The press didnt report the truth about the Fence

Thanks Craven. I think you got most of this right and the little I disagree with I don't have the inclination to debate. You did remind me of some things I had forgotten though.

I have been watching Arafat for 40 years now. Do you really think he's been defanged?

All I can think of to say is, "oh." I feel terrible after that informative post where you explained so easily everything, but I don't know what else to say. Other than I guess at times I get caught up in the rheteric.

I wonder what Bush has to gain by wanting a statehood for Palestine? I know Clinton wanted to do it for his legency, but I don't know what bush's motive is.

(just a question)

At the time he was sidelined I don't think he had fangs. I think Israel made a series of mistakes in the way they dealt with him.

If they wished to sideline him for legitimate reasons they should have done so.

What Israel did by decimating the Ramalla (sp for sure) compound was counterproductive and petty and only bolstered his standing with Palestinians.

I think he has been successfully sidelined, but the US and other involved nations did not appreciate Israel's petty dealings with Arafat that were extracurricular to sidelining him.

Sidelining him was a matter of simply starting to deal with others. What Israel did was to terrorize him, having him believe they were going to kill him and bringing the conflict close enough to him to kill people around him.

Some will feel satisfied by the show of force, especially if they did not like Arafat but it was a counterproductive move that only bolstered him in the Palestinian street.

The way this was handled was petty, and Israel complicated the issue by their extremity once again.

If I had my way, I would have simply sidelined him with less fanfare, as Palestinians were already disillusioned with his governance to some degree. The show of force simply invoked Palestinian pride to rally around him.

But sidelining is a fait accompli, and was ever since the US got on board.

No need to feel bad revel.

As to Bush's motivations one clear one was building Arab trust for the coalition building for the war in Iraq.

That much was obvious as many Arab allies really care about the Palestinian question and when we were making our diplomatic rounds to make the case for invading Iraq they would all say, "yes yes, now what about Palestine?"

As you can see, post-war Bush's obstensible interest has seemed to wane considerably.

Thing is, Palestinian political uncertainty might have something to do with it. The Palestinians can't get their act together, and their moderates haven't won their internal struggle yet.

As to Bush's personal motivations, I do not doubt that he'd like to see the conflict end. Any decent human would.

Clinton clearly made a legacy attempt but I'm sure he wanted to see this idiotic conflict end too. Who wouldn't.

Bush's motivations for being so vocal pre-war were clearly related to the war in many ways, but I am sure he wants to see the conflict end too, and would love to have a hand in making this happen.

I disagree with many things Bush does, but do not ascribe to him a malice in this regard. Only really twisted positions do not want this conflict resolved, and I think he does too.

How much focus he's willing to give it depends on many things, but the desire to solve and end the conflict is one that is shared by nearly all humans.

It's a stupid conflict whose end is long overdue. I've no personal investment in the conflict but ending it has been of great interest to me my whole life.

Hell, I've even done mental simulations over years on how I'd go about solving it.

I just want to see a stupid protracted fight end. And don't put such a desire above Bush.

CdK wrote



So its probably a good job you weren't there then Craven. If you read Robert Wright's article about the Camp David and Taba negotiations, its clear there was far more to it than just Arafat's inept negotiating style, though it suited others to lay the blame on him after the event.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2064500

craven

This is getting too complex for me to really understand. In the end I just don't trust Bush and any good motives he may have in regard to the Palestinians, if I was a Palestinian I would be looking up the sleeves of Sharon and Bush for a snake in any offer they make.

However, I accept that you see it differently and I know you know more than I know as well it seems steve (as 41oo) does and will let you all continue the discussion.

it's been interesting, thanks for responding to my questions and things.

Steve, I invite you to read the article yourself.

Firstly, the article is refuting a position I have never held, that the Palestinians reject peace and a 2-state solution.

The offer made to the Palestinians was unacceptable, but it was a start. I've never said the deal was a good one and you are grasping at straws. See, the offer made does not excuse Arafat's inability to negotiate and decision to start a war instead.

Arafat walked out and launched an intifada that Palestinians would later grow to regret.

So what exactly is your point? That Israel's offere wasn't nearly as sweet as people make it out to be? No sheet!

But Arafat did not negotiate, he simply wasted the opportunity and launched an intifada. Do you have any apologism for that move of his? What excuses do you make for him?

If none, then what was your point again?

I'm not grasping at anything Craven. I'm not desperate to make any particular point except that "Peace Negotiations Break Down - Palestinians blamed" is exactly the sort of headlines that Ariel Sharon likes to read.

As I've said Arafat may be a doddering old terrorist (sorry world reknowned freedom fighter, leader of the Palestinians in their heroic struggle....etc etc, now suffering from Parkinsons disease) but I do believe he accepts the 2 states as the only solution. Therefore he is ultimately in tune with the Quartet and the road map whereas I don't believe that of Sharon.

Regarding the intifada, wasn't it Sharon who deliberately provoked it by taking his armed men onto the Temple Mount? And please don't just tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. If you know better fine, I will be pleased to be enlightened. But it certainly seemed to me at the time that Sharon's actions that day were provocative and designed to scupper peace talks.

Who do you blame for the Palestinian walkout?



I agree, he does and haven't said anything to the contrrary, that's why I'm wondering why the article.


Therefore he is ultimately in tune with the Quartet and the road map whereas I don't believe that of Sharon.



Sharon's bonehead move certainly helped. Easily one of the stupidest things I have seen a politician do.

I guess what craven is trying to say is that for the good of the Palestinian people Arafat should have clamped down on his pride and hung in there to negociate until he got a better deal rather than going home with his nose in a snit.

However, with Sharon coming into power and Bush coming into Power, I don't think any deals that they might of made would have made any difference anyway. But sanctionig terrorist actions leaves Arafat in a position where he is the bad guy.

I think what Steve was simply trying to say is that Bush and Sharon have taken advantage of Arafat's seemingly stupid walk out by putting all the blame on Arafat and making out like Arafat just don't want peace and his walk out is proof of that rather than saying that there were things in the deal that he couldn't go along with.

Bush has ways to imply or make things seem a certain way without coming directly out and saying something and he has managed to put the Palestinans in the same camp with those that beheaded the hostages in Iraq and those that commited 9/11 attack and they are not same. The Palestinians are fighting for life and liberty, I don't know what those other terrorist are fighting for.