PM Abbas resigns; Peace collapsing again

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hello everyone,

I think that as long as the Egyptian born Yassar Arafat refuses to give up leadership and control, there will never be peace in Israel, and Arafat should be exiled, permanently. 2 years ago, I had some doubts that exiling him was the proper course, even after he balked at President Clinton's plan for peace and Palestinian statehood. The Clinton-Barak proposals at Camp David were really a 'sweet deal' for Palestinians and Palestinian statehood. Arafat balked at the proposals for peace and statehood then, because peace and statehood are not his real goals; the destruction of the state of Israel and any and all Jews living in the region ARE his (and Hamas') real goals, and the latest events seem to be more evidence that make that conclusion, ALL the more clear.

Prime Minister Abbas was one man who truly desired and tried to implement the latest peace plan, and despite the fact that Arafat appointed him (appointed reluctantly, and under pressure from the US), Arafat subtly prevented him from being effective. By not giving Abbas control over Palestian security forces, Abbas' ability to control the terrorism was completely impeded. "Controlling the terrorism" (an end to the suicide bombing and other immoral acts of violence) is really the most important thing the Israelis want! Arafat and Hamas are continuing to get exactly what they want, are doing the Palestinian people a great disservice, and peace is once again, a long way off. The 'light at the end
of the tunnel' has been extinguished again.

Civil discussion would be nice. :-)

For a list of world news articles to get a variety of reporting, try a search of News at Google: search results for "Abbas resigns"

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,344 • Replies: 41

No top replies

How do you discuss when most pertinent facts are to be excluded?

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

How do you discuss when most pertinent facts are to be excluded?

Yes, you're right - it did read as though I was asking others to do that, so I edited it, appropriately. Thanks for the suggestion. :wink:

0 Replies

I think Arafat's exile is a bad idea. The reason I believe so is that for the Palestinian people he is simply the only charismatic leader. Any settlement between the Palestinians and Israel will inevitably be a fragile one and unless the Palestinian infrastructure in improved greatly (in the Israeli retaliation against Palestinian positions the P.A. was obliterated) the Palestinians will have a near-impossible task to get all the factions to recognize the same agreement.

If any of them happen to be in a feud with whomever will hold the office of PM they will simply not recognize and agreement he signs.

Arafat, despite the successful PR campaign against him (which only took stateside), is a potent symbol to the Palestinian people. Ideally I envision a PM walking them through the Road Map and a symbolic role as signatory in the elusive settlement for Arafat.

I think an Israeli exile of Arafat would be devastating. The Palestinians do not take kindly to Israeli intervention in their territories and I think the most ultimate insult to the Palestinians that Israel could make would be to assassinate the very symbol of their desire for statehood.

The second most inflammatory act that Israel could make would be to simply exile him. To understand this you should but think of what any nation would feel if the nation with whom there exists the most animosity were to forcibly remove the single most popular leader (and one who has been the single most popular leader for the lifetime of the younger generations).

Now imagine how sane a move like that would sound when the next most popular leader (in a society in which there are few leaders around who are not the type that is routinely aassassinatedfor his complicity with terror) is iimprisonedby the nation that is contemplating the aassassinationor exile of the symbol of the drive to statehood (that happens to be a very popular theme in the society in question).

This type of vingatorial move is not very wise. When the US isissuedt's dediplomaticallyorded warning for all involved to consider the consequences of their actions I belive that had precisely this in mind insofar as the Israeli obligations.

Assassinatingr exiling Arafat would make precious little difference in the prospects for peace and the question of Israeli security. It is a move that can only be described as either vingatorial, a calculated move to remove the symbols of Palestinian statehood through imprisonment aassassinationor exile, deliberate provocation or simply outright folly by the Israeli government.

It removes a potentially powerful tool for the Roadmap and to assassinate or exile Arafat would serve only as the act that Israel could do to most infuriate the groups that frankly already need to clam down a wee bit. It would make no significant boon to the prospects for peace and has an almost assured downside.

0 Replies

I agree that assasinating Arafat would not be a wise choice - no disagreement on that point.

You might find today's developments interesting:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/48614/1/.html

an excerpt: "Mr Korei, also known as Abu Ala, who accepted the appointment late Monday, has called for a change in attitude from Israel -- and implicitly its US ally -- to Arafat in dialogue in the roadmap to peace in the Middle East."
and this excerpt: "President Arafat's move to appoint Korei the new Prime Minister "is his way of showing to the Americans and to the Israelis who is in charge," said William Quandt, a former Middle East advisor to president Jimmy Carter."

