Blanquist
26th April 2012, 14:47
I don't know much about him.
This is what the SEP had to say about him. Each paragraph is a selected quote.
In December 1988, in a statement dictated word for word by the US State Department, Arafat guaranteed the security of Israel, accepted that a peace settlement with Israel was a “strategy and not an interim tactic,” and renounced all forms of terrorism, “including individual, group and state terrorism.” In frank acknowledgment of his humiliation, when asked at a press conference to declare his acceptance of Israel, Arafat said, “What do you want? Do you want me to do a strip tease? It would be unseemly.”
The terms which Arafat accepted at Oslo that created the Palestinian National Authority (PA) were far removed from Fateh’s stated aim of a democratic, secular Palestine. The PLO-Israeli agreement represented a renunciation of the Palestinian people’s claim to all but 22 percent of the land of Palestine.
Arafat was in effect placed in charge of policing the popular opposition of the Palestinian masses to Israeli occupation and repression.
Arafat {was} willing to make more concessions than under Oslo, including allowing Israel to annex the most densely populated Jewish settlements and even limitations on the right to return, in favour of compensation from an international fund.
So from this list of quotes it looks like Arafat wasn't such a great guy. But the SEP also had these quotes in the same article
Yasser Arafat will be remembered as a man of tremendous personal courage and unswerving loyalty to the cause of Palestinian liberation...
It is a tribute to Arafat’s historical role and his fidelity to his people, despite his political limitations, that he was the object of unrestrained hatred on the part of the Israeli and American ruling elites in his final years.
The ultimate failure of Arafat’s national project cannot be ascribed to the subjective attributes of an individual
Arafat was well aware of the perfidy of the Arab rulers, but from the very beginning he felt he had no alternative but to manoeuvre between them
As a result of its political and military successes, the PLO under the leadership of Fateh was transformed into a genuine mass movement of the Palestinian masses.
the struggle of...the PLO became the catalytic force and focus of revolutionary struggles throughout the Middle East.
There is perhaps no other prominent political figure of the past half-century who endured such persecution as Arafat.
He saw the assassination of his closest political allies and comrades, and was himself the target of repeated assassination attempts.
His treatment at the hands of Israel and the US was barbaric... Yet he steadfastly refused to leave his post, fearing that the Israelis would never allow him to return.
Even at the end, he agreed to leave Ramallah for medical treatment in Paris only after the Israeli government guaranteed he would be allowed to return. Such was his dedication to the struggle of his people.
Future generations, in a world purged of imperialist oppression and inequality, will recognize and honor his contribution to the cause of Palestinian liberation.
He is one of those rare political figures who will never be forgotten by struggling humanity.
Wow, from this it looks like Arafat was one of the greatest revolutionaries of all time!
So, which is it? Why do they selectively like Arafat even though they don't hid his obvious faults? Why isn't the same treatment extended to someone like Kim jong-il ? This article is in extremely sharp contrast to what they said about Che Guevara (and others).
Here's what they had to say about Che. Again each paragraph is separate quote from same article.
The qualities which his admirers cite are well-known. Physical bravery, self-sacrifice, asceticism, giving his life for a cause. ...these qualities, in and of themselves, are by no means indicators of the political and class character of those who possess them. Religious sects and even fascist movements can claim to have produced martyrs with similar qualities in their own struggles for wholly reactionary ends.
A careful review of Guevara's career demonstrates that his political conceptions had nothing to do with Marxism and... were fundamentally hostile to the revolutionary socialist struggle of the working class.
What emerges so clearly from the detailed recounting of Che's career in these books is the abysmal shallowness and the tragic results of his political perspective.
There has been a renewed attempt by various petty-bourgeois left tendencies to portray Guevara as a revolutionary leader and theoretician whose example and conceptions continue to provide a meaningful perspective for the struggle against capitalism. Unlike the biographers, these groups provide no fresh insights or information. They combine a diseased nostalgia for the glory days of middle class radicalism with what can only be described as a falsification of Guevara's real views and their political consequences.
There's no need to keep quoting, it's pretty clear.
Why is Arafat > Che?
