Yasser Arafat

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.

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.

#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.

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...........

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 …

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

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!

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!

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.

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!

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?]

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

```Yasser Arafat equals Palestine,`` said 19-year-old Suleiman Abu Shoker.``......Period ``

err, so like..Palestine might die in a couple of weeks???

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?

correction last line #79

``there would be no palestine``

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)