I've been following the events in Israel-Palestine for a few decades, and the entire history of that region is amazingly complex and "colorful."

0 Replies

Has Arafat ever done anything to curb suicide bombings?
Hello,
It certainly appears and is no surprise to me, that President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, and Advisor Condoleeza Rice are not going to change their position or stance regarding Arafat, and also not change the most recently proposed 'Roadmap for Peace and Palestinian Statehood' :

Sept. 9
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-roadmap0910,0,4334816.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

It will be very interesting if anything positive comes from Powell's meeting at the UN, later this September - from that news article ABOVE: "Secretary of State Colin Powell plans to meet at the United Nations in two weeks with his partners in the Quartet that formulated the blueprint: U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and senior officials of the European Union."

This is also relevant (Sept 9 news article) :
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nyc-israel0909,0,2345112.story?coll=nyc-topnews-short-navigation

Time and time again, Israel, and the leadership of the US, and scores of other 'free-world' countries, and not surprisingly, but most recently many Arab and Middle Eastern Muslim countries have said that the terrorism/suicide bombings need to stop. The end of terror/suicide bombs ARE the MAIN DEMAND of _all_ Israelis.

Any Moral Equivalency for terrorism/suicide bombings cannot be supported, or in other words, it cannot be justified, and bombings have been almost a DAILY event for well over a decade, no LESS than 10-15 years, yet started even earlier. This LATEST Palestinian 'Intifada' which began in 2001, has been terribly barbaric. Is the escalation of suicide bombings, which has certainly increased in number and frequency from the 1990's, INDICATIVE of the moral decay in the Palestinian "neighborhoods" from which it's been originating??? Or IS the increase due to the continued Israeli occupations of West Bank territories, and retaliatory military strikes against Hamas leadership in Gaza and the West Bank??? Maybe BOTH, eh? Has worldwide support for the Palestinian "cause" been a contributing factor??? Has Arafat really ever, EVER done anything at all to curb the suicide bombings??? Very important questions that have answers. What are your answers?

If you ask yourself ONLY one question, consider this and answer this question: >> Peace MAY NOW REALLY hinge on that one Israeli demand; stop the terrorism and suicide bombing of Israeli citizens. Is that too much to ask for???<<

Peace is VERY possible, IMHO, and the following site may be worth a look. It's about a village comprised of Jewish and Palestinian families, located between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv-Jaffa, which was started in 1972. It is called "Neve Shalom / Wahat-al-Salam," or Oasis of Peace. Here is its website:

http://oasisofpeace.org/

The Mission Statement:
The American Friends of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam is dedicated to dialogue, cooperation and a genuine and durable peace between Arabs and Jews, Palestinians and Israelis by encouraging, supporting and publicizing the projects of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, the "Oasis of Peace."

For more than twenty-five years, Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel have lived and worked together as equals in this community. The community teaches tolerance, understanding and mutual respect well beyond its own borders by being a model for peace and by reaching out through its educational institutions. Its bilingual, bicultural Primary School serves the village and the surrounding communities. Encounter workshops conducted by the School for Peace, both in the community and beyond, have reached tens of thousands Jewish and Palestinian youth and adults.

Enough for now - thanks!

0 Replies

I think Israel will need to want to settle as well. Thus far I see no indication that Israel is willing to do what it takes to acheive peace.

0 Replies

CdK wrote:

Arafat, despite the successful PR campaign against him (which only took stateside), is a potent symbol to the Palestinian people.

Adolf Hitler in mid-40s was also a potent symbol for Germans, but this does not mean that he should be left in office if he did not commit a suicide.

0 Replies

I never said he should be left in office. I did say that I think Arafat's reputation was attacked because of Israeli strategic concerns and not because of the alleged complicity with terror.

Israel's desire to assasinate or exile him has, IMO, more to do with him being a symbol of Palestinian statehood than the danger he allegedly poses to Israeli society.

Well, some think it one and the same. Palestinian statehood is indeed a threat to Israeli expantionism.

0 Replies

Arafat's complicity with terrorism

Craven de Kere wrote:

I did say that I think Arafat's reputation was attacked because of Israeli strategic concerns and not because of the alleged complicity with terror.

Hello Craven - and very nice 'meeting' all of you.

