babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » The logical successor to Arafat

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The logical successor to Arafat
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 November 2004 04:10 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now that Yassir Arafat has died, attention shifts to who can succeed him as the symbolic leader of the Palestinian people.

The obvious choice is staring us right in the face. Arafat's widow Suha! She seems presentable, outspoken and she could do wonders for the image of the Palestinian cause in the world. After years of suffering under the stigma of being represented by a man with perpetual 5 o'clock shadow who always carried a gun and wore military fatigues, this could be a breath of fresh air. Suha is a pretty bottle blond who was educated at the Sorbonne, is a Christian who speaks perfect French and likes Hermes handbags. She could be a great role model for Palestinians everywhere (esp. for women who would see a liberated woman who doesn't wear a tea cozy on her head). She might also build bridges to Israeli public opinion who would see her as the kind of Palestinian that the average Israeli housewife could identify with! Israelis would feel more comfortable making concessions to the Palestinians if she was going to call the shots.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 11 November 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regarding the image, "5 o'clock shadow", "pretty bottle blond", Hermes handbags:

[Now that I have that out of my system,] here's a relevant recent piece: Suha Arafat Surfaces As Major Player. I know little about her, but it sounds like she is unpopular among many Palestinians.

quote:
A Nablus-born Christian, Suha served as Arafat's secretary when he was in exile in Tunisia. In 1991, Mrs. Arafat converted to Islam and married the Palestinian leader.

He was 62. She was 28 and unpopular from the start.

Conspiracy theories raced through Palestinian streets that her mother, Ramonda Tawil, a well-known Palestinian journalist, arranged the marriage as a way to control Arafat.

Suha Arafat generated more animosity when she arrived in the largely Muslim, conservative Gaza Strip in 1994 and refused to cover her long blonde hair with the traditional Islamic head-covering.

Her expensive Parisian clothes and the luxury BMW she drove around Gaza's poverty-stricken streets enraged Palestinians.

She also frustrated the Palestinian leadership by making statements contrary to official policy. Once she expressed sympathy for militant groups when the Palestinian Authority was in a heated battle to put them down.

In 1999, she embarrassed then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton by accusing Israel in a speech of using poisonous gas on Palestinians and increasing cancer rates. In her book, Clinton referred to the hug and kiss from Mrs. Arafat at the speech as the "worst" mistake of her senatorial campaign.

In 2002, after Arafat condemned "all terrorist acts which target civilians," Suha told a London-based Arabic newspaper that if she had a son "there would be no greater honor than to sacrifice him for the Palestinian cause, "

Yet in 2000, when violence erupted, she fled to Paris with her young daughter, Zahwa. She returned to the West Bank last month when Arafat fell ill, rushing to his Ramallah headquarters and then accompanying him to Paris.


[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 November 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thoink Stockholm ought to work for our Foreign Service.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 11 November 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i think that stockholm works as suha arafat's publicist rather than the foreign service
From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 November 2004 07:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well what else is new, other than the fact that Stockholm is a tinee-weenee prick? I actually find all of this snickering about Arafat's wife rather traditionally sexist, both on Stockholm's part and on the part of the media, and on the part of her enemies in the PA.

For instance, her saying that sacrificing Arafat son for the cause, is actually not out of keeping with the tradition of any number of resistance leaders.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 November 2004 07:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree, cueball.

This thread is contemptible, and I hope it dies a swift death.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 12 November 2004 09:22 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, nothing else is new. Stockholm still despises Arabs, and isn't afraid to broadcast.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 12 November 2004 09:31 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually Suha's mother was an important figure in the Palestinian movement.

Stockholm, as you know I'm an atheist and an ardent secularist, but I really find talking about "women who wear tea cosies on their heads" extremely offensive, like calling their menfolk "towelheads".


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 14 November 2004 11:34 PM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems all Palestinian violence is not triggered by Israel.

Gunfire erupts at Arafat mourning

By IBRAHIM BARZAK

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Mahmoud Abbas, the temporary successor to Yasser Arafat, escaped unharmed Sunday when militants firing assault rifles burst into a mourning tent for the deceased Palestinian leader, killing two security guards and wounding six other people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bodyguards take away Mahmoud Abbas, former Palestinian Prime Minister and the successor of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, after gunfire erupted at the tent set up for mourners to gather in memory of Arafat in Gaza city Sunday. (AP/Hatem Moussa)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The shooting raised grave concerns about a violent power struggle in the post-Arafat era. Some of the gunmen shouted slogans calling Abbas, a moderate who has spoken out against violence, an agent of the United States.
The bursts of gunfire came just hours after Palestinian officials set Jan. 9 as the date for elections to choose a new leader - the first vote in nine years.

