Yasser Arafat

Romair,

Let me say this as politely as possible... no body gives a damn about your jury ... whether on Arafat ... or Ataturk for that matter though I don`t understand how you brought that man up suddenly... please do explain your intricate (nah) thought process on that one. Arafat is a leader to his people... Only their jury matters... same is the case for the other leader you mentioned....


Wajahat...

Brilliantly put... and completely agreed...

But I don`t agree with your assessment of Sheikh Zayed... not everyone has to be a revolutionary... Sheikh Zayed brought prosperity to millions and his behind the scenes efforts to solve all outstanding issues can never be forgotten... he was Yasser Arafat`s biggest supporter in the Arab World btw... Please read my posts 17 and 24... Shaikh Zayed was a sort of an Arab Bismarck... and his efforts succeeded in creating a Modern yet very Arab Nation out of feuding tribes, and villages.... I think he deserves a salute... to call him politically impotent is sadly ignorance.... he was the key player in Bhutto`s efforts of global Muslim unity ... he was also the genius behind the BCCI which was deliberately brought down by certain forces that did not like the idea of Arabs having a Bank of their own... Shaikh Zayed, along with Bhutto and Faisal, was also behind the oil threat that was the last time Arabs successfully demonstrated their global might albeit for a short time...

So I suggest you revisit the life of Shaikh Zayed... read also the editorial by Najam Sethi that I have put up earlier...

-YLH

Before analyzing Arafat, here are some thoughts on certain aspects of the Palestinian struggle. Although my views are somewhat colored by my beliefs and experiences of an Ahmadi-Muslim ... here they are nevertheless …

+++++++

The Palestinian view of ownership of holy land is somewhat baseless in the context of Islamic teachings. Granted, their ancestors resided in the region and have been ``guardians`` of holy places for centuries and more. However, a Muslim should refer to Quran as first and foremost guide on what constitutes ownership ... of holy land and otherwise.

According to Quran ultimate ownership rests with Allah alone and He grants temporal ownership to whomever He chooses. Circumstances have evolved over time resulting in Israel/Zionists controlling Jerusalem, and this should be a time for the ummah to reflect: what caused our downfall?

Brief look at Islamic history

History supports that as Muslims became arrogant and politicized, they were punished by others. First wave of this punishment came when, in 271 AH (~895 AD?), the Muslim government of Spain joined forces with the Pope against Baghdad. At the same time the Muslim government of Baghdad formed alliances with Caesar of Rome against Spain. The power struggle within the ummah led to their first downfall. Muslims suffered again in ~1258 AD, as they had become weak due to sunni-shia strife between the last Abbasid ruler and his prime minister. The results were horrible, as the ummah suffered at the hands of mongols.

Back to present times

Palestenian dilemma is primarily the result of ummah`s own ignorance, arrogance, and corruption. Palestine land is simply land ... Masjid-e-Aqsaa and Solomon`s shrine etc. are merely brick and mortar. Divine blessings, which include peace and prosperity, come not from soil or bricks ... but by obeying Allah`s commandments. The most respected Islamic personality, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), migrated from the holiest of all places, Mecca, when faced with insurmountable circumstances. In the face of such an example, the ``holy land`` aspect of the Palestinian argument sounds hollow to me.

Islamic solution to Palestine issue

Quran encourages believers to make peace ... even with occupying forces ... and to leave the land if oppression become unbearable. Fighting jihad is allowed under select circumstances ... which I don`t think largely existed in Palestine. Suicide bombings amount to transgression, which is strictly forbidden in the second half of the verse which allows fighting jihad in the first half. 50-or-so years of struggle marked by violence against civilians has taken its toll on Palestinian psyche first and foremost. Palestinians would have been better off making peace or leaving the country altogether. Repentance, internal reflection, and efforts to better themselves through acquisition of knowledge and building communities on principles of justice and peace ... would have resulted in far greater benefit than any gains made by Arafat putting Palestine on the world map. If the ummah violates message of Quran while seeking help from EU and UNO … while they continue to blow up innocent people ... they would suffer for ages to come ... and their leaders, Arafat included, will only harm them in the long run by perpetuating the status quo.

I`ll end the post with the following from Quran to illustrate the point ...

When angels take the souls of those
Who die in sin against their souls,
They say: ``In what (plight) were ye?``
They reply: ``weak and oppressed were we in the earth``.
They say: ``Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away?”
Such men will find their abode in hell ... what an evil refuge!
- Quran (4:97)

Dost-mittar #38: Your comment seems accurate (based on whatever is the presses of the world).

