Is Bush saying kill Arafat?

[our_man]

Arafat may be bad for peace, but what's the alternative? People are suggesting that more moderate leaders will move in to fill in the vacuum once he's gone, but I cannot seeing this happen. None of the rest of the PLO are that popular - the only suggestion I've ever read about someone filling Arafat's place is Barghouti, and I don't know enough about the guy to say whether he would be good/bad. The point is moot though, as he's in jail at the moment.

If Arafat goes, the only ones who will benefit are Hamas. They'll move in to fill his role faster than you can say 'Allah Akhbar'. The PLO will lose it's popularity, and Israel will have no-one to negotiate with.

[Drake Tungsten]

God, Arafat is a stupid piece of ****...

[Sandman]

It's pointless removing Arafat without removing Sharon as well.

[Sirotnikov]

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?

1. We will rid of Arafat, probably by the end of 2003.

2. The message it means to send is that we will not tolerate members of the palestinian leadership who intentionally use terrorism as means of proxy-war - a pressure on the Israeli government for more concessions.

3. The intention is to weaken the ability of the Palestinains to conduct a terrorist campaign side by side with negociations. With Arafat gone, the new leader will not have a personality cult and thus will not be able to hold power alone, but will have to eminate his power from legal legitimacy.

4. The legal legitimacy would require his steps to be more transparent and governed by the people, instead of by his own wills. This will severely hamper any attempts by the Palestinian political leadership to support or legitimize terrorism, as it has been doing so far.

5. Such a leadership will have to face terrorism from Hamas, and will recieve all the help it needs from Israel, the US and the EU.

Actually, see my answer below to "our_man"

Arafat may be bad for peace, but what's the alternative? People are suggesting that more moderate leaders will move in to fill in the vacuum once he's gone, but I cannot seeing this happen. None of the rest of the PLO are that popular - the only suggestion I've ever read about someone filling Arafat's place is Barghouti, and I don't know enough about the guy to say whether he would be good/bad. The point is moot though, as he's in jail at the moment.

Just because the alterinative is not clear, doesn't mean that we should stick to a bad option.

The fact that no other leader is popular is good, because it means the leader won't be able to base his power on an absolute personality cult, and unlike Arafat, will be held accountable for his actions by the palestinian people.

This will require the new leaders to actually observe civil rights, laws, reduce corruption, and move on with the peace process.

While a good deal of palestinians support Hamas as a tool of "revenge", a good deal is quite tired of the intifada, and wishes to live peacefully. Something which went against the intifada plans, made by Arafat, as a sole leader.

If Arafat goes, the only ones who will benefit are Hamas. They'll move in to fill his role faster than you can say 'Allah Akhbar'. The PLO will lose it's popularity, and Israel will have no-one to negotiate with.

This is a popular myth cultivated by Arafat's spokesperson, to scare the westerners so that they won't dare remove him.

The Palestinain police and intelligence forces are over 40,000 strong.

Hamas is at it's most, several thousands strong.

The top reason, however, that there is widespread support for Hamas, is the Hamas welfare funds, which help the poor population, in contrast to the Palestinian government which is corrupt and uncaring.

Once Arafat is out of the picture, reforms will be able to take place, which will change that. One the Palestinian government will stop being corrupt and abusing, and once the EU and US aid-money will actually get to the people - the Palestinian government will present a real alterinative to Hamas because:

1) it will be a more moderte, less religious option.
2) it will offer prospects of peace, instead of a prolonged war with Israel, which the Pals can not win in the next... oh... 100 years.
3) it will offer much much more money to the Pals via welfare and so on. (US and EU will flood the Palestinian government with aid money, while they will cut the funds for Hamas).

See?