Israel decides to expel Arafat

[GePap]

:sigh:

Too much to say to that, not enough energy, so better ignore it and let it die away like so many others.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
IF you wish to continue with the notion that peace as long as he is there is impossible; then you have to undertake a way of removing him that does not in fact make him central to everything. IN essence, it has to be the palestinians who remove Arafat for his influence to end; any other way will fail. So ask yourself, how do we get the Palestinians to, instead of showing uip by the thousand to rally around this guy, to say: Arafat was the pas, we don;t want you anymore, good bye.

Maybe if people read this quote, they'll understand why the current Israeli decision is wrong. I couldn't have said any better Ge

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
So with no signs that their unilateral acts will be rewarded the Palestinians have to do something?

Yes, exactly. Because terrorism is unacceptable!

If the Palestinians did unilaterally end terrorism, I can guarantee you that Israel would give them everything they asked for in the Peace Process. Israel wants peace and has agreed to a Pal State in the WB. The only reason why it hasn't happened is because of terrorism.

[Panag]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Yes, exactly. Because terrorism is unacceptable!

If the Palestinians did unilaterally end terrorism, I can guarantee you that Israel would give them everything they asked for in the Peace Process. Israel wants peace and has agreed to a Pal State in the WB. The only reason why it hasn't happened is because of terrorism.

hi ,

thats 1 000 % correct


have a nice day

[Panag]

Ten years later, it is embarrassing to recall the elation and soaring expectations.

President Bill Clinton lauded it as a "great occasion of history." Secretary of State Warren Christopher ruminated on how "the impossible is within our reach." Yasser Arafat called it an "historic event, inaugurating a new epoch." Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of Israel discerned in it "the outline of peace in the Middle East."

The press hyped it, providing saturation coverage on television and radio, in newspapers and magazines. Pundits like Anthony Lewis of The New York Times called it "ingeniously built" and "stunning."

The date was Sept. 13, 1993, and the occasion was the signing of the Oslo accords on the White House lawn. Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's prime minister, and Arafat, the Palestinian leader, stood by President Bill Clinton and shook hands. For years afterward, "The Handshake" (as it was known) served as the symbol of successful peacemaking.

The agreement they signed, the "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" (to use its formal name) inspired widespread optimism that the Arab-Israeli conflict was at last about to be resolved. Other than a hardy band of skeptics, the world saw in the Oslo accords a brilliant solution whereby each side would achieve what it most wanted: dignity and autonomy for the Palestinians, recognition and security for the Israelis.

Instead, Oslo brought the Palestinians poverty, corruption, a cult of death, suicide factories and militant Islamic radicalization. The Israelis have mainly suffered from terrorism's toll of 854 murders and 5,051 injuries, plus assorted economic and diplomatic losses.

This Saturday marks the 10th anniversary of Sept. 13, 1993. By now, the name "Oslo" is mud among Palestinians and Israelis alike, with no one anymore seeing it "inaugurating a new epoch" -- except for the worse.

What went wrong?


The deal rested on a faulty Israeli premise that Palestinians had given up their hope of destroying the Jewish state.

Many things, but most important was that the deal rested on a faulty Israeli premise that Palestinians had given up their hope of destroying the Jewish state. This led to the expectation that if Israel offered sufficient financial and political incentives, the Palestinians would formally recognize the Jewish state and close down the conflict.

Israelis therefore pushed themselves to make an array of concessions, in the futile hope that flexibility, restraint and generosity would win Palestinian goodwill. In fact, these steps made matters worse by sending signals of apparent demoralization and weakness. Each concession further reduced Palestinian awe of Israeli might, made Israel seem more vulnerable and incited irredentist dreams of annihilating it.

The result was a radicalized and mobilized Palestinian body politic. In speech and actions, via claims to the entire land of Israel and the murder of Israelis, the hope of destroying Israel acquired ever-more traction.

Thus did the muted Palestinian mood at Oslo's start in 1993 turn into the enraged ambition evident today.

When intermittent Palestinian violence turned in September 2000 into all-out war, Israelis finally awoke from seven years of wishful thinking and acknowledged Oslo's disastrous handiwork. But they have not yet figured with what to replace it. Likewise, the U.S. government, with the collapse of its Mahmoud Abbas gambit last week, finds its "road map" diplomacy in disarray, and it now too needs new thinking.

In the spirit of Oslo's 10th anniversary, I propose a radically different approach for the next decade:

Acknowledge the faulty presumption that underlay both Oslo and the road map (Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence).
Resolve not to repeat the same mistake.
Understand that diplomacy aiming to close down the Arab-Israeli conflict is premature until Palestinians give up their anti-Zionist fantasy.
Make Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence the primary goal.
Impress on Palestinians that the sooner they accept Israel, the better off they will be. Conversely, so long they pursue their horrid goal of extermination, diplomacy will remain moribund and they will receive no financial aid, arms or recognition as a state.
Give Israel license not just to defend itself but to impress on the Palestinians the hopelessness of their cause.
When, over a long period of time and with complete consistency, the Palestinians prove they accept Israel, negotiations can be re-opened and the issues of the past decade -- borders, resources, armaments, sanctities, residential rights -- be taken up anew. The sooner we adopt the right policies, the sooner that will be.


