As someone that has long felt that Arafat was part of the problem, not part of the solution, I say; well said.
If Arafat died stateless, who's fault is that? I want to make it clear, I think the Palestinians deserve a state. They could have had one, except for some reason Arafat wouldn't/couldn't close the deal.
Fantastic, Dave. It's just like with the Native Americans: if only they would've accepted our glorious solution ("reservations") sooner, the genocide also would have ended sooner.
The world aught to be ashamed for the travesty of justice displayed in the homeland of Arafat. The man deserves a moment of silence for his courage, for representing a nation under siege, and for memorializing in history the audacity of an agressor and an ocupier, which anihilated his right to vote, to live , and to be free. He might not have a funeral worthy of him now in his homeland, but in due time, all people of inegrty will honor his death as well celeberate his life, for he stood for the noble cause of freedom and he stood for fighting aggression and injustice. He was flawed in many ways, but he undertook a task that few would have chosen. I salute him for that.
"Flawed in many ways" is a remarkably understated way of describing a man who basically reinvented terrorism for the 20th century. True, he showed courage at times, or at least fortitude. Yet with no wisdom to guide it, courage becomes mere pigheadedness and brutality. That he was himself oppressed does not make him noble, and nothing about the way he lived his life showed nobility. He failed his people, he failed the world, and his hands dripped red with the blood of civilians. Surely you can find a nice stalwart axe murderer or serial rapist to memorialize instead?
In recent years, Arafat praised Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and Osama bin Laden. Since they shared the virtues you ascribe to him, may I assume you will be giving them a like tribute in due course?
Trilobite, I purposely didn't focus on Arafat's flaws because it is easy to blame the victim, specially if you support the aggressor, which you clearly seem to so. If Arafat re-invented terrorism, it was in response to the terrorists acts of the Israelies. If you took time to read the history of that region, even from a radical Israeli's mouth, you will learn that the terrorist activities were initiated by Israelies and against the Palestinians more than 50 years ago. If dialogues with the aggressors fail, and if the world's superpower vetos one UN resolution after another condeming the murderous acts of Israel and its clear violation of human rights, and if you are beaten, raped, turtured, killed, occupied, threatened, humiliated, harrassed, imprisoned, and economically forced into poverty and death, even the most noble of human beings, even you my friend, would resort to the acts of "terrorism," or "violence," which incidentally depending on who defines it, and where in history we are, could also be called acts of "heroism." It is ironic that you accuse me of understating Arafat's flaws, but you yourself deminish and understate his courage. Even if he stood for nothing, the one thing that I appreciate him for, is that he gave face to the Palestinian people. The way he died, in my opinion, was somewhat poetic, since the last years of his life he was confined and imprisoned to a little compound. This is the face of a nation under siege. This is the treatment of a nation's leader under siege. This is what I call travesty of justice which should put us all to shame. If by him failing as a leader (ironically, I have heard that same line of argument from the Israeli hardliners like Natanyahoo and Sharon!), you mean he was not able to free his nation from the occupier, that is not a failure, considering the impossible task that he was assigned to; and if in fact, you assign to that kind of argument, then the counter-argument must hold true in your mind. The counterargument is that a leader like Sharon, who resorts to the most inhumane methods to get the job done, has NOT failed as a leader. I guess I look at the success or failure of a leader, not by what he/she can accomplish, but by the way he/she can accomplish it. Sharon, even if he is able to get more land for his people, has failed as a leader and has failed in the eyes of the humanity. Arafat, was never able to free any land from the occupiers and aggressors, but in my eyes, he did not fail his people as you suggest; he succeeded in showing the aggression and human rights violation against his people. He stood for freedom. That is hardly a failure. As to your comments about Saddam, Komeini, and Bin Laden, ironically, and again, if you take time to read the history, all 3 were trained, supported, and enabled to grow and take hold, by the U.S. and England (in Khomeini's case). I condemn all of them, for they too, violated the very basic human rights, as Israel has done and continues to do. But, remember, if at times Arafat might have supported them, it was not because he wanted to support those who violated human rights. His support was as part of a search for a glimpse of hope, even at the most unlikely and unreliable places, after all else had failed. U.S. and U.K. supported the dictators, not for a glimpse of hope, but for economic, and other reasons. That, my friend, is hardly ever a noble thing to do. If you reflect for a moment, just a brief moment, for human rights, for justice, for peace, for our integrity as civilized people, for what any good man/woman should stand for, for freedom, if you do that my friend, you should take stand silent for a moment, for a minute, for Mr. Arafat and what his nation is going through and has gone through. Thanks.