Arafat in Critical Condition
 

Doctors in Ramallah fighting to save Arafat's life

Looks like the end of the line for Arafat.

There are going to be * H U G E * demonstrations in Gaza & the West Bank, and most likely many other Arab countries in the region if he dies. Nearly 40 years as undisputed leader of the Palestinian people. In saying this, the death of Arafat could clear the way for the rise of a moderate Palestinian leadership willing to deal honestly with Israel. This could go a long, long way towards stopping the suicide bombings, to Israel tearing down its protective wall, to a true and lasting Peace. Further, it could de-fuse much of the animosity the Middle East holds against Israel and America in regards to the formers dealings with the Palestinians. Quite a development.

Everybody dies. If he dies in his sleep, he's far luckier than he deserves.

Just an honest question here.

Do you feel the same about Menachmm Begin?
Do you feel the same about Nelson Mandella?

They too are both ex-terrorists who were awarded the Nobel Peace prize.

Mr Mephisto

So were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Adams, and all the founding fathers, terrorists one and all. Perhaps in 50 years, if I am alive I will look on Arafat as not having been a wanton instigator of death and mayhem, and an overall obstructionist force to the peace process. At this point in time I find no great care that he is dying, as terrible as that is to say because he is a human being, because I have the hope that the peace process may actually be facilitated by his dying.

Should be interesting to see how it all plays out atleast. This could ether go really good, or really.. really bad.

To tell you the truth, I'm hard-pressed to remember a single incident in which either Begin or Mandela took part in or supported a terrorist operation that resulted in the death of one of my countrymen. Not so with Arafat.

Mr. Mephisto,
Not that your question was directed at me....
Although consideration of Begin would have prevented me from bringing it up (He was a member of the Stern gang, no?) now that you mention it, former terrorists who die in there sleep, be they former terrorists who went on to lead obscure, exceptionally wealthy lives in Saudi, like Idi Amin, who went on to lead their countries and win Nobel Peace Prizes, like Begin and Mandella, or who have lingered on as persistent political chancres, like Castro and Arafat, should realize that they have most definitely gotten out easy if they die in their sleep.

That's just my sense of "what goes around comes around", and nothing particularly personal about it.

On the other hand, I do feel a bit of hesitant hope that Arafat may soon kick that storied bucket, particularly if the Gaza pullout also brings down Sharon. There will never have been a time with more potential to get somewhere in this idiot conflict. Of course, if there isn't a president in the United States who people are willing to give a shred of credibility, then all bets are off. Bull in the China Shop diplomacy won't work on this, and ideaology is the problem, not part of the solution. Still Arafat is not less that 20% of the problem, and if he checks out, that's an opportunity for progress anyway.

I'm not passing judgement on him.

He was a terrorist. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It's a funny old world in some ways.

We'll never know if he has done more harm than good, but he has undoubtedly done both.


Mr Mephisto

For the record, Begin was a member of Irgun (or Etzel in Hebrew). Responsible for several bombings and massacres. But that's not the point.

With regards to his death bringing a resolution to the Palestinian Crisis any closer, I'm not so sure.

He is certainly an autocratic leader. It's just that when a power vacuum is created, there is also a chance that something worse rather than better will fill it.

As I said, I make no judgement on him. Let history be his judge. It's easy for us to sit in our comfy arm-chairs, far away from the bullets and bombs in Palestine and make smarmy comments on how he deserves to die.

I mourn the loss of any human life. From that of my own family to the likes of Idi Amin. The one leveling feature we all have is our inalienable humanity.


Mr Mephisto

I agree. The war between these 2 has been going on for sooo long, (UN Partition of Palestine, 1947), almost 60 years, that it's hard to even fathom any transition to peace, nevermind a smooth one. The fact of the matter is that the Arabs see the creation of Israel as a catastrophe. Arafat exiting stage left isn't going to change this mindset overnight, if ever. Everything depends on the type of Palestinian leadership that comes into power after Arafat.

If he stays where he's at and dies; I think the demonstrations will be in the form of mourning. If he leaves, survives, attempts to re-enter, and is killed along with any others willing to follow him in death---that's when trouble will begin. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

There I guess we just have to agree with a parting of the ways. There are people who were human beings that I'm HAPPY died, and wish they had died much earlier. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, et cetera. While they may have technically been human, I'm glad they're dead. In a Ring of Gyges scenario, I'd have no hesitation whatsoever to drop a hammer on any of those listed herein.

perhaps his passing will open the way for a palestinian state, and eventual peace in the region.....yeah, right

Arafats death won't change anything. One man's death will never overcome the hundreds of years of hatred between the Jews and the Arabs. Arafat is a pimple on the ass of that long standing conflict. Reciprocal hatred as such on this level cannot possibly disipate in decades let alone generations.

