At least someone in the media is willing to tell it like it is. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/11/arafat_the_monster/ Arafat the monster By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | November 11, 2004 YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves. In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul." God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity. Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception. Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms. Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism. Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt: "I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.) And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch? How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11? It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it. Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children. Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims? So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command. Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is [email protected]. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
Great take on the situation. I hate the way some media outlets are treating him as a hero. Personally I'd think his funeral would be a nice place to kill an a$$ load of terrorists with a limited supply of munitions. Then afterwards Ariel Sharon could piss on his corpse.
I'll cut Bush some slack here. That is a proper Christian response to the death of anybody and George steadfastly maintains his Christianity. Let God sort them out. Now, the french . . . that's different. Right now, guess who's just destroyed the military forces of a third-world nation and is occupying the place with troops, all without UN backing? France in the Ivory Coast. They vehemently condemn such behavior . . . unless, of course it's in the best interests of france!
exactly, and all the while your candidate mr kerry was the one pretending it mattered what our "allies" thought.
It does matter what our allies think. Countries like Britain, Japan, and Spain have backed and supported us for decades. Countries like that should matter to us and do, even if they disagree with us from time to time. france is different. They disagree with us all of the time. They have been a disruption in NATO for decades, they never paid their WWI war debts and we didn't even present them with a bill for the billions they were given during and after WWII. It goes back far beyond Bush and Iraq. The french have never been worthwhile allies. They have a right to disagree with American policies and sit out an operation that their hearts are not into, . . . but they should never lead international opposition against the United States itself. Allies don't do that. I don't think france qualifies as an ally anymore. NATO or no NATO, I just don't see America going to war for france anytime soon.
right, and those countries you mention, they were with bush (well, i guess not spain after they were bombed). when i put allies in quotes, i was referring to so-called allies, like france, not real loyal allies like britain. kerry is the one who cared about the opinions of countries like france. kerry is the one who kept claiming bush had failed in his diplomacy. it was your candidate who used france's stupidity as if it was a failure by the bush administration to form a coalition. all along, bush knew what you are saying is true, while kerry pretended it wasnt.
The election is over, chief. Kerry is irrelevant. Bush stands alone and the fact is -- he has to deal with the allies, both the true and the false. And he has a lot of work to do, fixing problems of his own making.
Nyaah!, Nyaah! Na Nyaah, Nyaah! Like a petulant child you must always have the last word, and usually close with an insult, the last refuge of the inarticulate.
of course, i love the last word, and i think your opinion is often based on misinformation and misunderstandings, and is therefore irrelevant. you seem to think you know more than you do. other people might like your opinion. i am not them. i dont see why that is an insult, but i don't expect your perceptions to be as accurate as mine. as far as my being inarticulate, i think it is clear i am probably the most articulate person on the board.
