1
   

PM Abbas resigns; Peace collapsing again

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 10:56 am
Quote:
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.


Amen

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


Ahem
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 12:24 pm
phineasf & Craven

Since you both seem to concur with much of what I wrote earlier, I thought I would repeat the item I consider most important in that post.

Quote:
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.


phineasf wrote:

Quote:
...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.


My guess is this would not change one thing. This "two state" idea seems to me to be a major loser. In my opinion, it will not bring the area any closer to peace than it is right now.

But if you had offered:

"...I wish a large contingent of US troops, together with a large contingent of other nations troops under United Nations auspices, would march into Israel...and put an end to both the state of Israel and any notion of a future state of Palestine...and let everyone over there know that the area no longer belongs to Jews or Arabs and never will unless they first prove to the world that they can get along like adults - and that everyone and anyone living there from this point on lives there at the sufferance of the United Nations under rules and laws mandated by that body…

...well, maybe that would have a chance.

In effect, I am suggesting we send everyone to their rooms until they are sure they can play well with others.


And if that doesn't work, we should nuke the ******* area big time and make it uninhabitable for everyone for the next 20,000 years.


As for "nuking Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea" and building "a few thousand golf courses"...

...the way I hit the ball this morning, I'd just as soon nuke the goddam golf courses too. In fact, if you had gotten to me just after the round, I'd probably have volunteered to man one of the bomb bays.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 12:25 pm
Frank, I hadn't read what you wrote earlier. I have yet to see you say anything about the mid-east that I agree with. I simply do not share your pessimism about the conflict.

I was agreeing that we should send troops. It would be my first act as president.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 12:58 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Frank, I hadn't read what you wrote earlier. I have yet to see you say anything about the mid-east that I agree with. I simply do not share your pessimism about the conflict.

I was agreeing that we should send troops. It would be my first act as president.



Sorry about that, Craven, but if you read your next to last post, you will see how I got that idea.

Phinesaf wrote telling me that he/she agreed with everything I wrote except...

...and you quoted that comment and said "Amen!"

BTW -- I don't agree with my pessimism completely myself.

Actually, I think the situation is even more hopeless than I've suggested to date - so as far as I am concerned, my "pessimism" is way too optimistic.


In any case, your wrote:

Quote:
I have yet to see you say anything about the mid-east that I agree with.


Wow!

That certainly is calling a spade, a spade!

Or it overstates what you actually feel.

I wonder which it is?

You do not agree with any of these statements?

** 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.

** 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.
0 Replies
 
phineasf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 01:08 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
......... can get along like adults - and that everyone and anyone living there from this point on lives there at the sufferance of the United Nations under rules and laws mandated by that body…

...well, maybe that would have a chance.

In effect, I am suggesting we send everyone to their rooms until they are sure they can play well with others.



Send them to their rooms and NOT let anyone "play" with their respective religions too!

Sure Frank, and the more I think about that plan, absolutely. When can the UN start? Tomorrow? hehe. I would go along with the UN, but, unfortunately, this whole "tragedy" will never play out like that. If only the damn British had kept their "hands out of the cookie jar" 80 years ago, maybe the mess wouldn't exist.

Hey! -his news I read the other day, came to mind when I read your post. You guys might like this (or might not - LOL)- it's relevant.

Has Annan just woke up from a Rip Van Winkle sleep? Just a couple decades too late with the idea of REFORMING the UN!
Stephen

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3406611

Annan Calls for Radical Reforms to Cope with Terror
Mon September 8, 2003 01:12 PM ET
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Reeling from the attack on
U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, Secretary-General Kofi
Annan said on Monday the world security system had
been shaken to its core with divisions on the most
fundamental issues.

In a major report, Annan called for radical reforms in
the United Nations and other institutions to cope with
war, terrorism, poverty and human rights.

"In peace and security I felt that this year a simple
progress report would not be enough," Annan told a
news conference at which he released the report."

