Hunter S. Thompson on Arafat:
Yassir has never been well-liked or popular in the Arab League nations. He is ugly and loud, and spittle flies off his lips when he talks. His beard is unclean and his eyes are like bags of dirty water. The starch in his uniforms gets rancid after two or three days of soaking up fatty acids, and even good friends avoid him in private. -13 October 1986 [Generation of Swine, p170]
"There were times when I could Have strangled him
There were times when I could Have murdered him
(But you know, I would hate Anything to happen to him)..."
[or something]
Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Semitic or even anti-Zionist by any stretch of the imagination. However, as probably the only thing standing in the way of full-on jihad against Israel - and by [almost-]logical extension, nuclear conflict in the Middle-East, Arafat has his uses, so to speak. I hope he pulls through.
EDIT: In the interests of clarity I have slightly reworded some of this post.
5 comments:
I'll be the first to admit that this post is worded a little messily and is ambiguous. [In fact I'm going to fix that right now.] My main points are that:
1. Arafat, with all his faults, was probably more worth than many realise, due to his knack for moderating and striking balance...
2. His eventual sucessor is likely to be more moderate and seen by Arab extremists to be kow-towing to Sharon and the Israeli's interests...
3. Therefore by [semi-]logical extension the likelihood that said extremists will resort to more extreme measures in attempts to achieve their aims is increased...
4. Therefore [and this is the imaginative stretch] the already volatile situation in the Middle-East is made more volatile, and eventually escalates into more serious multi-lateral conflict.
That's the analysis of this amateur observer, anyway. As for the rest of New Zealand feeling the same way - I doubt it. It's not often that what I think concurs with what a lot of the other people I know and meet.
Yes, and let's also hope that Alriel Sharon has stopped starting fights and causing trouble with the Palestinians!
A lot of commentators, and also myself, consider that Sharon brought about the latest Palestinian insurgency, and derailed the "peace-process", about 5 years ago, with his aggressive policies and deliberate derailment of the Oslo Peace accord.
I should try to emphasize that I take neither side - both sides have committed attrocities, both have had many innocents killed. I would much rather see a [re-]negotiated peace and everyone just getting along. Let's pray for that...
oops sorry that posted so many times! It really wasn't interesting enough to say twice.
Callie I doubt if we're ever going to agree much, but here's a few thoughts on your comments.
I was originally trying to say that I considered Arafat more valuable to Israel, and indeed the Jewish state, alive rather than dead. Do you disagree?
Also I can't believe you - Jew or not - can defend Ariel Sharon, who is accepted by many as a bad man; a bully and a nasty thug. In fact the only positive thing he's done that I can think of is initiating the planned withdrawal of Jews from the Gaza territory. I take your point re. the Oslo Accord, but mine was more that Sharon, the astute and devious politician, deliberately brought about the breaking of the Accord by the Palestinians, through his policies and actions.
Re. your Kill A Jew Go to Heaven post... I have read accounts of renegade Jewish settlers in kibbutzim in Palestine, who are quoted as saying that they enjoy shooting Arabs, who they regard as sub-human. In fact I believe their words were along the lines that Arabs were "pigs, dogs, unfit to live" and so on. That shit goes both ways, mate. And before you ask, these were accounts by neutral photo-journalists from around the world.
I can't find it now, but somewhere in your blog you write about "finishing the job that France, Germany and Poland started." I assume you're referring to the Nazi's 'Final Solution' and you're including France and Poland in there because of their infamous collaboration with the Nazis. Of course, what we're really talking about is sensible business decisions by those concerned - it would've cost Poland - annexed anyway - and Vichy France a lot more if they hadn't collaborated. And while you're at it, why not include the Dutch - they were serious collaborators - and the Swiss too.
Business decisions, I say. Sensible business decisions, much like those made by, well, the collaborating Jewish authorities under the Roman occupation 2000 years ago.
Which leads me to my next point, why do you say "The Passion of Christ" was Anti-Semitic. To me it presented a reasonably accurate portrayal of the Jewish people at the time in question, including the priests, the Pharisees and Saducees. But then again - you guys don't accept the veracity of the New Testament gospels, do you?
By the way, I hated that movie. It was basically pornographic rubbish. Mel Gibson is a fool. That's his life's work? Sheeeeesh...
And, why do you keep saying "Oy". Is that code for something I should understand?
Post a Comment