Israel decides to expel Arafat

[PLATO]

GePap, I think everyone sees that it would be disastorous to expel him. Some just think that it will be more so not to expel him. It is one hell of a bad situation.

[GePap]

There are a couple of people in this very thread that think expelling him is a good idea, and it would be nice for them to say what they think that act will actually accomplish vis a vi advancing diplomacy.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
The basic issue is this: will removing Arafat do anything to further the peace proicess? The answer is a resounding NO.

But if Arafat stays, it is 100% sure that the peace process will never succeed. If Arafat is removed there will at least be a chance things may get better. There is none if he stays.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


But if Arafat stays, it is 100% sure that the peace process will never succeed. If Arafat is removed there will at least be a chance things may get better. There is none if he stays.

And this is why? The idea that he is 100% responsible for ending the peace process and is the reason that the PA never took on tyhe militants is nice and all, but it misses one immense question:

Why did negotiations break down in 2000, and why israel was able to negotiate with Arafat from 93' to '00 but not after. Saying that "with him there there can be no peace" is silly, since he will remain president of the PA outside of the occupied territories anyway, and he will have access to a phone, no?

Israel has to do what it can to foster a new leadership..yes, Arafat will make this difficult becuase he will try to cling to power, which means that anyone tyring to get aorund him will need to be independently popular among the Pals..beyond the leaders of Hamas, this means that the new people of the PA have to show they can get results from the Israelis that better the lives of the average pal. BEFORE they can attempt to strip Aaraft of meaningful power. Israel never gave Abbas that chance, and the Sharon government is unwilling it seems to give that chance to any incoming Pal. As I said, the simplest ad most decisive thing Israel could do to help create a new leadership is dismantle ALL settlements that have gone up since 2000 and freeze all growth..that, more than easing travel restrictions and so would give any new Pal. leader other than Arafat a great boost. sadly, that is the last thing the Sharon gov. will do. All they have done up to now is make the als. rally around Arafat, as they should have known would be the case anyway.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
And this is why? The idea that he is 100% responsible for ending the peace process and is the reason that the PA never took on tyhe militants is nice and all, but it misses one immense question:

He may not be 100% responsible for ending the peace process but he is one of many obstacles to peace. He certainly has contributed to the collapse of the peace process.

Why did negotiations break down in 2000, and why israel was able to negotiate with Arafat from 93' to '00 but not after.

First, negotiations broke down several times before 2000 because of suicide attacks.

Don't forget that Arafat was offered probably the best deal ever. If negotiations broke down in 2000, it is because Arafat rejected the offer and called on an intifada.

Israel never gave Abbas that chance, and the Sharon government is unwilling it seems to give that chance to any incoming Pal.

Israel did try to give Abbas a chance. Israel did dismantle some settlements and lift travel bans etc as a sign of good will.

Arafat refused to give Abbas authority over the security forces. He sabotaged Abbas because he was unwilling to let go of power.

As I said, the simplest ad most decisive thing Israel could do to help create a new leadership is dismantle ALL settlements that have gone up since 2000 and freeze all growth..

If Israel did all this unilaterally, the Palestinian militant groups will only see it as a victory for terrorism and it will only embolden them to carry out more attacks.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
First, negotiations broke down several times before 2000 because of suicide attacks.

Don't forget that Arafat was offered probably the best deal ever. If negotiations broke down in 2000, it is because Arafat rejected the offer and called on an intifada.

Actually, since the second intifada the Pals have gotten the US to openly say that a Palestinian state is US policy..first time ever. Whatever deal finally does end this conflict will be better for the Pals than those of 2000. Even in 2000 the issue of refugees had not been dealt with, and that is one which any pal. leader has to be very cautious.

Israel did try to give Abbas a chance. Israel did dismantle some settlements and lift travel bans etc as a sign of good will.

Arafat refused to give Abbas authority over the security forces. He sabotaged Abbas because he was unwilling to let go of power.

Removing unpopulated outposts (many of which were set back up days ater) did not impress anyone. Yes, Aaraft will fight any move he see's as undermining his control. 2 things: once Arafat is out, no one will challenge him for fear of looking like they are doing Israel's bidding, and while Aaraft ay resist, if the person trying to do so could raly popular Pal support they would be able to force Arafat to hand over the security forces. Abbas had no political base, so he had ntohing to push with.

If Israel did all this unilaterally, the Palestinian militant groups will only see it as a victory for terrorism and it will only embolden them to carry out more attacks.

"all this"? Those are things the Israeli will have to do, and ls get real: the violence has worked, in so far as now 2000 is seen as the minimum offers, not as so many say, the best deal the Pals were going to get. Those settltmets do zip to secure Israel, and eat up resources. Israel is better of without them anyhow, and if getting rid of them allows for a political opening, then it should be done.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
"all this"? Those are things the Israeli will have to do,

The operative word was "unilateral". Obviously, Israel has to do those things as part of the Road Map. What I am saying is that it would be a mistake IMO for Israel to do those things UNILATERALLY and BEFORE the Palestinians begin to honor their commitments. That would just reward terrorism!

and let's get real: the violence has worked, in so far as now 2000 is seen as the minimum offers, not as so many say, the best deal the Pals were going to get.