The temporary Palestinian leadership, headed by Abbas, has been trying to send a message of unity since Arafat's death Thursday. Arafat's responsibilities were divided among several leaders, and officials held talks with rival factions in Arafat's Fatah movement and the militant opposition groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

However, those rivalries burst into the open minutes after Abbas, the new PLO chief, entered the Gaza City mourning tent, where some 10,000 people - including about 3,000 armed men, most of them police officers - gathered Sunday evening. Abbas, accompanied by Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan and surrounded by security guards, shook hands with mourners.
Moments later, a group of at least 20 gunmen barged into the tent shouting, "Abbas and Dahlan are agents for the Americans!"

Gunfire then popped through the tent. It appears most of the shots were fired in the air - the casualty toll likely would have been far higher had the gunmen taken aim at the large crowd.

Abbas' bodyguards hustled him into a corner as frightened mourners scrambled over plastic chairs to flee. Abbas was taken to Palestinian headquarters.

The gunmen reportedly melted into the gigantic crowd and escaped.

Speaking to reporters, Abbas tried to play down the incident.
"While we were receiving condolences, a huge crowd gathered there and then random shooting broke out, but not in my direction," he said.
Abbas said he did not hear any slogans against him and planned to continue talks with rival Palestinian factions. Abbas has tried in the past, as prime minister, to persuade militants to halt attacks on Israel.

However, militants signalled Sunday they were not interested in a ceasefire. In a Gaza City parade, masked militants unveiled a new rocket, which they claimed had an extended range that could reach the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon. The long, green "Al-Yasser 1" rocket, named after Arafat, was shown to a cheering crowd as Palestinian security looked on.
Sunday's shooting raised questions about the ability of the Palestinians to carry out their election peacefully.

Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, is widely expected to run for Palestinian Authority president. However, victory is far from certain. None of the likely candidates, including Abbas, has the stature of Arafat, and many Palestinians consider Abbas' generation of politicians to be tainted by corruption and out of touch with the masses.

*Snip*

It seems in the Middle East, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I am not a particularly religious or Bibically oriented person, but the resemblance between recent events and ancient history is striking.

I do take the Old Testament as a good oral history. A perusal of its pages picks up many disturbing parellels to modern Islam in description of people surrounding the Israelites:

1) Reckless, senseless violence (destruction of Abraham's wells, all kinds of massacres);
2) Constant warfare;
3) Random killings; and
4) Child sacrifice (Abraham’s emulation of surrounding peoples’ in attempting to sacrifice Isaac until stopped, allegedly by God).

Given this lengthy history, I fail to see how Isarel’s surrendering what are now called the “Occupied Territories” will change anything

[ 14 November 2004: Message edited by: JBG ]


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 14 November 2004 11:41 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One could add the equally valid "historical" documentation of the Israelites slaughtering the Canaanites upon their return to the Holy Land, couldn't one? Of course, that would be racist, and a trivialization of the very real historical events and factors that have led to our current pass; just like your insufferable racism.

Have you decided yet whether to bury Arafat in Pig's skin, you prick?

Edited to add:

In fact, your "analysis" (which merits quotation marks far more than "Occupied Territories") reminds me of the Palestinian doctor in "Jenin, Jenin" who explains that of course there was a massacre in Jenin because, after all, "they [the Jews] killed the prophets." Same faulty, tribalist, cruel logic without foundation.

[ 14 November 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 14 November 2004 11:47 PM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
One could add the equally valid "historical" documentation of the Israelites slaughtering the Canaanites upon their return to the Holy Land, couldn't one? Of course, that would be racist, and a trivialization of the very real historical events and factors that have led to our current pass; just like your insufferable racism.

Have you decided yet whether to bury Arafat in Pig's skin, you prick?


Well, if you want to go "Biblical" on me, I'll make the point that the Hebrews were driven out of Canaan by a drought and they were exercising their "right of return". I'm quite sure if the Palestinians wanted to exercise the same "right" that the results would be the same.