"I have an uneasy feeling that the system is not
working as it should," he said, referring to pledges
on security, development, poverty and human rights
world leaders had pledged in a September 2000 U.N.
Millennium Declaration.

Annan said the divisions over Iraq since the U.S.-led
invasion in March would not be easily overcome. He
said that war and other conflicts highlighted the
problems of international legitimacy, new and more
virulent forms of terrorism, the proliferation of
nonconventional weapons and the spread of criminal
networks.

Annan submitted the report for this month's General
Assembly ministerial session, three days before the
second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks against the
United States and three weeks after the Aug. 19
bombing of the U.N. compound in Iraq that killed 22
people and injured 100.

"I see that attack as a direct challenge to the vision
of global solidarity and collective security rooted in
the United Nations Charter," he wrote of the Aug. 19
bombing.

"Its significance thus reaches beyond the tragedy that
affects us personally, as individuals, or even
institutionally, as an organization."

Annan said he had written to 191 nations two weeks
before the annual General Assembly ministerial
session, asking them to come up with new ideas on
fighting terrorism, weapons proliferation, poverty and
promoting development.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

On weapons of mass destruction, Annan noted there was
no global comprehensive monitoring and enforcement
system, even for nuclear inspections and too little
effort by nuclear powers to "diminish the symbolic
importance of these weapons."

He also criticized the 191-member General Assembly for
lacking priorities, the Security Council for being
undemocratic, the U.N. Trusteeship Council for
existing without real work and international financial
institutions for making decisions without including
the developing nations they were meant to serve.

On the General Assembly, Annan said its sheer size had
produced an agenda crowded with overlapping items of
interest to only a few, decisions taken that most
nations ignore and "repetitive and sterile debates."

The opposite is the often the case in the 15-member
Security Council, whose decisions can affect war and
peace, and international financial institutions, which
also have a "decisive impact on the real world," he
said.

In both institutions, the developing world "feels its
views and interest are insufficiently represented,"
Annan wrote.

Many of the world's crises are not new and pledges on
security as well as development in the millennium
declaration look less solid now than three years ago,
Annan said.

"For many around the globe, poverty, deprivation and
civil war remain the highest priority," Annan said.

Africa's development, in particular, continued to be
hampered by war. "Many of the continent's recent
conflicts have been characterized by extreme acts of
violence perpetrated against civilians, including
brutal acts of torture, rape, mutilation, harassment
and executions," Annan said.

He said that decisions to take action have been
"hesitant and tardy" such as intervening in massacres
"verging on genocidal proportions" in the Congo and
Liberia. And peacekeeping ventures are now staffed
largely by developing nations, who cannot continue to
shoulder the burden, he said.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 01:18 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:

You do not agree with any of these statements?


Not really.

Frank Apisa wrote:

** 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.


I disagree, it plays into Israel's hands. He represents the Palestinian drive to statehood and removing him is motivated by the desire to undermine that goal more than the stated reasons.

Frank Apisa wrote:

** 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 simply disagree.

Frank Apisa wrote:

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


I think many want it gone. But anyone with a grip on reality (not that this is a given) knows that this is a futile wish.

Frank Apisa wrote:

** 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 disagree. I think Arafat has come to terms with Israel's existence. But threatening to assasinate him all the time must not make it too popular in his mind.

Frank Apisa wrote:

** 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.


I agree that both think it's their land. I disagree with the rest.
0 Replies
 
phineasf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 04:31 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Phinesaf wrote telling me that he/she agreed with everything I wrote except...

Actually, I think the situation is even more hopeless than I've suggested to date - so as far as I am concerned, my "pessimism" is way too optimistic.


** 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.[/quote]


Yes, Frank! Absolutely!!! Neither is right with respect to some things, and both have been right about some things - AND, of course, both "sides" think they each own the same land.

It's pitifully hopeless Frank. YUP!

