Arafat in a coma?

[Bleeding Red]

Once again - The King of Jordan, The King of Syria and the Egyptian Prime Minister told Arabs in Israel to Leave, they will be able to return once they had defeated the Jews.
Yes, some Arabs were forced from their homes, but remember that Arab countries also forced Jews from their homes.


I also have not seen any declaration from the Palestinians that they are desendants of the Canaanites, Jezubites, Hittites.

We could spend months going through history and cataloging incidents. Time better spent on negotiating peace in the context of today and tomorrow.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Nov 5 2004, 04:07 PM
I also have not seen any declaration from the Palestinians that they are desendants of the Canaanites, Jezubites, Hittites.

They believe, like all Arabs, that they are a decendent of Ishmael - Abraham's 1st son. God told Abraham that he would have a son who would take his people to the promised land. Abraham's first son (Ishmael) was born to a servant of Abraham (perfectly legal in ancient Hebrew culture). This is who Muslims see as fulfilling the prophecy. Jews on the other hand, because they are matriarchal in their beliefs, feel that Isaac (the 2nd son, born to Sarah - Abraham's wife) is the legitimate one.

http://www.wwwtests7.com/Documents/Bible_P..._and_Ismael.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/sacrifice.htm

If you want to go by religion, Muslims and Jews have an equal claim to Israel. If you want to look at it more politically, there are also 2 sides that deserve equal consideration. Muslims, many of whom are direct ancestors to the pre-Islam occupants (Jews and pagans) of the region, occupied the area consistently, while up until the 20th century, there were was only a small population (about 10,000) Jews living in the area. Most of the Jews who returned were Europeanized, and conflicted with the middle eastern cultures of the area. It would be like if Aryans returned to India and Iran today. Well, maybe not AS drastic, but you get the picture. On the other hand, many Arabs, like the Jews, came rushing back when zionists started buying land. So really, they were doing the same thing.

BTW, I am pretty sure I have read that many Palestinians do claim to be direct decendents of the Philistines.

And just to be clear. I totally believe in Israel's right to exist. Regardless of the country's origin, they are there now and that is the most important issue I believe. I do however feel that the Palestinians were given a raw deal and don't blame them for not accepting the terms for a state in 1947. In hind site, they should have because they lost their cause a long time ago, and now with the resources they are left, they will never be able to have an independent state unless Israel and Jordan cooperate to help them - which is unlikely.

[Agamemnon]

Buring Arafat on the Temple Mount - This, in my mind, is like burying Charles Manson in Arlington cemetary. There are Muslims buried there, Faisel Husseini was a prominent Palestinian leader in Jerusalem and is buried there. Arafat's grave will become a shrine and a pilgramage point and Israel cannot have it at the foot of their holiest site.

So, Israel wants peace, but burying Arafat in Jerusalem would be too much for them to bear. They're religion would not allow this act of decency? If it won't, then there's a problem. I'm pretty sure flexibility on religious lines would go a long way to beginning peace. If you believe in peace.

Israel as a racist state - Far from the truth. Israeli Muslims, Bahai-ists (sp?), Christians, Bhuddists all enjoy the same freedoms as Jews. They can all vote, be elected to office, are free to move unencumbered with in the state and to other countries, have the same rights under the law, can sit on the same beaches, ride the same buses (any seat), have freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

I'm pretty sure in the 1940's, 50's, 60's blacks had the same types of rights as whites did in the United States. By your definition, that makes the US in those decades, like Israel, a perfectly liberal-democratic state. Of course, that would ignore the still existing and institutionalized racism that was still being carried out in many states and municipalities.

I'd wager that having rules on the books is one thing, acting upon them is entirely another.

Israel does not want peace - again a falsehood. Israel is willing to go to the edge of the cliff for peace, just not over it. Also note, there is no Palestinian equivilant to Peace Now and Jews are not lynched in the streets for suggesting peace.

There are a lot of Israeli settlers who would probably love to lynch Sharon for daring to make them leave the land that they claim God gave them. If you don't think there are Israelis who are dead-set against peace (like 100,000's of them) then you're misinformed. I'm surprised we put so much legitimacy in their belief that God gave them Israel.

