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.
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.
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.
Can you guys not see that this situation calls for caution, finesse, and back channel negotiations? Bombastic rhetoric will only bring HARM TO ISRAEL. 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.
ALSO...regarding the Israeli government. Peres has threatened to withdraw from the government if Arafat is targeted. 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.
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.
Also, the Israeli government obviously knows what Arafat is. For the Administration to say that because Arafat talks a good game, he is not in the "Hard Core Terrorist" camp is not good policy, in my opinion. The president should simply say that Israel has evidence that Arafat is a terrorist and that the American policy is not to interfere in Israel's sovereign right to self-defence.
This reminds me of the movie "Platoon". The gum-chewing sergeant with a three day old stubble says "Excuses are like _________; everybody got one."
Excuses. Excuses. Now look what the foreign press reports. Imagine this in Israel and among others who have looked to us for an unprecedented, comprehensive attack on WORLD TERRORISM EVERYWHERE, as the centerpiece of the Administration and second to no other issue.
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