Powell: U.S. will respect electoral choice of Palestinian people

Ha'aretz Daily ^

[RCW2001]

w w w . h a a r e t z d a i l y . c o m

---

Powell: U.S. will respect electoral choice of Palestinian people

The United States will respect the electoral choice of the Palestinian people and, if they choose Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, "we will deal with the circumstances as we find them," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Tuesday.

U.S. President George W. Bush said in a speech on Monday that the Palestinians can have a state only if they choose a new leadership "not compromised by terror" - a policy widely interpreted as a call for the removal of Arafat. (Click here for analysis of the Bush speech.)

"The president and all of his advisors...decided it was the right thing to do for the United States to make the clear statement that the Palestinian people should elect new leadership," Powell told National Public Radio in an interview.

"It was reluctantly that we came to this conclusion, but it was the only conclusion we could come to," the secretary of state he added. He did not say when he came to that conclusion, but as recently as June 10 he told the Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat that Arafat should remain Palestinian leader until the Palestinian people choose otherwise.

"We are not in line with his (Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's) position that we should not work at all with Chairman Arafat," Powell added.

"We will see what they (the Palestinians) decide they want through these elections, and the United States will respect whatever they say as a people when these elections are held."

Asked what would happen if they re-elect Arafat, Powell said: "Well, we'll just have to see how that plays out. I mean, we will deal with the circumstances as we find them."

Powell told National Public Radio he would make a decision on whether to travel to the Middle East "in the days ahead."

"I'll be in contact with leaders in the region by telephone over the next several days and make an assessment of when I should return to the region and for what purpose, and so there is some work that has to be done before I return," he added.

Powell had been expected to go soon after Bush's speech and analysts said the delay in organizing a trip showed that the Bush administration has no plan for following through on the new Middle East policy.

Martin Indyk, a former assistant secretary of state and ambassador to Israel, said Powell clearly could not go to meet Arafat, so no other leading Palestinians would receive him.

"Whether the speech succeeds ... depends on the follow-through by the president and the secretary of state, and we don't have any indication of what form that will take."

Arafat: Only the Palestinians will decide who leads them
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat on Tuesday brushed off U.S. President George W. Bush's call for a new Palestinian leadership, saying it was up to Palestinians to decide the matter in elections.

The Palestinian leader was speaking after Bush made clear in a speech on Monday he had written off Arafat as part of any peace settlement, saying Palestinians must pick leaders "not compromised by terror" to achieve a state alongside Israel.

Asked for a response to Bush's call for a new leadership, Arafat told reporters: "This is what my people will decide. They are the only ones who can determine this."

Arafat, under international and internal pressure to reform the Palestinian Authority, said elections were necessary but he had not announced a date when they will be held. "We will respect all the principles the Palestinian people support."

He denied that Bush's remarks were directed against him. "He spoke about a Palestinian state and elections, and we consider our state will be democratic with the coming elections..."

EU's Solana: Palestinian people must choose their own leader
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Tuesday stopped short of backing Washington's call for the Palestinians to ditch Yasser Arafat. While not referring to the PA leader by name, Solana said it was up to the Palestinians to choose their own leaders. That call was echoed later in the day by a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Solana welcomed U.S. President George W. Bush's long-awaited Middle East policy speech as a sign of "renewed engagement" by Washington and said the EU shared with him the objective of two states living side by side in peace and security.

Despite U.S. misgivings, the 15-nation bloc has consistently stood behind Arafat as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

But Solana did not refer to the Palestinian chairman in his statement on Tuesday and said it was up to his people to choose their leaders.

Solana said an early international conference, as agreed
earlier this year by the United States, the EU, Russia and the United Nations, was now "more than ever necessary". Bush did not mention the peace conference in his speech.

_{By Nathan Guttman, Ha'aretz Correspondent, Ha'aretz Service and Agencies}

---

/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=179734

close window

[Illbay]

Excuse me, but what do you expect it to say?

