Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Stop Arafat the terrorist
Stop Arafat the terrorist
Wall Street Journal, BY JAMES TARANTO Monday, December 3, 2001 3:21 p.m. EST
Arafat the Terrorist.
Israel attacks targets near Yasser Arafat\'s headquarters in Gaza City, in retaliation for Saturday night\'s suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa, which killed 25. On yesterday\'s interview shows, something of a debate broke out within President Bush\'s cabinet. On CNN\'s \"Late Edition,\" Secretary of State Colin Powell put forth the view that Arafat was a victim of the attacks:
\"I spoke to Chairman Arafat last night right after the first bombing in Jerusalem but before Haifa, and I made it clear to him that he had to act because not only was this a terrible attack against innocent Israelis, a terrible act of terror, but it was also an attack against him, it was an attack against his authority, it was an attack against Palestinian leadership, and it was an attack that he could not overlook.\"
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, had this to say on NBC\'s \"Meet the Press,\" when host Tim Russert asked him, \"Do you think that Yasser Arafat is a terrorist?\":
\"I think that Yasser Arafat has--it\'s not for me to characterize him, but if one looks historically, he has been involved in terrorist activities. We all know that. That\'s been his background.\"
One datum that argues for the Rumsfeld view: After the spring suicide bombing of a Tel Aviv disco, which killed 21, Arafat wrote a letter to the dead terrorist\'s family, which the Middle East Media and Research Institute translated:
\"With hearts that believe in Allah\'s will and predetermination, we have received the news about the martyrdom of the martyr. Al-Hotary, the son of Palestine, whose noble soul ascended to, in order to rest in Allah\'s Kingdom, together with the Prophets, the men of virtue, and the martyrs. The heroic martyrdom operation , who turned his body into bombs. The model of manhood and sacrifice for the sake of Allah and the homeland.\"
Really, though, it doesn\'t much matter if Arafat is condoning terrorism because he wants to or because he\'s too weak not to. Either way, it\'s plainly fatuous to talk about negotiating \"peace\" with him; he simply will not deliver anything of the kind. Saturday\'s atrocities render untenable the White House\'s post-Sept. 11 approach of keeping Israel at arm\'s length, treating terrorism against Israelis as if it were qualitatively different from terrorism against Americans, and uttering platitudes about the \"cycle of violence.\" (When was the last time an Israeli suicide bomber blew up a Palestinian bus?)
And indeed, the New York Post reports that \"after months of finessing the issue, the White House now seems ready to consider the Israeli argument that Arafat is just like the Taliban--someone who harbors terrorists, rather than a legitimate partner for peace.\"
This could complicate the White House\'s antiterror coalition-building efforts, putting our Arab \"friends\" in an awkward spot. Then again, so what? It\'s not as if the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia have offered much help, or even much public support, since Sept. 11, and Arab anti-American carping was already bound to increase when the war spreads to Arab countries. What\'s more, most Arab governments face their own threats from Islamist terrorists. For them actually to undermine the war on terror would be suicidal. Arab leaders have long demonized Israel and America in order to give their own people a scapegoat and divert attention from their own corrupt and tyrannical rule. If they now find themselves in a tough spot, well, they deserve it.
Arafat the Terrorist.