In all of Arafat's megalomania, I really hope some big Hollywood icon doesn't die when he does because that would not only overshadow his existence but would also show how little the rest of the world really care about how many Arabs kill Israeli's and vice versa. Hmmm,... Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise dies, the world mourns. Arafat dies at the same time? Arafat?,...wasn't that a movie?

I think you misunderstood me. Or perhaps I wasn't clear.

Whilst I'm never happy at anyone's death (per se), I believe that the world is a better place when some people die or are killed.

Hitler and Stalin are two clear examples.

Put another way, I can be happy some people are gone, but I'm not celebrating their death. Minor distinction maybe, but one I maintain in my own mind.

And, just to be clear, I don't put Arafat in the same league (or anywhere close) to the likes of Hitler and Stalin etc.

BTW, you didn't answer my question with regards to Begin or Mandella.

Mr Mephisto

I'm sorry, I thought I did. As soon as I hear of which of my countrymen Begin and Mandella had a hand in killing, I'll gladly toss them over into my mental column that contains Arafat.

Well, sarcasm aside, the implication is that you don't tar Begin and Mandella with the same brush because they didn't have a hand in killing Americans. At least we know where we stand.

And for a minute it was because I thought you disliked him because he was an ex-terrorist.

Here's another question for you. What about terrorists who kill the citizens of your allies? That is, British citizens? Would they "count"?


Mr Mephisto

No kidding. As it is his hold is tenuous at best. If he dies, imagine the power vacuum that splits wide open in the middle eastern politcal/power scene.

Now imagine who takes his place. :confused:

I'm never particularly fond of hearing about death. In this case even more so. I would imagine the last thing the middle east needs right now is a 87 way fight for superior positioning.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...92185234F4.htm

it is really difficult to get any sense of what is going on in fact.

i find it interesting that, in the article linked above, the claim is that arafat feels as if he cannot seek adequate medical treatment because he does not think the israelis will let him back if he does--of course they will "permit" him to leave...

of course this article could be the smokescreen and the other, from haaretz, might not be.
i suppose it all depends upon which smokescreen you prefer.

My position exactly.


Mr Mephisto

How do yall think this will affect the relations btwn Isr, Pals?

That breaks down into ones positioning. (No advocation of bombing innocent people) In other words where is the line drawn in reguards to standing beside an allie in times of trouble and watching with complacency when a percentage views that allie's actions as completely wrong--even in alignment with terrorism.

Does it follow the theme terrorist to some freedom fighter to others; maybe, but don't forget there are as many the view others on the opposite side terrorists just as much.


What if? What if statements generally investigate areas that can go anywhere, thats why I have a difficult time with them--but thats for me personally. Kind of like-- What if the IDF and the powers that be pulled all settlements out of the West Bank and Gaza entirely. Would that change a majority of the world's view on Israel?

What makes an allie? I dont mean that as a smart ass question; but a search for other input. Why are the allies we have (true allies) our allies?

one thing i have figured out in my real life role as a historian is that cause-effect relations are fictional at best in a complex social-historical situations.
there is no way to predict how events will play out.

there is not even at this point any way to know what is going on--even on the question of whether arafat is really ill or kind of ill, or whether he is getting adequate care either way---no way to know.
maybe the israeli press prefers to publish worst scenario stories for reasons of wish-fulfillment in the wake of sharon carrying the parliamentary vote to dismantle settlements in gaza.
maybe al-jazeera is carrying an equivalent set of wish-fulfillment stories because the plo leadership want to play for time.

if you cant even figure out at this point what is happening, what sense does it make to screw about with scenarios?

the israelis have been blaming arafat for violence while at the same time acting as though the settlements do not play a role and as if the brutality of the occupation is not an issue in itself for years--why should anyone believe them?

similarly, arafat has been using israeli disengenousness to prop himself up in power for years as well. why should you believe anyone around him?

the other thing i have learned in my real-life role as historian is that ex post facto, whatever happens will be understood as necessary. or as the opposite of that. what will be covered over--what is always covered over--is period of uncertainty. this is one.