It is hard to get a real picture of areas, which are under occupation. One only gets, what the occupying govt. wants others to hear. In case of Palestine the situaiton is better than others, in the sense that international human rights agencies and press do have access to the area, and one regularly sees pictures of it on the TV. Many other occupied areas don`t even have this luxury, and occupying govts. quietly kill the occupied.

At the same time, the Jewish control of the US media (and of the political process) is so overwhelming that the shots one gets of Palestine can be twisted to mean anything. The Palestinians are, no doubt, going thru hell. I only now realize it, after having some discussions with a few (Christian) Palestinians - one of whom just left the place. It is a religious apartheid. The treatment of the Muslims and Christians by a Jewish Israel makes the treatment of Ahmedis in Pakistan look like a coffee party.

Based on this, it is hard to get a true picture of Arafat. He can be painted into anything by the media. I do know that he hasn`t been on Pakistan`s side much. And haven`t seen him, or Palestinians in general, support Pakistan. But I suppose, in the end, only the Palestinians, themselves, are the right people to decide what kind of a person and leader he was. If they like him, then this article becomes completely irrelevant.

Having said that, your comment about, ``he understood the ground realities and the impotency of his constituency, he was unable to reconcile himself to it completely`` is probably accurate. When one fights a freedom struggle, one must plan thirty years ahead; not thirty days ahead. Much like Mandela, Gandhi and Jinnah did. A generation fighting for freedom, is actually fighting for the freedom of their coming generations. Not of their own generation, which will more than likely suffer during the fight.

There is nothing wrong with adding militancy to a struggle. Somtimes that is the only option. But that should only be done, if it is going to be effective. A militant freedom struggle needs three things to be successful - a morally legitimate cause, people willing to die for their cause, and support of a (neighboring) country, which can stand up to the occupying country. Palestinians have the first two, but not the third. Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. had all three.

I think Arafat got into a military conflict before his people were ready for it. And due to that, they have been on the losing side again and again, and there portion of Palestine is much smaller now than it was when Israel was created.

With the Christian Evangelists now holding power in the USA, I really cannot see how the Palestinians can get anything in the coming years. They and the Arabs are truly a defeated group (the recent Iraqi resistance being the exception). Their best bet, at least to me, seems to be to just keep having kids and outpopulate the Jews in Israel, which will happen in about fifteen or so years. Then they should regroup and fight..........

Yassir Arafat, despite his failings, stands tall among the leaders who made a difference in the last half-century. His role as the father of the Palestinian nation cannot be challenged.
His problem? Although he understood the ground realities and the impotency of his constituency, he was unable to reconcile himself to it completely. The Israelis wanted/want to have a permanent solution to their problems while they have an upper hand; Arafat, on the other hand, would have liked to make a setllement but one that could be reopened at some future date when the world geopolitical situation would be less favourable to the israelis. This is the real obstacle to peace in the middle east, the rest is merely a matter of details.

I think I have finally had enough, not enough to leave, but enough to remain quiet amongst the plenthora of pseudo intellectuals who frequent these boards. I too am a pseudo intellectual, no shame in that, and I too have my opinions. To me the end of Arafat comes at a desperate moment in history. A time when hope is lost, a time when you know that you are outnumbered, a time when you can see the world flocking towards a certain direction, an absolution of neo convervative ideology.

What is most amazing is that there is no hate here for Sheikh Zahid who recently passed away and who represented an era of the Arab impotency with anything political, instead our hate is focused upon a man, who stood, fought and died for a belief. Fighting for a people wronged, a nation raped by no fault of there own, but the outcome of geographical realignement decided in europe. No, nothing else matters here, except hating the one guy who stood for something and who meant something to his people. Look at Pakistan and tell me the last time we had a leader who gathered so much love and support, so much respect amongst us Pakistanis after Quaid e Azam. Also look at your Khaki and Civilian leaders from the last half century and the constant squandering of wealth that comes without any conditions, look at all that and tell me how power cannot corrupt, but again this is no apology for Arafat and his weaknesses.