Israel attacks targets near Yasser Arafat\'s headquarters in Gaza City, in retaliation for Saturday night\'s suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa, which killed 25. On yesterday\'s interview shows, something of a debate broke out within President Bush\'s cabinet. On CNN\'s \"Late Edition,\" Secretary of State Colin Powell put forth the view that Arafat was a victim of the attacks:
\"I spoke to Chairman Arafat last night right after the first bombing in Jerusalem but before Haifa, and I made it clear to him that he had to act because not only was this a terrible attack against innocent Israelis, a terrible act of terror, but it was also an attack against him, it was an attack against his authority, it was an attack against Palestinian leadership, and it was an attack that he could not overlook.\"
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, had this to say on NBC\'s \"Meet the Press,\" when host Tim Russert asked him, \"Do you think that Yasser Arafat is a terrorist?\":
\"I think that Yasser Arafat has--it\'s not for me to characterize him, but if one looks historically, he has been involved in terrorist activities. We all know that. That\'s been his background.\"
One datum that argues for the Rumsfeld view: After the spring suicide bombing of a Tel Aviv disco, which killed 21, Arafat wrote a letter to the dead terrorist\'s family, which the Middle East Media and Research Institute translated:
\"With hearts that believe in Allah\'s will and predetermination, we have received the news about the martyrdom of the martyr. Al-Hotary, the son of Palestine, whose noble soul ascended to, in order to rest in Allah\'s Kingdom, together with the Prophets, the men of virtue, and the martyrs. The heroic martyrdom operation , who turned his body into bombs. The model of manhood and sacrifice for the sake of Allah and the homeland.\"
Really, though, it doesn\'t much matter if Arafat is condoning terrorism because he wants to or because he\'s too weak not to. Either way, it\'s plainly fatuous to talk about negotiating \"peace\" with him; he simply will not deliver anything of the kind. Saturday\'s atrocities render untenable the White House\'s post-Sept. 11 approach of keeping Israel at arm\'s length, treating terrorism against Israelis as if it were qualitatively different from terrorism against Americans, and uttering platitudes about the \"cycle of violence.\" (When was the last time an Israeli suicide bomber blew up a Palestinian bus?)
And indeed, the New York Post reports that \"after months of finessing the issue, the White House now seems ready to consider the Israeli argument that Arafat is just like the Taliban--someone who harbors terrorists, rather than a legitimate partner for peace.\"
This could complicate the White House\'s antiterror coalition-building efforts, putting our Arab \"friends\" in an awkward spot. Then again, so what? It\'s not as if the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia have offered much help, or even much public support, since Sept. 11, and Arab anti-American carping was already bound to increase when the war spreads to Arab countries. What\'s more, most Arab governments face their own threats from Islamist terrorists. For them actually to undermine the war on terror would be suicidal. Arab leaders have long demonized Israel and America in order to give their own people a scapegoat and divert attention from their own corrupt and tyrannical rule. If they now find themselves in a tough spot, well, they deserve it.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
If Arafat is a terrorist, then so is Sharon. period.
I guess Belgium will tell all, huh? And quit posting your stupid corporate media shit here, no one believes it.
Let's reconstruct this paragraph into another truthful statement:
> American leaders have long demonized the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in order to give their own people a scapegoat and divert attention from their own corrupt and tyrannical rule. If they now find themselves in a tough spot, well, they deserve it. <
>=]
last time i checked there weren't too many secular political organizations in palestine that actually had any political clout.
at least these israeli reprisals are putting things in very stark terms to arafat, actually try to legitimately crack down on your terrorists or be forcibly removed from power.
the fact that arafat arrested a bunch of terrorists immediately following the wave of suicide bombings means nothing if he releases them a week later like he always does
jon: it's known that Israel helped foment Hamas as a conservative, religious counter-weight to the secular PLO in the 80's. The intifada of the 87 was a rebellion infused with hope. The main weapon of the Palestinians were rock and it arose largely independent of Arafat and Co.
More than anything it is Israeli intransigence that has brought the situation to where it is now. The combined force of desperation and the corruption of Arafat and Co. has given a massive opening for Hamas. As I understand it, Hamas derives it's support, to a large degree, from the fact that it provides services to many abjectly poor Palestinians under Israeli occupation -- and it poses as the most uncompromised opposition to miserable conditions. There are a few secular leftist groups, like the PLFP, which are opposed to terrorizing civilians, and thus don't get as much attention. I don't know how much support they have however.
Islamist organizations gain a significant following where conditions are terrible and hope is scarce. What's interesting to note is that, as in Israel, a lot of oppressive regimes use the Islamist's as a counterweight to secular and anti-capitalist movements. The fundamentalists are good tools but they have their own agenda that can boomerang. Sadat of Egypt, for instance, was offed by the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he had helped revive in the early 70's to wage war against the leftists. The pro-US monarchy in Morocco has used Islamist's for similar purposes. And, of course, the US churned the pot of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and we now see what -- at least indirectly -- came of it.
