Arafat is toast, get the butter.

[lord1234]

fire his terrorist ashes from a cannon into a pigs ***.

[Fred]

Oh Darn, another Terrorist is dead...

now as soon as the boys finish flushing out Fallujah we can sit back this weekend and think, "good week!"

RIP Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C, who was killed Sept 14, 2003 in Fallujah.

---Fred

[Hasty8]

I will in no way celebrate his death. I will agree that he wasn't exactly a good guy either. Maybe, just maybe, peace might settle on that small area. Then again, it might be too late.

There will be no peace.

There may be negotiations but they will accomplish little.

So long as religions hold sway in any part of the like they do in the Middle East there will forever be fighting, distrust, hatred and animousity.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

The death of a terrorist is always a good thing!

[

Not always...

[PyRo]

What does it matter, someone just as bad will take his place.

[Hasty8]

What does it matter, someone just as bad will take his place.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Ladies and Gentlemen!

We have a winnah!

[logamus]

What does it matter, someone just as bad will take his place.

and when the time comes, i will celebrate his death too.

[RoadDawg]

It doesn't hurt to hope that something relatively good will come of that land. Also I choose not to believe it's all the Palestinians fault either. I'm pretty sure that Israel has just as much fault. We just side with Israel, due to the fact we are allies and we supply them (and other countries as well) with our military technology.

[1stdeadeye]

It doesn't hurt to hope that something relatively good will come of that land. Also I choose not to believe it's all the Palestinians fault either. I'm pretty sure that Israel has just as much fault. We just side with Israel, due to the fact we are allies and we supply them (and other countries as well) with our military technology.

Just remember that in 2000, Clinton got Israel to agree to everything Arafat asked for and he still walked away and chose terrorism!

I for one feel the world is a better place without him!

[PyRo]

Just remember that in 2000, Clinton got Israel to agree to everything Arafat asked for and he still walked away and chose terrorism!

I for one feel the world is a better place without him!

No, he didn’t give Arafat everything he wanted there is this the small issue of that holy city and he was willing to give up everything else for it. I bet most of his people were in agreement with him turning down the offer so we cannot put the blame on just Arafat. I don’t see either side resting until one of them is anniahlated or by some miracle they learn to share without blowing each other up.

[FactsOfLife]

And you'd be completely wrong. In not only the Oslo Accords, but the peace brokered by Clinton at Camp David, Arafat was handed 90% of what he was asking for. Israel bent over backwards for him.

Know how Arafat responded? By increasing the number of homocide bombers sent into Israel civilian areas.

Go slap your history teacher for lying to you.

[NJPaint]

And you'd be completely wrong. In not only the Oslo Accords, but the peace brokered by Clinton at Camp David, Arafat was handed 90% of what he was asking for. Israel bent over backwards for him.

Know how Arafat responded? By increasing the number of homocide bombers sent into Israel civilian areas.

Go slap your history teacher for lying to you.

This is complete and utter bull****. He was offered 95% of the land from the 67 border agreement. That 95% made Palestine into a prison, no sovereignty, no borders, and the settlements cris-crossing the state would have remained. Look at what was actually offered to him. Get YOUR facts straight instead of spouting what the US media tells you. Increased the suicide bombers? Link to proof of this?

And you want to talk about terrorists, look no further than Sharon, need I say more than Sabra and Shatila? Or do you have no idea about ANY history except what has been spoon fed to you by extremely biased sources.

Just remember that in 2000, Clinton got Israel to agree to everything Arafat asked for and he still walked away and chose terrorism!

No? Absolutely not true, Isreal agreed to nothing. No dismantling of settlements, no right of return reparations, and a non-viable state. A state wit out its own borders or sovereignty. How anyone can blame Arafat for turning down those proposals is beyond me, unless they haven't looked for themselves at the facts, of what was actually offered.

[NJPaint]

The final proposal proffered by Barak would have meant Israeli annexation of 10% of the West Bank (largely encompassing current settlement blocs) in exchange for a much smaller swathe of land in the Negev desert. Palestinians claim that accepting the offer would have the effect of reducing the Palestinian state to what they characterized as "Bantustans:" scattered pieces of territory separated by highways for Israelis, security checkpoints and Israeli settlements. In addition, under the Israeli proposal, Israel would control the Palestinian state's water resources, borders and customs, and a further 10% of the West Bank under nominal Palestinian sovereignty (chiefly along the Jordanian border). Israelis counter that these terms were necessary to preserve Israeli security. Palestinians said this was not an offer of peace but a demand for complete surrender, that they were not offered a state but a "prison camp".

The Palestinians allege that the proposed solution did not adequately address the issue of the Palestinian refugee problem. While realizing not all refugees could return, the Palestinian argued that any meaningful peace settlement would have to take the future of these people into account. In particular, they called for a right of return and an Israeli acknowledgment that they too had been responsible for the creation of the refugee problem (see also New Historians). The Israelis countered that over a million Jews have been pushed out of Arab countries since 1948. They also claim that allowing a right of return to Israel proper, rather than the newly created Palestinian state, would mean an influx of Palestinians that would fundamentally alter the demographics of Israel, jeopardizing Israel's Jewish character.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Camp-David-2000-Summit-between-Palestinians-and-Israel

[NJPaint]

As CIA analyst Graham E. Fuller recently wrote, ``Let's drop the Israeli myth that `the Palestinians walked away' from Ehud Barak's deal that `gave them almost everything they wanted.' The deal was badly flawed, as honest Israeli analysts themselves admit.... Short of what is required and what is just. No Palestinian leader could have signed it.''

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/3228073.htm?1c

[NJPaint]

"Israel's supposed 'offer' to withdraw from 95% of the Westbank will create not peace but rather a Palestinian prison state. The issue is one of control, viability, and sovereignty - not just territory."

"Just as prison guards 'control' only 5% of a prison (the outer walls, cells, and corridors), so too will Israeli border crossings, settlements, and bypass roads continue to control a Palestinian mini-state. The only solution: dismantle the Matrix of Control completely."

- Jeff Halper, Israeli Committee against House Demolitions

"The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories."

- US State Department, Report on Human Rights Practices, FEB/01