Do any of you believe that Jews have an ancient, divine right to this territory? Do you truly believe that this is what God wants, for his chosen people to violently reclaim what they believe is their 2000 (5000?) year old birth right?

I think believing that stuff is the same as believing the crap the religious-right churns out in America. Basing vital political decisions/settlements on the word of God (paraphrased by someone else, millenia ago) is foolish and dangerous.

[Bleeding Red]

Unfortunately I only have time for a short reply.

I understand that Muslims are decendants of Ishmael. The Bible also clearly states that Abraham's covenent with the Lord will pass through Isaac, not Ishmael.

The raw deal in 1947 would have seen the Arab state get more than 65% of the farmland available in the region and would have been bigger than what they will get with a negotiated peace.

800,000 of those 'Europeanized Jews" came from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Moracco, Libya, Egypt and other Arab countries

Yes, many settlers would prefer not to have peace.


On burying Arafat - would the US allow Stalin, Breshniev, any former Soviet leader, Hitler, Castro, Benidict Arnold, The president of the Confederate States of America to be buried at Arlington?

Arafat's grave will not be a symbol of peace but one of violent resistance and used as a basis for future claims.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Nov 5 2004, 06:13 PM
Unfortunately I only have time for a short reply.

I understand that Muslims are decendants of Ishmael. The Bible also clearly states that Abraham's covenent with the Lord will pass through Isaac, not Ishmael.

The thing about the Bible is that it is not an unbiased source. It's like saying that the Hindu religion is the only truth because it says so in the Vedas.

The raw deal in 1947 would have seen the Arab state get more than 65% of the farmland available in the region and would have been bigger than what they will get with a negotiated peace.

800,000 of those 'Europeanized Jews" came from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Moracco, Libya, Egypt and other Arab countries

Assuming that the 65% is correct, the Arabs also had 3 times as many people to feed in 1947. http://i-cias.com/e.o/israel_5.htm The raw deal had more to do with the right of Arabs within Israel proper and access for people between the two states. It is true that what they were offered then was better than anything they'll now though.

Yes, many settlers would prefer not to have peace.

Many of the religious fanatics/settlers feel that Ur and Babylon are rightfully theirs as well. You can see why Israel's neighbours are suspicious, especially of the occupation and settlements. Ironically, they could probably make more of a legal justification for Babylon since the modern city of Baghdad was actually 60% Jewish up until the 20th century.

On burying Arafat -# would the US allow Stalin, Breshniev, any former Soviet leader, Hitler, Castro, Benidict Arnold, The president of the Confederate States of America to be buried at Arlington?

Do any of those guys have a cultural or historical link to Arlington though?

[Bleeding Red]

[QUOTE=FlamesAddiction,Nov 5 2004, 06:41 PM]

Yes, many settlers would prefer not to have peace.

Many of the religious fanatics/settlers feel that Ur and Babylon are rightfully theirs as well. You can see why Israel's neighbours are suspicious, especially of the occupation and settlements. Ironically, they could probably make more of a legal justification for Babylon since the modern city of Baghdad was actually 60% Jewish up until the 20th century.

On burying Arafat - would the US allow Stalin, Breshniev, any former Soviet leader, Hitler, Castro, Benidict Arnold, The president of the Confederate States of America to be buried at Arlington?

The outlawed Kach group may hold onto the biblical idea that the Kingdom of Israel streches to the Euphrates river. I don't think any official body - government, rabinical, or Zionist - holds to that.

On burying Arafat - would the US allow Stalin, Breshniev, any former Soviet leader, Hitler, Castro, Benidict Arnold, The president of the Confederate States of America to be buried at Arlington?

Do any of those guys have a cultural or historical link to Arlington though?


Benidict Arnold and the President of the Confederate states of America do. Both thses guys worked for the dimise of the USA and may be consideered heroes in some circles.

How about Louis Riel (I think Lanny mantioned him) Should there be a movment to have his grave moved to the same cemetary as J.D. MacDonald or P.E.T.?

In Israel David BenGourion's grave is in the Negev.

Arafat buried on the Temple Mount is akin to giving the finger or dropping trou to Israelis and the Jewish people.

[moon]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Nov 5 2004, 02:16 PM
Arafat buried on the Temple Mount is akin to giving the finger or dropping trou to Israelis and the Jewish people.

