I find it hard to believe that Arafat is really that cozy with extremist Islamic organizations. After all, they're withdrawing their support from him. Islamic Jihad, for instance, won't have anything to do with the guy, since they think he's compromised on too many issues. The man clearly isn't a saint. But the violence perpetrated by Israel has been state sponsored recently. Whether or not you believe it's justified, you can't deny that they've employed assassination and launched missiles against some extremely questionable targets. Sharon is also the person who's refusing to talk to Arafat, not the other way around. Maybe he would like peace, and simply doesn't believe Arafat will compromise. This could be the case. On the other hand, Sharon point-blank refused reasonable US requests that would have facilitated the peace effort (like abiding by certain agreements). Yet Bush was willing to meet with Sharon. It's Sharon who's avoiding Bush. Arafat is willing to meet to discuss peace initiatives. Even if they can't agree, does it really hurt to at least talk to the guy? Whatever you think of him personally, he still represents the best hope for a moderate, peaceful resolution of the issue on the Palestinian side. I'm afraid the administration's bias is showing. In the words of the immortal Winston Churchill, "jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war." Dialogue is only going to help in the long run. And it can't hurt. And even more important is the message it sends: it's clearly alienating towards Arabs. Even if Arafat ISN'T taking a hard-line stand on some terrorist groups, that's not how the world is going to perceive this issue. It's going to look like the American leader refusing to talk to one side while claiming to fairly arbitrate the issue. You know where we employed similar tactics? In our attempt to mediate between the KMT and the CCP in post-WW2 China. Know what resulted? Decades of suspicion and unnecessary distrust and the compromising of our strategic interests in Asia.
I also find this to be a fairly stupid tactic/action/measure to be taken by the U.S. I mean I don't pretend to know everything abou the ME situation nor do I know how hard Arafat really tries to get terrorists arrested, but I can't see how talking to him would hurt. I mean what point is proven by not talking; umm we don't feel your trying for peace so we'll stop trying too. I don't wanna hear that. As someone who has always found himself on the Israel side of this whole conflict, I must say I find myself liking Arafat more and more than Sharon everyday. Sharon seems to intent on going against every measure for peace and just being a hardass in general while Arafat (from the little I see or hear of him) seems to genuinely want there to be peace. Now knowing the little I do about his past, like you said he's no saint, but you might as well try to work out a peace agreement or talk about whatever they're going to talk about b/c the alternative gets us nowhere.
Last night I saw an interview with the former US Ambassador to the UN and she said she agreed with Bush's decision not to meet with Arafat and pointed out that Bill Clinton had more meetings at the White House with Arafat than any other foreign leader in the world. Those meetings between Clinton and Arafat led to nothing but more violence and the intifada. I think Bush and Connie Rice want Arafat to stop playing dumb and to start doing something about his little terrorist pals.
Haven, <A HREF="http://www.pna.net/search/TitleDetails.asp?txtDocID=544">We condemn all kinds of terror and welcome the USA declaration of a Palestinian state</A> <i>Date:10/16/01 The Palestinian Legislative Council, PLC, emphasized and reiterated its condemnation to all kind, sorts, shapes and forms of terror, especially the Israeli organized state terror against the Palestinian people including the assassination policy practiced against Palestinians. Through an official statement issued yesterday after their meeting held in Gaza and Ramallah simultaneously where they discussed the latest events, they praised the USA President’s position concerning the establishment of the Palestinian State. In their meeting they discussed the events on the International arena, especially the war in Afghanistan, and its reflections on the Middle East situation. They listened to a report about the One year old Intifada and its achievements. In conclusion they called on the Palestinians to maintain their unity and called on the International community to strongly pressure Israel in order to lift the siege and to return to the position before the Intifada broke out and to Implement the signed agreements and the Mitchell Recommendations and the Tenet understandings. </i> I would guess that the Bush administration expected a tit for tat from Arafat when Bush reiterated for a Palestinian state and expected a stronger statement from the Palestinians than was given. You mention that Arafat is losing support from the most extreme Islamic groups, so why didn't Hamas, PFLP etc get mentioned in the Palestinian statement above? From the article you quoted: <i> Erakat repeated the Palestinian call for an international conference on terrorism, differentiating between those "struggling for freedom" and those who inflict terror. </i> Evidently, the Palestinians don't regard the Islamic extremists as terrorists and that is what the Bush administration wants Arafat to change his mindset about. Would Arafat's life be in danger if he came out strongly against the extremists? Mango
Just a couple of points: Everyone seems to forget that Arafat was the bin Laden of the '70s. He was the PLO Chairman during that period, and in its heyday the PLO was far more active than Hamas or PFLP. There is a reason people are reluctant to deal with him. But he has really lost control over the Palestinian extremists, and to a large extent of even the Palestinian populace. He never 'controlled' Hamas in the first place, but he knows its leaders and used to have alot of influence with them. They now believe that he has abandoned their cause and no longer respect or listen to him. But he still knows who they are, and he could start arresting them as everyone has asked him to do, but that would probably clinch a death warrant for him. He is in a catch 22.