I would be a "he" by the way - LOL - Used to golf a LOT too Frank, gave it up 5 years ago (played for 12 yrs) when my clubs were accidently sold at a yard sale, and I don't want to take it up ever again. LOL
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 04:53 pm
Phin

Today I would give me clubs away.

But tomorrow....ahhhh...tomorrow I will tear up the course.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2003 04:54 pm
Out of frustration? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
phineasf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 11:26 am
Separating Palestians and Israelis
Hello all,

Frank: this article today reminded me about your post, which I paraphrase: "send them to their rooms...." - hey, it's opinion and everyone has one! LOL

TITLED: Separation is the only solution ---
by Uri Dromi IHT Friday, September 12, 2003
After Oslo: an Israeli view

http://www.iht.com/articles/109723.html

JERUSALEM Ten years ago, I was witness to history. On Sept. 13, 1993, on the South Lawn at the White House, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, the leaders of the two peoples who for decades had been fighting over the same piece of land, finally signed a peace accord. As the director of the Israel Government Press Office at the time, I stood there, among the Israeli journalists, and till my last day I will never forget the uproar of joy rising from the crowd when the two former enemies, in a highly symbolic act of reconciliation, shook hands.
.
Not everybody present was impressed, though. Uri Dan, an Israeli journalist writing for the Jerusalem Post and for foreign newspapers, stood next to me in somber defiance. "What are you celebrating?" he scolded me. "We all are going to regret it!" I looked at him forgivingly, as if he were some professional peace refusenik.
.
Since 1993, Dan has written countless columns attacking the Oslo accords. He kept warning that "the Oslo wedding would end in a mass funeral," because Arafat, the so-called peace partner, never intended to honor his commitment, and instead schemed "to turn Judea, Samaria and Gaza into a springboard for continuing his terrorist war against Israel." Again, he was brushed aside by the mavens.
.
Then, in 2000, Dan's prophecy suddenly came true. The Israelis, who saw their prime minister, Ehud Barak, offering Arafat the most far-reaching peace proposals, only to be rewarded by an onslaught of terror, became disillusioned. Since then, with all the recent efforts to jump-start the failed peace process, it seems that Uri Dan had it right: the wedding has indeed turned into a funeral.
.
Does it mean that the last 10 years were totally wasted? That the whole peace enterprise was a terrible blunder? I don't think so. With all the bloodshed and the pain both peoples have inflicted on each other during the last decade, there is also a bright side. I don't know about the Palestinians, but among Israelis today, there is a growing understanding that, for the sake of future generations, the two peoples must separate from each other. Furthermore, if such separation cannot be accomplished by mutual consent, Israel should go ahead and do it unilaterally.
.
As events of the last decade show, the Palestinians up to this day find it difficult to accept the existence of a Jewish state. Yet more Israelis now realize that they should not be held forever hostage by this Palestinian rejectionism and by their inability to produce a leadership that would accept a compromise. Public opinion polls in Israel show overwhelming support for a security fence that will disengage Israelis from Palestinians. My feeling - and hope - is that this fence will eventually turn into a political border between the two peoples. Once this happens, the Israelis will know how to defend it.
.
What about the ceremony at the White House 10 years ago? Will it turn into a dim, fading memory from a different world? Not necessarily. Once the two peoples let each other go, the easing of tension might invoke the desire to be at the heart of the world's attention again - but this time shaking hands as true, albeit reluctant, partners for peace.
.
The writer is director of international outreach at the Israel Democracy Institute, Jerusalem.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 12:50 pm
Phin

Reading that last post caused me to get the feeling of deja vu.

Why do you suppose that was? :wink: :wink: :wink:
0 Replies
 
phineasf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:06 pm
ROTFLOL - yes, of course - too much Deja - it's fixed now! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:19 pm
Abbas resigns? Must have been his 'Waterloo', but enough Swedish disco jokes....

Craven wrote:

"I think Arafat has come to terms with Israel's existence. But threatening to assasinate him all the time must not make it too popular in his mind."