Rather than make a personal attack, why not respond to the point I am making, which is that these people could make some progress from their current medieval state. As a progressive I would think you'd agree heartily.


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 14 November 2004 11:53 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JBG:

Well, if you want to go "Biblical" on me, I'll make the point that the Hebrews were driven out of Canaan by a drought and they were exercising their "right of return". I'm quite sure if the Palestinians wanted to exercise the same "right" that the results would be the same.


You jumped right past the obvious corallary, which would the actions of the Zionists upon the establishment of Israel. I'm not surprised that you are so blinkered by ideology, but I had hoped someone who actually is articulate - as opposed to the majority of your hard-right ilk - miight catch it.

quote:
Rather than make a personal attack, why not respond to the point I am making,
Because, good sir, you are so eminently attackable.
quote:
which is that these people could make some progress from their current medieval state. As a progressive I would think you'd agree heartily.
End the occupation, and let's see where we get. It is laughable to hold out human rights as a reward for good behaviour, especially when you think that it is you - or, given your wonderful addition of the Bible to the conversation, the God of Israel - that gets to judge such things.

If one granted states on the basis of good behaviour, there would no longer be an Israel. There wouldn't have been one after the first day.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 14 November 2004 11:57 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
JBG: Do you defend the settlements? If so, on what grounds?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 November 2004 12:28 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, and if the Bible has to be brought in to it, why not use the good stuff?

"Let justice roll like a river, righteousness like an ever-flowing stream . . ." Amos.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 15 November 2004 12:32 AM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
You jumped right past the obvious corallary, which would the actions of the Zionists upon the establishment of Israel. I'm not surprised that you are so blinkered by ideology, but I had hoped someone who actually is articulate - as opposed to the majority of your hard-right ilk - miight catch it.

You’re right. I am not “hard right”. I am a Democrat and a liberal extremist. If anything, I am to the left of most of this board. As far as the establishment of Israel, remember, the area was almost uninhabited prior to the arrival of the Zionist settlers. It was the growing prosperity of the area, generated by the Zionist settlers, that attracted many of the Arabs living there. The Zionist settlers purchased the land itself from absentee Turkish landlords and my information is that there were not very many people living there.

This arrangement would have continued except for the growing waves of violence among the Arabs, fomented by such notables as the Mufti of Jerusalem and eventually the Nazis. The Arabs themselves largely (though concededly not entirely) left of their own volition, spurred by leaders who promised to “drive the Jews into the sea” and thus to increase their wealth. Of course this could not and did not happen. The Arab refugees are now stuck waiting for a day that will never arrive, in utter misery, while Arafat squirreled away billions.

quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
End the occupation, and let's see where we get. It is laughable to hold out human rights as a reward for good behaviour, especially when you think that it is you - or, given your wonderful addition of the Bible to the conversation, the God of Israel - that gets to judge such things.

If one granted states on the basis of good behaviour, there would no longer be an Israel. There wouldn't have been one after the first day.


Why in a million years should Israel take that chance. Why should the Arabs not show that they can control themselves? That may be doubtful since they can’t handle a condolence gathering without deaths.

quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Because, good sir, you are so eminently attackable.

I can see you are concerned about going head-to-head in an intellectual debate in this matter. Face it, there is no good argument that these people merit your concern.

quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
JBG: Do you defend the settlements? If so, on what grounds?

After the 1948, 1956 and 1967 wars the Israelis waited, and waited, and waited for the Arabs to sit down at the bargaining table. When the Arabs gave the three “no’s” at the Khartoum Conference of 1969, “no peace, no recognition, no negotiations” the Israelis decided that some selective incorporation of areas rightfully won in a war was in order. Why should Israel have to maintain indefensible borders. Would you be prepared to trim Canada back to Upper and Lower Canada and the Maritimes?


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 15 November 2004 12:41 AM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Oh, and if the Bible has to be brought in to it, why not use the good stuff?

"Let justice roll like a river, righteousness like an ever-flowing stream . . ." Amos.


Justice implies consequences for actions. The logical consequence of senseless slaughter is military action.