a third thing i have learned is that reference to "centuries of conflict between arabs and jews" in this context is meaningless--this is a particular conflict underway in earnest since 1948, with a sequence of definable parameters and turning points, that has been undertaken and maintained by both sides in their own interests.
the grand historical pseudo-understanding operates to erase what is happening in real time.
with the result, here as always, that the people who are fucked over remain the same: the palestinan people.
you know, regular folk---not unlike you---jammed into situations of complete desperation.

these people matter even less if the body count is measured in terms of nationalism (daswig's fine posts).
they matter not at all if the conflict is understood as endless, as eternal, as insoluble.
because all that functions only--and i mean only--to let the parties off the hook that in fact, in real time, maintain this ridiculous and brutal conflict.

Arafat has done his best to prevent a peace with Isreal. I shed no tears.

I don't know if it's strictly true to say that he has done his best to prevent peace with Israel.

Mr Mephisto

Note the hands...

http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/51...57C85AE85A779B

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...al/28ara.l.jpg

Why is everyone smiling?

because they are having their picture taken?

Come on, RB...
Arafat's dying, and they're partying like its 1999.
Somewhat of an inappropriate time to be celebrating.

In that second pic, it looks to me as if they're literally propping up their dying leader before the camera, before the world. It's a surreal collection of smiles and grim faces. Is it because the Palestineans have no one to take his place, and are in denial over his dying?

Its the usual political 'Don't worry he will be fine!' type of picture.

If he dies you deal with it then, but for now lets have him look to be recovering.

And look who's coming to the rescue...

Aide: Arafat to enter Paris hospital

wtf powerclown..."look who comes to the rescue." since when, even in your little black and white world, is caring for a dying person a shitty thing to do? even israel is cooperating by letting him come back to his compound....says so right in your article. and don't back out of this...

But its more complicated than that, isn't it?
This isn't just any dying old man...this is Yasser Arafat, whose political record stands public for all to see.

powerclown, that stupid (and I don't often say that), comment about "look who comes to the rescue" comment is the silliest thing I've heard here.

Who would have thought that a sick or dying man going to the city where his daughter and wife live for treatment in his final days would be a basis for your childish anti-French racism.

Quite a bit of respect lost right there my friend (not that I think you care).


Mr Mephisto


[EDIT: Please note that this was posted before I noticed and responded to your troll on the Greatest American thread. Just shows you my opinion was right...]

not that i agree with powerclown, but you can't really use the location of his wife and daughter as a counter-argument because the next question becomes: why are his wife and daughter there? you can't debunk something with what may lend creedence to the opposing argument.

my .02

Quite the petty shot there mephisto; the motivation for such a response I think we both understand clearly.

It comes as no surprise to me that Arafat is on such good terms with France, and it strikes me as par for the course. Neither has contributed anything productive to the Israeli-Palestinean conflict for the duration of its existence; indeed, lets be frank here: one could make a very sound argument that Arafat is THE major impediment to peace, stability and progression in the region.

It is within France's power to offer real help and assistance to the conflict, but time and again they choose simply to counter Israel's self-defense measures with useless UN Resolutions designed to compromise these defenses in a political effort to garner favor (read: $$$Trade$$$) with the Arab world.

I don't believe it was petty, but I accept the tone was inappropriate. Chalk it up to a fifth day in a row having to get up at 3am. I apologise for calling you childish and racist.

My underlying point remains the same. I think saying "Look who comes to the rescue" is just provocative. France has a long long history of being pro-Arab in the Middle East. Just as the US has a long long history of being pro-Israeli.

It would be just as inappropriate for me to say "Look who comes to the resuce" if Sharon were treated in an American hospital on his death bed.

Mr Mephisto

PS - And no, I don't understand what you mean about motivation.

PPS - I should like to debate some of your assertions (such that Arafat is THE major impediment to progress; certainly he is one of many), but I think that's better left to another thread, another time. I accept I stepped over the line with my post above and will leave it at that.

No problem; not like the situation isn't compelling and anything to get worked up over.

Just for the record, I don't dislike French people; I dislike the behavior of the French people's Government. My intent was not to denigrate an entire nation of individual people.

Just for the record, I've yet to meet the first French national that I like. (there may be some that I would like, I've just not met any of them, despite having been in France repeatedly. I've met lots of people of french descent, and generally like them just fine, but as for the actual French? Ask me again after they've figured out deodorant/anti-perspirant.