Well, it's _not_ at all, JUST about Arafat's "alleged 'complicity' with terrorism."

The VERY REAL reasons, ARE FAR MORE complex than the 4 words you're using there - short books and wonderfully written factual essays have been written about Arafat - several good ones do include material up to this year.

Have you read any good, factual articles or books about Arafat? Might I suggest a few to choose from?

0 Replies

Yes I have read many. Feel free to suggest them but I will not read them. I prefer to read factual articles (read, news, not editorializing) and make up my own mind about opinion issues.

If you have any factual evidence to produce I'd love to hear it. But I won't waste time reading editorials.

The topic has been covered ad nauseum, facts might change my mind but editorials and opinions are old hat.

0 Replies

1) There was no "peace" to "collapse" -- and my guess is that there will NEVER be anything remotely resembling real peace in that area so long as there is a state of Israel there -- and there are Arabs there also.

2) Exiling or assassinating Arafat plays so completely into the hands of extremist Palestinians -- I'm surprised they haven't done it themselves in a way that puts the blame on the Israelis.

3) You wrote:

Quote:

Arafat balked at the proposals for peace and statehood then, because peace and statehood are not his real goals; the destruction of the state of Israel and any and all Jews living in the region ARE his (and Hamas') real goals, and the latest events seem to be more evidence that make that conclusion, ALL the more clear.

MY GUESS: Arafat's goals -- and the goals of most of the Arabs in the Middle East -- is for the state of Israel to cease to exist.

I do not think they want to destroy Israel -- I think they simply want it gone.

I do not think that Arafat -- or the majority of the Arabs living in the Middle East want to "destroy" all the Jews living there -- but they do not want a Jewish state.

I suspect the Arafat and the Arabs think the same was as do the Jews over there -- that the land is THEIR LAND. In some ways, neither is right -- in other ways, both are right.

4) By now it should be apparent to everyone that there will never be a reasonable peace between the parties -- and everyone should simply reconsile themselves to that fact.

5) In any case, I want my country -- the United States of America -- to butt the goddam hell out of the situation and let them work it out themselves -- even if it means one side killing everyone on the other side.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I never said he should be left in office.

If you feel that Arafat should not be exiled, and not left in office, then Arafat just exists wandering the country of Israel, or holed up in Ramallah for the short rest of his deceptive and murderous life. Since he's not a "Palestinian", but was born in Egypt, and since there has never been a country in all of history named <Palestine>, it wouldn't matter to anyone but Arafat if he was exiled to France or Arafat wanders the country of Israel. He only began to publicly denounce suicide bombings a year and a half ago, which was long after this latest Intifada.

Almost half of the "Palestinians" - Christian and Muslim Arab "Palestinians" alike, don't support Arafat as their leader, and many of those, have seen the facts, and really despise Arafat.

Oh, ok Craven, I won't post any links to any articles or book ISBN's

0 Replies

You obviously have an axe to grind with Arafat and deliberately refer to Palestinian territory as Israel, I doubt they would have been objective reads anyway.

Your claim that only Arafat would care if he were exiled is patently false.

Your claim that there has never been a country called Palestine is true, but that does not mean Palestinian territory is part of Israel.

Ultimately I think you wish for 'Greater Israel'. Is that a correct guess?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

You obviously have an axe to grind with Arafat and deliberately refer to Palestinian territory as Israel, I doubt they would have been objective reads anyway..

It is the nation of Israel, and Palestinian "territory" is just part of Israel. When there is a nation called Palestine, I will refer to Israel and Palestine.

Arafat is a simple thief, a blatant liar, and since he's never done anything at all to curb the terror by his "own people" he's no better than a murderer himself. He'll be exiled or killed soon enough, and I won't feel sorry him at all.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Your claim that only Arafat would care if he were exiled is patently false..

Arafat cares more about Arafat than he does about the young lives that strap bombs to thier bodies and kill innocent babies, wives, grandmothers, ... not "patently" false at all.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Your claim that there has never been a country called Palestine is true, but that does not mean Palestinian territory is part of Israel..

Sure it is a part of Israel right now.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Ultimately I think you wish for 'Greater Israel'. Is that a correct guess?..

Quite the opposite. I'm hoping for a Palestinian nation called Palestine, and I pray that it is done soon. My educated guess is that the killing of Jews in Israel by Arabs and Islamists will continue long after, perhaps for decades and generations longer, after the nation of Palestine is establshed.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I doubt they would have been objective reads anyway.

