Is Bush saying kill Arafat?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by paiktis22
None. Go bomb the south.

No. I live here. And I like it here.

[Sirotnikov]

While many people truely believe that the Bush administration is stupid... Not even this administration is stupid enough to think that a dead Arafat would be better than a live one. The last thing anybody needs right now is for Arafat to become a martyr for the cause.

I disagree.

Arafat will be a great martyr for the Palestinian cause. The new leaders would be able to put a picture of him above their seats, and then go on air saying how "Arafat always told me that he wanted this and that..." to justify any decision they make.

Pretty much what the Israeli Labor party does with Rabin's image.

The guy's gotta die off sometime or another. Given this is the case, why even talk of killing him? It was extremely stupid for the Israelis to do.

Two things.

First, I heard that his family grew to the age of 90 something. He's only ~80. Still young.

Second, it reminds me of a joke from communist Russia. A politician says about how he thinks the current party chairman is aging and ill. He is answered by a fellow politician: "Yes, the chairman might catch a cold on your funeral day".

Or something like that.

There was an interesting news article within the past week or two that said that Isreali forces were within a few hundred yards of capturing Arafat to either kill or exile him, but Bush administration officials stepped in with a strongly-worded message to the Isreali leaders demanding that they not take that step.

I think it's a load of booby. From everything I read, Sharon never inteded to take out Arafat at that time. The intention was to start preparing public opinion to accept the fact he'll be gone shortly.

From what I reckon the Israeli forces that have captured the place, are probably signal intelligence. The seal and rangers teams are probably still training somewhere.

If they kill Arafat, peace will be lost for years. Ironic really.

What possible reason on earth have you got to believe that Arafat is somehow in any way positively related to the idea of peace?

If my grim predictions are true, peace is already lost for years, and it has been lost ever since we signed the Oslo agreements, and it's all been a sherade.

If my predictions are not true, killing Arafat may actually allow more realistic people to the throne.

[chequita guevara]

Realistic politicians know that they can't sign away Palestine because they'll be lynched and the people won't except it. Like it or lump it, Arafat is the only Palestinian leader who can make a compromise, but he's not prepared to bend over and spread his cheeks like the Israelis want. Camp David was a ****ing insult to them and you gave them nothing at the most recent meeting. Until Israel's ready to compromise, there will never be peace.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Arafat will be a great martyr for the Palestinian cause. The new leaders would be able to put a picture of him above their seats, and then go on air saying how "Arafat always told me that he wanted this and that..." to justify any decision they make.

The point you have missed completely here is the context. Palestine is not the same as Israel. Furthermore, only Arafat has enough personal pull to bind the various factions together. Or at least has enough clout so they can talk.

If he's gone, kiss your collective arse goodbye.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
If my predictions are not true, killing Arafat may actually allow more realistic people to the throne.

You mean, wimps who bent over?

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara he's not prepared to bend over and spread his cheeks like the Israelis want.

Arafat isn't interested in peace, period.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
Arafat isn't interested in peace, period.

Then they need to give him a reason to be.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Then they need to give him a reason to be.

OK.

[chequita guevara]

That hasn't worked for 40 years. Why do you think it will now?


Maybe they should try dealing fairly with the Palestinians for once.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara That hasn't worked for 40 years. Why do you think it will now?

Well, Israel shouldn't have brought him in from Tunis.

But you'll note how Arafat is suddenly interested in setting up a ceasefire now that he's been warned? Same way Hamas suddenly became interested in a cease fire after Israel started to target Hamas' leadership....

Maybe they should try dealing fairly with the Palestinians for once.

Arafat got his shot - and yes, it was fair, to the point where Arafat's advisors wanted him to take Clinton's proposal. He just isn't interested in peace. Period.

[GePap]

To answer the thread question, NO.

Only the Pals. can effectively remove Arafat form significance: the Israeli and the US can't (their policies since July of 2002 show this).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
his advisors wanted him to take Clinton's proposal.

Clinton's proposal was a slap in the face. Even Arafat couldn't have taken that steaming pile back to the Palestinian people and expected to get away with it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
When did Palestine become a sovereign nation?

What are you talking about and how does it relate to what you quoted?

[Sirotnikov]

Realistic politicians know that they can't sign away Palestine because they'll be lynched and the people won't except it. Like it or lump it, Arafat is the only Palestinian leader who can make a compromise, but he's not prepared to bend over and spread his cheeks like the Israelis want. Camp David was a ****ing insult to them and you gave them nothing at the most recent meeting. Until Israel's ready to compromise, there will never be peace.

This is again nonsense.

To consider Camp David an insult is only an insult to your own intelligence.

If the Palestinians think that they can ever get significantly more than Camp David or Taba, they deserve being stateless.

I'm sorry, but giving the Palestinians between 95%-98% of the west bank and gaza, and land compensation in other areas, plus giving them rights above groun in the temple mount, is more than enough.