History is subjective and is up for intrepretation, in temporal`s interpretation Arafat is a mere footnote. In mine he stands alongside Che Guevara and Nasser, if only as a flicker of a leader who once was but could not stand the test of time. For me, Arafat represented palestine with all its decay, and his ever present smile full of hope. He could not deliver on his promises, yet he delivered so much. He made Palestine possible, he made palestine present and if it wasnt for his struggles, there would be but a mere remnant of the whole story. In the end Arafat failed, just like Quaid e Azam failed, just like Che failed just like all dreams fail, because the story is much more than these heroes, the narrative they start outlives them, and metamorphosises into something totally different.

So here is to a hero who stood and fought and got counted. Here is to a dream that has lost its father but the hope remains, and the story will be retold, there will be more Arafats, all ambiguous mortals.

kis ko shikwa hai gar shauk kay silsilay
hijr ki qatal gahoun say sub ja milay

Thought this might be of interest to people.

Palestinian Authority faces financial crisis
By Charles M. Sennott and Sa`id Ghazali, Globe Correspondent | November 6, 2004

RAMALLAH, West Bank -- Senior Palestinian officials struggled yesterday to stabilize the financial operations of the Palestinian Authority, as Yasser Arafat lingered at what an envoy termed a ``critical juncture between life and death.``


The authority`s ability to carry out day-to-day government functions had been in question even before Arafat`s health deteriorated this week as a result of what is widely believed to be a terminal illness. The Palestinian finance minister, Salam Fayyad, told Western donor countries -- which have kept the authority afloat for years -- that the body faces gaping deficits and appealed for help meeting its payroll, according to Palestinian officials, who said the plea was made in a teleconference.

Fayyad told representatives of the donor nations that the authority has only $19 million on hand to meet payroll expenses of $225 million between now and the end of the year, and that other nonpayroll monthly expenses are running at an additional deficit of $135 million. It was unclear whether he requested a certain amount of additional aid.

Arafat has personal discretion over a large portion of Palestinian public funds and is believed to have placed hundreds of millions of dollars in secret, numbered bank accounts abroad. His heirs and possible political successors are angling for control of the money.

The Palestinian leader, who is being treated at Percy Military Training Hospital outside Paris, has been in a life-threatening crisis since Wednesday. His condition was unchanged yesterday, according to Dr. Christian Estripeau, head of communications for French military health services.

``The state of health of President Yasser Arafat has not worsened,`` Estripeau said at a news conference outside the hospital, where more than 300 journalists from all over the world gathered. ``He is considered stable compared to the last medical report.``

The terse statement did nothing to resolve rampant confusion about Arafat`s condition. Unsubstantiated reports have said he is in a coma; others that he is on life support.

Leila Shahid, the Palestinian representative in France, denied French and Israeli media reports that Arafat was being kept alive on life support.

``I can assure you that there is no brain death,`` Shahid told French RTL radio. ``He is in a coma. We don`t know the type, but it`s a reversible coma. . . . Today we can say that, given his condition and age, he is at a critical juncture between life and death.``

Arafat has habitually kept large deposits of Palestinian funds in secret bank accounts, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials and Arab journalists. An International Monetary Fund report last year found that hundreds of millions of dollars are under the sole discretion of Arafat. The Arab satellite news channel Al-Jazeera this week estimated his fortune at $4.2 billion to $6.5 billion -- which would make Arafat one of the richest political leaders in the world

Several Arab media outlets reported that Arafat has written a will transferring control of his assets to the family of his wife, Suha, who has recently been investigated by French authorities examining whether large transfers of funds to her accounts from Arafat included money from French aid payments to the Palestinians.


Al-Jazeera has reported that senior Palestinian officials, including the Palestine Liberation Organization`s secretary general, Mahmoud Abbas, assert that Arafat`s fortune is part of the public treasury and should be transferred back to the Palestinian Authority, which runs the schools, waste system, and other public services.

The only person who knows the origin of the funds and their location apparently is Mohammed Rashid, a Kurd who is Arafat`s confidant and financial adviser. Rashid, also known as Khaled Salam, has lived in the Gaza Strip for the past decade and is a member of the Palestinian delegation with Arafat in Paris.

With 108,000 employees, it is by far the largest employer in the territories, and Palestinians who had become disillusioned with Arafat were saying even before he fell ill that if the authority were unable to meet its payroll it would cease to exist, leaving a void that could lead to chaos and violence in the occupied territories.

