Talk:Yasser Arafat

The Palestinian ministry of information site currently claims that he was born in Jerusalem. The Nobel foundation claims Cairo (as do most Western journalists and historians that I found this morning on the web). A google search on [Yasser Arafat "born in Gaza"] finds some valid looking hits. The biography of revolutionaries is never simple. --MichaelTinkler

Oh, and...his birthdate is equally messy. August 24 or August 4? Now that one I don't know a good reason for - I can see ideological advantages to birthplace-shifting, and year-of-birth is sometimes tricky (to make the leader seem like more of a child prodigy), but this is an irritant. --MichaelTinkler

To MichaelTinkler Arabs, Muslims, do not celebrate birthdays. When they come to the US ,they pick a date, any date for their drivers licenses. user:H.J.

Thanks. The difference of 20 days might be explained that way. However, Arafat was born in territory controlled by the British, and into a thoroughly westernised family. One is surprised they didn't note the occasion, especially if he were born in Cairo.

MT , I read several sites that say he was born in Jerusalem (4 or 24 Aug 1929) .He fled to Cairo in 1948, when Palestine was taken over. He graduated from Cairo Univ. HJ

I am trying to edit this page , removing some totally biased commentary on Arafata's "traits" and someone is putting the old version u again.. Well - silly war... Rami neudorfer Israel

Yep, I think we can be sure he graduated from Cairo University, but the fact that he claims Jerusalem is not entirely persuasive. The general opinion of western journalists seems to be Cairo. The Palestine Authority Ministry of Information says Jerusalem. The website of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/personalities/0_personalities.htm) says Cairo in its biographical listing. Since his family certainly lived in Cairo most of his life, and he explicitly was sent to live in Jerusalem with an uncle at the age of 4, I think the journalists and Passia are likely to be more accurate than his claim to have been born in Jerusalem. --MichaelTinkler

What makes Yasser Arafat a notable person is his skill as a military tactician of asymmetric warfare, and a political master of propaganda. I fleshed out these attributes, and also used his "taming" of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the adoption by secular nationalists of the suicide bomber tactic, as examples of his tactical flexibility. Also the "grudge match" issue with Ariel Sharon deserves to be noted, as it comes up again and again. There is actually no sign that these two cannot make peace, as they have both done it before with opponents that they hate - however that is only an opinion.

I'm pretty sure the statements and accusations and support relationships here stand as factual and beyond reproach, some of them of course were on live TV. I think this article should be able to note some of the long-standing current conflicts about a personality if it matters to many other current events, although in general we want to avoid reportage in articles (more the role of indymedia), here it fits well together to demonstrate Arafat's political skills.

There should be much more here on the intifada and his role in starting it and stopping it. Hard to know how much of this is Arafat and how much is just the way things are done in media war today...

"Arafat, trapped in his Ramallah compound by Israeli forces, with a cell phone and failing battery, was swarmed by peace activists who walked right past surprised guards at the Israeli checkpoint." Did this happen? I don't remember it. I know reporters have not gotten through and have been forcibly turned back. What day did it occur and what group if any were the activists from? Not necessary for the Arafat page but maybe for that group's page. --rmhermen

Yes, it happened. They were mostly Europeans. It was on the news a couple of weeks ago or something. I believe the IDF arrested most of them when they left, and has since then increased security around Arafat's compound to ensure no one else gets in. -- SJK

Some points I find a little peculiar:

which coincides well with the declared Israeli policy of not permitting assassination of Arab political leade

First the paragraph says that Arafat has survived several assasination attempts to kill him, then it says that Israel never kills Arab politicial leaders (!?!), then that maybe the Arabs tried to kill him? Hm....

his support by the Palestinian mob (unquiet inside which would lead to a wider regional instability).

Palestinian mob?

Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt from 1970 until his assassination in 1981 and who had been assassinated in part for making peace with Israel.

And:

Rabin was later assassinated by an Israeli Jewish extremist, apparently the result of a mishandled police operation.

This is strange, Egyptian leaders get killed because they make peace with Israel. Israeli leaders get killed because of mishandled police operations.

but their activities were tolerated by Arafat, who appears to have used their violence as a means of applying pressure on Israel.

On the other hand hasn't Israel used the Islamic organisations violence as a means of applying pressure on Arafat? How can they both benefit from this? Source, or something needed.

However, as of 2002, the Israeli government and many neutral commentators were convinced that the Fatah faction's Al Aqsa Brigades? had simply adopted the methods of the fundamentalist groups, and were under Arafat's direct command

"the methods of the fundamentalist groups" points to terrorism and has any evidence (from a reliable source) surfaced yet? Who are the neutral commentators that say Arafat is a terrorist? Don't worry, I'll correct it later I just wanted your opinions. :-) --BL

Hereafter, Arafat directed his efforts increasingly toward political persuasion rather than military confrontation and violence.

