What's the big deal? - Bush's call to get rid of Arafat is just common sense

Toronto Sun ^ | July 2, 2002 | Peter worthington

[Clive]

What is it about President George W. Bush's "vision" for Palestine that seems to have some people in a knot?

It's understandable if Prime Minister Jean Chretien is miffed, since Bush kind of upstaged his "action plan" for Africa that is as pie-in-the-sky as Bush's vision for Mideast peace.

But why everyone else?

Some feel Bush's proposals for a Palestinian state are the most positive and decisive to come from an American president. Others feel it's all hogwash.

Frankly, it's hard to see what the fuss is all about.

Bush says, in effect - no, not "in effect," but categorically - that first, Yasser Arafat has got to go; that there's got to be something resembling democracy in any Palestinian state; that Israeli troops must quit the West Bank when other conditions are met.

Chretien echoes Bush - on condition that Palestinians elect their own leader, which isn't quite the same thing.

Bush wants to be rid of Arafat, and not just whupped in an election.

Bush's "vision" could easily become a nightmare.

It's not simply a question of Arafat being replaced as chairman of the Palestinian Authority, but of him being eliminated. As long as he's around - survives, in fact - Arafat will be a thorn in the flesh of democracy. Or, if not "democracy," then of any peace process.

It'd be a huge mistake for the U.S. or Israel to impose or choose who should lead Palestine, either before or after it has limited or probationary independence.

Just get rid of Arafat, and nature will take it's course. Leadership vacuums are always filled. No matter who or what succeeds Arafat, it will change the dynamics of the region, which is essential for progress.

Still, an autonomous Palestine would not be a democracy.

Name one Arab or Muslim state that's democratic, or subscribes to human rights? Morocco, sort of, and Jordan to a degree. At least they're sensible and no threat to peace, security or their neighbours. The rest are write-offs.

Some are encouraged that a U.S. president has spelled out that Arafat must go; others see it as interfering.

So what else is new? We - America, the West, most powerful countries - periodically and erratically dictate to other countries, not so much who their leader should be, but who their leader should not be.

We interfered in Yugoslavia, which posed no threat to any Western country, and decided its leader was a war criminal when, in fact, he was worse than others only in degree.

Our interference in the Balkans has screwed up the area and sown seeds for violence and instability for generations to come. Macedonia is next on the Albanian hit-list, aided by al-Qaida elements who've been active in Bosnia and Kosovo for years.

We tolerate a despot like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, whom our damnfool PM prevented sanctions against, and thus inadvertently condoned murder and rigged elections in that sorry country.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein has outlasted half a dozen U.S. presidents. Speculation simmers about his eventual fate, but his record of using poison gas and chemical weapons against Iran and Kurds seem sufficient reason to put him out of the world's misery.

Even though Israel isn't on the side of the angels, an irrefutable reality is that Israel wants, needs, hopes for peace.

Palestinian militants don't seek peace, they seek land and the killing of Israelis.

If polls are correct that 80% of Palestinians support suicide bombing, any "election" that replaces Arafat will likely be meaningless, especially if he still lurks behind the scenes.

Even in exile, Arafat would be a malignant influence, whose word means nothing.

Only when he's dead, will there be hope for change.

[Clive]

-

[Behind Liberal Lines]

The "big deal" is that it IS "common sense."