The Palestinian Authority television station is repeatedly showing pictures of Arafat in meetings and playing flattering videos. But in public, ordinary Palestinians appear to show little interest in Arafat`s condition. Unlike during previous crises involving Arafat`s health or personal security, there have been no large demonstrations either for Arafat or against Israel.

The speaker at prayers yesterday at Ramallah`s largest mosque did not mention Arafat, and no special prayers were offered in Arafat`s behalf. Instead, he referred to flash points in the Iraqi resistance and in the Palestinians` struggle with Israel.

``Let them burn Najaf, let them destroy Fallujah,`` the speaker said. ``Let them devastate Rafah and Gaza. We will never stop our jihad.``

Palestinian leaders in Ramallah and in Paris said that they were united and that there would be no power struggle to fill the vacuum left by Arafat.

``We have laws that are very clear about who will take control, and we will follow those laws,`` said Mohammed Dahlan, a former head of internal security in Gaza who is a member of the Palestinian entourage in Paris.

Abdel Fattah Hamayel, a Cabinet member during the brief period last year when Abbas was prime minister before Arafat forced him out, said ``the Palestinian people are passing through a critical stage, a serious crisis`` of leadership.

Abbas and Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, who have taken over in Arafat`s absence, ``are only caretakers,`` he said, adding that only prompt elections could prevent a chaotic power struggle once Arafat is officially removed from the scene.

Dr. Walid Tarifi, a physician in Ramallah, also said Palestinians must have an election.

``We have tired of dictatorship,`` Tarifi said. ``The Palestinian people will not accept less than an election for a new leader to replace Yasser Arafat. . . . We do not want puppets such as Hamid Karzai and Iyad Allawi,`` referring to the US-backed Afghan and Iraqi leaders. By law, elections should be held within 60 days of a vacancy in the Palestinian chairmanship. But Tarifi said that is wishful thinking.

``There are external pressures on the [Palestinian Authority] officials from the United States, Britain, and Israel,`` he said. ``There are opportunists among the Palestinians who seek power. It is time to fish in troubled waters.``

Charles A. Radin of the Globe staff wrote and contributed to this report from Tel Aviv. Ghazali reported from Ramallah; Sennott from Paris.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company

Isn`t (wasn`t) Yasir Arafat the only democratically elected leader in the Arab World of 22 countries?

I am personally not a big fan of Arafat, though I don`t know too much about him (so the jury is still out, as it is still out on people like Ata-turk).

I have always felt the PLO should appoint a Christian as their leader. And preferably a woman. Hannan Ashrawi, currently a member of the Palestinian Council, would be a good choice. She, with her Ph.D. in English from Universtiy of Virginia, can out-talk most Israelis. And is the only Palestinian leader who makes any sense, when speaking on US TV. And unlike Edward Said, she lives and teaches in the Occupied West Bank and not in the comfortable Northeast of the USA. Not the mention the fact that it will finally make the Christian Conservative nutjob supporters of the Republican Party realize that there are actually Christians (named Muhammad, Abul, Illyas and Hannan and Fatima) amongst Palestinians, and that they oppose the Jewish Israeli occupation as much as the Muslim Palestinians.

A Christian leader will also make the US govt. supporters realize that Jews are not required to rule the area to make it safe for the second coming of Christ. Christians like Ashrawi can rule the area instead (sidenote: it may also make them realize that Christ probably looked more Arab - black hair and brown eyes than European - with blond hair and blue eyes).

Anyways, Israel-Palestinian situation is going from bad to worse, and will continue to do so. Sharon is in power. Palestinians will be leader-less after Arafat. And the USA govt. is in control of Chrisitan Evangelists.

Having said that, while I support the Palestinian cause on humanitarian grounds, one should understand that the Palestinians never support Pakistan. They don`t even know anything about Pakistan. During the current pileup of Indian forces on the Pakistani border, they sent their delegation to Vajpayee. So I don`t know why we keep breaking our McDonalds and KFCs in Lahore and Karachi in protests for them. Not to mention why we don`t recognize Israel, if Palestinians have no problem recognizing India (or Isreal, for that matter)..........

P.S. I remember there was a boom in Pakistan, at one time, of naming male babies, ``Yasir`` after Yasir Arafat. I wonder how old those kids are now...........

There are leaders and there are usurper-freaks. Pakistan`s rulers would fit in the later category. Yasser Arafat was a leader- rose from the ground up and challenged powers far far bigger then him - such a struggle is a prerequisite for being labelled a leader. Arafat also had the unenviable task of trying to be a ruler of an imaginary state. Few have excelled in this task. So one shouldn`t be too harsh on the guy.

