Yasser Arafat
Temporal November 5, 2004
#95 Posted by Naqshbandi on November 12, 2004 7:57:24 pm
Verily we are from Allah and unto Him is our return.
Go to your Lord in peace O` Abu Ammar! O` brave mujahid who never gave in to the blackmailing of the Zionists and the Crusaders. May you look down upon a free Palestine, with al Quds as its capital for ever. Amin!
We will never forget your name O` brave son of this blessed soil.
May Allah bless you, forgive you your sins, and give you a seat in the Highest Paradise alongside the Prophets, Saints, and Martyrs.
We salute you O` Yasser Arafat!
Inna lillaha wa inna raj`ioon.
Go to your Lord in peace O` Abu Ammar! O` brave mujahid who never gave in to the blackmailing of the Zionists and the Crusaders. May you look down upon a free Palestine, with al Quds as its capital for ever. Amin!
We will never forget your name O` brave son of this blessed soil.
May Allah bless you, forgive you your sins, and give you a seat in the Highest Paradise alongside the Prophets, Saints, and Martyrs.
We salute you O` Yasser Arafat!
Inna lillaha wa inna raj`ioon.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#94 Posted by Simon_Templar on November 12, 2004 7:57:23 pm
This article is a khichri of malicious propaganda and character assassination
against Muslims and their heroes, that unfortunately is rife today in the west.
Next to Dennis Ross and Edward Said, whose collective efforts amount to
zilch on the ground, Arafat single-handedly engineered the liberation move-
ment that put the Palestinian issue on the map.
If there was no Arafat, there would`ve been no Palestinian movement. The
tens of thousands of ordinary Palestinians who recieved Arafat today in
Ramallah and gave him a sendoff befitting a national hero, belie the conti-
nuous stream of slanderous claims from the west against him and his working
releationships with the other Palestinian outfits.
The ummah will become strong, once we decide to think for ourselves, rather
than blindly taking cues from vested interests in the west.
against Muslims and their heroes, that unfortunately is rife today in the west.
Next to Dennis Ross and Edward Said, whose collective efforts amount to
zilch on the ground, Arafat single-handedly engineered the liberation move-
ment that put the Palestinian issue on the map.
If there was no Arafat, there would`ve been no Palestinian movement. The
tens of thousands of ordinary Palestinians who recieved Arafat today in
Ramallah and gave him a sendoff befitting a national hero, belie the conti-
nuous stream of slanderous claims from the west against him and his working
releationships with the other Palestinian outfits.
The ummah will become strong, once we decide to think for ourselves, rather
than blindly taking cues from vested interests in the west.
#93 Posted by jang on November 12, 2004 9:53:42 am
#92 by Romair
``Yet they chose Palestine, apparently for religious reasons. ``
i agree that secular reasoning is always better than religious dogma. i hope everyone else, including the author of this post agrees to this, irrespective of the religion impartially. for example the kasmir issue and its religious reasoning.
``Yet they chose Palestine, apparently for religious reasons. ``
i agree that secular reasoning is always better than religious dogma. i hope everyone else, including the author of this post agrees to this, irrespective of the religion impartially. for example the kasmir issue and its religious reasoning.
#92 Posted by Romair on November 11, 2004 7:50:42 pm
epiphany #89: ``Israel stands today as it stands because before independence they thought: Let`s get what we can get today and we`ll figure out the rest tomorrow. The land of Palestine isn`t even a country today because in their rigid egoistic zeal they think: We will settle for all of Palestine.``
I think the actual scenario maybe somewhat more complicated. Though you have hit on some of the major points.
I think in the long run, (hundred years or so), the Isrealis will realize that it was a mistake to cling to religious geographical reasoning while demanding their state. After WWII, European Jews could have demanded a state in so many places. And more than likely they would have gotten it. I read somewhere there were proposals of a state in the area of Kenya or Uganda.
Yet they chose Palestine, apparently for religious reasons. Larry Collins in his book, O`Jerusalem highlights how many US citizens discouraged Jewish migration into the USA, and wanted a migration to Palestine, thereby claiming a Jewish state there. While themselves living in USA. I have always wondered whether the first inclination of a European Jew, after WWII, would have been to migrate to a safe and prosperous USA, or to go back into a war in Palestine for religious reasons. My guess would be the former.
Lets say they European Jews would have asked for a state three times the size of current Israel, along the Seatle/Vancouver border. Or somewhere in the corner of New Mexico. Giving practical considerations more importance than religious ones. Wouldn`t they have been better off, more secure, more prosperous than they are today? And less disliked? And the world would have been a safer place also. And they would have humanely gotten their state, not at the expense of another people.
I am sure they could have easily gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimages, and would have been welcomed. Much like I can go to Mecca and Medina. After all, even today, most of the Jews in Israel are actually non-European Jews, and not White Jews. Aslo, the UN decision on the state of Israel, wasn`t as clear cut as people think. Do study it in more detail. And the amount of pressure the USA had to put on other countries to agree.
In all fairness to the Palestinians, they have lost their homeland for no fault of theirs. Other than the religious persuasions of people of another faith. In retrospect, being the weaker force, they should have accepted the inevitable and handed over their land to Isreal, in 48. But anyone would fight to keep their land if someone came to occupy it. If someone occupied your house, wouldn`t you resist.
Even now, the plan offered by and accepatable by Palestinians, only claims 22% of the original land owned by them pre-48. Israel isn`t even willing to accept that. They want it to be 21%, with Israel holding certain key areas. So someone comes in, takes over your house, and won`t even give back 22% of it. When he could have gotten a much better house, anywhere in the world. And only wants your house, because of his religious beliefs.
People talk about disastrous and self-destructive decisions, based on religious reasons, made by others (specifically Muslims). I think, in the coming centuries, when people look back, the most self-destructive religious decision of the 20th century will be European Jews demanding the world`s only Jewish state, smack in the middle of an area, where it was the most difficult for it to survive. I really don`t think Israel will last, in its current form (or at all) in the next hundred to two hundred years. Not because, I want its destruction. But because for a country to survive (and expand), it has to have a population which is growing, and not decreasing demographically. In fifteen years, Arabs will outnumber Jews in combined Israel and occupied territories.
A decreasing population of 4-5 million people, in a tiny piece of land, surrounded by 22 oil-rich countries with a growing population of 220 million Arabs, will have its work cut out for it, when the 220 million people finally get their act together. Which one assumes, the Arabs will in fifty to a hundred years.
Decisions based on common sense are always more successful than decisions made on ideological reasons. An Israel in its current corner of the Middle East has far less chance of surviving in the coming centuries than an Israel in some corner of Europe or North America or South America or Australia or practically anywhere else in the world...........
I think the actual scenario maybe somewhat more complicated. Though you have hit on some of the major points.
I think in the long run, (hundred years or so), the Isrealis will realize that it was a mistake to cling to religious geographical reasoning while demanding their state. After WWII, European Jews could have demanded a state in so many places. And more than likely they would have gotten it. I read somewhere there were proposals of a state in the area of Kenya or Uganda.
Yet they chose Palestine, apparently for religious reasons. Larry Collins in his book, O`Jerusalem highlights how many US citizens discouraged Jewish migration into the USA, and wanted a migration to Palestine, thereby claiming a Jewish state there. While themselves living in USA. I have always wondered whether the first inclination of a European Jew, after WWII, would have been to migrate to a safe and prosperous USA, or to go back into a war in Palestine for religious reasons. My guess would be the former.
Lets say they European Jews would have asked for a state three times the size of current Israel, along the Seatle/Vancouver border. Or somewhere in the corner of New Mexico. Giving practical considerations more importance than religious ones. Wouldn`t they have been better off, more secure, more prosperous than they are today? And less disliked? And the world would have been a safer place also. And they would have humanely gotten their state, not at the expense of another people.
I am sure they could have easily gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimages, and would have been welcomed. Much like I can go to Mecca and Medina. After all, even today, most of the Jews in Israel are actually non-European Jews, and not White Jews. Aslo, the UN decision on the state of Israel, wasn`t as clear cut as people think. Do study it in more detail. And the amount of pressure the USA had to put on other countries to agree.
In all fairness to the Palestinians, they have lost their homeland for no fault of theirs. Other than the religious persuasions of people of another faith. In retrospect, being the weaker force, they should have accepted the inevitable and handed over their land to Isreal, in 48. But anyone would fight to keep their land if someone came to occupy it. If someone occupied your house, wouldn`t you resist.
Even now, the plan offered by and accepatable by Palestinians, only claims 22% of the original land owned by them pre-48. Israel isn`t even willing to accept that. They want it to be 21%, with Israel holding certain key areas. So someone comes in, takes over your house, and won`t even give back 22% of it. When he could have gotten a much better house, anywhere in the world. And only wants your house, because of his religious beliefs.
People talk about disastrous and self-destructive decisions, based on religious reasons, made by others (specifically Muslims). I think, in the coming centuries, when people look back, the most self-destructive religious decision of the 20th century will be European Jews demanding the world`s only Jewish state, smack in the middle of an area, where it was the most difficult for it to survive. I really don`t think Israel will last, in its current form (or at all) in the next hundred to two hundred years. Not because, I want its destruction. But because for a country to survive (and expand), it has to have a population which is growing, and not decreasing demographically. In fifteen years, Arabs will outnumber Jews in combined Israel and occupied territories.
A decreasing population of 4-5 million people, in a tiny piece of land, surrounded by 22 oil-rich countries with a growing population of 220 million Arabs, will have its work cut out for it, when the 220 million people finally get their act together. Which one assumes, the Arabs will in fifty to a hundred years.
Decisions based on common sense are always more successful than decisions made on ideological reasons. An Israel in its current corner of the Middle East has far less chance of surviving in the coming centuries than an Israel in some corner of Europe or North America or South America or Australia or practically anywhere else in the world...........
