Just when I was hoping that peace could be at our sights....

Az · April 14, 2003, 03:18

Arafat Rejects new Abu Mazen Cabinet

Just when things started to look the way I was hoping, Sharon pledging to remove settlments, and Palestinians willingly surrendering weaponary in Jericho, the new palestinian government, full of reforms, is being torpedoed by Arafat.

Just as the Roadmap for Peace is about to be published ( though of course, with Israeli complaints

)...

damn.

Shi Huangdi · April 14, 2003, 03:21

Well, Arafat has once against ****ed over the Palestinians....

gsmoove23 · April 14, 2003, 03:28

Its hardly a brick wall, more likely a bump. Time will tell.

Master Zen · April 14, 2003, 03:57

I'm no fan of Israeli policy, but Arafat is IMO the biggest obstacle to Palestinian freedom. The guy should just go, his time is over, he has shown to be a good rebel, but a poor manager.

gsmoove23 · April 14, 2003, 04:00

I think these words have much more dire implications for peace...

Quote:

Haaretz Interview with Ariel Sharon

Haaretz - What are the main reservations?

Ariel Sharon - "The main issue is security. How terror will be handled. There is no difference of opinion in this matter but there is a difference in the wording.

The second matter is that of the implementation of the stages. Our understanding with the United States is that the will be no transition from one stage to the next without the completion of the previous stage. The determining factor is not the timetable but the execution. That is why the issue of the stages is of paramount importance to us.

Our third reservation concerns the right of return. This definitely poses a problem.

H - Is your willingness to recognize a Palestinian state conditional on the Palestinians backing down from their demand for the right of return?

A - "If there is ever to be an end to the conflict the Palestinians must recognize the Jewish people's right to a homeland and the existence of an independent Jewish state in the homeland of the Jewish people. I feel that this is a condition for what is called an end to the conflict. This is not a simple thing. Even in the agreements we signed with Egypt and Jordan this was impossible. That is why they did bring about an end to the conflict. They are important agreements, very important, but they did not bring about an end to the conflict. The end of the conflict will come only with the arrival of the recognition of the Jewish people's right to its homeland.

H - That has to do with the end of the process. But do you think that the compromise on the right of return has to come beforehand?

A - This issue must be clear right from the outset.

H - Would you be willing, perhaps as a gesture to the Americans, to freeze construction in the settlements or to evacuate illegal outposts as part of the first stage?

A - "That is a sensitive issue. In the final stage of negotiations it will be brought up for discussion. We don't have to deal with it just now."

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages...ID=0&listSrc=Y

Az · April 14, 2003, 04:04

what's so dire about that? he doesn't want to talk about it, because hawks bug him, so he'll put a lid on it for now.

Urban Ranger · April 14, 2003, 04:43

There are people more hawkish than Ariel Sharon

Az · April 14, 2003, 04:47

Ariel Sharon is not a hawk, he's a shrewd politician. He tries to get as good a deal for Israel as possible, but I don't think he has actual great ideological leaning, except the best for the state of Israel. of course, in an enviroment of competition, that means a ****ed up deal for the palestinians.

DanielXY · April 14, 2003, 04:56

In other words he is not the right person for diplomatic stuff = unlikly to achieve a favorable result. No?

Urban Ranger · April 14, 2003, 04:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Ariel Sharon is not a hawk, he's a shrewd politician. He tries to get as good a deal for Israel as possible, but I don't think he has actual great ideological leaning, except the best for the state of Israel. of course, in an enviroment of competition, that means a ****ed up deal for the palestinians.

You serious? He didn't start as a politician, he started as a general or something.

Az · April 14, 2003, 05:04

actually, from the Israeli pov, he's just the right type of person for dimplomatic stuff. He has allied himself with the US, and in the meanwhile, tried to pursuit policies that suited Israel against the palestinians. He knows, though, that Israel cannot rule over the palestinians, as he said in that interview, so he's just going for as good a deal, as possible, and in the same time, stemming all palestinian hopes for the destruction of Israel, by making a brick wall on the right of return to Israel, and demanding an end to conflict as a part of the final peace plan.

I consider the palestinians' future too, so I think he's going too far in his demands, but he's definetly trying to get the best deal for Israel.

Az · April 14, 2003, 05:12

Quote:

You serious? He didn't start as a politician, he started as a general or something.

Last time I heard, people don't start as generals, they usually start as soldiers.

Seriously, though, being in the army doesn't make one an idiological "settler". Settlers are very often at odds with the military, and the military establishment is not interested in the settlements nor it was their ideological parent.

Also, the guy was in politics for more than 25 years now. He's a very smooth player. If there is one thing I cannot forgive him is his lying to the Begin in the 80s.

