Skip to comments.
PLO dismisses call to replace Arafat
Washington Times ^
| From combined dispatches
Posted on 06/24/2002 11:15:38 PM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
RAMALLAH, West Bank — Palestinian officials rejected the removal of leader Yasser Arafat as a condition for statehood, as proposed yesterday by President Bush in a speech scripting a path to Middle East peace.
"Palestinian leaders don't come from parachutes from Washington or from anywhere else. Palestinian leaders are elected directly by the Palestinian people. President Yasser Arafat was directly elected in a free and fair election," Cabinet minister and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told CNN.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Israel; News/Current Events
posted on 06/24/2002 11:15:38 PM PDT
Palestinian leaders are elected directly by the Palestinian people. President Yasser Arafat was directly elected in a free and fair election,"
And when we, the Palestinian leaders, decide who the next "President" will be, only THEN, will we hold free and fair elections again so the ignorant Palestinian people can directly elect him.
posted on 06/24/2002 11:20:41 PM PDT
The PLO can wait for statehood til hell freezes over. 'Nuff said.
President Yasser Arafat was directly elected in a free and fair election," Cabinet minister and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told CNN.
This was in 1996 - right?
posted on 06/24/2002 11:24:13 PM PDT
"Palestinian leaders don't come from parachutes from Washington"
Where does Mr. Erekat think Arafat came from?
It was President Bush Sr. who plucked him from exile to represent the Palestinians in peace talks with Israel.
Is Bush saying you have to get rid of him? Or is Bush just saying that he has to go before we'll listen to your BS anymore?
1993 I think. A sham. His only opposition was a 72 year old woman.
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
Well, this is going to put Bush in a bad spot. After what he said today, he's actually going to have to finally let the Israelis wipe the desert with those sand fleas. Or will he? Anyone here a betting man?
posted on 06/24/2002 11:30:09 PM PDT
he's such a pu$$y.
posted on 06/24/2002 11:41:48 PM PDT
That's what his boyfriend says.
Unfortunately I think you are right. 48 hours on the outside.
posted on 06/24/2002 11:44:48 PM PDT
To: monkeyshine; d4now
It looks like the Palestinian political lobby in the U.S. has overplayed its hand..and assumed some fantasy position with the Bush admin.
The President laid the law down today...Its Freedom and Democracy..the war on terror will continue,those opposing it will be isolated and dealt with.
I can't remember one single instance where any Muslim or American Muslim on a T.V. interview blessed America for Her resolve to bring Democracy and Freedom to others....All that is heard from them is the we muslims..we palestinians, we,we,we..
Even that sleazy Zagoby....continues to do the guilt run .
This crowd has been on the tube too much..and held Americas focus.
Its time to shove this wreck known as Islamic moral perspective off the road.....and leave it in the ditch.
Seemed to me that Bush gave the Israelis the green light.
To: monkeyshine; d4now
Arafat was "elected" in '96....hmmm a 6+ year term? and I think that "elections" were postponed due to the "crisis"; but dont worry, the PLO will hold free and fair elections again as soon as they decide who the Palestinians are going to elect
posted on 06/24/2002 11:55:24 PM PDT
To: monkeyshine; d4now
20 January 1996, to be precise. His opponent, as monkeyshine said a 72-year-old social worker, received all of 45 minutes of air-time the day before the election on the PLO-controlled media (i.e., the only Palestinian media there is), while Arafat conducted countless hours of live, prime-time speechmaking. Arafat doesn't even enjoy the legitimacy of, say, Robert Mugabe—at least Mugabe had a genuine opponent that he had to lie, cheat, steal and intimidate votes away from.
posted on 06/24/2002 11:55:26 PM PDT
To: Light Speed
The quislings in Europe and the whiners in Araby have insisted that we try to bring the parties together for peace. They said we didn't do enough. They said we were disengaged. They said we were shirking our responsibilities.
So what did we do? We got involved. We sent Zinni. We sent Powell. Each and every time they went, a homicide bomber murdered a bunch of Jews.
Bush has finally told them that we're done doing things their way. There is an American way of doing things, and this is how it's done: 1) Stop your whining and take some personal responsibility. 2) Stop calling for violence in the media and in the mosques. 3) Stop the racist sh!t in your state controlled media. 4) Get a Constitutional Democracy with separation of powers, and get some leaders who want peace. 5) Go talk to Israel about getting peace. All in that order.
He made it clear we can help in many ways. But first, they have to prove themselves worthy to receive our help. Any help we offer them now would be a waste of our time and money. We are not their nannies, and we are not going to impose a peace on Israel. If you want peace, go get peace from the only people capable of giving it to you. And if you don't want peace, then deal with the consequences.