The other interesting thing about the development of Islamist organizations is that, as in the case of Hamas, they often gain recruits by offering social services to the poor. This is particularly pronounced, as one might imagine, in countries that have shredded whatever social safety-net existed. Paralleling the mantra of austerity and christian charity in the US, the Islamist organizations step into the lurch -- under conditions where anti-capitalist and progressive movements have been terrorized into submission -- and do their deeds. Most of the Taliban, for instance, were educated in Madrassas (sic) in Pakistan, where public education has been virtually gutted.
Suffice to say, the situation is fucked.
i mean, after all, third world people don't have any human agency right? they are merely puppets of western imperial powers who are incapable of independant thought. gawd, if only you knew just how racist those leftist beliefs are
the fact remains that hamas is nothing more then a terrorist organization that, possessing some degree of rationality, uses social services as a tool of recruitment. however, like all terrorist organizations these services aren't to better the lives of the people, just to gain recruits. the madrasses you mention for example are utterly worthless in terms of the education they provide. its the equivalent of 10 years of sunday bible school. at the end of the day these students learn no employable skills whatsoever, and thus end up being educated yet unemployable. in other words, perfect potential terrorists. pakistan has 500,000 students in these schools right now. they will "graduate", possess no knowledge whatsoever taht can help them get jobs, and then poor and destitute will get drafted by terrorists.
According to the "logic" of Jon, etc., Native Americans who resisted the expansion of America according to its patently racist idea of the "manifest destiny" of Anglo-Saxons to rule North America(and now the world), should have been considered "terrorists". So, Jews who resisted Nazi Germany were terrorists? The French Resistance was a "terrorist organization"? How far are you going with this villification of those who dare to stand up to the racist hegemony you clearly support, Jon Inc.?
Please stop the whining. At least Jon and the others are talking about the issues presented in the article. So what if their views do not agree with the majority of us that post on indymedia. At least they are bringing something to the table for debate, which is good because we can all learn something from intelligent discussion.
Also, I question your belief in true anarchy. Although you oppose law, rules, order, government & any kind of control; you seem no different than anyone else. Giving ORDERS to us and indymedia. Trying to CONTROL what goes on with the message boards. Seems to me that in the unlikely event that you did overthrow a government, you would yourselves try to govern what everyone else does. (hmmm... sounds a bit hypocritical to me)
If you want a "hard core" anarchist site where only views that reflect your own will be posted, please go away and start your own.
Read my above post. I never said that PLO corruption is due to Israel. I said that the combined force of desperation brought about by Israel's intransigence and PLO corruption (I would add fecklessness as well) has given Hamas the platform that they now stand upon.
It's interesting that you don't respond to the fact that Hamas was pushed onto the scene with the assistance of the Israeli state.
It goes without saying that you don't even mention the horrible conditions that Palestineans face.
As to the Madrasses: You act like you have performed a slam-dunk by making the provocative claim that they aren't high quality liberal arts venues. Gosh, jon, tell us more. My point was that the Madrassess arise in an environment of hopelessness, specifically where the public sector has been eviscerated. Children are sent to these schools because they are relatively well-funded and provide other services that the capitalist state is unwilling to provide. Whether or not the Islamist's care about the people themselves or see them as simply fodder for some reactionary creed, in a sense, doesn't matter. The point is that existing material conditions are fertile soil for this sort of thing. Of course, you'd have to extricate yourself from your box to appreciate this fact.
i merely added to this debate by saying that the so called humanitarian services provided by hamas really aren't well-intentioned.
as for israel and hamas: i didn't respond b/c frankly i wasn't aware of the connection, and didn't want to respond to what was essentially an off-the-cuff claim that wasn't immediately verifiable from the evidence presented.
however, since you want a response, here's one. point?
in the 1980's hamas wasn't yet powerful and the main terrorist organization chiding israel was the PLO. that's one of the main reasons why israel chose to work with the PLO as opposed to hamas. by recognizing the PLO they hoped to turn it into a legitimate political entity, and hopefully one that would still retain its large power base (its secular nature also helped as well).