I'm sure that's true regarding the death threats, but assuming he accepts the existence of Israel, well, that would make you something of a psychic, which is a bit of a dodgy thought, to say the least. He uses the existence of Israel as a political springboard for his cause, which I see as different from accepting the existence of Israel.

Now, bringing Mark Twain into the whole argument is just low on both sides. Politics is as politics does:

http://www.shechem.org/machon/mtwain/56.htm
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Articles/Story845.html
0 Replies
 
phineasf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:29 pm
anti-americanism, getting past muslim hate
This article, written and published in July 2003, is perhaps one of the better ones I've come across. Why is it that world peace seems to hinge on peace in the area labeled "the Middle East" ??? - and Middle East peace seems to hinge so profoundly on peace between The Gaza Strip, West Bank territories, and that bloody (literally) little country Israel???

The Bush administration, and Powell spoke up TODAY - DO NOT EXILE ARAFAT - I still don't think the exile of Arafat to France, or some other shitty little country, will make any difference towards peace in Israel/Palestine - just don't see it.

Any thoughts about anything within this article is meaningful here - SO, bring on the opinions and Ideas - THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ON THE WEB.

Titled: Getting Past the Hate
How America should respond to an angry Muslim world
By Fouad Ajami:
the authors University bio: http://www.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/profiles/ajami.html

"A historic transformation is unfolding before our eyes: There is a vast American imperial presence in the Muslim World. The invasion of Iraq was not the beginning, and it will not be the end. From military campaigns in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo to our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, we have shown that our power underpins international order. This is America's burden."

"As a people, we are singularly uncomfortable with the idea of imperial power. You might say we are an empire in denial. But the shattering surprise of Sept 11, 2001, brought forth a new world. Our willingness to launch wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was born of the recognition that there are plotters against America who have to be struck down lest they bring greater terrors onto
our soil."

"We entered these wars with justifiable reluctance, not least because anti-Americanism is rampant in Arab and Islamic lands. But this hatred of America should be seen for what it is: a scapegoat for the ills of an Islamic world in the throes of a deep, historic crisis. The dream of modernity in the Arab heartland of Islam has been thwarted. The grace of life in cities that
once knew some civility has been overwhelmed by a great demographic explosion. With 41% of it's population under the age of 14, the Arab region has the highest birthrate on the planet. At the same time, it is in the grip of mass poverty: Consider that 22 Arab countries, taken together, have a smaller GNP than that of Spain alone."

"Even the oil lands, once the El Dorado of the region, have not been spared. Saudi Arabia and the smaller oil states of the Persian Gulf have run down their foreign currency reserves, while their populations have doubled over the last 2 decades."

"Awakened to it's own decline, the Islamic world searched desperately for someone to blame. The angry mobs and their manipulative rulers found the perfect target in a distant America and a nearby Israel."

"Hoping to soothe this "Arab street," in late 2001 Secretary of State Colin Powell pressed into diplomatic service an accomplished Madison Avenue executive, Charlotte Beers, as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Her charge: sell America's image to Arab and Muslim countries."

"But the campaign ended in futility. After 17 months on the job, Beers gave up her post. "Public Diplomacy" could not convince the young people of Ramallah and Cairo and Casablanca and Amman of America's goodness and innocence. The battle for hearts and minds in Arab lands and Islamic nations is no simple marketing affair."

"Nor is it best waged through active American diplomacy on behalf of the Palestinians. That's the conventional wisdom, and it is wrong. In the 1990's, President Clinton ceaselessly courted the Palestinian leader, Yassar Arafat, and journeyed to Gaza to give America's blessing to the cause of Palestinian self-determination. The men of Al Qaeda paid no heed. They had their own scores to settle with their own rulers and the United States. For radical Islamists, the plight of the Palestinians is one more excuse, but not one they need."

"When all is said and done, the best antidote to anti-Americanism will be an Arab world that accepts responsibility for its own fate. Still, we cannot simply wait for this time to come. We must try to help bring it about."