BTW, are the french a "race"? I've met white french people, black french people, and even asian french people. What racial category does "the french" fall into? And if they're not a race, how can disliking them be racist?

Before the US was giving 13.7 million per day; 8 billion annually in tax deductable donations--who was arming Israel?

Not meaning to get way off course here, but when I see see the French mentioned in this tone, I have to comment--

We helped France in WWI and WWII, they helped with militias fight for America against our now close allie Britain. They disagreed with the war in Iraq; it doesnt mean they were cheering on 9/11.

When I hear Axis of Weasel I consider the source.

Didn't know that Mandela was a terrorist...

Well if your one to say the Arabs have more land than the Israelis; that would make perfect sense. Swedish from Sweden, Spanish from spain, etc doesnt cover it. There are only caucasions, hispanics, asians, blacks (or whatever the current politically correct term is), and being the Jews and Arabs have the same origin--Abraham whatever that view is.

As for your last question; I think you know the answer.

The ANC was a terrorist organization.

REF: http://www.specialoperations.com/Ter...CGuide/A_F.htm

There's plenty more information out there if you want to look.

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".





Mr Mephisto

I suspect I've met more French people than you, having lived and worked there for about 9 months, and travelling there on business very regularly. I've met some assholes (like I've met some American assholes), but the vast majority of them are lovely. Just like you guys in the States.

Making generalizations like that above is either short-sighted, trolling or honest to goodness racism.

Well, let's check the definition, shall we?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race

So, yes. The French are a race. Therefore disliking them is racist. I'll leave others to take the logic to its inevitable conclusion. :)


Mr Mephisto

I think you should reread what I wrote. I said that I hadn't met any french nationals that I like, but caveated it with the possibility that there are french people I would like, I just hadn't met them.




OK, now I'm amused. :lol: That definition that you're using means that "American" is a RACE. That means people who don't like all Americans are racist, right?

In the law, there's a thing called an "absurd result". You just tumbled into one by declaring french people to be a "race". "French" is a nationality, not a race.

"...but as for the actual French? Ask me again after they've figured out deodorant/anti-perspirant."


As I said, I'll leave everyone to draw their own conclusions.


If I said I don't like all Americans, that they are stupid, or smell or are inferior, then yes that would be racist.

The same as if I said it about all Mexicans. Or Italians. Or Irish.


Race is not a term that is that popular any more because of its history in Social Darwinianism, Malthusianism etc. But the term racist is derived from the same root and is used to describe such predjudice as evidenced above.


If you say so, it must be true.


Mr Mephisto

Once again, we're back to you putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I said ALL French people were ANYTHING.

Hate to pull lawyerly word-parsing stuff on you, but I said "I've yet to meet..." while providing for the possibility that there may in fact be people in that class (French) out there that don't meet my characterization. That's personal observation, not racism.

There IS no "American" race. If there were, there would be certain chromosomal racial characteristics that such a race would have to have uniformly, and there isn't. There is no "French" race, for the same exact reason.

[QUOTE=daswig]Once again, we're back to you putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I said ALL French people were ANYTHING. [quote]

For the third time, let me quote you directly.

""...but as for the actual French? Ask me again after they've figured out deodorant/anti-perspirant."

That sounds a little predjudiced to me, but as I repeatedly said, I'll let others make their own decision.

Pull all you want.

Wrong.

You would be right if race was a term used exclusively to describe genetic or ethnic groupings. But it is not. It is also used to describe cultural and/or geographical groupings of people. There is a lot of debate on whether "races" (in the limited, short-sighted way you describe them above) actually exist at all. But certainly concepts like "the German race" exist, because it includes more than just ethnicity. And racism certainly exists.

If you want to use "lawyerly" word pulling, allow me to ask you some clear cut questions.

Do you accept that racism exists?
If so, on what basis can it be identified?
If someone said "I hate all Mexicans", would that be racist?
If someone said "I hate all Africans", would that be racist?


Mr Mephisto

sir, you are, as i've read from you many times, way off the mark here. mephisto is 100% correct in his last definition of race. it's not limited to an ethnic grouping, and your strong language only digs a deeper hole for yourself. also, i suspect that a racist someone from the american south once said that they hate blacks because they smell and are stupid and that their convictions were based on "personal observation," not racism. honestly daswig, cut your losses on this one...

Okay guys......

race

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.


[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]

Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

Hope this allows things to get back on track...............hint

I notice you used the same definition I did in post #43.