The Mad Monk · April 14, 2003, 05:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

You serious? He didn't start as a politician, he started as a general or something.

You have to remember, unlike most arab leaders, Sharon was legitimately elected. That implies that a lot of Israelis support his policies, or he would be out. If you remove him (as so many here would like to see), the electorate would send up another like him.

You can change a dictatorship's policies by removing the dictator. You can't change a democracy's policies the same way.

DanielXY · April 14, 2003, 05:15

Hm, so you really dont want someone else as head of state?

The Mad Monk · April 14, 2003, 05:20

I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that folks are fooling themselves if they think that Israeli policy is only because of Sharon, and that if only Sharon would go away, all would be right with the world.

You have to convince Israel's citizens that there is a better way, and you won't do that by trying Sharon for war crimes in the Hague, or assasinating him, or otherwise forcibly removing him from power.

The Mad Monk · April 14, 2003, 05:27

You also won't do that by blowing up Israeli buses.

Archaic · April 14, 2003, 05:47

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk You have to remember, unlike most arab leaders, Sharon was legitimately elected.

Legitimately elected dispite the fact that the UN condemned him as the architect of the widely reviled Sabra and Shatile refugee camp massacres two decades ago. Not exactly the person I'd want in charge of *any* government.

The Mad Monk · April 14, 2003, 06:27

You are missing the point. You don't get to pick him, the Israeli voters do, and if he wasn't available, they would pick Netanyahu (sp?), or someone similar.

DanielXY · April 14, 2003, 06:56

@Azael
Sure he wants the best for the Israeli ppl., but thats not the point.
I define a good diplomat as someone, who actually gets agreements with the other site about all that fine stuff he is thinking of.
Sharon seems unlikly to achieve an agreement. To get agreements you often have to compromise. Sharon is not exactly the guy with much space for compromise

Thats why I say he is certainly not the one you want for Diplomatic stuff.

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 07:01

Quote:

You have to remember, unlike most arab leaders, Sharon was legitimately elected.

So was Arafat...

However, the best thing for Palestine would probably be for Arafat to go. Not because of Arafat himself, but because it would take away one of the biggest stalling tactics in Sharons repertoire. I have no doubt that if Arafat died today Sharon would make the exact same arguments about his succesor, but I hope that american voters would have to be incredibly naive to buy it a second time...

The Mad Monk · April 14, 2003, 07:15

Quote:

So was Arafat...

...when?

Edan · April 14, 2003, 07:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

You serious? He didn't start as a politician, he started as a general or something.

You mean like Rabin? And Washington? And Eisenhower?

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 07:41

Quote:

...when?

Januari 1996.

Sava · April 14, 2003, 08:15

Ahh yes, Arafat was as legitimately elected as Saddam.

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 08:19

How is it the old parable goes? "Better to be silent and thought an idiot..."

Anyway. I suggest reading newspapers on a daily basis. Arafat's election was certified by the Carter Foundation, on the request of the UN.

Sava · April 14, 2003, 08:20

So we're going to listen to Jimmy Carter now?

You should take your own advice.

Eli · April 14, 2003, 08:31

Quote:

You serious? He didn't start as a politician, he started as a general or something.

Half of the Israeli parliament/goverment are generals, including most of the dovish opposition leaders.

Kropotkin · April 14, 2003, 08:35

My opinion on the Sharon interview: It seemed to good to be true and maybe it is. Looking at the phrases he uses on the demand side of it seems to me to make pretty much any demands on the palestinians possible. To have the cake and eat it too of sorts.

I have serious problems seeing any real positive development in this as long as both Arafat and Sharon has substancial power.

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 08:41

Funny, Siro tried the exact same thing, but with abysmal lack of success...

What reason do you have to not believe Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center? Please include a reliable source, as quotes taken out of context doesn't add much...

Also note that the Carter Center has plenty of experience in overseeing elections. In 2002 alone it monitored elections in East Timor, Sierra Leone, Kenya and Jamaica.

Kropotkin · April 14, 2003, 08:47

As for the elections, here's a longer quote from www.freedomhouse.org that's to be considered a conservative american institute that monitors democracy and freedom in the world:

Quote:

Palestinian residents of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem chose their first popularly elected government in 1996. Despite some irregularities, international observers regarded the vote as reasonably reflective of the will of the voters. The legislative council has complained of being marginalized by executive authority; though it has debated hundreds of draft laws, few have been signed into law. The Palestinian government indefinitely postponed local elections in May 1998, citing the threat of Israeli interference. However, most believe that democratic municipal elections would reflect widespread Palestinian disillusionment both with the Oslo accords and with Yasir Arafat’s leadership.