The fact that Arafat disassociated himself from these acts does not mean he ended them. Vide the Savoy Hotel attack and Entebbe Hijacking in 1976, as well as various "minor" attacks around Europe in the late 1970s, most of which were carried out by people associated with him

In 1982 Arafat became the target of criticism from Syria and Syrian-supported factions within the PLO. The criticisms

escalated after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (mentioned above) forced Arafat to abandon his Beirut headquarters and set up anew in Tunisia. In 1987 he shifted to Baghdad, Iraq. With support from some Arab leaders Arafat was subsequently able to reassert his leadership, and the split in the PLO's ranks healed.

Was it not the Israeli invasion that made him leave Lebanon? Moreover, Arafat's HQ remained in Tunisia.

Significantly during this time, the PLO also declared recognition of United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, thereby acknowledging Israel's right to exist.

Are you sure about that? 242 and 338 don't mention Palestine. The supposed "State of Palestine" was based on Resolution 181

More recently, however, Arafat has called for the PLO to confine its military operation inside the Occupied Territories and indicated that he would accept Barak's terms if offered today. Nevertheless, according to the consensus, Arafat's authority in Palestine has declined significantly in the years since the Intifada.

With all the due respect, Arafat's statement is irrelevant. The Fatah is still killing people, while Arafat has publicly committed himself to no such thing.

and that any attempt to do so could simply result in his being assassinated.

Assassination is a very remote possibility. Arafat has very extensive security arrangements - which allowed him to survive in very hostile environments like West Beirut. But of course, he does risk the loss of power. --Uri

I moved this text from the article (it was published anonymously by a user who is messing with other pages, therefore I have reason to doubt its veracity):

"When he was five years old, in 1934, his mother died. Because his father did not have the time and knowledge to take care of him, he was sent to Jerusalem to live with his maternal uncle. While living with his uncle in Jerusalem, Palestine was under the rule of the British, which the Palestinians opposed. This resulted in many conflicts including raids and forays. One of Arafat?s earliest childhood memories is of British soldiers breaking into his uncle's house after midnight, beating members of the family, and smashing furniture. After four years, he returned to his home in Cairo where his oldest sister took care of him and his siblings." -- Notheruser 17:54 18 May 2003 (UTC)

I deleted and a relative of Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the grand mufti of Jerusalem (d. 1974) because I don't think it is true. It can go back if someone provides a solid reference. -- zero 10:24, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is the Encyclopedia Britannica solid enough? --Roger 10:17, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, because it just repeats the same vague statement that his mother "was related" to al-Husayni without saying where this information comes from or what "related" means. She was a member of the same very large branch of the Husseini clan and that would be enough for some people to say she was "related" but it wouldn't necessarily make her closer related than hundreds of others. One reason I'm suspicious about this is that I saw an Arab site that attacked Arafat for "inventing" this relationship. It might be in the same category as many other doubtful claims about Arafat. In any case, if there was a relationship but it was distant, why mention it except as a silly attempt to discredit by association? --zero 01:54, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Uriber, I don't get your point about "Chairman" versus "President". What difference does it make? Even if there is a difference, what does it matter what the US and Israel use? Would you mention it in the Sharon article if the PA "didn't recognise" the title of "Prime Minister"? Anyway, you are wrong about "international documents". The example you gave is "trilateral" not "international". If you go to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf and search for "President Arafat" you will find over 150 UN documents which use that phrase. -- zero 10:28, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If it makes no difference - maybe we should stick with "chairman" - which everybody seems to agree upon (even the Palestinians, in the document I linked, for example). Actually it does make a difference - "President" is a title usually reserved (in political context) for heads of states - and at least some parties (such as Israel) find it important to emphesize that the PA is not a state - and therefore whoever is heading it can not carry a "head of state" title.

I apologize for my "trilateral" vs. "international" mistake - however I don't think this is very significant. What I meant to say was "not unilateral" - e.g. official documents to which Israel or the US are a side.

There is a big difference between the significance of the PA's position on Israel and that of Israel on the PA. Israel is an independent state. The PA, on the other hand, is an administrative authority which came into existence as a result of an agreement between Israel and the PLO. These agreement are the only legal basis for the PA's existance - and therefore the sides to these agreements do have a stand on the structure of the PA.

Also, see the discussion under Talk:Mahmoud Abbas.

uriber 10:42, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is nothing in the word "President" about states. Even local societies for collecting stamps have presidents.

Which is why I said "in political context". I think it's not a coincidence that State Governors in the US (for example) are not called "President" - although, you might think they are more entitled to use that title than the president of your local stamp-collection club. uriber 11:37, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Anyway, looking up more detail I see it as an issue of translation. Arafat's official position is "ra?is" which means something like "head" and not the same Arabic word that would be used for the president of an independent state. So the issue of "president" versus "chairman" is a dispute of how "ra'is" should be translated into other languages, not a dispute over what his real title is. I'll try to make that clear in the article, though the initial usage should be the PA one. (Now I agree the issue is worth mentioning.) --zero 11:05, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think you missed the mark a bit by labeling the whole thing as a "translation dispute". For example, Hosni Mubarak's title is also "ra'is" (in Arabic) - but Israel routinely refers to him as President of Egypt. So Israel (and the US) do not just have reservations about Arabic-to-English translation of the term "ra'is" - they specifically prefer the term "chairman" for the head of the PA.