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 November 2004 12:45 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh my God. JBG, this is just lunacy.

quote:
As far as the establishment of Israel, remember, the area was almost uninhabited prior to the arrival of the Zionist settlers. It was the growing prosperity of the area, generated by the Zionist settlers, that attracted many of the Arabs living there. The Zionist settlers purchased the land itself from absentee Turkish landlords and my information is that there were not very many people living there.
You're actually going to pull the From Time Immemorial crap here? Joan Peters? The most discredited study in the history of Middle Eastern scholarship? JBG, you couldn't get away with this with the most extreme Zionist historian in Tel Aviv -s/he'd laugh you out of the classroom.

The rest of your analysis is poisoned by the same the same intellectual disease.

There are good arguments, JBG, for the establishment of Israel; there are none for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and their subsequent occupation.

quote:
Face it, there is no good argument that these people merit your concern.
All people merit my concern, and yours. If you could step past your sickening tribalism, you might begin to understand that.

quote:
Why should Israel have to maintain indefensible borders.
Let me get this straight: Armed outposts in the middle of hostile territory are more defensible that clearly defined and agreed upon borders, say, a Green Line? Settlements are about security?

You have proved yourself a racist, blinded by tribalism. You are, to put it mildly, part of the problem. I hope one day you can see fit to change that, and view humanity as your family.

We're all in this together; God help me, that means I'm stuck with you, too.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 November 2004 12:58 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As far as the establishment of Israel, remember, the area was almost uninhabited prior to the arrival of the Zionist settlers.

I can't believe people still try to get away with this lie around here.

Sure, it's elementary Zionist propaganda, "a land without people for a people without land," as the lie goes.

I don't suppose it helps your argument to mention the early settlers' solution whan they discovered that Palestine was already populated when they arrived?

quote:
"We shall try to break the will of the [Arab] population and spirit them across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country .... expropriation and the removal of the Arabs must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." -- Theodore Herzl - founder of the Zionist movement (from Rafael Patai, Ed. The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I)

And who is responsible for this sidescroll?

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 15 November 2004 01:03 AM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Oh my God. JBG, this is just lunacy.

Let me get this straight: Armed outposts in the middle of hostile territory are more defensible that clearly defined and agreed upon borders, say, a Green Line? Settlements are about security?


Agreed upon by whom? My first post on this thread was pointing out that any one who argues in favor of bargaining with Israel in order to reach any good-faith agreement takes their lives in their hands.

quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:

You have proved yourself a racist, blinded by tribalism. You are, to put it mildly, part of the problem. I hope one day you can see fit to change that, and view humanity as your family.

We're all in this together; God help me, that means I'm stuck with you, too.


More name calling. I am not against the "Palestinians" because of their race; I am against them because of their actions, both individually and collectively.


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 November 2004 01:07 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
That's not name-calling. That's just observation. You are a racist, JBG.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 15 November 2004 02:08 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well the fact that Suha Arafat is an outspoken woman, at least nominally, in the Arab World is a bonus. But Stockholm you're an idiot, there are far better people than her. It's like saying Ivana Trump should be the next President of the US or something.

Anyways a far better woman candidate would be Hanan Ashrawi. Although I suppose a more 'logical' successor would be one of of Arafat's former Prime Ministers. Whether or not they'll be effective who knows.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 15 November 2004 02:15 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
More name calling. I am not against the "Palestinians" because of their race; I am against them because of their actions, both individually and collectively.

Naw, JBG's not a racist. He's just "against" a group whose self-identification he denies with quotation marks, because he hates their "collective" actions.

Nope. No racism here. No siree.

Oh, BTW, I hear there's nothing but empty land in Harrison, New York. How 'bout us Canadians move there and "grow the prosperity" of the area? Then we can build fences to keep out the lazy Americans who are "attracted" by our industry and initiative.

Not that there were any Americans -- sorry, "Americans" -- there before us. Nope. No siree. Not a one.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 November 2004 02:16 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My first post on this thread was pointing out that any one who argues in favor of bargaining with Israel in order to reach any good-faith agreement takes their lives in their hands.
I don't disagree, as a point of fact. There are in the Palestinian body politic those for whom peace is unthinkable. But they are not exlusive to Palestine. Take Rabin, for example, who was able to look beyond his prejudices and step outside of the accepted Zionist orthodoxy of the time. He was killed for his vision, by the same people who now threaten the life of Sharon, who does not step outside that orthodoxy. The line has been shifted in favour of outright aggression and theft, and you stand inert, mired in a sick vision of tribal warfare. I wish better for you, and all the people of Israel and Palestine.
quote:
I am not against the "Palestinians" because of their race; I am against them because of their actions, both individually and collectively.
Substitute the word "Jews" for Palestinians, and there is our lovely race war. Don't you see the madness of it all? Insanity as public policy. We have our common humanity to blame, you know. It is never too late to start seeing one another as humans first. I hope, one day, you are able to do just that.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
JBG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5659

posted 15 November 2004 02:26 AM      Profile for JBG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:

Oh, BTW, I hear there's nothing but empty land in Harrison, New York. How 'bout us Canadians move there and "grow the prosperity" of the area? Then we can build fences to keep out the lazy Americans who are "attracted" by our industry and initiative.

