Even in death, he needs to make a political statement. From
www.danielpipes.org/article/343
A cursory review of the facts shows that there is not much of a contest.
Jerusalem has a unique importance to Jews. It has a unique place in Jewish law and a pervasive presence in the Jewish religion. Jews pray toward Jerusalem, mourn the destruction of their Temple there, and wishfully repeat the phrase "Next year in Jerusalem." It is the only capital of the Jewish state, ancient or modern.
In contrast, Jerusalem has a distinctly secondary place for Moslems. It is not once mentioned in the Koran or in the liturgy. The Prophet Mohammed never went to the city, nor did he have ties to it. Jerusalem never has served as the capital of any polity, and has never been an Islamic cultural center.
Rather, Mecca is the "Jerusalem" of Islam. That is where Moslems believe that Abraham nearly sacrificed Ishmael; where Mohammed lived most of his life; and where the key events of Islam took place. Moslems pray in its direction five times each day and it is where non-Moslems are forbidden to set foot.
Jerusalem being of minor importance to Islam, why do Moslems nowadays insist that the city is more important to them than to Jews? The answer has to do with politics. Moslems take religious interest in Jerusalem when it serves practical interests. When those concerns lapse, so does the standing of Jerusalem. This pattern has recurred at least five times over 14 centuries.
Okay, I'll be honest. I am glad he is almost gone. He was an evil (sorry, no nuances here) man that caused death and destruction in a wanton fashion. In my opinion, the world will be a better place without him.
Furthermore, we have nothing to fear with his death. A leader will step forward, and hopefully, will lead his people to stop committing terrorist acts. What, on earth, could REALLY be worse? They already murder innocent people as often as their attempts are successful.
With a new leader, our country can take on negotiations again. Arafat centralized his power-- something that wasn't good for his people, the 'government', or Israelis. He lived in abundant wealth (his wife lives in France) while his people live in squalor. Wouldn't it be nice to see a "regime change', a "fresh outlook" there? Wouldn't "A Stronger 'Palestine'" be welcome?
Use every argument all of you used in your hope to get Bush defeated. Wouldn't many of those arguments apply here--with a REAL mass murderer?
A more moderate leader would lead his people correctly and actually be able to negotiate peace. As you may or may not know, many in the Middle East have begun to see that the terrorist tactics these groups have taken are backfiring. A legitimate country cannot happen with Arafat in charge. If that's the real legitimate goal here, rather than the annihilation of Israel, there is nothing that can't be gained with a new leader there.