To repeat what I said on Talk:Mahmoud Abbas: In his letter to Yitzhak Rabin, dated May 4, 1994 (which led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority), Arafat wrote (article 4):

When Chairman Arafat enters the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, he will use the title 'Chairman (Ra'ees in Arabic) of the Palestinian Authority' or 'Chairman of the PLO', and will not use the title 'President of Palestine.'

So this was considered a key issue - not a matter of linguistic preference. -- uriber 11:37, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But 'President of Palestine' is an entirely different issue. The article is only referring to his position in the Palestinian Authority. Your quote just confirms what I wrote about his official position. --zero 11:50, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You chose to look at the PA/PLO/Palestine issue and ignore the Chairman/President part. If the only issue had been "President of what" then why didn't Arafat write "President of the Palestinian Authority" in his letter (as this is the title he clearly prefers)? And why the strange reference to the term in Arabic? The words in this letter were very carefully selected, and were a result of Israel's insistence that the term "President" would not be used. Arafat agreed to this in his letter - but then backed out of this agreement shortly afterwards (as he has done on other issues). uriber 12:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think the article as it stands is accurate and NPOV. There are lots of other issues like Arafat's honesty, but I frankly in a context where people are dying by the hundreds I can't get excited about Arafat calling himself "His Royal Highness" or anything else. --zero 12:21, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some useful information about Arafat's various positions is here: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=337358 . I don't know that Haaretz article links are permanent so I didn't add it to the page. --zero 08:27, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I rewrote the part about Arafat's finances to avoid the impression that he has been stealing PA money for his personal enrichment. There is nothing in the Forbes story (link in the new text) to suggest this; rather it suggests that Arafat tries to the control the use of PA money personally instead of allowing it to be disbursed in the proper manner. Since Arafat is the only person in the Forbes list who does not live a luxurious lifestyle, it is obvious that he does not really belong there. --zero

Arafat's wife is known for her luxurious lifestyle, especially when outside of the Palestinian Territories. I believe the new text does misrepresent the Forbes article and muddles it together (even more) with the the IMF statement. While it is true that the IMF says he has been diverting PA money to an account he controls, Forbes lists him as one of the "Wealthiest Kings, Queens, and Despots". That means his personal wealth, not his country's or what spending he controls. I'm reverting this change since you have paraphrased it to distort the original meaning of these sources. However, I will clarify the difference between the Forbes and IMF material -- I think the result will be clearer. Daniel Quinlan 22:42, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

The mere fact of Forbes giving him a label means nothing. I gave a link to the long article about Arafat in Forbes that indicates precisely what information they have. It does not support their label so we should not use it. To me it looks like a simple stunt (commercially motivated or politically motivated) for Forbes to list him along with people like the Sultan of Brunei whose circumstances are not even remotely similar. The article also needs a citation for the IMF claim. --zero 22:50, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Already done (the IMF claim citations). I also added a direct link to the Forbes information about Arafat. Daniel Quinlan 23:07, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

Should we really be listing claims made by Israeli generals? We're not exactly talking journalists or international organizations. Daniel Quinlan 06:56, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

NPOV banner

Unless the NPOV banner is explained and justified with specific issues, it should be removed. Daniel Quinlan 00:23, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

One item for NPOV banner, I expect there are others. (copied from user talk:OneVoice).

Morwen Hi. I reverted the addition of 'an Egyptian' because (a) it seems to be more complicated than that; and (b) it is already explained much not further down the page. On wikipedia we have a Neutral Point of View policy that means we explain both sides of a dispute rather than taking sides. Morwen 21:17, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Morwen Thank you very much for you note. Clearly I need to create an account and start using it (User:OneVoice). I read the NPOV page that you noted above. What are we to do with facts? My family has lived in the United States for several generations, yet neither I nor my family will ever be native Americans...we simply are not the indigenous inhabitants of this geographic region (unless we marry into an American Indian family).

Yasser Arafat is/was an Egyptian, born, and raised, educated there. He has lived most of his life outside of any geographic region that could be possibly be called Palestine. He calls himself a Palestinian. That designation is indisputabley applicable to those born and raised there. When does it become applicable to an immigrant. I don't know. This illustrates a core issue in the conflict. Large numbers of individuals on both sides moved into a single geographic area over a period of about 100 years. One population lost a war and now tries to claim precedence of inhabitation. The facts indicate otherwise. How do we maintain the facts without jepordizine the NPOV.

I am seeking guidance and reasoned dicussion here.

What you do is keep political debate out of the article altogether. The article says very clearly where Arafat was probably born, who his parents were, and where he lived. That ought to be enough. Writing "an Egyptian" is an intentional attempt to insert a political point of view. --Zero 02:36, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence from the article:

It is said that he has studied organizations such as the Haganah, Irgun and the Stern Gang.

"It is said" is a bit general. Anybody care to provide a reference? -- uriber 17:24, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)