In fact, few revolutionary leaders or rebllious leaders have made good nation-building leaders. Che, though an exceptional rebel, didn`t make too great of a finance minster of Cuba.

[The point, my dear chowk idiots, is simple: You people live in a world of absolute rights and wrongs.... the details and contours of humanity are totally and completely lost on you feeble minded, and stupid expats...]

[PS: The last bit in my post was not about temporal whose article was mostly balanced in my view.... except the ``footnote`` issue...]

...HAHAHAHAHA....temporal se durr gaya....;)

Yassar Arafat is about to pass away in the history books and here this writer has chosen to vilify him. Even the most prejudiced western and Jewish writers would not stoop this low in discussing Yassar’s role in the Palestine struggle. Anybody who thinks this article is balanced must be on prozac.
I read these lies and cringe.

“He was charismatic alright. And adamant, autocratic and increasingly inflexible………Stuck in this mode Arafat became obsolete and ineffective in later years.”

“He moved to Jordan to continue his violent operations to gain freedom for his people.” (Emphasis mine.)

“His resolute inflexibility led to the current despair and plight of Palestinians”
“Reputed and rumored to be one of the six wealthiest heads of state,”

These are not personal opinions, this is a replica of the heinous propaganda unleashed by the opponents of the Palestine struggle against the only leader Palestine had in the last 50 odd years.

The Israeli and the western media have been churning out lies about him for the last 50 years simply because he became the symbol of Palestinian struggle and desire for Nationhood.

William Safire of the New York Times virtually blamed the Holocaust on Christ himself, citing the words “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” as evidence of Christianity’s inherent violence. Now we have some trying to blame the despair and plight of the Palestinians on the Palestinians themselves. They hate Yassar Arafat because he stood up to the oppressors and spoke about the poor children of Palestine.

He was adamant because his people needed him to take a stand for them. He was autocratic because he was not willing to give in to the agents of dark forces on both sides of the Palestine borders.
His struggle was called violent by the same people who have been unleashing tons of deadly bombs on his people. He struggle was violent because he tried to respond to the mass murders using the limited weaponry he had. The mass murders are now the guardians of peace and the people who fought for peace in their ancestral lands are now the villains and the violent people.

It is pity that kala Sahibs of the east have bought the lies of the west hook, line, sinker and rod w/o questioning the motives behind the false propaganda by his opponents.

What a eulogy to the man who devoted his life to his people. Pitiful!

If he was the sixth richest leader of the world, he would have at least attempted to enjoy the wealth but he spent three years of last days in the captivity often w/o power and water supply. He could have easily retired a long time ago, if he had so much love for the money but he did not. Lies after lies and some are calling this balanced.

About Said and Faiz. Edward Said wanted to be the Yassar Arafat of the Mideast w/o putting an ounce of his energy in the Palestinian battlegrounds. His credentials: he had access to good education and he was sponsored by some US groups to create Middle East studies chairs in the US universities. In return, he wanted to control the PLO. He had no experience and no inclination to even give up his job and move to the trenches in Jordan, Lebanon and in the ghettoes of Palestine. Yassar Arafat was right in being suspicious about Edward’s claims of being sincere to Palestinian cause. Who did Edward actually represent is no secret for people who read his articles and his contributions to the US groups that sponsored him.

Faiz Ahmed Faiz was no doubt a great poet but he was not a philosopher or an intellectual giant. He never claimed to be an intellectual. He chose journalism as his profession. Faiz was struggling financially and his future in Pakistan looked increasingly bleak as Faiz was an honest soldier against the military rule in Pakistan. The PLO offered him a job as an editor of a small English Magazine that PLO published for its sympathizers. The leftist in the PLO agreed to provide a job to Lenin peace prize winner to tide him over. Faiz met Yassar no more than couple of times and he was never consulted in any political or tactical decision by Yassar Arafat.
The PLO helped Faiz in his bad times and he was grateful for that. The magazine Faiz edited, had no great influence over the Palestinian struggle. My gut feeling is that magazine was not even financed by the PLO. There are many things that go on in a political struggle.

Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Giap led the hordes of barely armed people in a struggle for freedom and dignity. Nobody ever called them terrorists and we have some here calling the freedom fighter of the Palestine a terrorist. I cringe!