[ganesha]

The reason he did not mention Arafat by name is because he does not have an alternative. Instead he wants to shift power from the executive to the legislative branch of government and then hold parliamentary elections.

The flaw in Bush's plan is that he is placing too much faith in democracy. President Bush made a noble and idealistic speech, but the Palestinians are going to vote on the basis of what they have been experiencing, and what they have experienced is a massive invasion of their territory. This will not result in moderation in voting behavior and there is a real chance that Hamas will win the upcoming elections.

In order to compete with Hamas and other radicals, Arafat will have to appear uncompromising which will hurt efforts to get him to crack down on terror. When the Israelis then continue to launch military incursions, it will reinforce the view that Arafat is not able to protect his people.

The reason that some Israelis are supporting this is that they are hoping that it will fail, and that when it fails they will have the green light to do what they want.

The fear that moderates will sell out the Palestinian cause will also motivate Palestinians to vote for the radicals.
It would make more sense to impose a solution and then ask the Palestinian people to vote on whether to approve it.

[lavrenti]

The only viable alternative to Arafat, sadly, is a guy named Bargouti. He organized a lot of the suicide bombings before being arrested in the April sweep.

There are, actually, four Palestines. One is the PA, the second the Hamas-dominated Gaza Strip, the third, Hizbulluh-controlled Lebanon and the last the ones who live in the United States, and even they are divided between Hamas-influenced jerks and the utterly cynical who tell everybody who ask they come from Sidon or Tyre.

Democracy? The Palestinians never had the experience. Not under the Turks, the Brits, the Jordanians, the IDF and certainly NOT under Arafat.

Yeah, they'll vote for Hamas and Hizbulluh.