So two questions;
1. Your thoughts on Arafat
2. Why do so many parties have double standards (not sure if thats the right term to use) in who they support?
This is what the SEP had to say about him. Each paragraph is a selected quote.
In December 1988, in a statement dictated word for word by the US State Department, Arafat guaranteed the security of Israel, accepted that a peace settlement with Israel was a “strategy and not an interim tactic,” and renounced all forms of terrorism, “including individual, group and state terrorism.” In frank acknowledgment of his humiliation, when asked at a press conference to declare his acceptance of Israel, Arafat said, “What do you want? Do you want me to do a strip tease? It would be unseemly.”
The terms which Arafat accepted at Oslo that created the Palestinian National Authority (PA) were far removed from Fateh’s stated aim of a democratic, secular Palestine. The PLO-Israeli agreement represented a renunciation of the Palestinian people’s claim to all but 22 percent of the land of Palestine.
Arafat was in effect placed in charge of policing the popular opposition of the Palestinian masses to Israeli occupation and repression.
Arafat {was} willing to make more concessions than under Oslo, including allowing Israel to annex the most densely populated Jewish settlements and even limitations on the right to return, in favour of compensation from an international fund.
So from this list of quotes it looks like Arafat wasn't such a great guy. But the SEP also had these quotes in the same article
Yasser Arafat will be remembered as a man of tremendous personal courage and unswerving loyalty to the cause of Palestinian liberation...
It is a tribute to Arafat’s historical role and his fidelity to his people, despite his political limitations, that he was the object of unrestrained hatred on the part of the Israeli and American ruling elites in his final years.
The ultimate failure of Arafat’s national project cannot be ascribed to the subjective attributes of an individual
Arafat was well aware of the perfidy of the Arab rulers, but from the very beginning he felt he had no alternative but to manoeuvre between them
As a result of its political and military successes, the PLO under the leadership of Fateh was transformed into a genuine mass movement of the Palestinian masses.
the struggle of...the PLO became the catalytic force and focus of revolutionary struggles throughout the Middle East.
There is perhaps no other prominent political figure of the past half-century who endured such persecution as Arafat.
He saw the assassination of his closest political allies and comrades, and was himself the target of repeated assassination attempts.
His treatment at the hands of Israel and the US was barbaric... Yet he steadfastly refused to leave his post, fearing that the Israelis would never allow him to return.
Even at the end, he agreed to leave Ramallah for medical treatment in Paris only after the Israeli government guaranteed he would be allowed to return. Such was his dedication to the struggle of his people.
Future generations, in a world purged of imperialist oppression and inequality, will recognize and honor his contribution to the cause of Palestinian liberation.
He is one of those rare political figures who will never be forgotten by struggling humanity.
Wow, from this it looks like Arafat was one of the greatest revolutionaries of all time!
So, which is it? Why do they selectively like Arafat even though they don't hid his obvious faults? Why isn't the same treatment extended to someone like Kim jong-il ? This article is in extremely sharp contrast to what they said about Che Guevara (and others).
Here's what they had to say about Che. Again each paragraph is separate quote from same article.
The qualities which his admirers cite are well-known. Physical bravery, self-sacrifice, asceticism, giving his life for a cause. ...these qualities, in and of themselves, are by no means indicators of the political and class character of those who possess them. Religious sects and even fascist movements can claim to have produced martyrs with similar qualities in their own struggles for wholly reactionary ends.
A careful review of Guevara's career demonstrates that his political conceptions had nothing to do with Marxism and... were fundamentally hostile to the revolutionary socialist struggle of the working class.
What emerges so clearly from the detailed recounting of Che's career in these books is the abysmal shallowness and the tragic results of his political perspective.
There has been a renewed attempt by various petty-bourgeois left tendencies to portray Guevara as a revolutionary leader and theoretician whose example and conceptions continue to provide a meaningful perspective for the struggle against capitalism. Unlike the biographers, these groups provide no fresh insights or information. They combine a diseased nostalgia for the glory days of middle class radicalism with what can only be described as a falsification of Guevara's real views and their political consequences.
There's no need to keep quoting, it's pretty clear.
Why is Arafat > Che?
So two questions;
1. Your thoughts on Arafat
2. Why do so many parties have double standards (not sure if thats the right term to use) in who they support?