Not that there were any Americans -- sorry, "Americans" -- there before us. Nope. No siree. Not a one.


As for whether or not there were many people residing in what's now Israel prior to the start of the Zionist movement I'll quote an illustrious leader of one of the world's great democracies:

"I don't know. A proof is a proof. What kind of proof ? It's a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it is proven."

Harrison, by the way, is densely settled, in case you're curious. A lot like North York or Etobicoke.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: JBG ]


From: Harrison, New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 15 November 2004 02:47 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, that's a step up, I guess. Any random Jean Chretien brain-burp has more intellectual content than all that tired "people without a land/land without a people" crap.

PS: one thing Harrison, New York, apparently doesn't have is irony.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 November 2004 03:34 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Say, JBG, would you mind deleting that image you posted above? The sidescroll it's causing makes baby Jesus cry.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 November 2004 04:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well the fact that Suha Arafat is an outspoken woman, at least nominally, in the Arab World is a bonus. But Stockholm you're an idiot, there are far better people than her. It's like saying Ivana Trump should be the next President of the US or something.

Is it?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 November 2004 04:09 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look, JBG, go there. Find out for yourself. Stop hiding on the internet, and in New York.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 15 November 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


Is it?


Yes it is in a sense. It would battle the cultural views that insist that women in the Arab world have to be subservient, wear Burqua's (or w/e) and listen/do whatever the Men in their lives tell them tell them. But if you read my post you will see that I didn't think it was a good idea for her to be the leader because she's been described as the Middle East's version of Ivana Trump.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 November 2004 10:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I am curious about this idea of yours, you are saying she should not seek a leadership position because of the sexist attitudes of Arab men whom will apply an attitude simillar to sexist men in the English speaking world? NOT because she is not qualified?

I don't quite get it.

My understanding is that her family has had a long history of being an important player in Fatah and the PLO. She worked for Arafat in Tunis. One doesn't get such positions unless one is an activist. I'm really interested in her qualifications, or lack of them.

I get the sense that she is a background player, and her role has been more or less been forwarding the cause among the rich and famous of the Europe, and covertly sending money to PLO operatives around the globe. It never hurts to have rich friends. So, I'm not sure she would want the job, but it is clear that she has ideas about the direction she would like things to go, and as someone with a place in history of the PLO, I think she is justified in pursuing her political vision.

She may be interested in preventing the PA from becoming simply tool of Israeli occupation, a possibility that has always lurking even under Arafat.

My feeling is that Abbas's shorts are wired by Mossad.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 November 2004 10:16 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It doesn't matter who replaces Arafat as their is no Israeli partner for peace. When Israeli renounce violence and replace the butcher Sharon with a moderate leader truly interested in dialogue, only then will an opportunity for peace arise.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 November 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it matters to Palestinians, in terms of whom is best able to forward their cause, through olive branch or gun, however.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 November 2004 10:22 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heh. That was fun to read.

Now, I think it is a dangerous road to go down to. Negotiate with anyone. Anyone. Don't stop. Don't be the one that backs away from the table. Ever.

That's my advice to whoever takes over. I hope to God Hamas runs a candidate (but I hope s/he loses), because it is a step towards drawing opposition groups into the political process.

And if Sharon does continue, then I think Gideon Levy is right and it's time to disband the PA and go back to the PLO. If we have to start from scratch, let it be total non-cooperation.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 November 2004 10:23 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you think they have a choice? Whatever Palestinian offers an Israeli an olive branch will be lucky to come away with his life.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 November 2004 10:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is also very important that this event is the catalyst for unity, and cohesive action. I think that this will be the ultimate result. I think that Abbas will be moved aside, and I think that there will be renewed Initifada. I think it is right, given that there is no Israeli partner for peace.

