Posted on 11/16/2004 5:38:29 AM PST by TGOMedia
When news of Yasser Arafat's death broke, I smiled and applauded. Then I went to bed. While most opinion columnists were rushing to their computers and wedging the event as best they could between their agendas and their general thoughts on the Jewish people, there seemed no point in repeating the things all reasonable people have been saying for the last four decades. (Or, for that matter, the New York Post, which put it brilliantly: "Arafat Dead / And He Won't Be Missed.") Mankind is better because the evil old bastard finally died, but stretching the point out to 750 words seemed a less productive use of time than making sure I was well rested for breakfast.
That was before CNN practically lowered a Palestinian flag to half mast on the air. (Note to CNN: If you would just pack up and move the operation to Paris, everyone would be happier. And take the goddamn United Nations with you.) Writing for the University of Virginia's Cavalier Daily, Dan Bagley makes that point - "The media has latched on to the death ... and for a couple days, I really felt like I was watching the all-terrorist channel when I turned on CNN" - before explaining exactly what made Arafat a terrorist. Cheers, Bagley; you can't force fellow classmates to think or learn, but that is precisely the sort of knowledge college kids should see, as it shows them there are greater threats to innocence and democracy than George W. Bush and John Ashcroft (wink, wink).
What struck me was the ability of a college newspaper columnist to so clearly see and explain the same terrorism so many major news organizations were ignoring in favor of tributes bordering on hero worship. The New York Times was, well, it was the Times, posting for its online readership an "interactive feature" on Arafat's life, broken down into five chapters (the fourth was called, "Survivor as Pragmatist" without even the slightest hint of irony). Not once is he referred to as a terrorist; Arafat and the PLO were a "strong force," but Hamas carried out the largest number of attacks against Jews, et cetera. (Before you wonder, as I did, whether the Times went through all this trouble when President Reagan died, the answer is yes; though in watching both, the Times has more questions about Reagan's tenure than Arafat's.)
The Los Angeles Times called Arafat a "guerilla and statesman," but never a terrorist. He was "a guerrilla chieftain who juggled armed resistance and political diplomacy," no worse than simply revered and reviled, he "forced the plight of the Palestinian people into international consciousness and made it the defining conflict of the 20th century Middle East. He convinced even his enemies that Palestinians had the right to a state of their own, then failed tragically to deliver it." Tragically? The Times does know, doesn't it, the difference between when something is tragic - in other words, when something is unforeseen and unfortunate - and when things go according to plan?
"Throughout his life, he never gave up the olive-drab garb of his guerrilla days, the trademark 2-day-old whiskers and the black-and-white headdress, the kaffiyeh, folded in a triangle to represent a map of Palestine. All made the point that his battle for a full-fledged country was not finished." Yes, and it could have been finished four years ago had Arafat taken the idea of a Palestinian State as seriously as he did the end of Israel, but he didn't. (To be fair, the Los Angeles Times also ran a brilliant piece by Max Boot called "How Arafat Got Away With It," which is highly recommended reading.)
By the time liberals began talking about Palestinian elections as though they were uncomplicated exercises in First World democracy - while simultaneously questioning not only the legitimacy of President Bush's re-election, but dismissing Iraqi elections, also in January, as impossible - I had to say something, which is this: If you believe the hordes that descended upon Arafat's coffin are capable of installing a semi-democracy for themselves, you're forgetting that they also elected Arafat, a terrorist on par with Osama bin Laden, who was not only a leader in a military struggle against Israel, but also a mirror image of those he raped. Yasser Arafat couldn't have cared less about a Palestinian State; he cared about personal enrichment and the end of Israel, just like those who loved him. A Palestinian State will exist despite common Palestinians, not because of them.
I think he's just sleeping!
The cult of personality has to die with Arafat and it is now up to the the people who live in the West Bank & Gaza Strip, to make the next move.
If they want to be taken seriously, they need to act responsibly instead repeatedly falling down and then pointing at the rest of the world and saying "it's your fault".
No chance. Those people have been bread with hatred. It would take several generations for that to go away. There is no fix for those people that leaves them in place.
If they voted 99 to 1 to saw off the writer's left leg and then ate it, would he condemn them for it, but still want to give them more power? How crazy is the world, here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.