You just made my point for me: this peace process has rewarded terrorism. And that is a huge, huge mistake!

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The operative word was "unilateral". Obviously, Israel has to do those things as part of the Road Map. What I am saying is that it would be a mistake IMO for Israel to do those things UNILATERALLY and BEFORE the Palestinians begin to honor their commitments. That would just reward terrorism!

And so the way not to reward violence is by...letting it continue endlessly, or taking military actions wich will lower but not end the violence? This is a time when "principles" should step behind what one must do to move ahead politically.

You just made my point for me: this peace process has rewarded terrorism. And that is a huge, huge mistake!

And what is the alternative? Besides genocide and ethnic cleasing (which are not plausible aternatives, even if possible ones) the fact is that the Israeli occupaiton of the West bank and Gaza has to come to an end: demographics alone force this issue.

[Ned]

After reading a lot of good posts here, it is clear that Arafat has to not survive his arrest. He would continue to block peace if he were in exile.

I also find it highly amuzing the liberal penchant for saying we should appease terrorists (and dictators) or else the terror will only get worse. It seems the opposite is true and virtually everyone knows it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
It seems the opposite is true and virtually everyone knows it.

Who is "everyone" ? I can tell you my "everyone" is definitely not like yours.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
And so the way not to reward violence is by...letting it continue endlessly, or taking military actions wich will lower but not end the violence? This is a time when "principles" should step behind what one must do to move ahead politically.

And what is the alternative? Besides genocide and ethnic cleasing (which are not plausible aternatives, even if possible ones) the fact is that the Israeli occupaiton of the West bank and Gaza has to come to an end: demographics alone force this issue.

The alternative is simply to require that the Palestinians end terrorism and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure BEFORE any peace process. These 10 years since Oslo clearly prove that you cannot have a peace process while terrorism occurs. Terrorism must end BEFORE a peace process even begins.

[Bereta_Eder]

They could just throw money at them and make them live a human life. That's an alternative too.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by paiktis22
They could just throw money at them and make them live a human life. That's an alternative too.

I dare say that if they dismatl terrorism that the money will certainly be there.

And so the way not to reward violence is by...letting it continue endlessly, or taking military actions wich will lower but not end the violence? This is a time when "principles" should step behind what one must do to move ahead politically

If the principle is worth standing behind, then it will lead to the desired result eventually. Sometimes the cost is high. If you abandon your principles for a quick deal, then what have you become?

Even in 2000 the issue of refugees had not been dealt with, and that is one which any pal. leader has to be very cautious

Refugees?? The "right of return" is the biggest load of crap in the whole process. We are talking about third and fourth generation people in most cases. In addition, the "refugee" camps have been kept squalid by the Pal leadership despite the US and Europe pouring millions and millions in aid into them that somehow never seems to get to the people. Israel will NEVER agree to this crap and rightly so. It is the final strategy to try to gain political control over Israel after a peace deal is finally done.

The current round of violence may end up backfiring on the Pals negotiation position. Israel may now require concrete steps to dismantle terrorism before anything else can be talked abot. The Pals are not likely to comply. The violence will continue and it is the Pal people who will suffer most. This can be traced back to Arafat directly if you look at his positions over the years. To say that there can be no peace while Arafat is around is not silly. It is unrealistic to assume anything else. He carries the real and symbolic power of Palestine. No deal will go through without his approval. No deal will get his approval that does not provide for the political or physical destruction of the state of Israel. You must recognize the facts and the history.

[Bereta_Eder]

Terrorism will not dismantle.
The money has to go there to dismantle it I'm afraid.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The alternative is simply to require that the Palestinians end terrorism and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure BEFORE any peace process. These 10 years since Oslo clearly prove that you cannot have a peace process while terrorism occurs. Terrorism must end BEFORE a peace process even begins.

So with no signs that their unilateral acts will be rewarded the Palestinians have to do something? You see, that is the point: whomever in the PA decides to strike at IJ and Hamas (which also means taking on the role of welfare provider tat Hamas took on in Gaza) has to be able to say "look, we have guarantees that after this is done, peace wll go forward. And that is exactly what Abbas DID NOT HAVE. Could Abbas show that if he took on the dangerous job of taking on Hamas, than once that was done the Israelis would do anything for the Pals? NO, he didn't. The fact was that in the road map the moves of taking on the terrorist and dismantling all the settlements set up since Spt. 2000 should have gone on concurrently, and honestly, the greater political weakness on the al side always made this difficult, but Israel could have helped Abbas greatly by doing that to help him show that taking on Hamas would lead to benefits for the Palestinians, cause you will get nowhere among the pals. by sayting that they have to stop killing sraelis simply to make the Israelis feel safe: they don;t care how safe Israelis feel, they simply want to know what will help make their lives better in a host of ways.