#91 Posted by sattar2 on November 11, 2004 5:03:03 pm
Yasser,
I gave the issue more thought … i.e., what led you to conclude that I harbor bitterness against Pakistan. I think it may be based on my comment of “Ahmadi experience coloring my views” (post #40). Admittedly, this requires clarification …
The said reference was certainly not alluding to any bitterness against Pakistan on the Ahmadi issue (actually bitterness occurred to me only after I deliberately thought about it … after reading your post). Obviously things should be better … but malaise … no, no way, and hopefully never. Despite spending past 17-or-so years in the US, my affection for Pakistan, its people, its culture remains unmitigated. Although I am not big on nationalist or cultural pride … and hold dear all cultures and people … my roots in Pakistan do induce a certain bias in my thinking in its favor, which I am cognizant of and cautiously embrace.
My “Ahmadi experience” comment … referred to benefit of migration reaped by Ahmadis individually and as a jamaat. Without this migration, jammat members would still be suffering in Pakistan ... with little progress. Since Ahmadis have remained committed to their cause across the globe, migration has changed the dynamics of the conflict in their favor. It has given Ahamdis much needed leverage … while allowing them to take the jamaat to a global level.
Hopefully my comment is now clear … and any misunderstanding removed. As for the Arafat issue … I agree with some of what you wrote, on some issues I differ, and on the rest I reserve judgment. And I guess that’s life. Later dude …
#90 Posted by temporal on November 11, 2004 4:06:38 pm
Ijaz:
Like so many Arab leaders, Arafat governed by emotion rather than reason - George Bush Junior is the nearest equivalent in his Iraq war - and this led Arafat into flights of rhetoric that were a panacea to his people as they were an insult to his educated elite.
Edward Said, that most brilliant of Palestinian scholars, was driven to distraction by Arafat`s seamless nonsense as well as by his vain, dictatorial rule - Arafat banned Said`s books and Palestinians who wished to read them had to purchase them in Israel.
There was another, more profound conversation, between Said and Arafat, in 1985 when the two men were discussing Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who supported the 1936 revolt against British rule, who always believed that the Zionists would take Palestinian land for an Israeli state but who ended up in wartime Berlin, urging Hitler to prevent the emigration of Jews to Palestine and encouraging Bosnian Muslims to join the SS.
According to Said, the PLO leader laid his hand on Said`s knee and gripped it very tightly. And Arafat said: ``Edward, if there`s one thing I don`t want to be it`s like Haj Amin. He was always right and he got nothing and died in exile.``
What will they say of Arafat? The Israelis refused permission for Haj Amin to be buried in Jerusalem. Ariel Sharon has already said the same rule will apply to Arafat. In death, at least, they, Arafat and Haj Amin, were equal.
Arafat: the face of the Palestinian dream --By Robert Fisk
Like so many Arab leaders, Arafat governed by emotion rather than reason - George Bush Junior is the nearest equivalent in his Iraq war - and this led Arafat into flights of rhetoric that were a panacea to his people as they were an insult to his educated elite.
Edward Said, that most brilliant of Palestinian scholars, was driven to distraction by Arafat`s seamless nonsense as well as by his vain, dictatorial rule - Arafat banned Said`s books and Palestinians who wished to read them had to purchase them in Israel.
There was another, more profound conversation, between Said and Arafat, in 1985 when the two men were discussing Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who supported the 1936 revolt against British rule, who always believed that the Zionists would take Palestinian land for an Israeli state but who ended up in wartime Berlin, urging Hitler to prevent the emigration of Jews to Palestine and encouraging Bosnian Muslims to join the SS.
According to Said, the PLO leader laid his hand on Said`s knee and gripped it very tightly. And Arafat said: ``Edward, if there`s one thing I don`t want to be it`s like Haj Amin. He was always right and he got nothing and died in exile.``
What will they say of Arafat? The Israelis refused permission for Haj Amin to be buried in Jerusalem. Ariel Sharon has already said the same rule will apply to Arafat. In death, at least, they, Arafat and Haj Amin, were equal.
Arafat: the face of the Palestinian dream --By Robert Fisk
#89 Posted by epiphany on November 11, 2004 7:34:20 am
temporal,
Israelis have been attempting to settle down at Zion since 1270 BC. And after suffering defeat by the Philistines in 1050 BC went so far as to solemnize their conquest around 1000 BC by forming a kingdom under King David.
Several defeats and turmoils later, the desire for Israelis to return to Palestine was even greater than ever amid Hitler`s Anti-Semitism campaign that subsequently led to World War II.
Before that in 1917 - 18, the British together with Arabs defeated the Ottoman stronghold and conquered Palestine. Historically, the chief blame in most probability resides on British shoulders as they promised a Palestinian state to the Muslims after World War II and simultaneously promised the same to Israelis for their help to win the war.
When the British realized the frugality and inability of meeting their irresolute promises to either side, they gladly dusted their shoulders off this gruesome load and rested this heavy cap on the UN`s head in November, 1947.
The UN proposed to partition Palestine to divide it between Palestinians and the Jews. The Mufti of Jerusalem representing the Palestinians refused but the Jews accepted it. War followed, but the Jews won. Israel was born, May 14, 1948.
Israel stands today as it stands because before independence they thought: Let`s get what we can get today and we`ll figure out the rest tomorrow. The land of Palestine isn`t even a country today because in their rigid egoistic zeal they think: We will settle for all of Palestine.
Peace!
Israelis have been attempting to settle down at Zion since 1270 BC. And after suffering defeat by the Philistines in 1050 BC went so far as to solemnize their conquest around 1000 BC by forming a kingdom under King David.
Several defeats and turmoils later, the desire for Israelis to return to Palestine was even greater than ever amid Hitler`s Anti-Semitism campaign that subsequently led to World War II.
Before that in 1917 - 18, the British together with Arabs defeated the Ottoman stronghold and conquered Palestine. Historically, the chief blame in most probability resides on British shoulders as they promised a Palestinian state to the Muslims after World War II and simultaneously promised the same to Israelis for their help to win the war.
When the British realized the frugality and inability of meeting their irresolute promises to either side, they gladly dusted their shoulders off this gruesome load and rested this heavy cap on the UN`s head in November, 1947.
The UN proposed to partition Palestine to divide it between Palestinians and the Jews. The Mufti of Jerusalem representing the Palestinians refused but the Jews accepted it. War followed, but the Jews won. Israel was born, May 14, 1948.
Israel stands today as it stands because before independence they thought: Let`s get what we can get today and we`ll figure out the rest tomorrow. The land of Palestine isn`t even a country today because in their rigid egoistic zeal they think: We will settle for all of Palestine.
Peace!
#88 Posted by ijaz_gul on November 11, 2004 7:32:57 am
I feel that Yasir deserves a great tribute. I also feel that Temporal was most unkind to him in his articlel. Yasir has to be seen in the context of the dying colonialism and emergence of freedom movements all over the world. At a time when their territory was being bargained away, he became a popular leader not only for the Palestinians but also all those nationalities who opposed the usurption of the Palestinian lands by the Jews and their supporters. He had nothing to fight from. No Land, no government and no international support. He lit the candle of the struggle which will continue to glow amidst more violence and inflexible Israeli attitude. To say as Ferozek wrote that he is a past, is belittling this great symbol of resistance. He was a symbol of hope for many and many parents in our part of the world named their sons Yasir.
Yasir is Dead! Long Live Yasir!
Yasir is Dead! Long Live Yasir!
#87 Posted by tahmed32 on November 11, 2004 7:32:57 am
nasah quotes a palestinian: `Yasser Arafat equals Palestine......Period ``
This echoes what the bourbon Louis XI said over 500 years ago: ``L`etat c`est moi`` (I am the state).
Through the centuries, that arrogant, self-serving quote has been held as the essence of dictatorships and kingships. 500 years later, muslims still dont get it. No wonder there is so little democracy in muslim countries!! No wonder leaders in muslim countries - whether it is musharaff or arafat - cling to power until forcibly separated from it. There are too many muslims like nasah who have this slavish need to have a ``Great Leader`` to follow!! And too many muslim leaders who cling to power as if God hinself had nominated them to it.
This echoes what the bourbon Louis XI said over 500 years ago: ``L`etat c`est moi`` (I am the state).
Through the centuries, that arrogant, self-serving quote has been held as the essence of dictatorships and kingships. 500 years later, muslims still dont get it. No wonder there is so little democracy in muslim countries!! No wonder leaders in muslim countries - whether it is musharaff or arafat - cling to power until forcibly separated from it. There are too many muslims like nasah who have this slavish need to have a ``Great Leader`` to follow!! And too many muslim leaders who cling to power as if God hinself had nominated them to it.
#86 Posted by temporal on November 11, 2004 4:01:36 am
stuka:
...may his soul rest in peace! (inna lillah e ...)
...at each critical juncture in history similar queries are heard...after mao what...?...after nehru who...?...after nasser who...?
...leadership abhors vacuum...life, like time and tide moves on...
...in another 50-60 years in the state of Palestine...in all government and some private offices yasser`s portrait would adorn...like they do in other countries with bapu and quaid...symbolic lip service...time and tide and history are cruel task masters indeed!
...may his soul rest in peace! (inna lillah e ...)
...at each critical juncture in history similar queries are heard...after mao what...?...after nehru who...?...after nasser who...?
...leadership abhors vacuum...life, like time and tide moves on...
...in another 50-60 years in the state of Palestine...in all government and some private offices yasser`s portrait would adorn...like they do in other countries with bapu and quaid...symbolic lip service...time and tide and history are cruel task masters indeed!
#85 Posted by sattar2 on November 10, 2004 7:12:37 pm
Yasir,
The sad day should not be so ... and here’s why ...
