PLO dismisses call to replace Arafat

Washington Times ^ | 6/25/02 | From combined dispatches

[kattracks]

RAMALLAH, West Bank

[Nam Vet]

I was thinking of them shoving it somewhere else.

Nam Vet

[Bon mots]

Have a look here:

A great presentation about Israel and its evil neighbors. Have a look, it's well worth it. Pass it on.

Click here: History in a Nutshell

[snippy_about_it]

I'm just a dark souled pessimist...

So I'm not alone? :)

[DonQ]

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.

[The Raven]

Duh !! "Palestinian officials" are the problem...they need to go as well as Arafat.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...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.
Arafat, Elected?
The sham 1996 vote.

By Joel Mowbray

 

[evad]

Translation: All the proper statements have been made...now....full steam ahead and clean out that RATs nest once and for all.

[KC_Conspirator]

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.

[tomahawk]

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.

[happygrl]

God bless our servicemen !

And say a prayer for their safe-keeping.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"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?

[rintense]

I am waiting with baited breath for Clinton's reaction to Bush's policy. /sarcasm

[rintense]

And have you noticed how countries like Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, etc. have been just a wee bit quiet?

[Brookhaven]

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.

[dagoofyfoot]

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.

[SJackson]

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?

[leftiesareloonie]

"...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.

[leftiesareloonie]

"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.

[EternalHope]

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.

[EternalVigilance]

"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.