Yasser Arafat

[Mazzen]

Is Yasser a bad guy? Does he really encourage suicide bombings? Is he a Marxist? I can't think of anything else to ask about him for now. I'm sure that responses will provoke further thought. Chau.

[the SovieT]

Arafat is the leader of the Palestenian people.. not by self apoitment nor self promotion..but by the people´s will...
he never encouraged suicide bombings, this ofcourse does not mean he disencoureged the popular resistence against Israeli agression..


and no he is not marxist...

[il Commy]

Yasser Arafat (Abu-Amar) is the leader of the palestinian struggling-for-independence bourgeoise. I support him when he stands against Zionism and I oppose him when he stands aganst the palestinian people. The PLO can't unite the country, Zionism is too strong. A palestinan state in Gaza & The West Bank will be a tool of imperialism to exploit palestinians. Agreements like Oslo means collaboration of Abu-Amar and the palestinian elite with Zionism for the exploitation of the palestininan workers and peasants (falah's). But I oppose Sharon's will to assassinate Arafat, because Israel is an imperialist-oppressive bourgeoise and palestine is an occupied-oppressed bourgeoise.

A general strike of the workers and peasants in Palestine, combined with mass demonstrations and guerilla activity, can overthrow both israeli imperialism and arafatish capitalism from Gaza & The West Bank. That is what should be done. But until a palestinian party will organize this, I support an agreement with Arafat and Abu-Ala that will include the withdrawl of the IDF from all the occupied territories, dismantling of all settlements, a palestinian capitol in East Jerusalem and the right of return for all the refugees.

[Pepe Cy]

Yasser Arafat is a leading figure associated with the stuggle of the Palestinian people for liberation and justice.

He is a great man but because his efforts havent brought the expected results (a palestinian state) he is loosing the control. He can not control those stubid people who make suicide attacts and increase the tension between the two sides. He is nice but tired old man. It is time for someone else but who is cable enough to continue a pure political fight for the establishment of their rights?

[Zombie]

Arafat is a warmonger like Sharon. Do you honestly think he wants peace? He wants it as bad as his arch-ennemy Ariel does.
I do side with him when it comes to Zionist agressions, but I believe in the Palestinian struggle, the people's struggle. Not one man's. Not one elite's. One people's.

What makes you think he is anywhere being a marxist?

[captainjustice]

He may not be a great man, zombie, but he represents the will of the Palestinian peoples; and in my view, I'd be sad to see him gone. it is not his fight or that of his elite's. It is the shaking off of the Israeli occupation by all Palestinian peoples. It is not his singular agenda.
Jesus, he is not a warmonger. He may not think that Palestine will shake off Israel through peace, but he does not order people to attack Israel. At all. How can you be a warmonger when you don't even have an army. ARRRRGGGHHH!!!

[suffianr]

A sorrowful little puppet. He is the human personification of Catch-22.

Fucked if you do, fucked if you don't.

[redstar2000]

As far as I know, a rather typical Arab politician of this era...corrupt, unprincipled, ambitious, nominally nationalist, and not overly bright.

Like the ones we have in the U$A.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Man in the White Shirt]

I think Arafat does not have any really control over what happens in the West Bank or Gaza for the last while. Sure, the new P.M's are not really successful because they try to do their own thing, but the people with the guns, the Hamas and Islamic Jihad, really think he is a traitor. And in such anarchy it is the people with the determinetion and the guns who count, not fat politicians playing their little games.

[Invader Zim]

A useless sod, who is up to his neck in corruption. As a former terrorist, i believe that he is no different from Sharon. Its quite interesting considering that he was apparantly born in Eygpt, so what is he doing in Palestine, as a leader?

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 05:06 AM
Is he a Marxist?
Well, a year or so ago, Sharon called for Palestine to replace yasser Arafat with someone 'more conservative'. One of his aides or some other important Palestinian claimed that Yasser Arafat is the most conservative person they could find.

I think that, plus RedStar2000's explanation, should clear the question of his politics.

[il Commy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 12:25 AM
it is not his fight or that of his elite's.
Arafat represents the wil of the palestinian elite. Under occupation the will of the elites sometimes goes with the will of the masses, but sometimes isn't. The palestinian people should have a leadership, a party and organizations that will represent their interess - which is throwing the occupiers out and a planned economy - and not the will of the elite or the occupiers. Abu-Amar is just another bourgeois leader, he even had an alliance with the israeli imperialism in the 90's and he betrayed the palestinian struggle many times. This is not a leader for liberation, surely not a marxist.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

There definately needs to be a Marxist force in Israeli-Palestinian politics. This Zionist-Islamic fundamentalist movement isn't cutting it. Israel doesn't need a person who will represent the "Palestinian" race or the "Jewish" race, but someone who will strive to represent and unite all peoples under a single, secualar, government. Even if it isn't necessesarily Marxist, any non-fundamentalist government sounds like an excellent first step to the path of Socialism.