But first, I must protest your comment about malaise towards Pakistan. No, no, no … this is not correct. You must take it back … I protest. Heck, I’ll be visiting Pakistan soon … and look forward to waking up at noon to a hot tea and a cigarette in the patio, visiting boat basin, taking bus rides to the bohri bazaar, riding the camels at sea view, having friday buffet at gymkhana … what’s not to love about all this? Jeeeeez man … coming from you, this really hurts …
Now to the immigration issue …
It certainly applies to those miserably oppressed. How else can one describe suicide bombers? Some Palestinians and their leaders may need to stay back to leverage their cause from home base, agreed. But those driven to hopelessness … by economy, harassment, violence, lack of basic facilities … should try to leave and find better prospects elsewhere. No?
This does not necessarily endorse leadership of Arafat. If he is the best Palestinians had to offer … does that necessarily make him a good leader? It may very well be due to him that Palestine is on the map. But Palestinians are more important than Palestine itself. And a lot of Palestinians would have been better off leaving the land altogether.
Migration would let them settle in foreign lands, establish themselves … and even educate jims and bobs about their cause. This would elevate their struggle to another platform. But if all jim and bob hear are suicide bombings in Palestine … how does this help?
Lastly … my point was to criticize the “guardians of the holy land” argument of the ummah … which stinks. If the Prophet can leave the city which has the House of God, ummah can surely leave Jerusalem without upsetting Allah too much …
[Ok, if it is still not clear, consider ... a Palestinian women, with two young sons. One son gets killed pelting stones at an Israeli tank. The other one, who now is an angry youth, may end up the same way, she fears. Her brother in New York wants to sponsor them for US citizenship. What should she do? Cut her losses and get out … or keep defending the holy land? ….
… and I wonder what advice Malik Sahib has for this woman?]
#84 Posted by nikki7777 on November 10, 2004 7:12:37 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#83 Posted by stuka on November 10, 2004 4:05:39 pm
```Yasser Arafat equals Palestine,`` said 19-year-old Suleiman Abu Shoker.``......Period ``
err, so like..Palestine might die in a couple of weeks???
err, so like..Palestine might die in a couple of weeks???
#82 Posted by jang on November 10, 2004 9:31:43 am
i am very much impressed by the scholarship displayed about palestinian casue on this board. is palestine struggle taught as a formal course of studies in pakistan? how does this compare to knowledge and scholarship about baluchis or baltis?
#81 Posted by MantoLives on November 10, 2004 9:31:43 am
correction last line #79
``there would be no palestine``
``there would be no palestine``
#80 Posted by sattar2 on November 10, 2004 9:31:43 am
Malik (in addition to my post #74),
As I have pointed out, when faced with insurmountable oppression, it is better to migrate, than to live under oppression. Psyche of enough Palestinians has eroded to the point where suicide bombings appears to be the only viable alternative. Imagine their misery and hopelessness! Obviously they would have been better off living in a foreign land, from where they could have better contributed to their effort. Migration is not tantamount to giving up the cause … but, taking the struggle to another region, from where the people can better deploy their resources.
So you want to apply the migration issue to Ahmadis. Fair enough … but how does this help the Palestinians? Those who follow Quran will benefit … regardless of the label given to their faith.
Ahmadis and migration
First, do note that Ahmadis have not resorted to violence of any other sort. And I hope and pray that this does not change … as it would completely defeat the cause. This is a major difference between Ahmadis and Palestinians. The comparison is somewhat deficient to begin with.
In any case, as persecution of Ahmadis escalated, they have migrated as opportunities surfaced. Tens of thousands have taken refuge in England, Germany, Canada, and some in the US. From these lands, they have moved on to form a global jamaat by establishing Islamic centers, mosques, schools, and hospitals (~ 14,000 altogether, if I recall correctly) …in almost every country of the world … even in remote villages of Africa. Migration has afforded them peace, a global outlook, and opportunities to take message of Islam to far off places. If they had insisted on staying back in Pakistan, they would have been totally occupied with fire-fighting … with little resources left to spread their message globally.
Muslim TV Ahmadiyya (aka MTA)
Here’s a textbook example of the benefit of migration to illustrate the case.
In early 80s our leader Mirza Tahir Ahmed migrated to England to avoid the oppressive Pakistani government. Under his close supervision in Europe, in ~1995 jammat launched a global satellite network … which today broadcasts Friday sermons, Islamic and other educational programs, Q&A on Islam, and news … in major languages, all over the world, 18-or-so hours a day. The jammat is in discussions with European cable companies to carry MTA as a regular channel in their package. This effort is fully financed by the personal donation of jamaat members all over the world.
In hindsight, his migration turned out to be a blessing. In Pakistan neither the environment nor the technical infrastructure existed to support such a massive project. If Ahmadis are not even allowed to carry a copy of Quran … how could we have launched a global network broadcasting Islamic programs all over the world in major languages?
I think that it is for such reasons that Quran encourages migration when people become oppressed. Not only this, but it declares that those who migrate for the right cause are most dear to Allah. It surely beats the heck out of suicide bombings.
There’s more … but I’ll pause here for now.
(YLH, I`ll respond to your comments next ... as time permits)
#79 Posted by nasah on November 10, 2004 7:06:52 am
u all can babble whatever u want to about Arafat in posts after posts of over analized Evangelico-Zionist inanities -- but here is what one -- who really counts -- a new generation Palestinian has to say about Mr. Arafat:
`Yasser Arafat equals Palestine,`` said 19-year-old Suleiman Abu Shoker.``......Period
`Yasser Arafat equals Palestine,`` said 19-year-old Suleiman Abu Shoker.``......Period
#78 Posted by MantoLives on November 10, 2004 7:06:52 am
Sattar,
It is a sad day when I have to side with Malik99 against you... and perhaps it is indicative of the malaise that has gripped the Ahmaddiya community which had forfeit its rights in the country that this community had fought to create, perhaps playing a more leading role than other Islamic sects...
Leaving is no option... and Yasser Arafat was the best the Palestinians had... let me say this... it is only because of Arafat that there is a palestine and a legal framework on the map... had he given up... and left as you suggest ... there would be Palestine... only Israel...
-YLH
It is a sad day when I have to side with Malik99 against you... and perhaps it is indicative of the malaise that has gripped the Ahmaddiya community which had forfeit its rights in the country that this community had fought to create, perhaps playing a more leading role than other Islamic sects...
Leaving is no option... and Yasser Arafat was the best the Palestinians had... let me say this... it is only because of Arafat that there is a palestine and a legal framework on the map... had he given up... and left as you suggest ... there would be Palestine... only Israel...
-YLH
#77 Posted by Siddiqua on November 9, 2004 3:11:59 pm
#63 fuzair
Right.
Good causes all. Begaar. Haris in Sindh, muza`aras in Punjab, Sarhad and Balochistan. Bhatta workers. Christians all over Pakistan, Hindus all over Pakistan. Ahmadis/Qadyanis all over Pakistan, and soon to join this group, Shias all over Pakistan. Women in Pakistan in general. Yes, karo-kari too, which isn`t confined to Sindh only, but is also practiced with the same religious zeal and fervour in the Punjab, Sarhad and Balochistan, albeit under different names.
Forget about the Kashmiris and Palestinians, stick closer to home.
How about attempting to devise some antidote to the institutionalized corruption that is being practiced in Pakistan by the military since 1958?
How about attempting to devise an educational system that fosters learning and does not produce formatted floppies instead of educated, aware and responsible humans?
How about attempting to instil sincerety to their calling in at least among two professions, the judiciary and the journalists in Pakistan?
How about . . .
Isn`t this darn list getting a bit too long for comfort?
Siddiqua Haqnawaa
Right.
Good causes all. Begaar. Haris in Sindh, muza`aras in Punjab, Sarhad and Balochistan. Bhatta workers. Christians all over Pakistan, Hindus all over Pakistan. Ahmadis/Qadyanis all over Pakistan, and soon to join this group, Shias all over Pakistan. Women in Pakistan in general. Yes, karo-kari too, which isn`t confined to Sindh only, but is also practiced with the same religious zeal and fervour in the Punjab, Sarhad and Balochistan, albeit under different names.
Forget about the Kashmiris and Palestinians, stick closer to home.
How about attempting to devise some antidote to the institutionalized corruption that is being practiced in Pakistan by the military since 1958?
How about attempting to devise an educational system that fosters learning and does not produce formatted floppies instead of educated, aware and responsible humans?
How about attempting to instil sincerety to their calling in at least among two professions, the judiciary and the journalists in Pakistan?
How about . . .
Isn`t this darn list getting a bit too long for comfort?
Siddiqua Haqnawaa
#76 Posted by tahmed32 on November 9, 2004 1:05:58 pm
HP #75 Since you are getting high on money, perhaps you could pass some of that good stuff around (just like folks getting high on other stuff pass the joint around). :-)
As for the figures of war dead in 1973, neither you nor I was there to do the body count. We have to go by what is generally accepted as being the facts of what happened. But then, neither you nor I was there to do a body count on ANY war, so by this reasoning all wars have been fake wars.
Also, my basic point was that why would Israel and Egypt go through all this trouble of faking a war just to maintain that ersatz diplomatic protocol you came up with that countries need to recognize their respective statehoods before they can negotiate.
As for the figures of war dead in 1973, neither you nor I was there to do the body count. We have to go by what is generally accepted as being the facts of what happened. But then, neither you nor I was there to do a body count on ANY war, so by this reasoning all wars have been fake wars.
Also, my basic point was that why would Israel and Egypt go through all this trouble of faking a war just to maintain that ersatz diplomatic protocol you came up with that countries need to recognize their respective statehoods before they can negotiate.
#75 Posted by malik99 on November 9, 2004 9:46:28 am
Sattar2 # 71 - Following are the phrases you have used in your one single post regarding me:
``your intellectual constipation``
``you are a bigger fool``
``Yours is indeed a sub-intelligent, knee-jerk reaction.``
``hot-blooded jihadi``
Sattar sahib, why are you getting all defensive?! I am on YOUR side. Remember? I agreed fully with your suggestion that palestinians should pack their bags and leave. I even did not argue with YOUR interpretation of Quranic verses either. In fact, I marvel at your simple and clear thinking. Why didn`t this idea hit kashmiris, iraqis, chechens, filipino muslims, thai muslims, bsonians?!! Your idea that, when faced with oppression Muslims should pack their bags and leave, is simply brilliant.