Once he's dead and someone who actually represents the Muslim and Palestinian views on this situation comes they'll realize how good they had it.
For once I agree with you, boy. Arafat is the best we're going to get, precisely because he's more conciliatory than the populace he represents is.
To paraphrase Treeman, Everyone seems to forget that Sharon was a terrorist in the 40's, 50.s, 60's and 70's. He provoked the present day intifada. In a more perfect world not only should he be turned over to Belgium and the Hague for war crimes, but he should be arrested by his own people for inciting a riot leading to the death of many innocent people in the present intifada. In the real world, like Arafat, if he can be useful in attaining peace he should remain free at present from charges. There is, however, a reason people are reluctant to deal with him. Mango, it is good to see you actually taking sides on an issue. Actually it would be quite useful to have a UN conference concerning the distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists. If the world could agree on the difference (doubtful) it might lead to much more rartionality, less excuses for real terrorism and the ability to fight real terrorists, both nongovernmental and state terrorists, including Iraq, Russia and the US and other countries, when applicable. As it is, unfortuanately, the word terrorist has lost much meaning. It is used frequently against your enemies and almost no level of violations will trigger the label of terrorism for your current allies. However as we can see in the case of Sadam Hussein, Noriegan and the Taliban it can be applied later to actions once people or countries are no longer your allies.
glynch: Please do a search and find where I said Sharon was a good guy? I have repeatedly said that he is a babykiller as well. But in this situation, he is - like Arafat - the one we've got to deal with. As for the distinction between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, that is easy: one intentionally targets civilians and the other doesn't. Try as you might glynch, you cannot paint the US and the Israelis as terrorists and the Palestinians, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban as freedom fighters (that is apparently your goal). The US is not training its soldiers to strap a bomb onto themselves and run into a pizzeria. The US is not training its soldiers to fire at school buses. The US is not training its soldiers to take over planes and fly them into buildings. The Israelis don't do any of these things either. How you could even remotely paint the Taliban as freedom fighters is completely beyond me. You are either a liar or an idiot to even suggest that. And before you say it, the Israelis don't intentionally target civilians. I defy you to find one incident in which the IDF purposefully targeted civilians. And Hamas leaders aren't civilians, glynch. And do you really want to try to convince me that Saddam Hussein isn't one of the world's leading terrorism supporters? Do you need to hear what they do at Salman Pak again? Do you really fail to understand how an undeclared biological weapons program has no deterrance value and can only be used as a terrorism arsenal?
glynch and I seem to have relatively close views on the topic. I think it's a complete mischaracterization to say that either of us believe that the US is engaging in terrorism. Or that the Palestinians are blameless. The primary thrust of my argument is twofold: 1. Israel is not conducting itself blamelessly at ALL and did much to provoke the current state of affairs. 2. It's a mistake to believe that everyone who blows up a bomb in a pizzeria is an evil, terrible person who simply loves to kill whoever he can; certain sociopolitical forces drove him to that degree of desperation.
