<p>Ha. ha. ha.</p>
<p>titanz05, I'd like to make a few points about your post:</p>
<p>"How is Arafat Hitler-like? Because he disagreed with a foreign power arbitrarily granting some of its land to Israel? I disagree with Israel occupation of Palestinian land. I also disagree with funding Israel with American tax-money to build bulldozers which will tear down Palestinian homes, and guns which will mainly kill Palestinian children. Yes, Palestinians throw rocks for their defense while Israelis use their American-paid weapons."</p>
<p>The whole concept of the "occupation" is a bit over-simplyfied. Israel currently occupies a larger area than was orginally mandated. However, this is the direct result of three wars of aggression, launched by the Arabs, and won by the Israelis. Why do Palestinians throw rocks? Because they don't have enough guns. If they did, there would be even more carnage. They are far from innocent victims. Life is never that simple. They kill Israeli children too.</p>
<p>"People may say Arafat endorses terrorism, but what's the difference between his terrorists and his army? I believe it's the Palestinian Army attempting to win back what is rightfully theirs."</p>
<p>There is no difference. His own "Fatah" movement is basically a terrorist organization. Who knows who should claim the land as "rightfully theirs?" When Iraq tried to "reclaim" Kuwait, which was "rightfully theirs," the Powers that Be didn't approve.</p>
<p>"However, there is no easy answer for Israel and the Middle-East. I do believe Jews deserve their own land, but I disagree with the world, besides the Middle-East, dubbing Arafat and his motives as terrorist like. Granted, the 'freedom fighters' do act in horrible ways such as bombing public places killing innocent civilians, but what else can Palestine do?"</p>
<p>You're right: there is no easy answer. Arafat is a terrorist. Of course, he doesn't see himself that way; no one sees himself as a "bad guy." In the eyes of the Palestinians, he is a freedom fighter. Bin Laden also sees homself as correct. The world is far more anti-Israel than you seem to suggest. Look at all the UN resolutions condeming Israel. Compare that number with those condemning the Palestinian authority. What else can the Palestinians do? Ask Ghandi.</p>
<p>"The Israel Wall, probably paid mainly by American tax money, seperates the Palestinians from their OWN land. They are kept away from their own land.
It really is volatile, and there is no easy answer, just our beliefs."</p>
<p>The wall is more humane than continued murder. Not to be too one-sided, but why have hundreds of thousands of Palestinains remained in refugee camps since the 1940s? Why not try to actually do something? The Arab countries won't give them land either, by the way. </p>
<p>If the Palestinians get their own state, it will be a destitute, undeveloped tract of desert. THey have no infastructure, no industry, and no history of statehood. Until the formation of Israel, they were just "Arabs." What will they do if they get a state? Will they suddenly become a productive, democratic people? I doubt it.</p>
<p>the post above is brilliant prose and the content is of a higher caliber than any i have ever seen on these boards</p>
<p>emsibdn, you are far from being a mature 18 year old.</p>
<p>oogy boogy booogy</p>
<p>Hahaha, this coming from a 17-year-old. Well, I won't indulge your wild fantasies by arguing the merits of your simplistic post. Just continue to sit behind your computer and peck away at your keyboard. Hahahaha :-)</p>
<p>I also agree with Justice, that was a great post Nomir.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>What will they do if they get a state? Will they suddenly become a productive, democratic people? I doubt it.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The shame of the whole region is that the United States (and, yes, even France!) would probably be willing to invest heavily in a stable Palestinian state.</p>
<p>I heard an interesting commentary on Arafat and how he could have enjoyed a very different legacy had he not failed to grasp the opportunity of a Palestinian state presented to him. That he had truly failed his people.</p>
<p>I think everyone agrees Arafat flucked up big time. He should have taken the cash and run. I for one, aside from the killings and violence of course, am partly glad he turned it down.</p>
<p>Instead of blowing kisses and saying sayonara to Arafat, why don't you take a moment to think things over? Would the scenario after his death most likely be pleasing? Would his successor be more humane than he is?</p>
<p>Who knows? I don't, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.</p>
<p>"The wall is more humane than continued murder."</p>
<p>The wall keeps Palestinians seperated from their farms. How are they supposed to live without food? You expect them to just sit there and wait to die, or do something and try to change it? Which would you do if you had no food but over the wall they have an abundance of wealth? Maybe that's why the world condemned the wall.</p>
<p>If you are going to post, paradox, try not to skim the thread.