Good lets do it then. They certaily deserve it.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by moon+Nov 6 2004, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Nov 6 2004, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bleeding Red@Nov 5 2004, 02:16 PM
Arafat buried on the Temple Mount is akin to giving the finger or dropping trou to Israelis and the Jewish people.

Good lets do it then. They certaily deserve it. [/b][/quote]
I guess I should start the movement to have Ariel Sharon's body entombed right in the centre of the Dome of the Rock. Maybe we should move Meir Kahane's and Baruch Goldstein's bodies into the Al asqua Mosque.

Maybe if you think that what the PA and Hamas want to do in Israel is good and that Israel and the Jews deserve it you should send them some cash or better yet, sew a vest.

[moon]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red+Nov 7 2004, 09:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bleeding Red @ Nov 7 2004, 09:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Good lets do it then. They certaily deserve it.

I guess I should start the movement to have Ariel Sharon's body entombed right in the centre of the Dome of the Rock. Maybe we should move Meir Kahane's and Baruch Goldstein's bodies into the Al asqua Mosque.

Maybe if you think that what the PA and Hamas want to do in Israel is good and that Israel and the Jews deserve it you should send them some cash or better yet, sew a vest. [/b][/quote]
I will gladly do both.

Thanks for the ideas.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red+Nov 7 2004, 04:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bleeding Red @ Nov 7 2004, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Good lets do it then. They certaily deserve it.

I guess I should start the movement to have Ariel Sharon's body entombed right in the centre of the Dome of the Rock. Maybe we should move Meir Kahane's and Baruch Goldstein's bodies into the Al asqua Mosque.

Maybe if you think that what the PA and Hamas want to do in Israel is good and that Israel and the Jews deserve it you should send them some cash or better yet, sew a vest. [/b][/quote]
If the site is holy to both religions, why do Jewish religious needs instantly out-trump Muslim religious needs? Why would it be so beyond the realm of thought that a Muslim is buried at a site holy to Islam, with other Muslims buried there already?

I'm not surprised that the initiative for a peaceful, rational solution to this (potential) problem is being ignored in favour of respecting one religion over another.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Nov 8 2004, 02:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Nov 8 2004, 02:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I guess I should start the movement to have Ariel Sharon's body entombed right in the centre of the Dome of the Rock. Maybe we should move Meir Kahane's and Baruch Goldstein's bodies into the Al asqua Mosque.

Maybe if you think that what the PA and Hamas want to do in Israel is good and that Israel and the Jews deserve it you should send them some cash or better yet, sew a vest.

If the site is holy to both religions, why do Jewish religious needs instantly out-trump Muslim religious needs? Why would it be so beyond the realm of thought that a Muslim is buried at a site holy to Islam, with other Muslims buried there already?

I'm not surprised that the initiative for a peaceful, rational solution to this (potential) problem is being ignored in favour of respecting one religion over another. [/b][/quote]
The issue is not about favouring one religion over another. It is about buring a murderous terrorist at the foot of the Holiest Jewish site. Should Ariel Sharon be buried Mecca? Medina? (it has been noted that Jews have lived there hundreds of years in the past) Sharon will not be buried at the Temple Mount either. I do not recall any Israeli PM being buried there.

There are peaceful alternatives - Abu Dis is a suburb of Jerusalem, the PA could still say he is buried in Jerusalem. The Martyr's Cemetary in Gaza, reserved for the PA's hounored heros (all of whom took at leat one Jewish life with them) or his family cemetary in Gaza.

Is there a monument to the highjackers of the 9/11 planes at the foot of ground zero? If their bodies were ever found should they be buried there?

Is a peaceful resolution one that will cause more violence or a compromise?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Nov 8 2004, 01:22 PM
The issue is not about favouring one religion over another. It is about buring a murderous terrorist at the foot of the Holiest Jewish site. Should Ariel Sharon be buried Mecca? Medina? (it has been noted that Jews have lived there hundreds of years in the past) Sharon will not be buried at the Temple Mount either. I do not recall any Israeli PM being buried there.

There are peaceful alternatives - Abu Dis is a suburb of Jerusalem, the PA could still say he is buried in Jerusalem. The Martyr's Cemetary in Gaza, reserved for the PA's hounored heros (all of whom took at leat one Jewish life with them) or his family cemetary in Gaza.