"There are 4 things that America needs to do. More than mere salesmanship, these strategies will tell the multitudes in the Islamic lands what America is about, and what its power aims to do.

"1. SUCCEED IN IRAQ - A representative government under our auspices will have to to be put in place, and this must be a showcase of both American benevolence and determination."

"The way out of Iraq's despotic past will not be easy. No simple one-man, one-vote system will get us there. That formula would result in the ascendancy of the Shi'ites, who make up 60 percent of the population, at the expense of Iraq's other communities, including Sunnis, Kurds, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Turkmen."

"No compromise ought to be made with those who would want to impose on Iraq a Shi'ite clerical state in Iran's image. Those theocrats must be reined in, and America should not hesitate to do so. Fortunately, the majority of Iraq Shi'ites, as well as some sensible clerics and seminarians, appear to want no part of the clerical reign of "virtue and terror" that has wrecked Iran."

"There is no way to know how long it will take to rehabilitate Iraq. After World War II it took nearly a decade to demilitarize and democratize Japan. Its political culture had to be detoxified and it's educational system revamped. That kind of work will have to be done in Iraq."

"Meanwhile, Arabs and Muslims everywhere will be watching to see what the new American order will bring forth. Transform Iraq with a system based on the rule of law, and the reverberations of reform will be felt in nearby Iran and in distant Morocco and Algeria. Walk away from Iraq, and the message will be one of American abdication."

"2. END MILITARY PRESENCE IN SAUDI ARABIA - This was Pax Americana's principal base in the Arab world, dating back to the early 1930s. But the Saudi realm has changed. America's military presence now arouses hostility."

"Radical preachers have stepped forth to rail against the presence of "crusaders" on holy Islamic land. It was this xenophobia that gave the forces of Al Qaeda their frenzy and their passion."

"America --and Saudi rulers--will be better off if we work out of the smaller, more secular realms in the Persian Gulf: Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman. Qatar has been the trendsetter here. A kind of modernism--voting, women's rights--has come to this small principality. It is keen on having an American presence, and is unembarrassed about it. Realizing this, American military planners already have transferred the day-to-day responsibility for air missions in the region from the Prince Sultan Air Base, near the Saudi capital of Riyadh, to a backup headquarters in Qatar."

"But this partial withdrawal will not satisfy the anti-American zealots. Our entire military needs to leave Saudi Arabia, however tempting it may be to keep U.S equipment, aircraft and training crews there."

"This could be the beginning of a more normal role in the Persian Gulf. The Saudi realm, meanwhile, would be left to work out the terms of a new social contract between rulers and ruled, between religion and the requirements of a modern life."

"3. LOOSEN TIES TO EGYPT'S REGIME - If America is committed to modernism and democracy in the Arab world, it can no longer afford a tight relationship with an authoritarian regime that stays in power by playing up anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism."

"Mubarek's regime is the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. America's treasures have kept the Egyptian Officers Corps pacified and acquiescent. It's a financial bargain with Egypt's military rulers that has rested on the hope that they would spare the world the furies of Islamism and religious radicalism."

"The bargain did not work. In no small part, the running war between the Islamists and the Eqyptian regime gave rise to the horrors of 9/11. More recently, Egypt's rulers watched with anxiety the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue. The fall of his regime, with it's syncophants and clan rule, is a crystal ball in which Egyptians can gaze at their own future."

"Back in the 1920s and 1930s, Egypt knew modernism, a multiparty political life, open debate, secular culture. This can come to pass again. But until it does, America should not be subsidizing the leadership of Egypt, which tolerates the anti-Americanism that infects the media and universities. In the battle for Egypt, Mubarek should not claim that he has the great liberal power at his side."

"4. PUSH FOR LEBANON'S INDEPENDENCE - Through it's military occupation of large parts of Lebanon, Syria has all but obliterated that nation's independence. It took stealth and brutality for the late Syrian dictator Hafez Al-Assad to make his regime the ultimate power in Lebanon's affairs. It needn't take armed conflict to release that grip."