And if you are calling it "Arafat taking up the ass" then you should be sure that every palestinian would be glad to take it up the ass like that.

The point you have missed completely here is the context. Palestine is not the same as Israel. Furthermore, only Arafat has enough personal pull to bind the various factions together. Or at least has enough clout so they can talk.

If he's gone, kiss your collective arse goodbye.

The point you are missing is that Arafat is the only one who has enough personal pull to successfully orchestrate a voilent terrorist campaign against Israel.

The point you are missing that Arafat is not the only leader of out time. There are and will be others, but only when he is gone.

It is true that there can be no leader other than Arafat. But this is only true while Arafat exists. Once he is out of the picture, new leaders will arise.

To say that Arafat is the only leader the Palestinian people will ever have, is like people in the 40s thinking that if Stalin dies, there will be no more USSR.

[Sirotnikov]

To the lot of you who still think that Arafat was "taking it up the ass" in Camp David and Taba, here is a bit from an interview with Saudi ambassador Bandar, about what was going on behind the scenes during the peace process. This was originally published in the New Yorker.

Clinton, who continued to apply his considerable energy to finding a Middle East solution, came to believe, in December of 2000, that he had finally found a formula for peace; he asked once more for Bandar's help. Bandar's first reaction was not to get involved; the Syrian summit had failed, and talks between Barak and Arafat at Camp David, in July, had collapsed. But when Dennis Ross showed Bandar the President's talking papers Bandar recognized that in its newest iteration the peace plan was a remarkable development. It gave Arafat almost everything he wanted, including the return of about ninety-seven per cent of the land of the occupied territories; all of Jerusalem except the Jewish and Armenian quarters, with Jews preserving the right to worship at the Temple Mount; and a thirty-billion-dollar compensation fund.

Arafat told Crown Prince Abdullah that he wanted Bandar's help with the negotiations. "There's not much I can do unless Arafat is willing to understand that this is it," Bandar told the Crown Prince.

On January 2,2001, Bandar picked up Arafat at Andrews Air Force Base and reviewed the plan with him. Did he think he could get a better deal? Bandar asked. Did he prefer Sharon to Barak? he continued, referring to the upcoming election in Israel. Of course not, Arafat replied. Barak's negotiators were doves, Bandar went on, and said, "Since 1948, every time we've had something on the table we say no. Then we say yes. When we say yes, it's not on the table anymore. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn't it about time we say yes?" Bandar added, "We've always said to the Americans, 'Our red line is Jerusalem. You get us a deal that's O.K. on Jerusalem and we're going, too.'"

Arafat said that he understood, but still Bandar issued something of an ultimatum: "Let me tell you one more time. You have only two choices. Either you take this deal or we go to war. If you take this deal, we will all throw our weight behind you. If you don't take this deal, do you think anybody will go to war for you?" Arafat was silent. Bandar continued, "Let's start with the big country, Egypt. You think Egypt will go to war with you?" Arafat had had his problems with Egypt, too. No, he said. "I'll prove it to you, just to confirm," Bandar went on. Bandar called the Egyptian Ambassador. Bandar reported that the Egyptian Ambassador, who was to join them shortly, was willing to support the peace process. "Is Jordan going to go to war? Syria go to war? So, Mr. Arafat, what arc you losing?"

When Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian Ambassador, joined them, at the Ritz-Carlton, Bandar repeated much of his advice. Ararat said that he would accept Clinton's proposal, with one condition: he wanted Saudi Arabia and Egypt to give him political cover and support. Bandar and Fahmy assured him that they would, and Arafat left for the White House.

Arafat was supposed to return to Bandar's house after his meeting with Clinton and, with the Egyptian Ambassador present, call the Crown Prince and President Mubarak. After three hours, when Arafat still hadn't shown up, the Egyptian Ambassador told Bandar that something must have gone wrong. Bandar, too, was worried and called Arafat's security detail. Arafat had left the White I louse twenty minutes earlier, he was told, and was back at the Ritz. When Bandar called, Arafat said that he needed to talk to him at once. George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was on his way to the hotel to discuss the plan, and Arafat was then supposed to return to the White I louse. Bandar, accompanied by the Egyptian Ambassador, hurried to the Ritz.