You won't know whether they are or not. After reading all your posts in this thread, I know that you DON'T know, understand, and/or are aware of all the facts and history of the region. It's also doubtful that you fully know the differences between subjectivity and objectivity.

0 Replies

phineasf wrote:

It is the nation of Israel, and Palestinian "territory" is just part of Israel. When there is a nation called Palestine, I will refer to Israel and Palestine.

Demonstratably false, Palestinian territory is most certainly not part of Israel. You should verify things before you posit them as facts.

phineasf wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Your claim that only Arafat would care if he were exiled is patently false..

Arafat cares more about Arafat than he does about the young lives that strap bombs to thier bodies and kill innocent babies, wives, grandmothers, ... not "patently" false at all.

You make no sense. I said nothing of his character. I said that you made a patently false assertion (and I was actually being too kind there because the assertion is downright ludicrous) when you say that ONLY Arafat would care if he is exiled.

That is a statement than is simply indefensible.

phineasf wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Your claim that there has never been a country called Palestine is true, but that does not mean Palestinian territory is part of Israel..

Sure it is a part of Israel right now.

Ok, and your house is part of my house now. ;-)

This is simply false, the only people who claim that Palestinian territory is part of Israel are dreamers of the 'greater Israel' dream.

phineasf wrote:

After reading all your posts in this thread, I know that you DON'T know, understand, and/or are aware of all the facts and history of the region. It's also doubtful that you fully know the differences between subjectivity and objectivity.

Yet another insipid allegation. Get a grip on reality, making stupid claims that people don't "fully" Rolling Eyes

know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity is a stupid ad hominem. There is nothing in our conversation that can even be construed as substantiation for this.

Your arguments are weak, improve them. Don't resort to ad hominem. If you have anything resembling a decent argument then use the ad hominem as icing.

Thus far you are grasping at straws, making arguments that are verifiably false (such as that the Palestinian territories are part of Israel) and when in lack of something relevant to say resort to ad hominem.

It's as obvious as it is pathetic.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

phineasf wrote:

It is the nation of Israel, and Palestinian "territory" is just part of Israel. When there is a nation called Palestine, I will refer to Israel and Palestine.

Demonstratably false, Palestinian territory is most certainly not part of Israel. You should verify things before you posit them as facts.

Then go ahead and demonstrate the falseness.

0 Replies

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

1) There was no "peace" to "collapse" -- and my guess is that there will NEVER be anything remotely resembling real peace in that area so long as there is a state of Israel there -- and there are Arabs there also.

2) Exiling or assassinating Arafat plays so completely into the hands of extremist Palestinians -- I'm surprised they haven't done it themselves in a way that puts the blame on the Israelis.

3) You wrote:

Quote:
Arafat balked at the proposals for peace and statehood then, because peace and statehood are not his real goals; the destruction of the state of Israel and any and all Jews living in the region ARE his (and Hamas') real goals, and the latest events seem to be more evidence that make that conclusion, ALL the more clear.

MY GUESS: Arafat's goals -- and the goals of most of the Arabs in the Middle East -- is for the state of Israel to cease to exist.

I do not think they want to destroy Israel -- I think they simply want it gone.

I do not think that Arafat -- or the majority of the Arabs living in the Middle East want to "destroy" all the Jews living there -- but they do not want a Jewish state.

I suspect the Arafat and the Arabs think the same was as do the Jews over there -- that the land is THEIR LAND. In some ways, neither is right -- in other ways, both are right.

4) By now it should be apparent to everyone that there will never be a reasonable peace between the parties -- and everyone should simply reconsile themselves to that fact.

5) In any case, I want my country -- the United States of America -- to butt the goddam hell out of the situation and let them work it out themselves -- even if it means one side killing everyone on the other side.

Sure Frank, there was only a momentary cease fire.

I couldn't agree more with everything else you have to say, except for one thing. I wish a large contigent of US troops, together with a large contigent of other nations troops, would march into Israel faster than we did Bagdad (and very fast we could do!) and divide the damn place up into 2 countries. One Israel, and one Palestine. Period. Be done with it. Too bad if either side doesn't "like" what they got.

Then we can nuke Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea and build a few thousand golf courses. hehehehe.

0 Replies

PM Abbas resigns; Peace collapsing again

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know