All I did was to extrapolate that idea and suggested that we apply it to qadiyanis in Pakistan. They have been complaining for a while about oppression. But they are still there, organizing and fighting Muslim majority`s oppression. But no sooner did i suggest YOUR idea for YOUR community, you go all bonkers on me.
Thats not fair sattar sahib. That only shows the cute bigotry and hatred you harbor for muslims. Thats all. But still, I like your idea.
``your intellectual constipation``
``you are a bigger fool``
``Yours is indeed a sub-intelligent, knee-jerk reaction.``
``hot-blooded jihadi``
Sattar sahib, why are you getting all defensive?! I am on YOUR side. Remember? I agreed fully with your suggestion that palestinians should pack their bags and leave. I even did not argue with YOUR interpretation of Quranic verses either. In fact, I marvel at your simple and clear thinking. Why didn`t this idea hit kashmiris, iraqis, chechens, filipino muslims, thai muslims, bsonians?!! Your idea that, when faced with oppression Muslims should pack their bags and leave, is simply brilliant.
All I did was to extrapolate that idea and suggested that we apply it to qadiyanis in Pakistan. They have been complaining for a while about oppression. But they are still there, organizing and fighting Muslim majority`s oppression. But no sooner did i suggest YOUR idea for YOUR community, you go all bonkers on me.
Thats not fair sattar sahib. That only shows the cute bigotry and hatred you harbor for muslims. Thats all. But still, I like your idea.
#74 Posted by sattar2 on November 9, 2004 9:46:28 am
Malik …
As I have shown, Quran recommends migration when one is faced with insurmountable oppression. This instruction is supported by common sense as well. It is pointless for one to live helplessly under oppression … while refusing to migrate. Such stubbornness gives rise to desperation, perpetuates the cycle of misery and violence, and degenerates into a suicide bomber’s mindset. Does any of this ring a bell?
Migration under such circumstances is one of the most endearing action in the sight of Allah (according to Quran, if you care to follow it). It gives a person the opportunity to better his life, the lives of his family members, and more. It also allows a person, a community, to take their cause to another region, to a different platform, to a higher level … from where they can better struggle for their cause.
Migration of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) perfectly illustrates this. Allah Almighty strengthened his cause, and granted him peace, security, and a community of faithful companions. This allowed the dear Prophet (pbuh) to build a community along principles of justice and civility, and to take his mission to the next level. None of this would have been possible if Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions had refused to leave their homes, and instead chosen to live under perpetual oppression and suffering.
Sahib … I am citing and trying to explain Allah’s commandment here. Don’t continue to be a stubborn jihadi. Instead, try to appreciate the wisdom and the truth of this divine guidance. More later.
#73 Posted by HP on November 9, 2004 9:46:28 am
#70
tahmed,
I know some concepts appear strange to many people. People dying in a war have never stopped power games. That’s never been a consideration for any thing. Especially military- they know they are going to die and their families get compensated.
I think 10000 or 3000 or grossly exaggerated figures. They came right out of the Egyptian and Israel propaganda offices. Why should I or any body believe those numbers?
Anyway, nowadays only smell of money intoxicates me and that keeps coming so instead of coke I am mostly high on money!
tahmed,
I know some concepts appear strange to many people. People dying in a war have never stopped power games. That’s never been a consideration for any thing. Especially military- they know they are going to die and their families get compensated.
I think 10000 or 3000 or grossly exaggerated figures. They came right out of the Egyptian and Israel propaganda offices. Why should I or any body believe those numbers?
Anyway, nowadays only smell of money intoxicates me and that keeps coming so instead of coke I am mostly high on money!
#72 Posted by stuka on November 9, 2004 6:06:37 am
What is the Indian to Pakistani ratio of people posting on this thread?
#71 Posted by sattar2 on November 8, 2004 6:46:44 pm
Malik (60):
I’ll try to unplug your intellectual constipation by stating that … the option of migrating from the land of oppression … applies to Ahmadi Muslims also. I hope you feel better now. If you conclude that by making such a suggestion, I support oppression … of Palestinians or Ahmadis … than you are a bigger fool than I originally suspected.
Does such a suggestion in Quran mean that Allah supports oppression and has hatred for humanity? Yours is indeed a sub-intelligent, knee-jerk reaction.
Carried out properly, this option offers a better, more effective way for Palestinians to carry their struggle. Quranic teachings proved their worth … when migration turned out to be the turning point for the mission of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Palestinians are being driven out of their homes as the State of Israel continues to oppress them. The issue is … how should they deal with these circumstances? Ummah should seek guidance from Quran first and foremost and accept that suicide bombings, violence will never win them peace and security.
I’ll post next on how following the Quranic guidance of migrating has worked for Ahmadi Muslims. May be then you will stop arguing like a hot-blooded jihadi …
#70 Posted by tahmed32 on November 8, 2004 6:46:43 pm
HP: So if I understand you right, Egypt pretended to attack and Israel pretended to lose in 1973. I am sure the families of the 10,000 egyptians and 3,000 Israelis who died fighting would be thrilled to learn abou this!! Unless you tell me that they were faking it too, and that in the evening (after the photographers were gone) all these arab and israeli ``war dead`` got up, dusted off their clothes, had a good laugh and went over to Rick`s Cafe for a round of drinks. And all this just because Israelis and Egyptians were prevented by this ersatz diplomatic protocol you present whereby two parties must recognize each other`s statehood before they can sit around the negotiating table!! Ha! ha!
HP my friend, you are a sincere man, but surely you will grant that one needs more than a pinch of cocaine to buy this one.
And you think 1971 was a fake ware too. Please stop. I am laughing so hard I just got hernia. Ha! ha!
HP my friend, you are a sincere man, but surely you will grant that one needs more than a pinch of cocaine to buy this one.
And you think 1971 was a fake ware too. Please stop. I am laughing so hard I just got hernia. Ha! ha!
#69 Posted by sattar2 on November 8, 2004 6:46:42 pm
Malik (60):
I’ll try to unplug your intellectual constipation by stating that … Quranic guidance of migrating from the land of oppression applies to Ahmadi Muslims also. Happy now? If you think that by making such a suggestion I support oppression … of Palestinians … of Ahmadis … then yours is indeed a knee jerk reaction.
Does the Quranic suggestion that one should migrate to avoid oppression imply that Allah supports oppression and has hatred for humanity? Based on your posts, the answer seem to be a resounding ``yes``.
Migration turned out to be a turning point for the mission of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also. Palestinians are now being oppressed by the State of Israel. The issue is … how should they, the Palestinians, react now? My view is that they should seek guidance from Quran first and foremost … and should accept that suicide bombings, violence against civilians are not going to win them peace and security. It is for this reason that I quoted from Quran … but you are more interested in what you think should be done, and not what the Almighty commands you to do.
More later ...
#68 Posted by Romair on November 8, 2004 4:01:45 pm
I must say, I am amazed at the popularity Palestinians and Arafat enjoy amongst Pakistanis. I have never been able to figure out why. Just out of curiousity, how much experience do the individuals who are so supportive of Palestinians, have in working with them as a Pakistani? Have they ever been in the same business environment with them? Do they know what the Palestinians think of Pakistanis? Do Palestinians support Pakistanis, or do they under-cut Pakistanis?
Pakistanis, both secular and maulvis, go way overboard in their support for Palestine. It should be supported as a human rights violation case. But, Pakistanis should also demand, from Palestinians and Arafat reciprocity in support for Pakistan. At the very least, not support for India, when it is battling Pakistan. And if the Palestinians do not agree, then Pakistanis should stop tearing down their street signs in protest.
And for heavens sake, recognize Israel, so that the US Jewish lobby gets off Pakistan`s case. One should not be more Catholic than the Pope. Jordan, Egypt, and even Palestine itself, has recognized Israel. What the hell are we waiting for?
P.S. I will tell you what we are waiting for. We are too scared to piss of the Saudi monarchy, which has made a living in posing itself as the Islamic warriors (not that I have anything against Islamic warriors - specifically the ones who took on occupying powers), to satisfy its local Wahabbi maulvis. Why in the world does every Pakistani PM take-off to Saudi Arabia to meet the King after being elected?
Pakistan should recognize the Jewish State of Israel, and then tell the Jewish lobbies and Israel that they should stop killing innocent Palestinians. And then concentrate on problems closer to home...........
Pakistanis, both secular and maulvis, go way overboard in their support for Palestine. It should be supported as a human rights violation case. But, Pakistanis should also demand, from Palestinians and Arafat reciprocity in support for Pakistan. At the very least, not support for India, when it is battling Pakistan. And if the Palestinians do not agree, then Pakistanis should stop tearing down their street signs in protest.
And for heavens sake, recognize Israel, so that the US Jewish lobby gets off Pakistan`s case. One should not be more Catholic than the Pope. Jordan, Egypt, and even Palestine itself, has recognized Israel. What the hell are we waiting for?
P.S. I will tell you what we are waiting for. We are too scared to piss of the Saudi monarchy, which has made a living in posing itself as the Islamic warriors (not that I have anything against Islamic warriors - specifically the ones who took on occupying powers), to satisfy its local Wahabbi maulvis. Why in the world does every Pakistani PM take-off to Saudi Arabia to meet the King after being elected?
Pakistan should recognize the Jewish State of Israel, and then tell the Jewish lobbies and Israel that they should stop killing innocent Palestinians. And then concentrate on problems closer to home...........
