arafat seems to be perceived to be a stumbling block for peace. didn't he win a nobel peace prize with rabin? was there peace during that time or no? i frankly don't recall. he is undeniably the most powerful and popular palestinian leader. even though he is obviously not doing much to rein in terror now, can any of his potential successors be expected to have anything resembling the degree of control he has over them? i simply don't understand what israel is trying to achieve by removing him from the negotiations. sure he's an unsavory character, but he's the man israel's got to work with. reminds me of some of china's tactics with taiwan. they keep reiterating their desire for peace and negotiations. but they refuse to meet with our popularly elected president and ruling party. they say they will only meet with a party who submits to the "one china" policy, an impossibility for the ruling party. this latest sharon move seems to be a grab for more bargaining chips before the next round of negotiations start (which i assume is coming up right after this war). china does this too. in between major summits with U.S., they always set a bunch of fires, like violating embargoes, imprisoning dissidents, starting trade disputes, etc. Then they use the bargaining chips to leave a vague impression of progress during the summit, while rarely relenting on core issues like human rights, taiwan, arms proliferation, north korea, etc. or is sharon doing just because he can?
The problem with Arafat is, there are the things he says in English, and the things he says in Arabic. His English face professes to be a man of peace, to be working toward reigning in the terror groups and contributing to a two state solution, arresting militants for crimes against Israel and begging for donations to help the Palestinian people. His Arabic face cheers on Hamas, calling the bombers martyrs. He calls for the destruction of Israel, releasing the militants he arrested just days or hours earlier. He pockets the money sent to help Palestine. No lasting peace is likely to exist with Arafat leading the Palestinians. King Hussein knew it, Sharon knows it, Clinton knew it (but didn't say much about it), and Bush sure as hell knows it.
Complete withdrawal is crazy. The UN now gives Israel the right to "defensible" borders, which the 1948 borders are not. The 1967 borders are the ones talked about today.
There is more similarity to Israel, IMO. Taiwan and Israel are both young democracies, yet their existence is always in question because of regimes who want to see their destruction.
Just wait 50 years. By then, Arabs will be running Israel, inshallah, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/18/181802.shtml I thought a large minority of congressional support for Israel is in the belief that a Jewish homeland in Israel is a precondition necessary for the second coming of Jesus, as per fundamentalist Christian reading of Revelations. (about 60-80 % of US is Christian and about 40% of that is fundamentalism from the "Salvation's Armies" link on the page :http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/ )
