Abu Mazen Resigned

[GePap]

So let's see: we are to bring peace to the sides, but the democratically elected leader of one side must be removed and an undemocratically appointed individual must be the one to bring about the agreement cause of course being unelected and basing his power on the support of the enemy and its patron is trully the way to make a deal valid to the people being led (perhaps against their whishes) to said deal. Yes, of course that makes all sorts of sense! Not good ones, mind you, but some sort of sense....

[The Mad Monk]

Okay...I read that three times, and still have no clue what the hell you're trying to say.

[GePap]

Arafat was eelcted, and each time the US and Israel makes it all about him, his popularity goes up: they want to ignore Arafat (who was elected so can at least claim some level of ligetimacy) and use a guy who is competent, but never having been elected has no political legitimacy among his own people, and is likely to have less the more and more he is seen as Israel's choice,US's choice. What on earth makes anyone here think the average Palestinains should support a peace plan signed by a guy that has no political legitimacy among his own people????

Let Israel invade Gaza to get at Hamas and to expel Arafat..certainly terrorism will go down for maybe a year. Also kiss the possibility of a political solution goodbye for even more years. But I am sure Israeli and US tax payers will be able to bear the costs of a reoccupation of all the territories for the next few years, and that this will have only a positive impact on islamist terrorism vis a vi the US.... well, postive in terms of recruitment.
Oh,a nd think of all the new settlements that can crop up!

[Agathon]

This just seems to be part of Sharon's campaign to work up to expelling all the Palestinians from the occupied territories. Presumably, targeting the Sheikh is meant to provoke the Palestinians into going wild as the pretext for a full invasion and expulsion, which will not be characterised as ethnic cleansing, even though that's what it will be.

And if that happens I'll personally commit myself to spitting on any Israeli I see.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
Arafat was eelcted, and each time the US and Israel makes it all about him, his popularity goes up: they want to ignore Arafat (who was elected so can at least claim some level of ligetimacy) and use a guy who is competent, but never having been elected has no political legitimacy among his own people, and is likely to have less the more and more he is seen as Israel's choice,US's choice. What on earth makes anyone here think the average Palestinains should support a peace plan signed by a guy that has no political legitimacy among his own people????

Let Israel invade Gaza to get at Hamas and to expel Arafat..certainly terrorism will go down for maybe a year. Also kiss the possibility of a political solution goodbye for even more years. But I am sure Israeli and US tax payers will be able to bear the costs of a reoccupation of all the territories for the next few years, and that this will have only a positive impact on islamist terrorism vis a vi the US.... well, postive in terms of recruitment.
Oh,a nd think of all the new settlements that can crop up!

They don't want to occupy it, they want to eject the Palestinians.

[GePap]

"transfer"(nice euphamism) is not an option: not a sane or workable option anyway.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
"transfer"(nice euphamism) is not an option: not a sane or workable option anyway.

I don't know. I don't think it's sane, but when has that ever stopped radical rightists.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't know. I don't think it's sane, but when has that ever stopped radical rightists.

"Transfer" gets about 35% approval in the polls: that leaves 65% unsure,, and I would say one could count on at least 50% of Israelis not going along, specially the million Arabs. So first of all, t do it, Israel would have to mobilize its entire army, not only to handle the ligistics of doing this, but I seriously doubt the neighboring states would open their borders (namely Jordan and Egypt), so it would be inviting a war with it's neigbors (yes, not only Syria but all of them) by doing so. Second,expect huge internal disturbances in the country itself, and the US could not even imagine of supporting any such Israeli move (unless it want's to see its ME positoion utterly and irrevocably destroyed)So Israel would face complete diplomatic isolation over this, and probalby severe sanctions, and since Israel is a trading state, well.....

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap


"Transfer" gets about 35% approval in the polls: that leaves 65% unsure,, and I would say one could count on at least 50% of Israelis not going along, specially the million Arabs. So first of all, t do it, Israel would have to mobilize its entire army, not only to handle the ligistics of doing this, but I seriously doubt the neighboring states would open their borders (namely Jordan and Egypt), so it would be inviting a war with it's neigbors (yes, not only Syria but all of them) by doing so. Second,expect huge internal disturbances in the country itself, and the US could not even imagine of supporting any such Israeli move (unless it want's to see its ME positoion utterly and irrevocably destroyed)So Israel would face complete diplomatic isolation over this, and probalby severe sanctions, and since Israel is a trading state, well.....

None of the neighbours would dare do anything. They'd take an(other) absolute kicking.

Right now "transfer" is probably higher in the polls, but not really high enough and it's probably much higher among Likud and other right wing voters. Presumably if there is an extreme crisis the public will support decisive action long enough to allow it to be done.

I did read somewhere (and I'm an idiot for not marking it down) that the IDF has a plan ready to go if ever needed. I don't know if that's true, but it seems likely that it's been thought about.

They don't even have to go the whole way - just make life so unbearable (as if it could get much worse) that many Palestinians leave anyway.

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but I'm trying to make sense of Sharon's strategy here which seems to have been to provoke the militants as much as possible as a pretext for reneging on the promise of a Palestinian State. The attempt to assissinate Sheikh Whatisname is the high point so far. How much more can they push?

Surprisingly I think Arafat is safe - as long as he's alive he remains an excuse.

[PLATO]

bump

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned
Recall Arafat!

I agree - ship his ass back to his French villa (just don't martyr the jerk).

[PLATO]

With the proper application of force in dealing with terrorist groups and the states that sponsor them, then Arafat becomes a non-issue anyway. Let the Pals have them as their founding father...who cares? Just do whatever it takes to dismatle the state sponsored terrorists.

I have to say though, that if it was up to me, I would send one of those nice little missles straight up his a$$ and then willingly and harshly deal with the consequences.

Until the world gets some balls and decides to really eliminate terrorism, the likes of him will always be with us.

[Tassadar500]

I have the answer to everything. Arnold needs to run for Prime Minister of Palestine!

[Sirotnikov]

So, those projects in education, infrastructure etc don't exist, and it all goes to rebuilding Arafat's compound? Is that your point? Or are you claiming that the EU is funding palestinian terrorists?

Some of the money from that goes to it's goal. Some goes to Arafat's welfare. Some goes to paycheks of goons and terrorists like Tanzim and the Al-Aqsa brigades.

Furthermore, the more support a country pours at the PA, the more it thinks it has an effect on Arafat. While that would seem true, he doesn't really care and until the countries pouring money will understand that they are not gaining any increased respect, they will have invested huge sums.


Furthermore, until recently the EU has not declared the Hamas as a terrorist organization and has not froze it's assests or disallowed charity to be collected for them.

[HershOstropoler]

"Some goes to paycheks of goons and terrorists like Tanzim and the Al-Aqsa brigades."

I've heard that again and again from Israeli and US zionist sources, but never seen evidence for it.

"While that would seem true, he doesn't really care and until the countries pouring money will understand that they are not gaining any increased respect, they will have invested huge sums."

I think it gives some leverage. It's also about building some relation to the palestinians.

"Furthermore, until recently the EU has not declared the Hamas as a terrorist organization and has not froze it's assests or disallowed charity to be collected for them."

Hamas' political wing.