It's about time an American leader stood up to represent American ideals in international relations. It's a far cry from Clinton's coddling of dictators, thugs and moneymen for his own self aggrandizement.
Title should read:
Arafat dismisses call to dismiss Arafat.
Maybe he can go visit Clinton and cry in their beer together.
posted on 06/25/2002 12:07:25 AM PDT
Bush's policy of putting off provisional statehood -- what kind of statehood that is I don't know -- until Arafat is removed may look good on the surface, but it seems to me a policy counterproductive in the extreme.
Ask yourself who he imagines will replace Arafat and how he imagines the replacement will happen? I imagine that it would take a bloodbath among the Palestinians to bring this about. And I don't see any incentive for secular, democratically inclined Palestinians to risk such a bloodbath -- especially since Bush's promised payoffs are so inchoate and indefinite.
Why would it take a civil war, you ask?
Well think like a Palestinian.
Suppose you are a Palestinian of the Hamas, Hezbullah sort. You desparately want to replace the secular Palestinian Authority with an radical Islamic "government." If so, you have no interest whatsoever in the "vision" Bush laid out in his speech of a democratic and presumably secular Palestine. Nor do you have any deep interest in peace with Isreal. You want to destroy Isreal, not negotiate peace with it. How do you react to Bush's proposal? Despite the fact that you totally reject Bush's vision, you should react with utter glee because it sets up a trap for your secular Palestinian brethen. The only way they can move toward their secular state is by kowtowing to Sharon and Bush. You would love to have the US joined at the hip, in Palestinian opinion, with Sharon. And you would love it even more to be able to portray the secular Palestinians as the whipping boys of the Sharon-Bush axis of evil (to coin a phrase.).
Okay. Now take the other side. Suppose that you are a secular Palestinian who loathes both the corrupt and ineffectual Arafat and jihadists like Hamas, et al. You would deeply love to see a modern, democratic state of the sort Bush envisions. What do you do. In your secret heart of hearts you say that Bush is right about the best course forward. But you worry deeply about how to get there from here, about how to bring the majority of Palestinians, who mostly are suffering angry and alienated, along to your cause? Do you do so by dumping the very guy who is in some sense the father of your resistance movement on command, as it were, from Sharon and his toady Bush? HOw would that sell in the streets of Palestine? HOw would you radical islamic opponents play that one up?
You can't accept Bush's approach. If you do, you undermine Palestinian unity -- which despite all the differences among you is a powerful weapon in your favor. Imagine that the slaveholding south and the free north had not made common cause in the American revolution. Would the Revolution have succeeded? To be sure, the failure to deal with the deep divisions among you may have far reaching consequences in less than a century -- just as in the American Revolution. But you are trying to give birth to a nation. You believe you can put off dealing with internal divisions until after the nation is born.
So in order not to breach the fragile unity of your disparate people, you too reject Bush's vision (at least publically and for the moment.) But Bush has set it up so that if you reject his vision, the only alternatives before you are either decades of further repression and occupation or armed struggle.
Which do you choose?
Maybe you and the jihadist form a united front. Maybe you declare a Palestinian state right now. And devote yourself to armed struggle entirely. Maybe you call on all "right thinking" people of the world, people who love freedom and rejecty tyranny and oppression to side with you, to understand your need to wage war against Isreal.
Speaking again in my own voice. It may be that I'm just a dark souled pessimist. (I am at least that, the only question is whether I am only that). But I do have to say that if I were a secular Palestinian, I would believe that I have just been told that there is no hope short of civil war, without having been given any incentive to engage in such a war. And if I were a jihadist, I would believe that I have been given exactly what I want and that the only way the secularist can "isolate" me now -- which they have always wanted and have been unable to do -- is via civil war. Moreover, I would rejoice at the thought that short of civil war, the option of a peace which I cannot endure -- a peace that produces two states, a jewish state and a secular palestinian state -- has effectively been taken off the table indefintely.
To: monkeyshine; d4now
I've been busy on several Vietnam era websites researching the history of a family member who was a "Gunny" with 3rd Marine 3rd Battalion , Mike Co.
Visiting such places is good for perspective..and reveals the character of Americas armed forces.
Although the political/socio debate thing has held the medias focus...the U.S. armed forces are prepping with certain resolve.
Carrier Battle groups are being rested and re-furbished... logistics and munition re-supply are underway.
The U.S. armed forces are quietly going about matters....soon they will appear on the doorstep of those who threaten Freedom.
"Saddle up" and go get em!..is the word from the Vietnam generation...
