6 years ago and Arafat said "no." He killed the chances of peace because <i>peace is bad for business and for him</i>.
The Palestinians are being used as an anti-Jewish pawn by the extremist Arabs. Why else would the Arabs treat Palestinians worse than the Israeli's have ever even thought about doing and act like Israel is made up of little Hitlers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And again, Arafat's power is not absolute. Do you seriously believe that Hamas and their ilk would simply abandon their fight against Israel just because Arafrat says so? Odds are that if Arafat told them to stop, he'd be dead within a week.
The power of the PLO is fairly shaky. The various Palestinian groups do what they want with or without sanction from the PLO. Laying the crimes of Palestinian groups on Arafat and the PLO simply isn't justified.
Now there is a chance that once Arafat is gone, someone more committed to peace will come to power. But as I've said, I question the ability of said new person to actually change anything. They can debate and discuss with Israel all they want, but at the end of the day the Palestinian groups are more powerful and they won't care what the PLO says. Plus, there's a very real chance that a leader who tried that would be killed almost immediatly. And as I pointed out, chances are equally high that a radical who is far, far more committed to war than Arafat would come to power and really turn the PLO into a terrorist organisation.
Arafat's death would be a Very Good Thing for the region (especially if it's from natural causes), and Israel shouldn't\couldn't have removed him earlier. I doubt this is going to cause a power struggle, either (and if it does, that's fine by me. Let them blow <i>each other</i> up, for a change.)
Israel won't assassinate him for several reasons. They were the ones that installed him in the first place (that was Rabin's great idea - bring in an ex terrorist leader to head a newly created Palestinian Authority, so Israel would have someone to officially negotiate with, and delegate some responsibility over the Palestinians to rather than be seen as the bad guy <i>all</i> the time.). Also, it would make him a martyr in the eyes of the Palestinians, which would make the situation worse.
Anyway, if he does die I don't think it will cause a power struggle. Probably, some other member of the Palestinian Authority's leadership will take his place. Anyway, even if there way a power struggle it wouldn't cause more tension in the region - hostility between Israel and the various pro-Palestinian entities are hardly going to escalate because one of the pro-Palestinian entities is embroiled in infighting.
Not now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the immortal words of REM, "Its the end of the world as we know it..."
Anyone remember hearing about that guy who claimed to be a time-traveler? And how he said a war would break out in 2005, and that the reasons would become fairly apparent in 2004? Wouldn't it be kind of scary if it were true? Because, right now, the world is in a bad shape. It looks as if its close to the breaking point.
Not now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the immortal words of REM, "Its the end of the world as we know it..."
Anyone remember hearing about that guy who claimed to be a time-traveler? And how he said a war would break out in 2005, and that the reasons would become fairly apparent in 2004? Wouldn't it be kind of scary if it were true? Because, right now, the world is in a bad shape. It looks as if its close to the breaking point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link to his predictions please? I never even heard the story.
I've never been really convinced by him. Civil war in the US? Very unlikely. And that's the war he refers to.
Though now that I think about it....Bush got re-elected....
But seriously. It's just someone's fantasy of a future America. One which bears an amazing resemblence to what the South wanted to achieve.