Either way, I think this thread has degenerated beyond usefulness or interest.


Mr Mephisto

Badabing

I see a potential clean sweep this weak

Castro goes keel up
Arafat joins the depths of hell
and Bush wins

wow - could it get any better

Speculation Runs Wild Over Arafat's Health
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: November 2, 2004


Filed at 2:01 a.m. ET

CLAMART, France (AP) -- Yasser Arafat's French physicians are refusing to discuss his health crisis, leading to rampant speculation about the Palestinian leader's dramatic deterioration.

One Palestinian official ruled out leukemia, while another said it was not a concern ``for the time being.'' A medical guessing game has ensued, with talk of possible blood disorders, poisoning, a viral infection.

Israel's chief of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, did little to clear things up. He told a Cabinet meeting Sunday that Arafat's ``situation is between full recovery and death,'' said an Israeli official who briefed reporters on the meeting.

``Arafat's condition is improving,'' the official quoted Zeevi-Farkash as saying. ``The blood transfusions have helped. We don't know if it's viral infection, perhaps mono, or it's leukemia or another cancer.''

Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath, however, has said all types of cancer have been ruled out.

As the ailing 75-year-old Arafat entered his fourth day of emergency treatment at a French military hospital Monday, French doctors maintained their policy of silence.

French physicians have refused to comment on the Palestinian leader's health until a diagnosis can be made based on a battery of tests that started immediately after his arrival Friday.

Together, Israelis and Palestinians are waiting impatiently for that diagnosis -- though it was unclear when it will come.

Even the due date for a diagnosis was unclear. Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat had said a medical report would be issued by early Tuesday. But Mohammed Rashid, a close Arafat aide, said results were expected Wednesday. Arafat spokesman Nabil Abu Rdeneh said the results might not be available until Thursday.

Arafat has been ill for two weeks and took a turn for the worse Wednesday, collapsing and briefly losing consciousness. Initial blood tests performed in the West Bank revealed a low blood platelet count. French physicians at the Hopital d'Instruction des Armees de Percy, gave Arafat a platelet transfusion shortly after his arrival.

Platelets are blood components that aid clotting. A low count indicates a possible problem with the bone marrow, where blood cells are made. There are many causes of platelet decline, ranging in severity from minor to life-threatening.

Poisoning, either from the toxic side effects of medicine or food contamination, is only one of many potential explanations for the blood condition. An initial concern was leukemia -- which counts among its symptoms a low platelet count.

``Arafat does not have leukemia,'' his aide, Rashid, said Sunday. ``It's been ruled out. Rule it out.''

Arafat's envoy in Paris, Leila Shahid, sounded less certain. ``The doctors exclude for the time being any possibility of leukemia,'' she said, also Sunday.

The Israeli parliament's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee discussed Arafat's condition in its weekly meeting Monday. A military intelligence official told the closed-door meeting that Arafat apparently suffers from a severe viral infection or cancer.

Israelis, including government officials, criticized the intelligence network for failing to track Arafat's deteriorating health.

``If there is one figure that intelligence is following since 1968 every day and every hour, and he is not too hard to follow ... it is Arafat,'' Akiva Eldar, a commentator, said in Israel's Army Radio morning talk show with Rafi Reshef.

``We didn't know that his health was so bad. Everything that happened at the Muqata (Arafat's headquarters) a couple of days ago came as a complete surprise,'' he said.

---------------------------------
Still no conclusive evidence one way or the other. Why all the secrecy?

The true question is
if he gets 'better' will the israels let him back into palestine
:)

Fresh concern raised over Arafat's health
By Danielle Demetriou
Published : 04 November 2004

The health of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, deteriorated significantly yesterday prompting doctors in France to conduct further tests.

Mr Arafat has been treated in a French military hospital since being airlifted from his Ramallah compound in the West Bank last week. While he appeared to be making a recovery, it emerged yesterday his health had taken a turn for the worse over the previous 24 hours.

Leila Shahid, the Palestinian envoy, confirmed 75-year-old Arafat had suffered a setback but insisted that his life was not in danger. "Obviously in his case, there could be setbacks at times and this is a setback, The doctors will give a very clear and direct explanation and report on what is happening."
While Palestinian aides have insisted that the leader does not have leukaemia, doctors are continuing to conduct tests.

Mr Arafat's health deteriorated hours after he sent a message to George W Bush, the US president, to congratulate him on his re-election.