For your benefit, I copy the first post in the thread:</p>
<p>---"I don't mean to sound insensitive when it comes to the death of a muderer, but I'm getting quite tired of checking the CNN website for "Breaking News" updates. But really, I think there is a chance to move forward after he kicks the bucket. What do you all think?"---</p>
<p>Thank you, Justice~ and emsibdn.</p>
<p>"The shame of the whole region is that the United States (and, yes, even France!) would probably be willing to invest heavily in a stable Palestinian state.</p>
<p>I heard an interesting commentary on Arafat and how he could have enjoyed a very different legacy had he not failed to grasp the opportunity of a Palestinian state presented to him. That he had truly failed his people." -interesteddad</p>
<p>The problem I see is that a stable Palestinian state may not be practically feasible. The conflict has created conisderable animosity among both peoples. There would probably be significant violence among more moderate Palestinians (and the national leader, who would hopefully be a member of that group) and those who would like to see Isreal erased from the Earth. </p>
<p>As far as Arafat, I suspect that it would not have been advnatageous for him to become the leader of an insignificant Palestinian state. He got more international attention and money by being a "freedom fighter." How much actual good has he done for the Palestinian people as a civic leader, anyway? I may be a bit pessimistic, though. I honestly don't know what proportion of Palestinians and Israelis are ready to live in peace as independent neighbors.</p>
<p>"The wall keeps Palestinians seperated from their farms. How are they supposed to live without food? You expect them to just sit there and wait to die, or do something and try to change it? Which would you do if you had no food but over the wall they have an abundance of wealth? Maybe that's why the world condemned the wall." - mekrob </p>
<p>Sharon had to build the wall beyond Israel's official borders. If he had built it on the border, it would be a natural boundary between his country and the Palestinian state. Until very recently, he was not exactly a proponent of Palestinian statehood. The Israelis have done much harm to the Palestinians too. I realize that. Land was taken from the Palestinians to build the Jewish state. However, what should be done? That land can't simply be given back. Then there will be two groups who will feel equally wronged by the other. I admit I don't have any data, but I'm sure the Palestinians whose land was confiscated are not literally starving. Israel is not the Sudan. The world has condemned Isreal on a regular basis. I don't want to blame everything on antisemitism, but it does exist. As I posted originally, look at all the U.N. resolutions condeming Israel. The world is more than a little biased (the U.S. is just biased in the other direction). </p>
<p>By the way, sorry for the long posts...this issue deserves more than a few words.</p>
<p>Quite simply - Israel violates international law on a daily basis.</p>
<p>Will people be talking this way about Sharon when he is on HIS death bed?</p>
<p>I don't want Arafat to die because I personally have nothing against him. But I am glad that there is going to be a change in leadership. Hardliner, old-timers like Arafat are too stubborn and pig-headed for change. Just like Gorbachev was to the Soviet Union, I think the Palestinians need a more open-minded leader.</p>
<p>emsibdn,</p>
<p>I don't mean to sound so thick, but what exactly is your point?</p>
<p>He's in a coma. That's as good as dead.</p>
<p>Arafat has liver failure. He'll probably be dead soon, and I saw that it's most likely that Mahammoud Abbas will take his place, though it is also likely that there will be a power struggle between the people of the PA and the terrorist organizations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quite simply - Israel violates international law on a daily basis.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no truth to that statement. A country cannot breach international law unless that country has first agreed to abide by the law. What examples can you offer of Israel breaching laws to which it has agreed to abide?</p>
<p>I predict he'll kick the bucket this weekend. What are your predictions? I got tired of discussing afatrat's history when everyone knows he's a murderer and a phillips screwdrive up. On a brief side note, I would like to see Abbas take over.</p>