| Submit your comments on this article |
| Middle East |
| Yasser: US war on Iraq will hurt Arabs |
| 2003-01-03 |
| Middle East Online A US war against Iraq would hurt the Arabs as much as the creation of Israel in 1948 did, Palestinian leader-for-life Yasser Arafat (1929-2003?) said in an interview published in Egypt today. In his remarks to the Egyptian government newspaper Al-Ahram, Arafat also said an upcoming meeting of Palestinian factions in Egypt was aimed at forging unity rather than ending the uprising against Israeli occupation. We guessed that... A war in Iraq "will not just have repercussions for Iraq, but the entire region will be affected as it was affected by the events in Palestine in 1948," Arafat warned. Known as the Nakba (catastrophe), the proclamation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the defeat of hostile Arab armies by the new Jewish state led to a massive exodus of Palestinian refugees to neighbouring Arab states. "It should not be ruled out that one might see a new Sykes-Picot," Arafat warned. Signed in 1916, the secret French-British Sykes-Picot carved up the non-Turkish provinces of the Ottoman Empire ahead of its collapse two years later. Hmmm... Curious, he should bring that up, so soon after Galloway did. Must be on the official Learned Elders of Islam talking points. We'll probably hear about it again. The Arabs blame the Sykes-Picot accord for all the conflicts which have ravaged the region since then. And not their own brutality and ineptitude... |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #7 I think TR's point is entirely correct. But on the other hand, Arafat has no longer any influence with the US (not that deserves any) so what he thinks about Iraq is irrelevant in Washington. Any resolution of the Iraq situation that is accomplished by a combination of Egypt/Syria/Saudi/Russian diplomacy/duplicity reduces US effectiveness on overall mid-east policy, even if the current military effort is the pressure point that makes it all happen. The potential reduction in influence is what Arafat thinks he needs to allow his arab and european buddies to come to his aide. Or maybe his meds are running low. |
| Posted by: john 2003-01-03 21:47:34 |
| #6 I don't see the substance to John's point at all. What happens to the leader of nation state who subsidizes terrorism as a national policy shouldn't be confused with what happens to a bunch of terrorist thugs who frequently pretend that they are leaders of an unrecognized nation state. |
| Posted by: Tom Roberts 2003-01-03 18:12:40 |
| #5 Any successful resolution of the Iraq situation by "arab diplomacy/Russian deviousness" would put tremendous pressure on the US to deal with the Palestinian problem with similar "diplomatic" approach. That would put Arafat back in the driver's seat. |
| Posted by: john 2003-01-03 11:25:57 |
| #4 Mojo: No and yes. No, 'cause this says they're legitimate targets, not rogues. And yes, because in either case, we are free to waste 'em. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-01-03 11:05:16 |
| #3 So I guess any Palis we find in Iraq are "rogues", and we should feel free to waste 'em, eh? |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-01-03 10:43:43 |
| #2 very interesting to see Yasser coming it out in public against the US war in Iraq. On the one hand he has to be at least as hostile as states like egypt, syria, pakistan to retain cred with the Pal street - especially the more rejectionist elements has been cultivating of late - on the other hand this not only wont endear him to the Bush admin (or for that matter to Blair) it will not endear him to the Iraqi opposition either. The odds on an a post-Saddam Iraq recognizing Israel just increased, I think. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-01-03 10:19:13 |
| #1 And this would be bad because ... ? |
| Posted by: Denny 2003-01-03 09:58:38 |