The Arab world is about to find out that the U.S. is very serious concerning the issue of its National safety.
Think for a minute. First , GWB is not Clinton. The people around him are experienced grown ups. They don`t do everything in public, in fact, they hold their cards real close. Bet they already have cut a deal with the Saudis and Egypt to put pressure on the Palestians to dump Arafat and that the Saudis will bankroll a Palestian nation that supports real peace. Interesting that Syria is now in the spotlight. ,p> Never forget, through all of this, Iraq and Iran, are the targets.
God bless GWB
posted on 06/25/2002 1:08:58 AM PDT
To: Light Speed
I was thinking of them shoving it somewhere else.
posted on 06/25/2002 1:39:50 AM PDT
by Nam Vet
posted on 06/25/2002 2:46:49 AM PDT
by Bon mots
I'm just a dark souled pessimist...
So I'm not alone? :)
Bush essentially put out a contract on Arafat. Something I wish he had done long ago. The Arabs now have a choice: They can stick with Arafat, even though he's old, sick, and crooked, and sending their children to slaughter, or they can find another leader and get some progress.
posted on 06/25/2002 3:16:14 AM PDT
Duh !! "Palestinian officials" are the problem...they need to go as well as Arafat.
...Palestinian leaders are elected directly by the Palestinian people. President Yasser Arafat was directly elected in a free and fair election," Cabinet minister and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told CNN...
April 25, 2002, 8:45 a.m.
The sham 1996 vote.
By Joel Mowbray
Translation: All the proper statements have been made...now....full steam ahead and clean out that RATs nest once and for all.
posted on 06/25/2002 4:12:13 AM PDT
Yes that was sme years ago. There was supposed to be another election, but Arafat cancelled them because he is a 2 bit terrorost dictator.
As an Israeli paper said, Arafat politically is a dead man walking. If the terror attacks continue (and they will), he will be exiled man or physically dead man not walking.
posted on 06/25/2002 4:30:02 AM PDT
To: Light Speed
God bless our servicemen !
And say a prayer for their safe-keeping.
posted on 06/25/2002 5:22:39 AM PDT
"Bush's policy of putting off provisional statehood...until Arafat is removed may look good on the surface, but it seems to me a policy counterproductive in the extreme."
Are you saying you prefer a Palestinian state WITH Arafat at the helm?
What would you have done differently?
I am waiting with baited breath for Clinton's reaction to Bush's policy. /sarcasm
posted on 06/25/2002 5:42:31 AM PDT
And have you noticed how countries like Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, etc. have been just a wee bit quiet?
posted on 06/25/2002 5:44:15 AM PDT
Why would it take a civil war, you ask?
There are several problems with the Bush plan, but none of them worse than the current situation.
One problem is getting the Saudis and other middle eastern governments to stop supporting terrorists. The reason they support terrorism and hatred against Israel and the west is to deflect anger away from their own governments. This really is a "1984" situation of a governent creating an enemy to keep the people's minds off of their own lives. It will be hard to get them to stop the hate mongering filling their state controlled press. Harder to get them to stop sending money to terrorist groups.
What Bush has done is lay down a series of concrete actions that pretty much anybody that now lives in a free democracy can agree on. A real government structure (one with checks and balances on power, and power distributed amoung various parts of the government, not concentrated in one person.) Free elections at every level. A true judiciary system (an independent one based upon law, not one under the thumb of a single person.)
What Bush has done is instead of just stating the goal (a palestinian state), he has laid down a series of steps that must be taken to get to that goal. They are much more likely to get the job done by taking a series of small steps than by trying to do it all at once.
The biggest problem with the Bush plan is it assumes the goal of the palestinians is an independent state. Eliminating Israel is the primary goal of most activist palestinians, with the establishment of a palestinian state comming in a long second. It will take a long time to undo that mindset. Look at how the hard liners in both Taiwan and China hold onto the idea that they are still one nation, even thought the typical man in the street (especially in Taiwan) have given up the one nation idea.
To: Light Speed
I couldn't agree more. I'm tired of this Islamic jihad crap! If Rummy told us that the only resolve to this situation was to nuke Mecca and all it's followers, I'd feel a whole lot better.
Arafat was "elected" in '96....hmmm a 6+ year term? and I think that "elections" were postponed due to the "crisis";...
LOL. They were postponed because in all liklihood a Hamas candidate would have beat him.