Frankly I don't think Abbas has the balls, to hold either olive branch or gun. I like Quiera more, but Marawan Barghouti is a better pick, he is in jail, but so was Arafat for the last three years. I think Dhalan will take over for a while.

Not signing a peace deal with a living Arafat, may have nailed the lid shut on Israel's coffin. Transformation of the politcal landscape is in the works.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 November 2004 10:32 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't believe that, Wingnut. Yes, I think there is a danger. But a Marwan or Mustafa Bargouti, duly elected? No collaborators, they.

There's a lot of cynical posturing going on, but I think now Israel has been deprived of its great excuse: the visceral and personal hatred of a large segment of the Israeli population for Arafat. There is a discursive moment, here, I believe.

Peace is always such a faint hope, you know? But it has to be there. Otherwise, why go on?


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 November 2004 10:35 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It is also very important that this event is the catalyst for unity, and cohesive action. I think that this will be the ultimate result. I think that Abbas will be moved aside, and I think that there will be renewed Initifada. I think it is right, given that there is no Israeli partner for peace.

Frankly I don't think Abbas has the balls, to hold either olive branch or gun. I like Quiera more, but Marawan Barghouti is a better pick, he is in jail, but so was Arafat for the last three years. I think Dhalan will take over for a while.

Not signing a peace deal with a living Arafat, may have nailed the lid shut on Israel's coffin. Transformation of the politcal landscape is in the works.


I hope so, Cueball. Quite frankly, the current Intifada has been a disaster for Palestinians, in large part due to the lack of cohesion and a surplus of factional posturing . . . due in part to inept leadership. I certainly hope someone emerges not tainted by the PA inner circle's machinations.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 November 2004 10:36 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
double post. So that's flood control, is it?

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 November 2004 11:06 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There's a lot of cynical posturing going on, but I think now Israel has been deprived of its great excuse: the visceral and personal hatred of a large segment of the Israeli population for Arafat.

Of course they haven't. The great excuse has, and will continue to be, no negotiation without a complete end to violence. That is waaay better than Arafat. Think how perfect it is:

1) The Palestinians can't possibly control every faction and every group any more than the Sinn Fein could control every Republican group or Unionists could control the UDF.

2) Any possibility the PA could control factions was wiped out with the complete destruction, by Israel, of the PA's security infrastructure.

3) Should the Palestinians come together with all major factions agreeing to a ceasefire, Israeli can be counted on to launch a provocation with a terrorist strike on an important leader, the flattening of homes, the seizure of land or the desecration of a holy site in the name of peace.

No. There will be no possibility of peace until Israel replaces the butcher Sharon, the terrorist and remianing obstacle to peace, with a moderate Israeli who can deliver true peace, security and democracy to his people.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 November 2004 12:06 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only reason that Sharon is even PM of Israel is because the Palestinians did everything in their power to make him PM. Ever notice that efery single solitary time that Israel is on the verge of electing a moderate government, the palestinians can always be relied upon to stage some terrorist atrocity the night before the election - just to be absoluety sure that Israel is ruled by the most intrasigent government possible. That way they don't have to negotiate and they can maintain the false hope of someday throwing the Israelis into the sea.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 16 November 2004 12:52 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israelis elected Sharon, not Palestinians.

ould you cite these "atrocities" you mention for those of us who don't know about them?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 16 November 2004 01:05 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The only reason that Sharon is even PM of Israel is because the Palestinians did everything in their power to make him PM. Ever notice that efery single solitary time that Israel is on the verge of electing a moderate government, the palestinians can always be relied upon to stage some terrorist atrocity the night before the election - just to be absoluety sure that Israel is ruled by the most intrasigent government possible. That way they don't have to negotiate and they can maintain the false hope of someday throwing the Israelis into the sea.
Ladies and gentlemen: May I present you with a new and improved, stellar example of tautology.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 November 2004 01:29 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are right Stockholm, every time the moderate factions come close to a deal the right in Israel takes advantage of the fact that some extremist Palestinian fringe organization tries to derail the process. They can count on the the Likud to do it. What if Likud didn't allow that to happen? What if they said no, we will not stop negotiations, in the face of terrorism. Given that, as you pointed out, that ending negotiations is the purpose of a large amount of terrorism, it only stands to reason that the best way to make it stop is to refuse to give in to terrorism by not negotiating a settlement.