#65 Posted by temporal on November 8, 2004 3:17:02 pm
sac:
To judge a leader, one needs to look at the condition of the led before his arrival and after his departure
this was in 2001...bantustisation is worse now:
To judge a leader, one needs to look at the condition of the led before his arrival and after his departure
this was in 2001...bantustisation is worse now:
#64 Posted by sac on November 8, 2004 2:48:15 pm
The ones we think of as heores reveals more about ourselves than anything else. For instance there are people who consider Majid Khan or Salim Malik as batsmen that brought them the greatest joy. There are others who think Javed Miandad was the best batsman ever. Is there a single metric to decide who was better? Runs, averages and style are largely a matter of personal preference.
I believe there also a metric to judge the quality of leadership. To judge a leader, one needs to look at the condition of the led before his arrival and after his departure. Whether you look at it in terms of economic, physical or territorial terms is entirely upto you. It makes things easier because one can get away from bullshit like symbols of resistance and embodiment of freedom struggle etc. It also removes the need to create what if scenarios and the familiar jewish conspiracies that wait for Osama`s latest video to be discounted(actually Osama is a Mossad agent who who has a crush on Urstruly and malik99 but that is another story altogether...)
When you apply that simple metric to all the ``heroes`` I listed in my earlier post and then some, you find out that they failed their people miserably. No wonder will they be consigned to the footnotes of history.
later
-sac
I believe there also a metric to judge the quality of leadership. To judge a leader, one needs to look at the condition of the led before his arrival and after his departure. Whether you look at it in terms of economic, physical or territorial terms is entirely upto you. It makes things easier because one can get away from bullshit like symbols of resistance and embodiment of freedom struggle etc. It also removes the need to create what if scenarios and the familiar jewish conspiracies that wait for Osama`s latest video to be discounted(actually Osama is a Mossad agent who who has a crush on Urstruly and malik99 but that is another story altogether...)
When you apply that simple metric to all the ``heroes`` I listed in my earlier post and then some, you find out that they failed their people miserably. No wonder will they be consigned to the footnotes of history.
later
-sac
#63 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on November 8, 2004 2:48:14 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#62 Posted by fuzair on November 8, 2004 2:48:14 pm
Siddiqua,
I don`t know. How about begaar labour? Haris in Sindh? Brickkiln workers? Christians in the Punjab? Hindus in Sindh? Women in Pakistan in general: say, karo-kari killings? Take your pick. Even Kashmiris. Just not the Palestinians.
I don`t know. How about begaar labour? Haris in Sindh? Brickkiln workers? Christians in the Punjab? Hindus in Sindh? Women in Pakistan in general: say, karo-kari killings? Take your pick. Even Kashmiris. Just not the Palestinians.
#61 Posted by HP on November 8, 2004 2:48:13 pm
tahmed32 #52
“I think you cross the line of reasonableness”
Now that is an unreasonable conclusion!
Anyway, there were many wars in the history books that could easily be placed under the fake category.
Let me try to enunciate my contention here.
Modern Wars are fought on many fronts. We are way past the era when Mongol or any other hordes would jump on nations and peaceful countries for the sole purpose of plundering a given people or area.
Since the 1973 war, there has not been any military conflict between the warring countries in the ME. It would be a good idea to think about the reasons behind that. One reason would be that Arab countries are totally outclassed in military hardware and training to even think about taking Israel on in a physical battlefield.
The other and much easier to understand would be that the Arab countries have resigned to the fact that they cannot shoo Israel away from Palestinian lands physically or diplomatically. We will come to this later but I wanna take a quick look at the situation before the 1973 and after it to explain my point in more details.
There were three Arab countries that were fully involved in 1967 war and all of them suffered serious blows to their military readiness during the five days. In the 1973 war Egypt was the only active country against Israel. (Syria partially but not fully)
Egypt suffered enormous military losses during the ‘67 war and the only source it had, after the 1967 war, to replenish its military capabilities was the Soviet Union. Now if you go thru the records, you will figured out that the Egyptian army in war preparedness was well below the 1967 level.(which was already low) Hardware was not fully replaced; Air force was pretty much half of its 1967 strength and the troops moral were low. That means that Egypt militarily was not in any better shape to take on Israel by itself in 1973. Without much help from other Arab countries how was Egypt able to take on Israel and recapture the lost area considering its weakened military preparedness? Recall that Israel during the same time period 1967-1973 had increased its military capabilities way above the 1967 level.
In a physical war based on all the facts above, it is clear that Egypt was NOT in any position to force Israeli out of Sinai without some help from Angels.
Now look at the political and diplomatic aspects of the war.
Anwar Saddat, as soon as he took power, was looking for a way to get out of constant state of confrontation with Israel. There was also pressure from the US and to some extent from the Soviet Union on Egypt and Israel to bring peace in the ME. It would have been politically suicidal for Sadaat and Egypt to work with Israel without first getting lost territories back. It was also not a feasible option for Egypt to accept a gift of its own lost territory from Israel. So, if Egypt couldn’t force Israel to get Sinai back neither could it accept a gift from Israel that would have brought the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt; What should it do? The only options were to win that area back in a war or sit on negotiation table. Negotiating with Israel w/o recognizing it first was not also a viable option. Hence, a diplomatic option looked much more feasible.
Sadaat presumably agreed with all interested powers that if Egypt gets the Sinai back, Egypt would recognize Israel and work with it to peacefully to resolve all issues. This diplomatic solution was put in place thru the 1973 war, where a much weakened military power (Egypt) was able to regain its lost territory in full by presumably beating a vastly superior military power - Israel. That so called victory in the 1973 war gave Sadaat the creditability that he needed to boldly recognize Israel and still muster enough support in the country for political survival.
Within a short period after the 1973 war, Egypt recognized Israel and soon Israeli Prime Minister was in Cairo to build relationship with the largest military and political Arab power in the region. The Camp David accord amounted to an acceptance by the Arabs that they were not capable of forcing Israel in any way so they decided to back off from the Palestine issue and let Palestinian fight their war with limited help from other ME countries. Sadaat still lost his life after the Camp David accord simply because he ended up going to far in Camp David accord and many forces in Egypt considered him traitor enough to attempt to kill him in multiple efforts. One of those efforts succeeded in the early 80s.
Since 1974, Egypt is the number two recipient of the US aid behind Israel plus it is not more than a spectator in the Palestinian and Israeli struggle for the last thirty years.
I hope you are not going to be too upset when I say the 1971 between Pakistan and India was also a fake war :)
“I think you cross the line of reasonableness”
Now that is an unreasonable conclusion!
Anyway, there were many wars in the history books that could easily be placed under the fake category.
Let me try to enunciate my contention here.
Modern Wars are fought on many fronts. We are way past the era when Mongol or any other hordes would jump on nations and peaceful countries for the sole purpose of plundering a given people or area.
Since the 1973 war, there has not been any military conflict between the warring countries in the ME. It would be a good idea to think about the reasons behind that. One reason would be that Arab countries are totally outclassed in military hardware and training to even think about taking Israel on in a physical battlefield.
The other and much easier to understand would be that the Arab countries have resigned to the fact that they cannot shoo Israel away from Palestinian lands physically or diplomatically. We will come to this later but I wanna take a quick look at the situation before the 1973 and after it to explain my point in more details.
There were three Arab countries that were fully involved in 1967 war and all of them suffered serious blows to their military readiness during the five days. In the 1973 war Egypt was the only active country against Israel. (Syria partially but not fully)
Egypt suffered enormous military losses during the ‘67 war and the only source it had, after the 1967 war, to replenish its military capabilities was the Soviet Union. Now if you go thru the records, you will figured out that the Egyptian army in war preparedness was well below the 1967 level.(which was already low) Hardware was not fully replaced; Air force was pretty much half of its 1967 strength and the troops moral were low. That means that Egypt militarily was not in any better shape to take on Israel by itself in 1973. Without much help from other Arab countries how was Egypt able to take on Israel and recapture the lost area considering its weakened military preparedness? Recall that Israel during the same time period 1967-1973 had increased its military capabilities way above the 1967 level.
In a physical war based on all the facts above, it is clear that Egypt was NOT in any position to force Israeli out of Sinai without some help from Angels.
Now look at the political and diplomatic aspects of the war.
Anwar Saddat, as soon as he took power, was looking for a way to get out of constant state of confrontation with Israel. There was also pressure from the US and to some extent from the Soviet Union on Egypt and Israel to bring peace in the ME. It would have been politically suicidal for Sadaat and Egypt to work with Israel without first getting lost territories back. It was also not a feasible option for Egypt to accept a gift of its own lost territory from Israel. So, if Egypt couldn’t force Israel to get Sinai back neither could it accept a gift from Israel that would have brought the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt; What should it do? The only options were to win that area back in a war or sit on negotiation table. Negotiating with Israel w/o recognizing it first was not also a viable option. Hence, a diplomatic option looked much more feasible.
Sadaat presumably agreed with all interested powers that if Egypt gets the Sinai back, Egypt would recognize Israel and work with it to peacefully to resolve all issues. This diplomatic solution was put in place thru the 1973 war, where a much weakened military power (Egypt) was able to regain its lost territory in full by presumably beating a vastly superior military power - Israel. That so called victory in the 1973 war gave Sadaat the creditability that he needed to boldly recognize Israel and still muster enough support in the country for political survival.
Within a short period after the 1973 war, Egypt recognized Israel and soon Israeli Prime Minister was in Cairo to build relationship with the largest military and political Arab power in the region. The Camp David accord amounted to an acceptance by the Arabs that they were not capable of forcing Israel in any way so they decided to back off from the Palestine issue and let Palestinian fight their war with limited help from other ME countries. Sadaat still lost his life after the Camp David accord simply because he ended up going to far in Camp David accord and many forces in Egypt considered him traitor enough to attempt to kill him in multiple efforts. One of those efforts succeeded in the early 80s.
Since 1974, Egypt is the number two recipient of the US aid behind Israel plus it is not more than a spectator in the Palestinian and Israeli struggle for the last thirty years.
I hope you are not going to be too upset when I say the 1971 between Pakistan and India was also a fake war :)
#60 Posted by malik99 on November 8, 2004 11:44:41 am
sattar # 59 writes ``Your rhetoric is unintelligent and ill-placed``
why is it `unintelligent`? I am not disputing your interpretation of Quran either. I am simply prescribing for your qadiyani community in Pakistan what you are prescribing for Palestinians. How`s that a `knee jerk` reaction?
perhaps its time for you to accept that your cute suggestion that millions of palestinians should pack their bags and move elsewhere is...sub-human. tomorrow, you might come up with the suggestion that if Iraqis don`t like US occupation, they should move elsewhere too. And so should Kashmiris and Filipino muslims and Chechnyans and.....
But interestingly, when it comes to me suggesting the same for your qadiyani community in Pakistan, you call it ``unintelligent`` rhetoric. That makes your hatred for Muslims and compassion and understanding for qadiyanis pretty clear.
ha!
why is it `unintelligent`? I am not disputing your interpretation of Quran either. I am simply prescribing for your qadiyani community in Pakistan what you are prescribing for Palestinians. How`s that a `knee jerk` reaction?
perhaps its time for you to accept that your cute suggestion that millions of palestinians should pack their bags and move elsewhere is...sub-human. tomorrow, you might come up with the suggestion that if Iraqis don`t like US occupation, they should move elsewhere too. And so should Kashmiris and Filipino muslims and Chechnyans and.....
But interestingly, when it comes to me suggesting the same for your qadiyani community in Pakistan, you call it ``unintelligent`` rhetoric. That makes your hatred for Muslims and compassion and understanding for qadiyanis pretty clear.
ha!
#59 Posted by sattar2 on November 8, 2004 10:40:40 am
Malik #48:
Your rhetoric is unintelligent and ill-placed. You wrote:
sattar # 40 writes ``Palestinians would have been better off making peace or leaving the country altogether.``
sounds like a plan. so, when are you telling your ahmedi community to move out of Pakistan? because, according to you, it is better to give in to oppression, than to fight it.
I tried to guard against this poorly thought-out conclusion … by mentioning that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also migrated when faced with insurmountable oppression in Mecca. Do you think he accepted defeat and gave in to oppression by migrating?
I further posted from Quran … where Allah encourages the oppressed to seek out better opportunities in foreign lands when faced with insurmountable oppression at home. Do you also criticize verdict of Allah here?
You response that … well, then sattar should also tell Ahmadis to leave Pakistan … is a knee-jerk reaction … which ironically highlights ummah’s dilemma. Ummah is fighting for survival … but is unable to think or rise above sectarian, religious quibbling. Can you do better?
++++++++++
t #58, well stated.
Your rhetoric is unintelligent and ill-placed. You wrote:
sattar # 40 writes ``Palestinians would have been better off making peace or leaving the country altogether.``
sounds like a plan. so, when are you telling your ahmedi community to move out of Pakistan? because, according to you, it is better to give in to oppression, than to fight it.
I tried to guard against this poorly thought-out conclusion … by mentioning that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also migrated when faced with insurmountable oppression in Mecca. Do you think he accepted defeat and gave in to oppression by migrating?
I further posted from Quran … where Allah encourages the oppressed to seek out better opportunities in foreign lands when faced with insurmountable oppression at home. Do you also criticize verdict of Allah here?
You response that … well, then sattar should also tell Ahmadis to leave Pakistan … is a knee-jerk reaction … which ironically highlights ummah’s dilemma. Ummah is fighting for survival … but is unable to think or rise above sectarian, religious quibbling. Can you do better?
++++++++++
t #58, well stated.
#58 Posted by temporal on November 8, 2004 9:29:53 am
…on Yasser Arafat
Haroon Siddiqui says in his Sunday column:
His incapacitation, even departure, may in fact give peace another chance. You can see that once you get past all the statements of the obvious:
He symbolized the Palestinian struggle. But he failed to make the transition from a resistance leader to statesman, ending up as a petty oligarch presiding over corruption and terrorism.
Of course. But there`s no denying his legacy: the inevitability of a Palestinian state, the endless postponement of which only guarantees more violence.
Arafat is like a vast banyan tree under which nothing grows. But once it dies, a new cycle of growth begins.
Haroon Siddiqui says in his Sunday column:
His incapacitation, even departure, may in fact give peace another chance. You can see that once you get past all the statements of the obvious:
He symbolized the Palestinian struggle. But he failed to make the transition from a resistance leader to statesman, ending up as a petty oligarch presiding over corruption and terrorism.
Of course. But there`s no denying his legacy: the inevitability of a Palestinian state, the endless postponement of which only guarantees more violence.
Arafat is like a vast banyan tree under which nothing grows. But once it dies, a new cycle of growth begins.
#57 Posted by sattar2 on November 8, 2004 9:08:32 am
Yasser (#45):
… agreed about Zafrullah Sahib … an honorable man who remained dedicated to Muslim causes. And that’s part of the point I am trying to make. The Palestinian cause should be fought on basis of well-reasoned arguments ... and not senseless violence. Ummah’s emphasis needs to be on acquisition of knowledge, education, and civility. Unless they get the basics right, no Arafat or uprising will help their cause.
Mullah’s emotionally charged statements about infidels desecrating holy sites or sons of soil defending their honor with their lives … etc. are nonsense. They only add to ummah’s delusion and produce hoards of suicide bombers.
… agreed about Zafrullah Sahib … an honorable man who remained dedicated to Muslim causes. And that’s part of the point I am trying to make. The Palestinian cause should be fought on basis of well-reasoned arguments ... and not senseless violence. Ummah’s emphasis needs to be on acquisition of knowledge, education, and civility. Unless they get the basics right, no Arafat or uprising will help their cause.
Mullah’s emotionally charged statements about infidels desecrating holy sites or sons of soil defending their honor with their lives … etc. are nonsense. They only add to ummah’s delusion and produce hoards of suicide bombers.
#56 Posted by Siddiqua on November 8, 2004 8:00:06 am
#55 fuzair
The point was to simply point out that George Habash, Wadi Haddad, Naif Hawatmeh etc. etc. were all part and parcel of the PLO at one time. Fatah, Arafat`s organization, itself has been and is still often accused of terrorist activities, what you call thuggery!
``Why not stick with causes closer to home and more relevant for us?``
This, though leaves me bemused. I`d be interested in knowing what `causes` you deem worthy of your attention.
Tahmed
It is interesting to note that while it is claimed that Islam offers a system of governance and a method of ``electing`` a head of state, there is no darn way way to get rid of such heads of state as the Khulafa-e-Aal-e-Uthman, or for for any others for that matter.
I wouldn`t say that it is some romanticized view of the middle east that puts blinkers on the on the eyes of the muslims of the sub-continent.
In the case of the khilafat movement, as also in the case of Yasser Arafat, and even closer to our times, the misnamed `jihadis` in Kashmir, and equally misnamed `mujahiddeen` in the Afghanistan of yesteryears, and again, Mulla Omar and his Taliban till very recently, it was the MASSIVE build up provided by the muslim, particularly urdu `press` and opportunistic political mendicants that gave all such characters and movements a larger than life image.
Siddiqua Haqnawaa
The point was to simply point out that George Habash, Wadi Haddad, Naif Hawatmeh etc. etc. were all part and parcel of the PLO at one time. Fatah, Arafat`s organization, itself has been and is still often accused of terrorist activities, what you call thuggery!
``Why not stick with causes closer to home and more relevant for us?``
This, though leaves me bemused. I`d be interested in knowing what `causes` you deem worthy of your attention.
Tahmed
It is interesting to note that while it is claimed that Islam offers a system of governance and a method of ``electing`` a head of state, there is no darn way way to get rid of such heads of state as the Khulafa-e-Aal-e-Uthman, or for for any others for that matter.
I wouldn`t say that it is some romanticized view of the middle east that puts blinkers on the on the eyes of the muslims of the sub-continent.
In the case of the khilafat movement, as also in the case of Yasser Arafat, and even closer to our times, the misnamed `jihadis` in Kashmir, and equally misnamed `mujahiddeen` in the Afghanistan of yesteryears, and again, Mulla Omar and his Taliban till very recently, it was the MASSIVE build up provided by the muslim, particularly urdu `press` and opportunistic political mendicants that gave all such characters and movements a larger than life image.
Siddiqua Haqnawaa
#55 Posted by fuzair on November 8, 2004 6:21:50 am
Siddiqua:
George Habash was (is? is he still alive?) a psychopathic killer who, unlike Arafat, has no redeeming qualities at all. I suppose, if pushed, I could come up with some for Arafat: the enduring symbol of Palestinians (at least for the West). For anyone who remembers Habash, it is as the leader of the PFLP, a truly murderous bunch of thugs; one of the many terrorist arms of Syrian intelligence.
Or are you going to argue that Habash is a true blue Palestinian nationalist fighting for his people?
BTW, why do we give a @#$%# about the Palestinians anyway? Why not stick with causes closer to home and more relevant for us? Arafat was pretty chummy with the Indians, who are no friends of ours. Shouldn`t the friend of my enemy be my enemy as well?
Tahmed:
You are correct about the Egyptians fighting extrememly well in prepared positions where the battle had been planned, Soviet style, rather meticulously. However, the IDF fights best in a fluid Wehrmacht-style situation. The Israeli armour, under Sharon, decided to bypass the Egyptians dug-in on the EAST bank of the Suez and strike directly for Cairo. Apparently the Egyptian GS was counting on the IDF battering itself against them on the East Bank. They were prepared for this and were willing to trade casualties with the IDF on a 3-4:1 ratio, knowing they could afford to sacrifice their fellahin cannon-fodder endlessly.