I never said that Israel is blamess in all of this. The settlements must end (be removed, more accurately), and equal rights should be given to the Arabs living in Israel. I suspect that if a peace agreement is ever reached, the latter will happen, and the former must happen if there is ever to be an agreement. All I can say is that the Palestinians had better take the next deal. If they respond with more suicide bombers then there just might not be any Palestinians left when the dust clears. This is probably their last chance, and I hope they realize that. Sociopolitical forces? You mean being brainwashed? I hope that you're not trying to argue that there's some rational reason that these people are deciding to kill themselves and as many civilians as possible. There is nothing rational about that act, and the perpetrator must be brainwashed into thinking that (a) there is some afterlife where he will be rewarded, and (b) his death will have a positive impact as relates to his political goals. I can't speak for (a), but I guarantee you that the Palestinians have accomplished nothing but angering the Israelis (and the world in general) with their suicide tactics. They have accomplished nothing, and there is only one way to deal with someone who is so far gone that they would do it: kill them. These 'sociopolitical forces' you speak of can only be addressed at the table where the two sides can speak honestly. The suicide bombers are a result of 30 years' worth of mindless propaganda, nothing else. And the destruction of Israel will never be an agenda item at that table.
That's bull****. Anyone who blows up civilians in a pizzeria, or while they are at work, is an evil idiot. At that point, I don't give a d*mn what their beef is.
cohen: Ok, if you want to disagree with the overwhelming evidence of modern psychology, that's just fine with me. People's personalities are generally created, not set from the beginning. Chemical imbalances can certainly come into play... but at that point, it's a disease, not evil.
Go live in a UN camp and watch your parents who've lived there for ever die hungry. Watch your kids begging for food so finally when you find work in Israel cleaning streets you finally make enough money to make sure they have one meal a day. One day the Isrealis find out your Arab and your spit at and beat. You watch another person close to you die hungry and your brother arrested for 'throwing rocks' and tortured to death. You have no food or water. You have no home or hope. You aren't educated and have no alternative. What would you do?
haven -- so what?? so what if sociopolitical issues and viewpoints drove him to it?? is he/she any less a murderer? are they not still in want of justice?? targeting civilians is flat ass wrong, I don't care how you arrive at it. the targeting of civilians is one of the greatest acts of evil on this planet, i don't care what they psychologists say. i would agree with you that people's personalities are generally created and are not set from the beginning. personal experience has taught me that...but that doesn't justify or make any less evil the act. it is still their free-will which drives them. not everyone from the rosiest of backgrounds acts as a saint...not everyone from the worst of backgrounds acts as a demon. I disagree...i believe that people who target and murder other civilians are terrible people. I certainly don't want to sit down to dinner with them...I don't want them babysitting my son...I don't want to live next door to them. And if I knew someone did that, I'd turn their ass in so quickly it would make your head swim. You can make excuses for murderers all you want, but you'll find that's a pretty lonely road. I guess Glynch could keep you company.
madmax: I speak of prevention, not culpability. Quite frankly, the actual guilt of a few people is not of concern to me. Punitive justice does not interest me. Ensuring that such does not happen again, however, does. I was once told that the most errors were made because of an inability to think with subtlety. I didn't understand then. I do now. You repeatedly mischaracterize my statements. Whether this is malicious and willful or ignorant is beyond me.
Then tell the Arab and Islamic leaders (both here and in the ME) to stop blaming the US for every single wrong in the world. Tell them to stop deflecting blame for their own problems at us. Until their persistent anti-US and anti-Israel propaganda efforts cease, there will be suicide bombers. As long as they are still brainwashing their own people with that trash, there will be suicide bombers. That is out of our hands. They do not do what they do (suicide bombers) because of anything that we have actually done, but because of what they have been told that we have done. They do not do it because of our foreign policy, they do it because they have been told by their leaders that it's because of our foreign policy that they are having a bad hair day, or whatever they're angry about. That is out of our hands.
Who put those leaders in place? Tell American leaders to stop picking such morons to lead other countries.
boy: We put the Saudis in there decades ago, but the Royal Family chooses their own leaders and makes its own policy. We support Mubarak because he is willing to abide by the Camp David accords at his own expense. We support King Abdullah because he's a moderate who is also willing to make peace with the Jews (he's also basically an American). That's about it. Turkey doesn't count. They're secular, and for the most part European (economically, politically, and socially). Syria, Iran (yes, your beloved Persian Iran), Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Libya... These are the countries whose leaders we did not choose. They also happen to be a few countries that brainwash their young to hate us. Along with the Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians, of course... All of them do it. Every single government in the ME, not just the ones we support (although the ones we support should know better). You're Iranian, right boy?