Is there a monument to the highjackers of the 9/11 planes at the foot of ground zero? If their bodies were ever found should they be buried there?

Soo... the issue is about favouring one nationality over another? One fighter over another? Because one 'side' is a bunch of murdering baby-killers (Palestinians) and the other temple-going peace-worshipping innocents (Israelis)? You're pretty far removed from the conflict (unless you live there) yourself to be passing personal moral judgement on people you've only seen in the news.

All of the examples of innappropriate burials are useless, as none are parallels of the current situation. The terrorists don't value ground-zero as a holy-site. Sharon doesn't value Mecca or Medina as a holy-site. Jerusalem is holy to both. Why would it be ok to bury Israelis there, who by all Palestinian accounts are terrorists themselves, but not Palestinians? You still haven't explained that to me, beyond the fact that apparently Israeli feelings on the issue dominate any other religion/race simply because its holy to them (ignoring any other religious needs).

Is a peaceful resolution one that will cause more violence or a compromise?

Gee. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a peaceful resolution will result in a compromise... not more violence. That's my opinion at least.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Nov 8 2004, 05:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Nov 8 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Bleeding Red@Nov 8 2004, 01:22 PM
The issue is not about favouring one religion over another. It is about buring a murderous terrorist at the foot of the Holiest Jewish site. Should Ariel Sharon be buried Mecca? Medina? (it has been noted that Jews have lived there hundreds of years in the past) Sharon will not be buried at the Temple Mount either. I do not recall any Israeli PM being buried there.

There are peaceful alternatives - Abu Dis is a suburb of Jerusalem, the PA could still say he is buried in Jerusalem. The Martyr's Cemetary in Gaza, reserved for the PA's hounored heros (all of whom took at leat one Jewish life with them) or his family cemetary in Gaza.

Is there a monument to the highjackers of the 9/11 planes at the foot of ground zero? If their bodies were ever found should they be buried there?

All of the examples of innappropriate burials are useless, as none are parallels of the current situation. The terrorists don't value ground-zero as a holy-site. Sharon doesn't value Mecca or Medina as a holy-site. Jerusalem is holy to both. Why would it be ok to bury Israelis there, who by all Palestinian accounts are terrorists themselves, but not Palestinians? You still haven't explained that to me, beyond the fact that apparently Israeli feelings on the issue dominate any other religion/race simply because its holy to them (ignoring any other religious needs).

Is a peaceful resolution one that will cause more violence or a compromise?

Gee. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a peaceful resolution will result in a compromise... not more violence. That's my opinion at least.[/b][/quote]
I stated that Sharon will not be buried at the Temple Mount either. I am pretty sure that the Jerusalem Wakf and head Imam along with the rest of the Arab world would throw a fit at the suggestion. And again, I do not recall any Israeli PM being buried there. ALso, I did mention that Faisel Husseini, a prominante Palestinian from Jerusalem who was involved in both the first Intifada and peace negotiations is buried on the Temple Mount.

There are Palestinians/Muslims buried there. But why wouldn't a devout Muslim want to be buried in Mecca? or Medina?

This is about politics. You can say my analogies are not good, but how hard is it to make the leap - one side's freedom fighter wants to have his hounored grave in an area disputed by two sides. The other side sees that as an affront and unacceptable. Arafat also saw himself as the keeper of the Church of the Sepulchure (sp?) would the church allow him to be buried in that yard?

You're pretty far removed from the conflict (unless you live there) yourself to be passing personal moral judgement on people you've only seen in the news.

Now you are making the judgement call. Does that mean that the other posters who do not live in the US shouldn't make judgement calls on GWB? Or because I have not sat at the same table as Arafat, I do not know what I am talking about?
Conversations with Friends & Family living there, academics, journalists, speakers on both sides, Palestinian visitors that speak about their experiances visiting their families in the disputed territories and terror attack survivors (I am a terror attack survivor - Jul. '90) - as well as news sources and time spent in Israel, lead me to feel that I can say that Arafat should not under any curcumstances be buried at the Tmple Mount with conviction.

[Agamemnon]

There are Palestinians/Muslims buried there. But why wouldn't a devout Muslim want to be buried in Mecca? or Medina?

