Posted on 04/01/2002 8:35:41 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo
Thank you for the comments.
If you will look at the statement by Fleischer, it explicitly states WHY Arafat is being treated differently, and it is because he entered into negotiations with Israel.
Arasplat has been involved in some level of negotiations at almost every point during the last twenty years. All this has bought anyone is more grief than we quantify. How long must we grant him special status as he continues to and mame civilians in Israel?
Has he stopped the indoctrination of children to become martyrs for Allah? Has he stopped the calls for a second genocide for Jews to rival that of WWII? Has he stopped the training, arming, planning and execution of terrorism against Israel? Ask youself. Where is this headed? Do you see this escalating or cooling off? What direction has it been heading in for decades? Why do you think that would ever change under Arasplat?
Now, let us say that we declare him a terrorist, for the purpose of your argument. Then you have said you will not negotiate with him, and in fact we will, by our
definition, be obliged to attack.
Yep!
Suppose Arafat is removed, either by accident or on purpose. Who will we have to exert ANY sort of leadership in an area riddled with Hamas and Hezbollah? Answer: we will have no one.
We might not. And how would that compare with what we have now? As it is we have nobody to negotiate with.
Meanwhile, off to the east, is Iraq, with a huge standing army, weapons of mass destruction, and the desire to look like the big cheese to the Arab world.
Frankly a move by Iraq would justify the action we're going to have to take anyway.
Can you guys not see that this situation calls for caution, finesse, and back channel negotiations? Miss Marple, can you honestly not see that this has been tried for the last twenty plus years. What part of, "This simply hasn't paid off." do you not understand? Enough is enough. What makes you think Arasplat will change now, as opposed to any time in the last fifty years? Bombastic rhetoric will only bring HARM TO ISRAEL. Labeling Arasplat for what he is, is not bombastic. It's accurate and honest. Personally, if I were an Israeli I would not like to have Bush shooting off cowboy comments to please the right wing of his party, but rather working firmly and behind the scenes to get something accomplished. Since when is telling the truth and addressing reality Cowboy behavior? Was President Ronald Reagan a cowboy because he labeled the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire"? No. And when he stood up and called a spade a spade, the logjam started to right itself. We will NEVER make progress as long as we refuse to address reality.
ALSO...regarding the Israeli government. Peres has threatened to withdraw from the government if Arafat is targeted. Peres is a notorious dove. I think it's shameful that he defends Arasplat in this manner. In essense he is defending Arasplat in deference to his own citizens. I find that unconcionable. He can bring the government down by withdrawing, as they are a colation parliamentary government. It is sort of like Daschle's stranglehold on the Senate, except imagine Daschle getting to veto foreign policy as well, and also having the power to call an immediate election. Yes he can, but isn't a reason to side with him. His acts and comments should be trashed on their merits, not used as an excuse for inaction. If he's stupid enough to carry those beliefs into an election, he's going to do his party more harm than he could ever imagine. Israelis are solidly behind Sharon and his determination to take this issue to the Palestinians, finally!
I don't for one minute think that Bush is naive about Arafat. You will notice he has yet to speak to the guy. Also, Bush has known Sharon since before he decided to run for the presidency.
In light of historical reference, I cannot back Bush in an attempt to deal further with Arasplat. I use that somewhat childish reference to Arasplat, because it signifies that I have finally reached the conclusion that he must go. Neither Sharon, Bush, the UN, the EU or middle-easterners should back a man who is willing to kill women and children. How could you ever trust him? The Moslem population in Indonesia is holding a series of meetings. Their first item on the agenda is to figure out how to refer to Arasplat. Even they are about evenly split on Arasplat being a terrorist.
Bush needs to get his policy makers together and develop a presentation that no half-way intelligent person could refute. Then he needs to get in front of the American public and the world's media, and make the case for Arafat's removal. This isn't about screwing the Palestinians. Israel has not ruled out the Saudi Peace Plan. Arafat has displayed his inability to lead. Now it's time to deal with someone who will.
Arafat was, is, and always will be a lying butcher and terrorist. If this isn't evident by now, it never will be for some. What would it take for them? I have no idea. I can't think of much worse that he could do, other than take more lives at one time than he already has.
He's a terrorist. To state otherwise is to make one's self look embarassingly inept.
That's my take, and the reasons for it.
130 posted on 4/1/02 1:10 PM Pacific by Miss Marple
I'm sure the President wants to say "F--- it, let the Israelis kill all the bad guys they want." The problem is, we'd be hit with Arab Oil Embargo II. We import a higher percentage of our oil now than we did in the 1970s.
No, the first thing we need to do is to get our energy policy sorted out. Drilling in ANWR and getting new hybrid technologies in general use have to come first, then the big upraised middle finger.
Let's not put the cart before the horse.
That's right: One's physical location determines his reliability and intellectual ability.
Red Herring!. I was comparing Bush's National Security group to you, regardless of where you live.
Then take some World History and learn how many great minds have lived in exile from their home country!
So now you are telling us that not only Bush is a coward and an idiot but that you are a great mind. LOL
Beyond that, I'd seek another person to negotiate with. If the Palestinians didn't want to pursue that, I'd reoccupy the west bank and Gaza. I'd go door to door and disarm the whole of the two territories.
My tollerance for Palestinian terrorism is fast coming to an end. Lebanon, Syria and Jordan have had the same problems with the Palestinians in the past. Israel may have to expell them all from Gaze and the West Bank.
This has got to stop.
I would make a public speach in which I would address the Palestinians. I would state that as much as the Palestinains might find it hard to belive, I wanted peace and prosperity for them too. I'd state that on behalf of my nation I would be prepared to negotiate in good faith on all issues, settlements and territory to be included. But I would also state that we could no longer tollerate the terrorism.
I would state that one of two fates was going to befall the Palestinians. Either they would negotiate and obtain land and a free state, or they would be expelled from the West Bank never to return.
Then I'd follow through.
As with others I have supported him most on his war against terrorism. But even there he has gone soft on parts of that as well. He still, even now, will not close our borders. And now he refuses to recognize Arafat as Israel's Bin Laden, anotherwords a terrorist!
Sadly, Bush has matched or exceded all my predictions for going leftist. On most issues he has done exactly what Gore would have, or worse.
Since when it is America's interest to fight Israels war for them. If we are trying to prevent the situation from spinning out of control, you cant go around calling one of the parties you are attempting to motivate, a terrorist. Apparently, you want the situation to blow up so we can come to the rescue and bomb the hell out arabs everywhere.
The fact that the Bush spokesperson was putting out the story about the US not considering Arafat a terrorist prior to the news conference is significant. Apparently they wanted the story out there. They wanted one of the reporters to ask Bush that question. Why? Most logical reason to me is to communicate to Arafat that the only reason he's not being treated as a terrorist is his past willingness to negotiate. Given the fact he's not negotiating now, it should indicate to Arafat that he has to make a decision. Either stop the bombers and start talking or accept the fact that the US wont hold the Israelis back. It also gives bush cover for fact he did everything in his power to bring the two together and it was Arafat that rejected the peace process. Remember the challenge he gave to the Taliban?
You're not suggesting that we need proof that Arafat is a terrorist are you?
I think getting him out of Ramallah is a good move for the short term..this standoff isn't helping the Israelis.
I agree with your concern about oil embargo but it would be number three. We had one in 72 when Nixon was President and then one I think in 79 with Carter. You're right though, if an all out war breaks out between Israel and the PLO, the Saudis would cut oil production so fast our heads would spin. Of course an American in Tokyo's solution to that would likely be to bomb the hell out of the Saudis.
Franklin spent so much time overseas because he ran out of women to sleep with in this country. He made Clinton look like a pauper. Ever read his treatise on the sexual benefits of older women (and by that he meant older than himself). I.e. they were more appreciative.
Ben was a great mind. Fact that An American in Toyko is also an expatriot doesnt make him a great mind. More likely only third rate. His model of foreign policy is Mike Tyson.
Well, not recently anyway. They did kill some US diplomats a few years back, and their "subsidiares" have hijacked US aircraft in the past. They preach hate against the US now, mostly in Arabic though, so it's only a matter of time until one of their substantial number of folks in the US does something...rash, either under direct orders, or on it's own initiative.
While it's true that Old Ben was quite a ladies man, he certainly didn't have to bite any of those ladies on the lip. Nor did he rape any of them, nor AFAIK, use his official position, when he had one, to pressue them into sharing his bed. You certainly wouldn't have heard him saying "put some ice on it", had there been any ice available that is. By all accounts they flocked willingly to his bed. One wonders how many Franklin genes are spread throughout the Capitals of Europe. Although I wouldn't be suprised to find that many of those carrying those genes hadn't migrated to Amercia at one point or another, even if they didn't themselves know they were Franklins.
To keep their head warm. Those helmets were not for impact protection. They were more like fur lined leather hats with ear flaps, than a modern "brain bucket". Oh they might save a brusing in light turbuence, which would still be useful on your way to fly your aircraft into a ship.
I almost fell off my chair when I heard Bush say this today.
Some people just refused to see fat meat is greasy.
They only see and hear what they want. I regret that Bush made that statement for what ever reason he made it. Some of the terriorist that have been interviewed on some of the national news shows, say they get their orders from Arafat.
God bless the American people
That's true, but less from the region in question, percentage wise. We mostly import from Canada, Mexico, and places like Venezuella. Now the Japanese and Europeans are really dependent on the middle east. The Europeans less so now than in the past, due to North Sea and some oil from the former Soviet Bloc.
Right now the middle east suppliers need our money more than we need their oil. Besides, if they cut off our oil, we can cut off their food. See if they like eating petroleum by products.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.