"In 1990-91, Assad lent rhetorical support to the American-led war against his nemesis, Saddam Hussein. It was then, with America averting it's gaze, that the Syrians completed their conquest of Lebanon. Now circumstances have changed. Syria itself is in our cross hairs, and the country has a young, untried President (the dictator's son, Bashar Al-Assad). The time is ripe for us to lead an international effort to evict Syria from Lebanon."

"The stakes in Lebanon are of no small consequence. The country has deep traditions of pluralism and tolerance. In it's better days, Lebanon had been a base for American educational and religious missions."

"There is no easy return to some splendid age for Lebanon. But there is a vibrant civil society there, a people at one with the modern world and eager to be rid of the tyranny of a retrogressive Syrian regime."

"Syria, meanwhile, is a troubled society, with a despotic regime and a faltering economy. It has held on in Lebanon because it has not been costly to do so. A clear message could be sent to Syria's rulers: The price for their diplomatic and political rehabilitation is a prompt withdrawal across the international border with Lebanon."

"These are no sure remedies for the anti-Americanism so deeply rooted now in the Muslim lands. It is a hatred that feeds on itself, ascribing to America the most sordid of motives. But the hope must be entertained that substantial numbers of Arabs are keen to rehabilitate their own world. If so, then they may come to see the American intervention in their lives for what it is; a reluctant undertaking by a country whose imperial reach into Islamic lands was forced on it by terrors that blew its way on a clear September morning."
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:29 pm
Cav, Arafat has said many times that he accepts Israel's existence. Whether one believes that or not is up to the individual.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:42 pm
Well Craven, at least we agree on that. Just trying to clarify the difference between 'existence' and 'right to exist.'
0 Replies
 
phineasf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 12:27 pm
Arafat does not believe that Israel has a 'right to exist' and what he says publicly about Israel's existence, must be taken with a grain of salt.

In June 2002, President Bush boldly called for "new Palestinian leadership" as a pre-condition for US support for Palestinian statehood. That revolutionary declaration wisely recognized that no positive change in Palestinian politics or the peace process could occur with Yasser Arafat at the helm of the Palestinian Authority.

Regrettably, instead of addressing the issue of what to do with Arafat directly, the US administration opted for an elaborate, costly and time-consuming effort to circumvent Arafat and promote an alternative yet subordinate leadership in the person of the gentlemanly Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's longtime lieutenant.

Arafat, however, remained the indisputable behind-the-scenes power, capable of pulling off a putsch last week against the reformist Abbas when it served his purpose.

Subtlety, maneuvering and adroit diplomacy may be useful skills on the floor of the US Senate, but they are not appropriate to the rough-and-tumble 'winner-take-all' politics of the Middle East.

If the Bush administration wants to salvage its Arab-Israeli initiative, it must base any further US support for Palestinian statehood on Arafat actually stepping aside. Just as it told Liberia's Charles Taylor, the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos and Haiti's Raul Cedras, Washington, DC, should tell Arafat that, for the good of his people, he must go.

Last Thursday, Israel characterized Arafat as a "complete obstacle to any process of reconciliation" and said it would "work to remove this obstacle in a manner, and at a time, of its choosing." Although an Israeli expulsion of Arafat would be legitimate, it would be far better for the United States to secure Arafat's exile through diplomacy rather than for Israel to achieve it through force.

First, the United States should consult with Arab and European allies. Creating a united front on this initiative, to the degree that it is possible, is preferable than going alone.

Second, the president should dispatch a bipartisan team of senior US leaders to see Arafat. They should be people respected in Arab capitals, viewed as sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but committed to the president's new approach.

They need to deliver the following message, firmly and without equivocation: For the United States to support the Palestinian people's desire for statehood, Arafat must resign all positions in the Palestinian political hierarchy and accept permanent retirement, outside the West Bank and Gaza or any contiguous state.