Does it matter? If he wants to have his remains rest there, thats what he wants (I don't even know if he wants this). I'm sure he'd have his reasons, and to him, they're probably valid.

This is about politics. You can say my analogies are not good, but how hard is it to make the leap - one side's freedom fighter wants to have his hounored grave in an area disputed by two sides. The other side sees that as an affront and unacceptable. Arafat also saw himself as the keeper of the Church of the Sepulchure (sp?) would the church allow him to be buried in that yard?

Yes, it is about politics. Rather than extend olive branches, the Israelis would rather (in your scenario) draw more lines in the sand about what is 'unacceptable'. How can peace ever be possible here if Israel can't bend on something that is (relatively, and in the grand scheme of things) a pretty small issue. One way to alleviate the problem is to say that no one can be buried there anymore. That would be a non-racist, non-nationalist way to deal with the situation. It also wouldn't happen, because of 'politics'.

Now you are making the judgement call. Does that mean that the other posters who do not live in the US shouldn't make judgement calls on GWB? Or because I have not sat at the same table as Arafat, I do not know what I am talking about?
Conversations with Friends & Family living there, academics, journalists, speakers on both sides, Palestinian visitors that speak about their experiances visiting their families in the disputed territories and terror attack survivors (I am a terror attack survivor - Jul. '90) - as well as news sources and time spent in Israel, lead me to feel that I can say that Arafat should not under any curcumstances be buried at the Tmple Mount with conviction.

All I'm saying is that to rule Arafat's burial there out means that there are higher priorities for the Israeli leadership than peace.

If peace is the goal, then why not extend the olive branch? Don't you think there are hated individuals on both sides of any conflict? Its not like Arafat is the first fighter to be hated by the other side... by an extremely long shot. If peace is ever going to happen in this region, its got to be because both sides seek ways to find initiatives for peace, not always waiting for the other to commit fully first.

If keeping Arafat off the Temple is so important that its worth more bloodshed, power to you I guess.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Nov 8 2004, 07:22 PM
One way to alleviate the problem is to say that no one can be buried there anymore. That would be a non-racist, non-nationalist way to deal with the situation. It also wouldn't happen, because of 'politics'.

Acctually, that is not a far out unreasonable solution - the Department of Antiquity and the multi-national group of engineers monitoring the Temple Mount, Wailing Wall and the two Mosques could declare that due to buldges and unstable foundations that there be no more burials in and around the Mount. They already determine the number of people that can attend the Mosques (with the Wakf's understanding) to prevent the whole thing from caving in.

All I'm saying is that to rule Arafat's burial there out means that there are higher priorities for the Israeli leadership than peace.

yes, the trust and respect of the people. Forcing the issue on the part of Palestinians must also mean that they have higher priorities than peace.

If peace is the goal, then why not extend the olive branch? Don't you think there are hated individuals on both sides of any conflict? Its not like Arafat is the first fighter to be hated by the other side... by an extremely long shot. If peace is ever going to happen in this region, its got to be because both sides seek ways to find initiatives for peace, not always waiting for the other to commit fully first.

Why is what Arafat or the PA want absolute when Israel will compromise by buring him in Jerusalem? Are Israel's reasons for not wanting Arafat buried at the Holiest jewish site any less valid to them? The only road to peace is for Israel to capitulate?

[KevanGuy]

QR77 is reporting this am that the coma he has been in since Wednesday has worsened...or deepened...one of the two. I dont remember exactly. Anyway, doesnt look good for ol Arafat.

[Agamemnon]

Yeah, I've heard reports that the PA attending him in France is so they can let him go afterwards. I'd also heard from CNN that he couldn't recognize most people, which definitely means his days as leader (at the very least) are over, if not his life.

[RougeUnderoos]

They are making preparations to bury him in Ramallah, according to CNN.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Nov 9 2004, 07:53 PM
They are making preparations to bury him in Ramallah, according to CNN.

Canada.com has his final resting place as Gaza. Wonder which it will be. The article also noted that Israel has made preperations for the visiting Foreign Dignataries who are considered enemies- Quaddafi, Assad etc.

[FlamesAddiction]

And he dies.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_nm/mideast_dc