Can't wait to see the "party designations" if they really try to hold elections by year end. WIll it will be Hemes vs Feteh?
posted on 06/25/2002 7:06:05 AM PDT
"...snip... Bet they already have cut a deal with the Saudis and Egypt to put pressure on the Palestians to dump Arafat and that the Saudis will bankroll a Palestian nation that supports real peace. ...snip"
Don't count on the Saudi's or the Egyptians. Both are double-dealing, desparate to "tame" the jihadist within their own midst, to redirect the anger and alienation in the Arab street toward the US. They are no allies of ours. If you (or the Bush adminstration) are counting on the Saudi's to abandon Arafat, I think you may in for a rude awakening. To abandon Arafat now is to kowtow to the US and Sharon. To kowtow to the US and Sharon is to play into the hands of the jihadists.
But the marker that Bush laid down, if he sticks to it, means that not to abandon Arafat is to forestall any chance of a negotiated settlement in the near future.
"Are you saying you prefer a Palestinian state WITH Arafat at the helm?
What would you have done differently? "
No I don't have any brief for Arafat. I don't think most Palestinians do either. The secular ones think he is inept and corrupt. The jihadists want to kill him and/or replace him with someone of their own stripe.
What would I have done differently? I think it's a mistake not to negotiate a peace STARTING NOW, a peace that isolates and disempowers the jihadists, that gives the Palestinians reasonable hope of a real state, with real state powers, not a pretend state with limited powers. It should also provide real guarantees for Isreal's security as well. It should be a secular state and have most of the hallmarks of democracy. It should be economically viable.
We're not going to get anywhere by telling the Palestinians to "lay down their arms" and trust that the US and Isreal will at some indefinite future see to it that there is a Palestinian state -- which is in essence what Bush has done. The current Isreali government -- and unfortunately any one likely to come about in the near term wants occupation and repression of the Palestinians indefinitely. That is why they are so gleeful at Bush's speech. They don't see it leading to anything but occupation and repression.
Most of the world will see it that way too. So will the Palestinians.
The one and only positive thing that Bush did do was to lay down a marker in which there is, at some indefinite and inchoate future point, a Palestinian State. Those who desparately want to see the glass as half full may well sieze on that fact and try to remove some of Bush's unworkable pre-conditions. SO that's the one glimmer of hope of avoiding either a bloodbath among the Palestinians or the formation of a popular front, devoted to armed resistance among them.
The speech really wasn't a foreign policy speech, in my opinion. It was really about domestic politics, about winning more jewish votes in 2004, about solidifying the evangelical base, and about sending a "coherent" message about terror. This last one is especially misguided. Neither the Palestinians nor their Arab brethren nor most of the rest of the world will ever equate Palestinian resistance to occupation and repression and their struggle for a nation on their own homeland with terrorism. So to whom is Bush trying to send a "coherent" message. To us, his fellow Americans, especially those of jewish persuasion.
Did any informed human being anywhere on earth seriously think Arafat would voluntarily step down just because the U.S. made that a pre-condition for a Palestinian state?
I didn't think so.
So, given the obvious, what did President Bush have in mind for the next step?
The Bush Administration knew Arafat would not step down. The speech was not given until the U.S. was ready for the next shoe to drop.
For those Freepers who actually want to think about what's really going on, it's time to start thinking at least one move ahead in the chess game.
We just made a major move, and Arafat is in check. His next move will be more terror (that's all he knows). We gave Israel a green light to defend itself.
The really interesting question is: What happens then?
I don't know, but I am sure we believe we are ready or the speach would not have been given.
"It would be dangerous and erroneous to eliminate him from the political stage because in the view of the Russian leadership this would only radicalize the Palestinian movement," Mr. Putin said
Sheesh...how in the world could the 'Palestinian movement' get any more radical.
Sometimes the diplomats, and the politicians who mouth their words, are just too much.
Just substitute the name 'Hitler' in the above paragraph, and pretend it's 1939, and it will be obvious what I mean.
That'll teach ole araRAT to make close identity with Clintoon, as portrayed last week when araRAT decided he wants to return to the 2000 peace negotiations. This occurred a day after the Jordanian Prince Abdullah announced rethinking of Jordan's support of good ole araRAT.
"I think it's a mistake not to negotiate a peace STARTING NOW, a peace that isolates and disempowers the jihadists, that gives the Palestinians reasonable hope of a real state, with real state powers..."
President Bush IS negotiating a peace that isolates the chief jihadist (Arafat) and gives the Palestinian people an avenue for representative government and the rule of law.
His approach is really quite simple; kind of like the contractor who reminds you of the obvious--you've got to empty the cabinets and take out the trash before the kitchen can be renovated.
I think President Bush has proven that his quest for peace in the Middle East is courageous, honest and non-negotiable...and he deserves our respect and support.
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson