Sharon and Abbas and Arafat
- Thread starter hgc
- Start date
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Mycroft said:
I might be getting old, but my memory isn't that far gone yet. There was a constant refrain, often echoed here, that Arafat was to blame for everything.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
CBL4 said:
Oslo would have only worked where both parties had a reasonable attitude towards the other.
Why Yasser Arafat did not issue a counter proposal or at least signalled benevolence towards Taba does count against a positive assessment of his motive. But there was a heavy intensive US policy of almost getting peace at that point come what may. For all the criticisms that can be made of George W. Bush his administration's policy of taking things more gingerly while making clear what they want, seems better for now.
But what cannot be seen of the events of 2000 might have the most significance. Given that the Clinton administration had apparently almost taken the side of Ehud Bark's government in its intent to offer a state over which Israel could still enforce security control, via the border crossings etc., some PLO officials might have decided that stones, protests and shooting of the first Intafada might work better. More and more land was being taken from Palestinians. The PNA/PLO complicity with human bombs and similar probably emerged through a policy of allowing the wilder elements to compete with Hamas. But the Intifada could still have ended in Arafat's time. A few very hopeful truces ended with Israeli assassination efforts.
Working out blame at this point is probably futile. Future release of documents and the retirement of the principle personalities will have to happen before a solid 'who did what' is of any profit.
I hope the present initative prospers. Sharon does have a record of facilitating peace if its seems worthwhile to him and Abbas does have a genuine commitment to non-violent means.
zenith-nadir,
Notwithstanding a veritable mini-industry of anti-semitic propaganda from some Arab states, the old exterminationist policies have disappeared from the political agendas of anyone who counts a long time ago. Answar Sadat and Hafez Al-Assad went to war with limited aims of forcing Israel to make peace on terms favourable to them, rather than follow a Nasserist extermination policy. Hezbollah is certainly still in the older mould of removing Israel even if its methods are often very innovative. But while your reading is certainly seems the best for a larger part of the past half century, I think Egypt and other realists will applaud a reasonable deal between the PNA and Israel. While they might not exactly be completely benevolent towards Israel, I think that the ideas of extermination have been left to a few rabble rousers Arab governments might tolerate to distract their populaces from their many failings. Palestinians are no longer pawns. They ceased being so, a long time ago.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Arafat was the sole leader - see: dictator - of all Palestinians on earth since he was appointed to that position in 1969. He was the decision maker, he was the negotiator and he was the terrorist leader. His motto was "revolution unto victory" and he was never ever once interested in real peace with the 'zionist entity'. His game was to gain a foothold in Gaza and the West Bank by signing peace treaties in order to fight from a better strategic position. Not only did he invent modern terrorism: airplane hijackings, kidnappings and spectacular mass murders - the Olympic massacre of 1972 or the Ma'alot highschool massacre where 21 children were slaughtered - he screwed the Palestinians by ripping them off for billions .a_unique_person said:
Save Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia that is.
I agree, there are new leaders who have realized the sheer folly of continuing on the "lets destroy Israel" path.
I disagree. I point to the fact that there are third and fouth generation Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians who are held hostage without rights or citizenships in "refugee camps" simply because their grandparents were Palestinians. See: "The refugee issue". Hell, Palestinians still live in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank!, ( Balata, Tulkarm, Jenin, Askar, Jabalia, Rafah, Khan Younis, Bureij),...how many of your countrymen live in refugee camps around your city someone?
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Well this is a first in my lifetime...
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
a_unique_person said:
I think that's one of your straw-men. Arafat had underlings to help him out, one of them was Mahmoud Abbas.
Think of it in terms of blaming Bush for everything, then seeing Rice take over. Would you expect substantially different policies?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Mycroft said:
Believe it or not, I would. I think a Rice presidency would be decidedly more moderate, would be much more distant from the fundie lunatics, and would certainly be more intelligent.
When it comes to Abbas, though, he's pretty much in a no-win situation. If he doesn't push hard enough against Israel (I mean diplomatically, not militarily), he's basically selling out the Palestinians and the intifada will begin anew with or without him. If he pushes too hard and demands crazy things like Palestinian control of their natural resources, Israel will shift the propaganda so the situation is no longer "hopeful" and Abbas becomes an "obstacle to peace."
Oh, it had started.
Hamas bombed israeli settlements in Gaza with unprecedented ferocity, and Abbas demanded that israeli release even MORE palestinian prisoners--to "strenghten his position" and to allow him to REALLY fight terror.
Yeah, right.
In other words, it's the usual Palestinian-style "ceasefire": only the guys who belong to ONE terrorist organization can kill jews at any one time, IF israel agrees to release more prisoners in the meantime, or the deal's off. We ain't no driggin' charity.
Hamas bombed israeli settlements in Gaza with unprecedented ferocity, and Abbas demanded that israeli release even MORE palestinian prisoners--to "strenghten his position" and to allow him to REALLY fight terror.
Yeah, right.
In other words, it's the usual Palestinian-style "ceasefire": only the guys who belong to ONE terrorist organization can kill jews at any one time, IF israel agrees to release more prisoners in the meantime, or the deal's off. We ain't no driggin' charity.
He sacked his senior security officials. Yasser Arafat by contrast was very careful in his attitude towards his barons, on the fairly sound basis that they could overthrow him or defect to Hamas, perhaps. I am just hypothesing but someone who might be reluctantly sacked from running Gaza's security services, for instance, would be given a near equivalent post so that the and his retinue remained on-side. These sackings by contrast had the appearance of a clearout of non-performers. I might be wrong on that particular interpretation of the sackings compared to the past, but making an assumption that Palestinians are trying in different ways to deceive Israel is not right. Israel has detained a lot of people over long period for no clear reason, and certainly no trial. Most were probably taken in on dubious information provided simply for the payments made to desperate men. If Israel only confines itself to people detained without trial and tortured with point or result in the Russian Compound interrogation center, it would clear the political atmosphere and do no harm to its security.