Arafat said that the meeting with Clinton had been "excellent," but Bandar did not believe him; he thought that Arafat's staff looked as if they had just come from a funeral. The Egyptian Ambassador later privately remarked that Arafat looked dead. Bandar asked Arafat if he wanted to talk to the Crown Prince or President Mubarak. No, Arafat replied. He said that he'd had a great time with the President, but the meeting had turned sour when Dennis Ross joined them. Yet, he went on, he and Clinton were in agreement. Bandar, concealing his disbelief, said that was good news. Soon after this exchange, Bandar got a note from a security officer, which said, "Urgent. Call the President." In the corridor, Bandar called the White House and reached Berger. "Congratulations," Bandar said, loudly and sarcastically, for he knew by then that the talks had failed. On what? Berger asked. "Arafat is telling me you guys have a deal." Not true, Bcrgcr said, adding that he and Clinton had made it clear to Arafat that this was his last chance. Please, Berger said, tell Arafat that this is it. "It's too late," Bandar recalls saying. "That should have happened with the White House, not with me." (A spokesman for Clinton recalled, "At one point, [Clinton] said, 'It's five minutes to twelve, Mr. Chairman, and you are going to lose the best and maybe the only opportunity that your people will have to solve this problem on satisfactory grounds by not being able to make a decision.'... The Israelis accepted. They said they had reservations and Arafat never accepted.")

Bandar believed that the White I louse had hurt its cause by not pressing an ultimatum. Arafat, though, was committing a crime against the Palestinians - in fact, against the entire region. If it weren't so serious, Bandar thought, it would be a comedy. He returned to Arafat's room and sat down, trying to remember: "Make your words soft and sweet." Bandar began, "Mr. President, I want to be sure now. You're telling me you struck a deal?" When Arafat said it was so, Bandar, still hiding his fury, offered his congratulations. His wife and children were waiting for him in Aspen, he said, and he wanted to go. Bandar could see the life draining out of Arafat. He started to leave, then turned around. "I hope you remember, sir, what I told you. If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime." When Bandar looked at Arafat's staff, their faces showed incredulity.

The next evening, a White House spokesman said that Arafat had agreed to accept Clinton's proposals, with reservations, only as the basis for new talks. Arafat said later that he had not been offered as much as had been described. When Bandar told all this to the Crown Prince, Abdullah was surprised, particularly about the offer on Jerusalem. A few months later, Abdullah asked Clinton, who was visiting Saudi Arabia, whether Bandars description of the offer was correct. Clinton confirmed Bandar's details, and said that the failure of these last negotiations had broken his heart. Later still, the Crown Prince told Bandar he was shocked that Arafat had wasted such an opportunity, and that he had lied to him about the American offer. Bandar told associates that it was an open secret within the Arab world that Arafat was not truthful. But Arafat had them trapped: they couldn't separate the cause from the man, because if you attacked the man you attacked the cause. "Clinton, the bastard, really tried his best," Bandar told me last week when we met at his house in McLean."And Barak's position was so avant-garde that it was equal to Prime Minister Rabin" - Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated in November, 1995. "It broke my heart that Arafat did not take that offer."

Before the outcome of the 2000 election was settled, Bandar had asked George II. W. Bush to go pheasant shooting with him at an estate that he owns in England. It was to be a kind of Desert Storm reunion. **** Chcney had accepted; so had former Secretary of State James Baker, the former national-security adviser Brent Scowcroft, and General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander of the U.S. Central Command during the Gulf War. But when the shooting party arrived, on November 14th, Chcney had dropped out, as had Baker, who was in Florida managing the recount battle. A month later, when Al Gore conceded, Bandar felt that it was a victory not only for the Bush family but for Saudi Arabia. "Happy days arc here again," one of his aides said, almost singing the words, when I saw him at the Saudi Embassy shortly after Bush's Inauguration.

In Saudi Arabia, great things were ex pected of George W. Bush. He was the son of the American with the most iconic status in Saudi Arabia, and the team that he had assembled vis-a-vis the Middle East was considered first-rate: Powell, Cheney, and Tenet, a Clinton Administration holdover who had Bandar's endorsement. There were people with access to Bush who had deep experience in the region: his father, Scowcroft, James Baker.

But as violence in the Middle East intensified and Barak blamed Arafat for the failure of the peace talks, Bandar began to worry. The Arab world was watching Al Jazeera, the satellite television network, which was constantly showing images of Israeli soldiers and suffering Palestinians. Bandar understood as well as anyone why Bush did not want to get involved. It was a mess, and Bush made it clear that he had no prestige to waste. Bandar was particularly angry with Arafat because if he publicly defended Barak's account it would make him sound like an apologist for Barak and Israel. "I was there. I was a witness. I cannot lie," he said privately.

Ariel Sharon was elected in February of 2001, and, according to a Saudi source, Arafat later said that Sharon had sent his son to say that Barak's deal was off the table; Sharon, however, could envision a process whereby the Palestinians might end up with forty-five per-cent of the occupied territories, but not Jerusalem. Isn't that a great starting point? Arafat reportedly said. Bandar, when he heard that, was incredulous.

[Bereta_Eder]

So Siro, in no more than 150 words please, why do you think Israel issued that statement about expelling or killing Arafat since there is no way in carrying it out?

What message did it want to send and what to achieve?
Or do you think they didn't know it would be impossible?