Dieter
Touch my monkey!
I bet it's a "surrender monkey" that eats cheese.
Posted on 06/30/2002 5:34:57 PM PDT by MoJo2001
What part don't they understand? By Bennett M. Epstein June 30, 2002
Am I missing something here? What part of President Bush's speech on the preconditions for a Palestinian state don't the Europeans understand? Bush clearly said that a regime compromised by terror and corruption cannot be trusted to give birth to a state next to Israel, and therefore a new leadership, free of terrorism and corruption, is required before a Palestinian state can be recognized by the United States and before such a state should be recognized by the rest of the world. What part of that was ambiguous? He did not mention Arafat by name, but his mention of the terms "terror" and "corruption" left no doubt about whom he was talking.
What part of the President's logic do the Europeans disagree with? Is it that they believe that a regime soaked in terror and corruption can produce a legitimate state? Is it that they honestly believe that Arafat's regime is not terrorist and that they want their donor funds used for arms or funneled into Swiss Bank accounts? Talk to me, please.
Maybe it's the language barrier. Tony Blair seems to have gotten it somewhat, but the rest of the Europeans at the G-8 Conference act confused. Why did the French foreign minister rush to Arafat's side? Do they really want the Palestinians to have a state with Arafat in charge of it? Do they admire his track record? Think he is honest? Consider him a peacemaker? Do they think that nobody in that entire society, which we keep hearing is the most educated in the Arab world, is better than Arafat?
Perhaps it's a problem with semantics. Kofi Annan insists that Arafat must remain in charge of the Palestinians as long as he is their "democratically elected" leader. As Secretary General of the UN, Annan has seen Third World "democracy" at work when it comes to Israel in places like Durban and the General Assembly. Does Annan mean that Israel and the rest of the world must suffer Arafat's terrorist regime so long as a majority of Palestinians want it? Will Arafat then be newly baptized as the "democratically elected" leader even if the electoral process is tainted by corruption, ignorance and hate? Will it be OK to send millions of Euros to purchase more Karine As to a new Arafat regime after the election? Hello?
The President's policy is simple. There must be new leadership, one that is not compromised by terrorism and corruption. Is that "setting the bar too high" for the Palestinians, as the Europeans have suggested? It may be difficult jump for an Arab regime, but it is the lowest civil denominator for the security of Israel, and the world will just have to wait until they can handle this minimal height. Annan suggests that Arafat might be replaced by a worse regime, and this is a reason to keep him. The logical flaw in that reasoning is that it assumes that Oslo is still alive. Wake up and smell the coffee, Kofi. Israel has been forced to re-enter the West Bank. Things can only get worse under a new Palestinian regime if Israel withdraws, which it is not about to do, nor is it required to under the UN resolutions until there is a substitute for the chaos that already reigns. Under Bush's policy, the Palestinians will get a state when they prove by their selection of leadership that they deserve one. They don't have the right to a terrorist and corrupt regime simply because they elect one, even if Jimmy Carter himself counts the votes.
The Europeans, like the jury in the O.J. Simpson case, are probably confused by too much evidence. The President has decided that the documents provided by Israel, plus his own intelligence information, constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Arafat's corruption and terrorism. What more evidence do the Europeans need? The answer is: none. They are too full of themselves to admit that Arafat took them for a ride, embezzling their donations from humanitarian purposes to purchasing explosives. What additional proof does Annan need? Again, none. The Secretary General is too embarrassed to admit that UN refugee camps were turned into terror bases under his nose. Plus both the Europeans and Annan feel the need to pander to their respective Arab constituencies, the same people that blame September 11th on the Mossad. No wonder that book is a French best seller.
By refusing to follow the lead of President Bush, Annan and the Europeans are preserving the status quo, which prolongs terrorism, the suffering of the Palestinian people and the instability of the region. Instead of attempting to prop up Arafat, or trying to rejuvenate him within the context of the phony claims of "reform" taking place within the Palestinian Authority, they should step up to the microphone and deny their support for his continued leadership. Only then should they be rushing to his side, to urge him to resign.
1. The Europeans would have to look and solve their own problems. The Middle Eastern problem is deflecting attention from their own shortcomings.
2. Oil. They are afraid the allies of certain Palestinians, at this juncture, may raise the price of crude, or they may reduce production, driving up the price of crude, something the Middle Eastern's are quite adept at doing.
3. Cognitive dissonance....something alluded to in the article. The Europeans have been supporting so much of the evil in the Middle East by propping up Arafat & Co., that they don't want to look as fools (although people with any sense sees through this); or they don't want to admit their enormity of their past mistakes. If the Europeans change their tactics and policies, well, that's like admitting they've been wrong....we must, after all and most importantly, save face, not find solutions.
How do Kofi and the European leaders believe the Palestinian people can feel free to vote their conscience when Arafat recently murdered 11 of his own inner circle simply for sympathizing some with the Israelis, and Arafat controls the education and media? Free elections, like the free people of Germany elected Hitler after Hitler contolled the state's propaganda machine for only one year. Kofi, the EU: stupid, afraid or blindly ambitious?
Yes, you see, GW called a spade a spade. Why? Because he speaks the truth and can even admit to choking on pretzels and laugh at himself. The Europeans only want to laugh at others.
Dieter
Touch my monkey!
I bet it's a "surrender monkey" that eats cheese.
Disclaimer: 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.