It never occured to them that Sharon, one of the world`s great panzer-fuehrer`s, would see the situation and its solution. No matter what you may think of him as a human being, he knew how to handle an armour division in combat. He crossed the Canal north of the Eqyptian position and headed straight for Cairo. It took the combined pressure of the US and the USSR to rein him in and prevent IDF tanks from entering Cairo (or more likely shelling it--who wants to get sucked into a street battle in a warren like Cairo?).
Can you imagine the Egyptian humiliation if the IDF had reached Cairo?
George Habash was (is? is he still alive?) a psychopathic killer who, unlike Arafat, has no redeeming qualities at all. I suppose, if pushed, I could come up with some for Arafat: the enduring symbol of Palestinians (at least for the West). For anyone who remembers Habash, it is as the leader of the PFLP, a truly murderous bunch of thugs; one of the many terrorist arms of Syrian intelligence.
Or are you going to argue that Habash is a true blue Palestinian nationalist fighting for his people?
BTW, why do we give a @#$%# about the Palestinians anyway? Why not stick with causes closer to home and more relevant for us? Arafat was pretty chummy with the Indians, who are no friends of ours. Shouldn`t the friend of my enemy be my enemy as well?
Tahmed:
You are correct about the Egyptians fighting extrememly well in prepared positions where the battle had been planned, Soviet style, rather meticulously. However, the IDF fights best in a fluid Wehrmacht-style situation. The Israeli armour, under Sharon, decided to bypass the Egyptians dug-in on the EAST bank of the Suez and strike directly for Cairo. Apparently the Egyptian GS was counting on the IDF battering itself against them on the East Bank. They were prepared for this and were willing to trade casualties with the IDF on a 3-4:1 ratio, knowing they could afford to sacrifice their fellahin cannon-fodder endlessly.
It never occured to them that Sharon, one of the world`s great panzer-fuehrer`s, would see the situation and its solution. No matter what you may think of him as a human being, he knew how to handle an armour division in combat. He crossed the Canal north of the Eqyptian position and headed straight for Cairo. It took the combined pressure of the US and the USSR to rein him in and prevent IDF tanks from entering Cairo (or more likely shelling it--who wants to get sucked into a street battle in a warren like Cairo?).
Can you imagine the Egyptian humiliation if the IDF had reached Cairo?
#54 Posted by nasah on November 8, 2004 6:21:49 am
``Does international law allow a city to be totally destroyed and look as though an earthquake has struck it?`` asked Jabbar Hussein, 65.
``Is a human being in Falluja worth less than an animal at London Zoo? We urge everyone to come and see the suffering of Falluja and its people and the crimes the Americans are committing in the name of democracy and freedom.``
``Is a human being in Falluja worth less than an animal at London Zoo? We urge everyone to come and see the suffering of Falluja and its people and the crimes the Americans are committing in the name of democracy and freedom.``
#53 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on November 8, 2004 6:21:49 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#52 Posted by tahmed32 on November 7, 2004 10:16:23 pm
HP #46 While agreeing with your description of Nasser, I think think you cross the line of reasonableness when you refer to 1973 as a fake war. The biggest tank battle after World War II was in fact fought in 1973, involving one armored division and one armored brigade on the Egyptian side. This was the first (and only) time since perhaps the time of the pharaohs that the egyptians fought courageously and lost 10,000 men. But they inflicted severe casualties on the israelis too (3000 killed), and broke the myth of the unbeatable israelis built upon the previous three arab-israeli wars. having restored arab pride, sadat was able to seek peace from a position of strength.
Also, I wonder if anyone has addressed one question: Why is it so hard for rulers in muslim countries to run for elections rather than hang on to power until death do them part? (arafat is just another pathetic example - he may have done a good job early on in rallying the palestinians, but the fact is that no man is a superman or indispensable. I think it indicates a slavish mentality among muslims that has resulted from centuries of absolute rulers that causes them to have this hero worship. The Indian leaders and people have demonstrated that they have moved beyond this stage of ``power to the strongest`` and no man is above the law.
btw, from all indications arafat is admired more by pakistanis than by palestinians themselves. This is not the first time muslims of the subcontinent have shown their ignorance of reality - the khilafat movement was the first example of how easily their romanticized view of the middle east takes them away from the reality of the situation.
Also, I wonder if anyone has addressed one question: Why is it so hard for rulers in muslim countries to run for elections rather than hang on to power until death do them part? (arafat is just another pathetic example - he may have done a good job early on in rallying the palestinians, but the fact is that no man is a superman or indispensable. I think it indicates a slavish mentality among muslims that has resulted from centuries of absolute rulers that causes them to have this hero worship. The Indian leaders and people have demonstrated that they have moved beyond this stage of ``power to the strongest`` and no man is above the law.
btw, from all indications arafat is admired more by pakistanis than by palestinians themselves. This is not the first time muslims of the subcontinent have shown their ignorance of reality - the khilafat movement was the first example of how easily their romanticized view of the middle east takes them away from the reality of the situation.
#51 Posted by Romair on November 7, 2004 8:17:02 pm
I have got to hand it to the US Jewish lobby and the State of Israel. These guys are five steps ahead of anyone else. There used to be a time when the US Jews completely supported the Democrats. However, somewhere along the line, they realized the Republicans are rising and the Democrats are going down. That the USA is becoming more Christian and religious. Far before anyone else realized it.
So their pressure groups jumped ship so elegantly, that one can just watch in awe.
I don`t know if many people realize this, but the original neo-cons were all die-hard liberals and supporters of the Democratic party. Now they form the core of the Republican Party; especially in foreign policy.
``Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.``
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Not only that, they now have as their ally, the strongest group in USA politics, the Christian Evangelists (+ new Evangelists like hamidm). How have they been able to recruit this group that consider Jews to the be murdereres of Christ?
Through a simple Biblican phrase:
``In Luke`s account of the ascension, the disciples ask Jesus, ``Lord, is this the time when you will restore the Kingdom to Israel?`` The question illustrates the early church`s fascination with Israel and its prophetic role at the end of history.....by the 18th century another model of eschatology emerged in England that emphasized the role of a reconstituted Israel in the end times....When Israel captured Jerusalem in the 1967 war; dispensationalists were certain that the end was near. L. Nelson Bell, Billy Graham`s father-in-law and editor of Christianity Today, wrote in July 1967: ``That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives the student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible.``
`` (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=216)
So for Christ to show up again, and satisfy the Evangelicals, Israel has to be running the Holy Land. This is the view under which the foreign policy of the USA in the Middle East is going to be decided. This is the basis of the argument of Ralph Reed, the poster child of the Christian Right.
``The single strongest group for Israel in the United States, apart from Jews, is conservative Christians,`` declared Ralph Reed, co-chairman of Stand for Israel and former executive director of the Christian Coalition. He also noted that 80 percent of self-identified Republicans also favor military action against Baghdad.`` http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm
The US politics turn from Democratic to Republican, and the pro-Israel organizations read it better than anyone else. Quite amazing............
So their pressure groups jumped ship so elegantly, that one can just watch in awe.
I don`t know if many people realize this, but the original neo-cons were all die-hard liberals and supporters of the Democratic party. Now they form the core of the Republican Party; especially in foreign policy.
``Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.``
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Not only that, they now have as their ally, the strongest group in USA politics, the Christian Evangelists (+ new Evangelists like hamidm). How have they been able to recruit this group that consider Jews to the be murdereres of Christ?
Through a simple Biblican phrase:
``In Luke`s account of the ascension, the disciples ask Jesus, ``Lord, is this the time when you will restore the Kingdom to Israel?`` The question illustrates the early church`s fascination with Israel and its prophetic role at the end of history.....by the 18th century another model of eschatology emerged in England that emphasized the role of a reconstituted Israel in the end times....When Israel captured Jerusalem in the 1967 war; dispensationalists were certain that the end was near. L. Nelson Bell, Billy Graham`s father-in-law and editor of Christianity Today, wrote in July 1967: ``That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives the student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible.``
`` (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=216)
So for Christ to show up again, and satisfy the Evangelicals, Israel has to be running the Holy Land. This is the view under which the foreign policy of the USA in the Middle East is going to be decided. This is the basis of the argument of Ralph Reed, the poster child of the Christian Right.
``The single strongest group for Israel in the United States, apart from Jews, is conservative Christians,`` declared Ralph Reed, co-chairman of Stand for Israel and former executive director of the Christian Coalition. He also noted that 80 percent of self-identified Republicans also favor military action against Baghdad.`` http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm
The US politics turn from Democratic to Republican, and the pro-Israel organizations read it better than anyone else. Quite amazing............
#50 Posted by nasah on November 7, 2004 5:04:03 pm
for Yasir Arafat:
sur daad nu daad dust dur dust-e Sharon....
sur daad nu daad dust dur dust-e Sharon....
#49 Posted by Siddiqua on November 7, 2004 5:04:02 pm
It is extremely interesting to note that Yasser Arafat is being treated as the sole driving force of the Palestinian struggle.
One wonders who George Habash and Naif Hawatmeh were, if they ever existed?
Siddiqua Haqnawaa
One wonders who George Habash and Naif Hawatmeh were, if they ever existed?
Siddiqua Haqnawaa
#48 Posted by malik99 on November 7, 2004 5:04:01 pm
wajahat - you wrote ``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.``
Thank you sir! Very well said. Indeed, in today`s ``results oriented`` society that we live in, it is hard to articulate the beauty and the resolve and the heroics of the journey. We judge others by what they achieve, and not by the years of blood, sweat and toil they put.
In the article that you wrote ``Ranchore Line ka farangi``, Kaleem would be vilified by these pseudo-intellectuals for having failed in everything. What good did memorizing Shakespeare do to his life? What good were his own writings, for in the end paan was being distributed in those papers.
But these pseudo-humans are too thick brained, and too brainwashed, and too feeble minded to know that the beauty of his life did not lie in his ending. The beauty of his life was in his heart warming struggles. The players of the story move on, but the story continues.
Thank you sir! Very well said. Indeed, in today`s ``results oriented`` society that we live in, it is hard to articulate the beauty and the resolve and the heroics of the journey. We judge others by what they achieve, and not by the years of blood, sweat and toil they put.
In the article that you wrote ``Ranchore Line ka farangi``, Kaleem would be vilified by these pseudo-intellectuals for having failed in everything. What good did memorizing Shakespeare do to his life? What good were his own writings, for in the end paan was being distributed in those papers.
But these pseudo-humans are too thick brained, and too brainwashed, and too feeble minded to know that the beauty of his life did not lie in his ending. The beauty of his life was in his heart warming struggles. The players of the story move on, but the story continues.
#47 Posted by malik99 on November 7, 2004 5:04:01 pm
sattar # 40 writes ``Palestinians would have been better off making peace or leaving the country altogether.``
sounds like a plan. so, when are you telling your ahmedi community to move out of Pakistan? because, according to you, it is better to give in to oppression, than to fight it.
sounds like a plan. so, when are you telling your ahmedi community to move out of Pakistan? because, according to you, it is better to give in to oppression, than to fight it.
#46 Posted by MantoLives on November 7, 2004 7:15:11 am
Sattar2...
My dear friend... Let me remind you of another great Ahmadi Muslim ... Sir Zafrullah Khan... Jinnah`s hand picked foreign minister and President of the international court of Justice...
He is still hailed in the Arab world as the great Champion of the Palestinian Cause (as well as several different Arab causes including Libya, Algeria etc) .... and atleast one great Arab Nationalist, Gemal Abdel Nasser said this about him : ``If he is a non-Muslim, I am proud to be a Non-Muslim``....
... in case Urstruly is reading... Please don`t bother re-posting the ``statement`` for the passport... Religion section has been permanently and irrevocably excluded from the Pakistani Passport ... Thank God...
-YLH
My dear friend... Let me remind you of another great Ahmadi Muslim ... Sir Zafrullah Khan... Jinnah`s hand picked foreign minister and President of the international court of Justice...
He is still hailed in the Arab world as the great Champion of the Palestinian Cause (as well as several different Arab causes including Libya, Algeria etc) .... and atleast one great Arab Nationalist, Gemal Abdel Nasser said this about him : ``If he is a non-Muslim, I am proud to be a Non-Muslim``....
... in case Urstruly is reading... Please don`t bother re-posting the ``statement`` for the passport... Religion section has been permanently and irrevocably excluded from the Pakistani Passport ... Thank God...
-YLH
#45 Posted by HP on November 7, 2004 7:15:11 am
Is it legit to compare Yasser with Nasser? If Nasser is a footnote in the history, why it is assumed that Yasser would be too?
Nasser and Yasser were two different types of leaders. Nasser was a product of an Army coup against a legitimate but unpopular monarchy. He was one of the few army officers behind the coup that was led by Gen. Najib. This coup started with huge fanfare but lost its way within a year and Nasser led another coup to oust Nagib and he took over Egypt with help from Sadaat and Ali Sabri. Like the first coup, this takeover also had nothing to offer to the people and realizing that Nasser decided to ride on the nationalist plank. Arabs were reeling after a long night of Brits control during the 2ww and the Egyptians paid a heavy price of hosting the British army in their heartland.
The Mandate, Israel and later a comprehensive defeat in 1948 war were serious blows to Arab psyche. Nasser and his fellow army officers realizing that they are becoming increasingly unpopular decided to play with the Arab nationalism. The Suez Canal was a contentious issue between the British and the Egyptians but it had never reached a point where a forcible take over of the Canal was absolutely necessary. Nasser went on to nationalize the Suez Canal, without thinking about the consequences, for immediate political gratification. On paper, Nasser’s action appeared to be motivated by the national interests but the reality is that this action was merely to protect his flagging military government. If the US and the Soviet Union had not interfered on behalf of Egypt, the story in the ME would have been different. Nasser rode his luck, war ended with a sort of victory for him and he was hailed as the great nationalist leader of a modern Arab state.
Nasser became a revolutionary leader without starting a revolution anywhere. He used his new found popularity to blackmail neighboring Arab countries and often engineered coups and change of governments in Arab counties. Nasser initially was not anti-imperialist or even anti west but after the Suez Canal issue he was forced to side with the nationalists and anti imperialist forces in the world. He did play this role well. Working with Nehru, Chou en Lie and Soekarno(sp?) he was at the forefront of the non aligned movement and appeared to be a progressive member of the newly independent countries of the world. Internally, it was a different story. He would not tolerate any opposition or did not pay attention to any economic reforms in Egypt. His revolution and charisma began to lose its “shinning” and he needed another drastic action to support his inept and corrupt government.
The 1967 war happened because Nasser was in difficulties domestically. This war was uncalled for and totally unnecessary. He and other Arab states were not prepared in any way to conduct this war. He lost the war and the other buffoon, the king of Jordon washed his hands of the increasingly restive Palestinian population. Egyptians rallied behind him after the war but had he lived any longer, Egyptians would probably have burned his effigies all over Cairo. He died as a hero but he never had any lasting impact on the socio-economic structure of his country. He brought defeat after defeat to his people and led an oppressive regime in Egypt. He left the country in the hands of Sadaat who destroyed all the progressive forces in Egypt and tried to rule the country with the help of religious fanatics. The same fanatics ended up taking his life and later the same fanatics formed the nucleus of the Alqaeed and Hammas in the Muslim world.
Yasser Arafat on the OTOH was a product of grassroots endeavor. He started out by supporting what he believed to be good for his people. He worked in Kuwait and spent his own money for the Palestinian causes. He was a foot soldier for the Palestinian cause. The Palestinian leadership before his taking over was controlled by the Egyptian secret service and the Palestinians followed whatever dictates were sent down to them from Nasser’s directs. Yasser changed all that. The PLO became an independent entity and Arafat became a symbol of hope for Palestinian living in worst conditions in different Arab countries and in the homeland under a gradually more repressive Israel.
The Arabs leaders did not like it. Arab leaders were always afraid of him and his influence over the Palestinian and they never stopped scheming against him throughout the 40 years that he was in control of the Palestinian leadership.
Sadaat wanted his Sinai back and got it back in the FAKE war in 1973 but Sadaat never fought for an inch of Palestinian lands which remained under the Israeli control. Instead Sadaat along with the Saudi conspired to sign Camp David accord w/o thinking twice about Palestinian plight. Saudi supported different religion inspired movement and finally instituted a $25000 reward for Suicide bombers’ families. Sadam of Iraq also followed suit. Young Palestinians were tempted to give up their lives to help their poverty stricken families. Hammas took off and after that every Tom, Dick and Harry was free to blame Arafat for the suicide bombers that were supported by Saudis and Iraq. Whole western media and the controlled Arab media were used against him and he was made a villain in a saga of treachery and back stabbing by Arab states. Even in his weakened political situation and from the surrounded and bombed out compound in Palestinian he provided leadership to his people. Israeli and the traitor Arab leaders had no hope of conquering Palestinians until he lived and after years of false propaganda against him, they were able to physically bore down on him. His health failed and he may die soon but until the last Palestinian is alive, he will be remembered as the leader of the most oppressed nation after the Second World War. If his nation becomes a footnote of the history, He too will become a foot note in the history.
#44 Posted by MantoLives on November 7, 2004 7:15:10 am
``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...........``
First of all its... YASSER ... not Yasir... FYI...
and yes.. I am 24 years old
#43 Posted by hamidm2 on November 7, 2004 7:15:07 am
tits on a bull ?
....... anyone read tom friedman`s column on yasser in today`s nyt?.......... he calls him a ``bad man``........ i wouldn`t go that far - the man is a symbol of palestinian nationhood and managed to keep their cause alive for the twenty odd years from `67 to his return to the west bank ........ after that he was about as useful as tits on a bull ....... actually, he has caused more suffering and misery for the palestinians than the idf and the booweevil combined and it is a blessing that he is soon going to move on to raise hell in heaven ............ the poor palestinians need leadership, not symbols ........
p.s. who would have guessed that romair is an authority on palestine and the life cycle of the boweevil !!!
....... anyone read tom friedman`s column on yasser in today`s nyt?.......... he calls him a ``bad man``........ i wouldn`t go that far - the man is a symbol of palestinian nationhood and managed to keep their cause alive for the twenty odd years from `67 to his return to the west bank ........ after that he was about as useful as tits on a bull ....... actually, he has caused more suffering and misery for the palestinians than the idf and the booweevil combined and it is a blessing that he is soon going to move on to raise hell in heaven ............ the poor palestinians need leadership, not symbols ........
p.s. who would have guessed that romair is an authority on palestine and the life cycle of the boweevil !!!
#42 Posted by temporal on November 7, 2004 3:02:29 am
wajahat:
…here is what you wrote….emphasis added are mine…the bottomline? Both of us are delivering the same verdict on Arafat...albeit differently
History is subjective and is up for interpretation, 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 wasn’t 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 metamorphoses into something totally different.
rgds,
t
…here is what you wrote….emphasis added are mine…the bottomline? Both of us are delivering the same verdict on Arafat...albeit differently
History is subjective and is up for interpretation, 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 wasn’t 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 metamorphoses into something totally different.
rgds,
t
#41 Posted by MantoLives on November 7, 2004 12:07:56 am
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
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
#40 Posted by sattar2 on November 6, 2004 9:05:53 pm
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)
#39 Posted by Romair on November 6, 2004 7:11:36 pm
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..........
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..........
#38 Posted by dost_mittar on November 6, 2004 5:14:01 pm
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.
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.
#37 Posted by wajahat on November 6, 2004 5:08:13 pm
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
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
#36 Posted by Foad_Shah on November 6, 2004 1:48:20 pm
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
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
#35 Posted by Romair on November 6, 2004 1:27:10 pm
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...........
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...........
#34 Posted by rozaiba on November 6, 2004 10:45:21 am
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.
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.