Published: Sunday, September 14 , 2003

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor



Maybe if people read this quote, they'll understand why the current Israeli decision is wrong. I couldn't have said any better Ge

Spiffor, GePaps quote is the ideal . The reality is that the Pals don't have the power to remove him due to the power structure he sits atop of. To much influence, power, and money keep him from being challenged. He is the only voice that gets heard among the shouting.

IF you wish to continue with the notion that peace as long as he is there is impossible; then you have to undertake a way of removing him that does not in fact make him central to everything. IN essence, it has to be the palestinians who remove Arafat for his influence to end; any other way will fail. So ask yourself, how do we get the Palestinians to, instead of showing uip by the thousand to rally around this guy, to say: Arafat was the pas, we don;t want you anymore, good bye.

If this is the only way to sucess, then there will be no peace until he passes on. Arafat has spent 40+ years dedicated to the destruction of Israel. When peace looked him in the face, he funnelled arms and hate to his people. He has no capacity to govern in peace...he is a terrorist-PLAIN AND SIMPLE. If he was the head of any other terrorist organization in the world then he would be long dead or hiding deep in some backwater cave.

For once, you guys, recognize the reality of this man and not the ideal that you want him to be. The rest of the world is beginning to see the light...

[Ned]

Hoping the Palestinians remove Arafat is almost as naive as Bush I's hope that the Iraqi's remove Saddam. It cannot happen, as Plato said, because no Palestinian has the power to do so - and because there is no democracy in Palestine.

Even the thought that the Palestinians remove Arafat by themselves illustrates how hopelessly naive (or mendacious, you pick) the left is.

[lord of the mark]

from Ha'aretz

"In the government's final weeks, there was a severe, overt crisis of leadership between Abbas and Arafat. To clarify how peripheral an entity the government had become, Abbas told a story to illustrate his helplessness vis-a-vis Arafat, and Arafat's cruelty to him. Abbas said
that after the bombing in Jerusalem, Arafat held a meeting of the PLO Central Committee, a body from which he had resigned earlier, at which two proposals were raised. One, by Nabil Sha'ath, was that Arafat name General Nasser Yussef as his deputy, in the framework of his position as chief of the Palestinian forces, and that Yussef coordinate the activity of all
forces; the second was that Yussef be named interior minister and put in charge of national security effectively replacing Mohammed Dahlan]. "Nabil Sha'ath came to me with these two proposals and presented them to me. I told him `they are both acceptable to me' without discussion or argument. Sha'ath left, and phoned me 15 minutes later to say that Arafat refuses and is not prepared to accept preconditions from Abu Mazen. "

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Its the details that Arafat had to go back with: and in general he would have ben crucified had he gone back even with that deal anyhow.

As I said before, if demographics it the worry the jewish state is screwed as is, without a single refugee going back.

See, this is what gets me: "with Arafat, peace is impossible". Proof? That he turned down the 2000 deal and chose terror. Fine answer, but it leads to this question: Would any other Pal leader have chosen the route to take that deal back and try to sell it not only to the pals. in the occupied territories but the refugee camps outside as well? remmebr their being a lot of talk abou how Barak would have a hard time getting that deal approved by the Israeli public: never saw much about Arafat perhaps having problems selling it to the Pal public: I guess the much lesser political freedoms of the pals. made the question moot, no? My guess is that both peoples would have rejected several of the particualrs agreed to in late 2000.

According to Dennis Ross, both Abu Mazen and Abu Ala were shocked and angered that Arafat turned down the deal.

And of course he had other options aside from accepting the deal or turning to terror. He could have rejected it and made a counter proposal, used political pressure, etc. Instead he chose terror.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
See, this is what gets me: "with Arafat, peace is impossible". Proof? That he turned down the 2000 deal and chose terror. Fine answer, but it leads to this question: Would any other Pal leader have chosen the route to take that deal back and try to sell it not only to the pals. in the occupied territories but the refugee camps outside as well? remmebr their being a lot of talk abou how Barak would have a hard time getting that deal approved by the Israeli public: never saw much about Arafat perhaps having problems selling it to the Pal public: .

'The Palestinians cannot be expected to make decisions that will lead to peace if they are being fed misinformation. For example, Ross said the Clinton-Barak proposal that offered the Palestinians a two-state solution with 98 percent of the West Bank, areas of East Jerusalem and a $30 billion dollar fund for resettlement, never reached the ears of the Palestinians in its correct form, because Arafat downplayed the benefits and altered numbers and facts to suit his needs. "The public never heard what was on the table," Ross said, a distortion "that indicates that maybe it wasn't such a bad deal after all."'

[Sirotnikov]

LOTM, I would like the source to record on my comp.

[Dinner]

It's to bad the Israelis can't have Arafat run over by a bus and make it look like an accident.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
LOTM, I would like the source to record on my comp.

Ross on Arafat and Abu Mazen