"Powell Declares U.S. Will Veto Choice Of Palestinian People If It Does Not Meet With U.S. Approval"?

[rdf]

Excuse me, but what do you expect it to say?

"Powell Declares U.S. Will Veto Choice Of Palestinian People If It Does Not Meet With U.S. Approval"?

That would do just fine, and it would be in accord with the President's speech.

This is no game. If the Palestinians choose terror and lies, they will also choose civil war. If, that is, Mr. Bush means what he says.

As for Powell, I suggest a University Presidency ... one that espouses affirmative action.

Richard F.

[Illbay]

That would do just fine, and it would be in accord with the President's speech.

I see. Um, any other countries whose elections you think we ought to have veto-power over?

I mean, Israel/Palestinian isn't even OUR PROBLEM. Afghanistan WAS, and we didn't tell them who they could elect and who they couldn't.

FWIW, you're the PERFECT example of what I call an "Israel-sycophant." Somehow you think we're "directly involved" in that mess over there, when we're ONLY involved because of our unique status as friend to both Israel and most of the Arab states, and as the "world's only superpower".

I suspect that, if you were to sit down with Pres. Bush to chat about this for one hour, you'd come away feeling so angry and betrayed! You don't realize that he's trying to keep us OUT of this, where dopes like you want to plunge into it.

Weird.

[goldstategop]

I don't quite think that was what the President had in mind. Another reason the plan is already still born --- the devil is in the details and here its been undermined by Colon Bowell and the State Department. So much for Bush's pledge the U.S will not work with a leadership compromised by terror. Bowell's declaration is a practical invitation to the Palestinians to never get rid of Arafart. I mean Arafart rejects the Bush peace plan and no sooner he does than Bowell rewards him for it! Way to go Bowell!!!!!

[McGavin999]

Of course we will respect their choice. Bush already told them what he would do if they chose new leadership. He will press for a state, he will pledge American support for developing their infrastructure and their economy, he will help them enter into the world community.

He did NOT say what we would do if the people choose Arafat. It's a safe bet that we would not give them one dime of aid, we would not help them in any way to obtain the status of a state, and by their choosing to follow a terrorist, they would be publically declaring themselves to not only harbor terrorists, but would be terrorists themselves. I don't think it would take an awful lot of imagination to figure out what the results of that would be.

You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists. Palestinians, choose life!

[xvb]

**Powell: U.S. will respect electoral choice of Palestinian people

Wink wink. What will Arafat's FR sockpuppets do without their loverboy. o-;

[rmlew]

Did you complain when Bush SR. engineered the fall of the Shamir gov't and Clinton engineered the election of Barak?

[Illbay]

I'd be interested to have you explain to me how either case was "engineered" by a U.S. President. Did they send CIA operatives to bump off Israeli citizens by the thousands and steal their identities, then vote in their place?

Let me know, I'd really like to hear this.

[pgkdan]

The United States is at war with terrorists. PC considerations aside, we are at war with Islamic Terrorists. Arafat is an Islamic Terrorist. If the Palestinian people elect an Islamic Terrorist as their leader we should regard that as a hostile action and react accordingly.

Either we're serious about the war on terror or we're not.

[rmlew]

Bush withheld US funding and made it clear that Israel would only get it if LAbor were put in power. Teh joke is that the left still lost the vote, but the splits in the right (mostly caused by Israel's inaction during the Gulf war and later sycophancy to Bush) allowed the leftist parties to gain a plurality.

Clinton nmade clear his contempt for Netanyahu and had 2 democratic politicos go to Israel. Greenberg and Carville were open emmisaries to the Barak campaign.

[Illbay]

Labor are communists; Likud are fascists.

Some choice.

The only difference is, Likud does everything in its power to screw the U.S. when they're in.

[rmlew]

That's it. A party founded by classical liberals are fascists. Do you normally use leftist agitprop, or only on Israel?

The Likud party calls for lower taxes, deregulation, and property rights. Some fascists.