If Arafat so acts, then the United States should lift all restrictions on direct aid to the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, Washington should mount an international effort to support a new reformist Palestinian leadership, especially by providing assistance to security forces committed to rooting out the terrorists that so undermine the Palestinian cause.

Third, the White House should work privately with Israel to ease the transition to a post-Arafat Palestinian leadership. Although Abbas placed some blame on the Israelis for failing to match his reformist efforts with concessions of their own, Arafat's counter-coup against him validated the wisdom of Israel's stay-put approach.

Arafat, of course, will balk. But if the United States makes it clear that the choice is Arafat or statehood, and never statehood with Arafat, there is at least a reasonable chance that Palestinians (and their Arab and European backers) will opt for realism. Pressure will build for Arafat to go.

Forcing Arafat into exile will not bring peace overnight.

If Washington supports another Palestinian premier subordinate to Arafat, however, then the future will be bloody anyway, with nothing to show for it.

That sums it up for me folks.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 12:35 pm
phineasf wrote:
But if the United States makes it clear that the choice is Arafat or statehood, and never statehood with Arafat, there is at least a reasonable chance that Palestinians (and their Arab and European backers) will opt for realism. Pressure will build for Arafat to go.


You must be kidding. I think you make the mistake of thinking that the Arab world will be pragmatic (as opposed to emotional) about this. He is their democratically elected leader and their symbol. Isreal already walked a fine line when they started telling the Palestinians who their leader should be.

If they exile or kill Arafat there will be a very explosive situation. I would not be surprised if they gain new enemies for it.
0 Replies
 
phineasf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 05:16 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
I think you make the mistake of thinking that the Arab world will be pragmatic (as opposed to emotional) about this. He is their democratically elected leader and their symbol. Isreal already walked a fine line when they started telling the Palestinians who their leader should be.



During the last Arab Summit (last year), the main issue was the Palestinian problem, and all the Arab nations were very pragmatic when they purposely exluded Arafat. They didn't want him there because they recognized him as part of the real problem, not part of the solution. Did you miss that liitle bit of history? He could have left the Ramallah compound. Even the satellite video link given to Arafat so he could participate, didn't work. I know why it didn't work. The Arab League didn't want his participation at all, and they were sending a real message to Arafat and the world,

Craven, you're not giving the Palestinians much credit, are you?

By the way, Arafat's election can hardly be considered 'democratic' for a couple reasons, 1- his opponents couldn't run unless approved by Arafat, and 2- Good candidates feared for their lives if they ran for President. Saying the election was democratic is a stretch of the truth that's easy to see.

It was Martin Luther King, Jr. that said, "There will be no peace without justice, and no justice without peace" - He just as well could have been speaking of the Palestinian/Israeli quagmire!

...and by the way, half the Palestinian people don't support Arafat at all, and that's a fact that cannot be ignored.

You may be right about the violence and hatred (as if they can really hate more than they already do), but that's not a sufficient reason NOT to follow the right course; the only course for peace. The situation may get worse before it gets better. Arafat should step down and retire in France with his wife. Then he can spend the millions he diverted into his personal bank accounts.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 05:22 am
phineasf wrote:

During the last Arab Summit (last year), the main issue was the Palestinian problem, and all the Arab nations were very pragmatic when they purposely exluded Arafat. They didn't want him there because they recognized him as part of the real problem, not part of the solution. Did you miss that liitle bit of history?


I don't miss much Mid-East history. I rememver it well and simply disagree with your notion that they recognized him as a problem. They were certainly frustrated by some of his obdurate behavior but their exclusion of him had far more to do with Israel's refusal to make peace if he has anything to do with it than their personal opinions of him.

In any case there is nothing to suggest that the Arab street will be as pragmatic.

phineasf wrote:

...and by the way, half the Palestinian people don't support Arafat at all, and that's a fact that cannot be ignored.


Please cite. I know what you refer to but you are distorting the statistic.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:22:31