If the 'terrorists' could not count on Likud derailing the peace process, there would be no motiviation for the terror attacks.

A Palestinian version of your view would suggesting that Palestinians should refuse to negotiate a withdrawal from the occupied terrirtories and a removal of the settlements only after the IDF withdraws and the settlements are dismantled, the same goes with your demand for an end to Palestinian violence, before negotiation.

That is exactly the kind of tautology you are espousing.

What if Paul Martin refused to negotiate federal medicare transfer payments with the provinces only after the the provinces had stamped out the crime of murder in their jurisdictions. That kind of thing is justification for non-negotiation, not negotiation.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 16 November 2004 03:30 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But I am curious about this idea of yours, you are saying she should not seek a leadership position because of the sexist attitudes of Arab men whom will apply an attitude simillar to sexist men in the English speaking world? NOT because she is not qualified?

You've completely missed what I said. I'm saying she should seek a leadership position because it could possibly dispeal such sexist attitudes amongst Arab men. But I don't know that she is qualified therefore I wouldn't advocate for her specifically to take such a position. That being said if what you said is true then maybe she is qualified, however I have heard her be described as 'the Ivana Trump of the Middle East' and that's not too flattering. If it's true then she's probably not qualified, if it's not true then she could be qualified.

But a woman who can challenge such attitudes, and let's be clear they are worse [in the sense of a sliding scale since they still exist here as well] in the Arab world than they are in the English speaking world (in general) so it's dumb to insinuate that they aren't much worse here, would be a good candidate.

Anyways can someone actually comment on Hanan Ashrawi -- am I way off base with suggesting she would be a possible successor. Or is flaming far to fun in the ME forum for actual suggestions (dig-dig-dig ). I'm not suggesting it's going to be a woman, I just think it's an interesting subject to ponder.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 November 2004 11:40 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sometimes I wonder whether the Likud party and Hamas have secret strategy sessions where they covertly cooperate with each other. They have a symbiotic relationship and each needs the other to survive.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 November 2004 05:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is not a secret. You forget the reason that Sharon's original boss, Begin, let Ahmed Yassin set up shop in Gaza Strip was to encourage local opposition to the (secular) PLO. The rise of Islamic faundamnetalism against the PLO was encoraged and funded by Israel.

[ 16 November 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 16 November 2004 05:38 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
I hope so, Cueball. Quite frankly, the current Intifada has been a disaster for Palestinians, in large part due to the lack of cohesion and a surplus of factional posturing . . . due in part to inept leadership. I certainly hope someone emerges not tainted by the PA inner circle's machinations.

Yeah. Mind you, it hasn't been so great for Israel either. Sure, Likud don't mind I guess, because they tend to profit from increased polarization and stratification. But the economy's been tanking and reliance on the military and on foreign handouts increasing, social safety net eroding, democratic standards eroding. I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see an erosion in education standards, infrastructure, the whole US disease happening to what was once a dynamic place. You can't do a war economy forever and not pay the price.
And that's leaving aside the malaise and tension from simple risk of terrorism itself.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
The_Calling
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5377

posted 21 November 2004 11:03 PM      Profile for The_Calling   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The status of women in the Arab world is not the same everywhere. The Arab world is not a monolith. Look at this article about women in Tunisia.

--The percentage of women in the new Tunisian legislature is the highest since the country’s independence and one of the highest in the world.

According to the most recent figures put out by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm), the ratio of Tunisian women in Parliament is above the 15% average for women in parliaments around the world and higher than the averages in all regions of the world with the exception of the Nordic countries.--

--In his electoral program, President Ben Ali had advocated "a larger presence for women in decision-making and responsibility positions" and called for a transition for women "from equality to effective partnership" (www.benali2004.tn).

Women of Tunisia enjoy equal rights and are active in all walks of life. They constitute 27% of judges, 31% of lawyers, 40% of higher education teachers and 34.4% of the journalists.--

What are the comparable figures in Canada? I know that the representation of women in Congress is substantially less and that only about 1/4 of US lawyers are women.

Saudi Arabia treats women like cattle but it does not represent the entire Arab world. There is a wide diversity within it. Sure, overall, women are treated worse than in the rest of the world but let's not assume that Tunisia or even Iraq is on the same level as Saudi Arabia. The West will never understand the Muslim and Arab worlds as long as it sees them as monoliths.


From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca