Ok I agree it would still be a free election but voters would know that by voting for Arafat they’d be closing off another avenue.
I am probably putting to much of a western view on how these elections would work BTW.
There is only one thing I’m certain of and that’s that I’m glad I live where I do and not anywhere near there.
In order for that to occur they would have to provide something other than the same vague assurances that they would renounce terrorism. You’re asking both the US and Israel to make large concessions while offering nothing? What concrete promises have been offered by any Palestinian faction? What assurances are there that if promises to stop suicide bombings are made they will (or can) be kept?
"You’re asking both the US and Israel to make large concessions while offering nothing? "
Oh nonsense. I am saying that if you expect fundamental reform from the Palestinians and a big crack-down on the terrorists you have to provide them with something more than detail-free assurances of some kind of state. There is no question of expecting the US make big concessions without getting nothing; in fact it is the Palestinians who are being expected to do that.
You remain conveniently silent about any role that Sharon has played in damaging the peace process.
While not a Sharon fan I’d say he’s been remarkably restrained recently, especially considering that the Palestinians have been repeatedly taunting a far superior military power. The incursions into Palestinian territories have been temporary and followed by immediate withdrawals, as he stated would happen.
The bottom line is that he has shown a willingness to come to the table, hehas made his (IMO fairly reasonable) demands clear, and has shown that he will honor his side of the deal if reciprocation is shown.
WTF are you talking about?
Remarkably restrained? There have been more than 1500 Palestinians killed ,thrice the number of Israelis, and many of them have been civilians. (And no, euphemisms like “collateral damage” doesn’t bring those people back)
Immediate withdrawls? The last major attack lasted more than a month.
Willingness to come to the table? His idea of a Palestinian “state” is,like I said, a Bantustan over 60-70% of the W Bank and even that comes after a ten- twenty year period IIRC.
Add to that the gratuitous settlements and the indiscriminate attacks on the very PA forces who are supposed to control terrorism and you have a big part of the problem.
And that 1500 number could easily be 5 times that if the Israelis showed no restraint. The Palestinians are trying to launch a war from civillian quarters (a UN run refugee camp) against an enemy with far superior firepower. To do so and then complain that you’re taking on large numbers of casualties and the civilians you’re hiding amongst are dying seems pretty myopic to me.
And the PA that was “supposed to control terrorism” never did. The IDF didn’t make them irrelevant, they made themselves irrelevant.
I don’t think “remarkable restraint” is the same thing as not killing as many people as you can. The Palestinians and Hezbollah could also kill many more Israelis especially if they used their rockets. There is some deterrence working on both side both from the other side and the international community.
“And the PA that was “supposed to control terrorism” never did.”
Both sides broke commitments made during Oslo; it’s silly to blame one side. The whole mess is far more complicated than you seem to understand.
Really? Which Oslo commitments did Israel break?
I think the main reason rockets have not been used is fear of reprisals, not the international community. Why would the rocket attacks be more abhorrent to the international community than schoolyard attacks, bombings on Passover, et. al.?
December,
They broke several deadlines for the phased withdrawls stipulated in Oslo.
Mojo,
IIRC the US put major pressure on Hejbullah (via Syria) at the time of the major Israeli offensive a couple of months back. So for both sides there is a combination of deterrence and international pressure at work.
Hmm. I thought this comment was interesting. While I think both parties are making valid points this is really the rub of it. You are right Mojo when you say that the numbers could be much much higher if Israel showed no restraint. But let me ask you a question. What percentage of Palestinians are terrorists? I will take a totally off the wall guss and sat one in 4, though I honestly believe that number to be unreasonably high and in truth have no basis for that guess. But for the sake of this exercise lets use that one OK?
If that number is correct then we are still talking about a 75% innocent bystander mortality rate. You see that is the point here. This war is not about armies or uniforms on either side, and it never could be (unless you think that Israel would allow Palestine to create a standing Army?) I suspect not.
Either way this is tragic and ‘we can argue the whose fault it is that civilians are dieing’ philosophy, but what is the other choice for these people?
I am really curious as to what the issues are that cause this, or what people think can be done about it?
Chris
The UK Guardian wasn’t impressed. JDM
curious what other international dopers say. The few Europeans I’ve been in contact with are just outraged that Bush thinks he can dictate the leadership of the Palestinians. So, am I for that matter, but just curious what the Europeans on this board think. Obviously the above Guardian link was not complementary.
I’m pretty hacked off that Bush demands a new Palestinian leader. Amazingly enough, so is Tony Blair. Its unusual for him to show any principles, especially when it means putting himself at odds with the US.
He’s in danger of undoing all that hard work toadying up to Bush for the last year!
Since when is he dictating who the new PA leader will be? He’s jst dictating the terms of statehood. And since the alternative to this is, as I see it, pointless bloodshed for yaesr to come, I say to hell with Arafat.
According to this story, Bush’s hand was basically forced on the matter. And I will reiterate- I don’t see how this is “dictating” the leadership of the Palestinians. I think this view is shared by others, including Hosni Mubarek.
JDM, The BBC had a different take on Blair’s reaction.
Bush essentially said “The Palestinians must elect a new leader, and it cannot be Arafat.” Aside from the sheer arrogance and hypocrisy of it (“We support democratically-elected leaders except when it’s someone we dislike”), it takes away the Palestinians’ most popular choice (assuming he is widely supported by the people, as some claim). And it’s also rather obvious that Bush would not be in favor of any other Palestinian leader who shares Arafat’s views.
Bush might as well have said “The Palestinians must elect a leader who’s willing to toady up to the United States” – it’d have been essentially the same thing…
Bush essentially said “The Palestinians must elect a new leader, and it cannot be Arafat.” Aside from the sheer arrogance and hypocrisy of it (“We support democratically-elected leaders except when it’s someone we dislike”), it takes away the Palestinians’ most popular choice (assuming he is widely supported by the people, as some claim). And it’s also rather obvious that Bush would not be in favor of any other Palestinian leader who shares Arafat’s views.
Bush might as well have said “The Palestinians must elect a leader who’s willing to toady up to the United States” – it’d have been essentially the same thing…
www.Stratfor.com has had some interesting things to say on the matter, but they only post 1 free article per day.
Bush has offered a vision without a roadmap that might get one from point A to point B.
i.e. “What Scylla said”.
Why does the Bush admin do this? Let’s recall that GWB’s primary focus is directed at Iraq and Al Qaida. The Saudi’s threw a spanner in the works by floating their peace plan earlier this year. GWB responds by creating the appearance of moving forward for a Palestinian state, while taking steps to ensure that any Palestinian that cooperates with the effort will appear as a US lackey to his countrymen.
With the Palestinian issue disposed of, GWB can focus on tracing Al Qaida’s links to the desert kingdom. The US can also plot out military action against Iraq, something that the Saudis have no interest in.
(What has always been unclear to me is where the US plans to attack Iraq from. Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Iran? (yuk yuk) The water? In particular, I’m wondering about the tactical military issues of invading Iraq with only tepid Saudi support.)
Stepping outside of Stratfor’s analysis, I’ll note that the Bush speech appeared to contain some wiggle room. He did not explicitly call for Arafat’s ouster, but rather for “new leadership”. Politics in the Mideast has always been rather fluid. One can hope that a diplomatic fudge might allow for a somewhat reformed PA, with Arafat remaining as the titular head. But maybe I’m whistling into the wind.
Prediction/Educated Guess. Feel free to write it down and see if it happens:
If this whole Palestinian statehood thing actually goes through, Bush will be removed from office, be it assassination or natural death or failure to get re-elected.
I will not expound upon the reasons I believe this will happen. Just remember that you heard it here first 