thus, in the 80's before Oslo hamas could very well have been helped along by israel to counterbalance against the more dangerous PLO, just as the US counterbalanced islamic extremism against the more dangerous USSR.
pointing this out only shows that interstate relatios have unintended consequences. duh.
in other words, all you've done is pointed out two ridiculously obvious things, one that poverty promotes terrorism (duh) and two that statecraft and foreign policy oftentimes carry with them unintended consequences (duh).
trust me, you aren't going to get tenure at harvard for pointing these two things out.
and forgive me for trying to add a little more meat to the debate, especially as it seemed as if you were ignorant of the full story behind madrasses.
oh, and don't say that its a "failure of capitalism" that social services don't exist in palestine. come on, that's just an outright ridiculous claim. first, very few arab states are actually capitalist as islamic economics (basically socialism) is quite popular. interestingly enough this explains a great deal of their underdevelopment. secondly, capitalism requires social stability in order to function, and doesn't work too well in wartime.
you're cute paranthetical 'duhs' are interesting, as they implicitly contradict comments you've made previously.
you give the assertion that (in your words) poverty and destitution cause terrorism a one 'duh'. a couple of weeks ago you denied that anti-US terrorism could be ameliorated by change of policy. apparently you've had a change of heart: please don't tell me that the US policy of supporting the Israel occupation, sanctions and endless bombings in Iraq, and the propping up of tyrannical -- and, yes, capitalist -- mid east regimes doesn't contribute to "poverty and destitution".
as to the "unintended consequences" 'duh': could it be that bombing Afghanistan weeks on end, killing thousands of civilians, greatly exacerbating hunger, and imposing a new thuggish regime might, once again, have "unintended consequences"? is it too much to expect that you take into account the possibilty of "UIs" before -- at or at least, as -- the policies that will produce them are being enacted? or do you prefer to ackowledge the massive flaws of policies that you cheer only in this back-handed and dismissive manner years after the fact?
If you don't think that the evisceration of public spending isn't the program that global capitalism is set on brewing then you've got your head crammed even further up your ass than I thought. As economy's around the world globalize, the IMF and World Bank impose austerity measures that expicitly call for, among other things, cut-backs in social spending and privatization. Not only do these policies intensify human misery, they also create a vacuum that reactionary forces, sadly, in certain times and places, fill.
While by no means always adhered to, Islam, as I understand it, looks askance at charging interest on loans and calls for ritual tithing to the poor. These pracitises, to the extent that they are followed, are a cushion against the cruelties of capitalism. But to say that Islam is socialist is absurd. The Muslim religion religion arose from the merchant class and was spread thus. What we're seeing today is both a widening chasm between the haves and have nots as well as the intensified impoverishment of those who already have little. If you want to blame this on a non-existing socialism than you can, but people who are serious about changing this world will only view you as a ninkampoop and a dolt in the process.
since i have your attention, check these out -- after all, you should know the "unintended consequences" of the war you support so enthusiastically.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1205-01.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1204-05.htm
And then when ya tell them the sky is NOT falling and they arent going to get crushed by falling soda machines and cash registers , they all cry and rant for days. Then they get all like," make them leave, make them leave. their ruining our buzz!!!" Hahahaha.
And in pops Nessier` or some other such dude to drop the big scarey ANARCHIST hammer on us like they can refashion truth into fiction and then beat the hallucination into reality.
America is such a fun place. And this indyboard is worth the visit. Full of a tiny funny little bunch of tripping san fran homosexuals flexing much intellectual muscle and laying down the law. Hehehehe.
Whens mushroom night ? I bet its a blast to fuck with you kids then.
lurking and jerking, keeping it hardo;
none other than...
danny da tardo!
(when you going to Afghanistan d-boy?)
And D-boy.. one more amazing call. Harps and bells to ya aaron. Harps and bells.
Not a daniel though. Sorry.
Once Ive finished rehabing from my last excursion into the third world, I'll be traveling to Australia to further examine the organization I may work for. Ya just dont go willy nilly into afghanistan poking sticks in the ground aaron. Jesus what are you ? some kind of silly anarchist or something ?