Arafat Had Done it Again. Abu Mazen Quits.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW, I jumped all over Cyber because of his ridiculous theory about this being an Israeli conspiracy to cover up a "massacre", not because he was skeptical.

Why ridiculous? The Jerusalem Post making things sound worse to advance its own agenda? *gasp* NO! Please...

Cyber say no mention of Mazen qutting at all, which was totally at odds with the title, and said maybe there is an alterior motive to those that say he did quit (and there just might be... knowing Eli).

And of course the Isreali government doesn't try to cover up the bad stuff they do in the occupied terroritories, Drake .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, the first page of posts treats this as Abu Mazen resigned, so it seems like other people either just read the title or got that impression by the article.

I see nothing wrong with Cyber's reaction (not like you wouldn't claim a Palestinian conspiracy if the situations were reversed).

I just see a bunch of pro-Israelis wanting to jump on a pro-Palestinian who sees something missing here.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why ridiculous? The Jerusalem Post making things sound worse to advance its own agenda? *gasp* NO! Please...

You're defending Cyber? I thought better of you Imran, I really did.

Go ahead and believe that the Jerusalem Post is really part of a conspiracy to cover up Israeli "massacres" with false stories about the internal politics of the PA if you want to. You'll only have yourself to blame if people begin to think that you are a fool.

[Drake Tungsten]

I see nothing wrong with Cyber's reaction (not like you wouldn't claim a Palestinian conspiracy if the situations were reversed).

Bull****. You don't know anything about my politics on Israel-Palestine, so don't try to speak for me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I know plenty of your politics on the issue. You are just as in bed with Sharon as Cyber is with Arafat. Any denials are crap.

You're defending Cyber? I thought better of you Imran, I really did.

Yeah, I'm defending him. There is NOTHING to attack him on!

Go ahead and believe that the Jerusalem Post is really part of a conspiracy to cover up Israeli "massacres" with false stories about the internal politics of the PA if you want to.

Jeez Louise. Cry me a river while you are at it. Are you trying for an overly melodramatic Oscar while you are at this?

Something definetly smelled fishy because Eli and many people believed that JP said that Mazen had quit. It was a postulate! I don't believe the JP is trying to cover up massacres (though it may want to), instead they probably are simply trying to make their country look better and the Pals worse. Not like that is unheard of (look at CNN with the US).

[Edan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, the first page of posts treats this as Abu Mazen resigned,

Umm, no they don't. A number talk about Arafat being a major stumbling block for peace, but none of the posts deal with or comment on Abu Mazen's hypothetical resignation - indeed, several posts, in particular Siro's, seem to assume that Abu will stay on.

So

[Drake Tungsten]

I know plenty of your politics on the issue. You are just as in bed with Sharon as Cyber is with Arafat. Any denials are crap.

That's funny, but this is better.

Yeah, I'm defending him. There is NOTHING to attack him on!

I bet you think Comrade Tribune is a great poster as well.

[Eli]

Ok, this is the story :

YNET, the internet site of the Israeli leading newspaper said in it's article that Abu Mazen said that he's going to quit(they quoted him). I dont remember the exact quote and it was in Hebrew anyway.

The only English article I could find at the time was in Haaretz and it didnt mention it... So I "fused" both reports to get a more interesting thread title.

[Az]

Well, it seems despite all the persuasion by other people in the party, Abu Mazen will quit, after all.

[CyberGnu]

Imran, thanks Good to see that there are some sane people around

Drake, the only conspiracy is in your head. Not that I expect you to comprehend any of this: you usually never do after you've made your original assumption.

[CyberGnu]

Eli:

The only English article I could find at the time was in Haaretz and it didnt mention it... So I "fused" both reports to get a more interesting thread title.

A photographer for the LATimes did this about a week ago. When he was found out, he was immediately fired, LAT put up a first page apology and then devoted about a third of a page to the story.

That's what journalistic integrity is all about...

[Jaguar]

Gnu, I would like a source on this "latest massacre."

[CyberGnu]

Edan:

Umm... CNN... right...

Umm... What was this supposed to prove? That CNN cares about their employees?


In addition to Imrans comments, I should also add that the stories in NYT and Reuters are quite a bit more positive in general than the original post in this thread.

[CyberGnu]

Also:

Nonesense. The first intifada had already been waning and was all but over by 1991, two years before Arafat
became an issue.

From the EB:
Negotiations, violence, and incipient self-rule
The intifada
PLO declaration of independence
‘Arafat sought to establish himself as the only leader who could unite and speak for the Palestinians, and in mid-1988 he took the diplomatic initiative. At the 19th session of the PNC, held near Algiers, Algeria, on Nov. 12–15, 1988, he succeeded in having the council issue a declaration of independence for a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. ‘Arafat proclaimed the state (without defining its borders) on November 15. Within days more than 25 nations (including the Soviet Union and Egypt but excluding the United States and Israel) had extended recognition to the government-in-exile.
The final weeks of 1988 opened a new chapter in Palestinian-Israeli relations. In December ‘Arafat announced that the PNC recognized Israel as a state in the region and condemned and rejected terrorism in all its forms—including state terrorism, the PLO's term for Israel's actions. He addressed a special meeting of the UN General Assembly convened at Geneva and proposed an international peace conference under UN auspices. He publicly accepted UN resolutions 242 and 338, thereby recognizing, at least implicitly, the State of Israel. Despite their ambiguities, UN resolution 242 (1967), which encapsulated the principle of land for peace, and resolution 338 (1973), which called for direct negotiations, were regarded by both parties as the starting points for negotiations. Although Israeli Prime Minister Shamir stated that he was still not prepared to negotiate with the PLO, the U.S. government announced that it would open dialogue with the PLO.

[CyberGnu]

JW, already gave one, last page.

But since you ask so politely, I'll post it again

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast.html