[Jesus Christ]

Arafat is always stating that he is doing all he can for peace, which is obvious bullshit
he does nothing to halt the suicide bombings, and his peace talks go nowhere
im almost actually convinced that he likes war, alot
hes no better than Sharon

[il Commy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 10:32 PM
There definately needs to be a Marxist force in Israeli-Palestinian politics. This Zionist-Islamic fundamentalist movement isn't cutting it. Israel doesn't need a person who will represent the "Palestinian" race or the "Jewish" race, but someone who will strive to represent and unite all peoples under a single, secualar, government. Even if it isn't necessesarily Marxist, any non-fundamentalist government sounds like an excellent first step to the path of Socialism.
There won't be any unification under capitalism, only a soviet-union of the middle east can unite this land. Palestinians and israelis are two different peoples. Even if 55 years ago the jews and the arabs were both a part of the palestinian people, today after years of Zionism and mass jewish immigration into Israel the jews of Israel are the israeli nation, the occupied arabs in the West Bank & Gaza are the palestinian nationa and the arabs inside Israel are the palestinian national minority.

It's not the same situation in all of Israel-Palestine. The West Bank & Gaza are materialistic as far from Jerusalem as Iraq is from Washington. The residents of Um El-Fahm are palestinians yet their national fight is different from the fight of the residents of Ramalah, just as the fight of the blacks in the USA is different from the fight of the iraqis.

The best we can get under capitalism is two states for two nations. This means the end of the occupation, the dismantling of all settlements, independence for the palestinan people, return for the refugees and better class-struggle conditions for both palestinians and israelis workers. Yet it also means exploitation of USA-Israel imperialism & palestinian bourgeoise for the palestinian workers & peasants, unemployment and privitization for the israeli workers and a danger of war at any time. Therefore the higher level of peace is the socialist peace - one that will be created by a general strike and a revolution in Palestine, Israel and the rest of the middle east. This means the unification of the land (and even the area) for one workers'-state, with no consideration for the nation. This means the end of class exploitation, the end of imperialist wars, the end of Apartheid and discrimination and the end of the war and transfer danger.

Under capitalism - two states. Under socialism - one.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by il Commy+Oct 18 2003, 08:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (il Commy @ Oct 18 2003, 08:10 PM)
[email protected] 18 2003, 10:32 PM
There definately needs to be a Marxist force in Israeli-Palestinian politics. This Zionist-Islamic fundamentalist movement isn&#39;t cutting it. Israel doesn&#39;t need a person who will represent the "Palestinian" race or the "Jewish" race, but someone who will strive to represent and unite all peoples under a single, secualar, government. Even if it isn&#39;t necessesarily Marxist, any non-fundamentalist government sounds like an excellent first step to the path of Socialism.
There won&#39;t be any unification under capitalism, only a soviet-union of the middle east can unite this land. Palestinians and israelis are two different peoples. Even if 55 years ago the jews and the arabs were both a part of the palestinian people, today after years of Zionism and mass jewish immigration into Israel the jews of Israel are the israeli nation, the occupied arabs in the West Bank & Gaza are the palestinian nationa and the arabs inside Israel are the palestinian national minority.

It&#39;s not the same situation in all of Israel-Palestine. The West Bank & Gaza are materialistic as far from Jerusalem as Iraq is from Washington. The residents of Um El-Fahm are palestinians yet their national fight is different from the fight of the residents of Ramalah, just as the fight of the blacks in the USA is different from the fight of the iraqis.

The best we can get under capitalism is two states for two nations. This means the end of the occupation, the dismantling of all settlements, independence for the palestinan people, return for the refugees and better class-struggle conditions for both palestinians and israelis workers. Yet it also means exploitation of USA-Israel imperialism & palestinian bourgeoise for the palestinian workers & peasants, unemployment and privitization for the israeli workers and a danger of war at any time. Therefore the higher level of peace is the socialist peace - one that will be created by a general strike and a revolution in Palestine, Israel and the rest of the middle east. This means the unification of the land (and even the area) for one workers&#39;-state, with no consideration for the nation. This means the end of class exploitation, the end of imperialist wars, the end of Apartheid and discrimination and the end of the war and transfer danger.

Under capitalism - two states. Under socialism - one. [/b]
I see what you mean, but still, I&#39;m not about to go have a hemorrage over a conflict between two fundamentalist powers. I feel this is a conflict that Communists should offer a way out of, but besides that, we should steer well clear of this fundamentalist quagmire.

[il Commy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 01:38 AM
I see what you mean, but still, I&#39;m not about to go have a hemorrage over a conflict between two fundamentalist powers. I feel this is a conflict that Communists should offer a way out of, but besides that, we should steer well clear of this fundamentalist quagmire.
First of all, I have no idea what is a hemorrage.

Second, I think you&#39;re right saying that we communists should have a clear distinctive voice that would seperate us from the nationalists. Only Socialism can get the peoples of the middle east out of this bloody situation. But as long as there is no revolutionary situation in Israel, there is no possibility for the CP to revolt. Communists don&#39;t "make" revolutions, they join them and lead them. Therefore our struggle now must side an independent palestinian state, and that means sometimes supporting Arafat. Though he is capitalist, he is a part of a repressed capitalism.

A revolutionary party in Palestine, that is in a revolutionary situation right now, could mean a victory to the Intifada, indipendence for Palestine and the end of class exploitation for the palestinian proletariat. But non-palestinians can&#39;t ofcourse build a palestinian CP, therefore we must deal with what we have. And the best temporary solution is two states for two peoples. This is a capitalist solution, not final, but it ease the way to Socialism.

[kylie]

Yasser Arafat is a holocaust denier, and as such hinders the credibility of the Palestinian cause. Although in practice, the credibility of it, how the rest of the world sees it, is of no importance. Isreal will continue to persecute the Palestinians while the US allows for them to do so, and short of a transition to socialism, no matter what the US populations opinion of the Palestine situation is, the US will continue to support Isreal.