Just when I was hoping that peace could be at our sights.... - Page 2

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 08:49

Quote:

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

Well, if only because Israel has managed to convince the world that Arafat can't be trusted. Arafat is a pragmatic man - peace is his only chance to stay in power.

SpencerH · April 14, 2003, 08:53

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Januari 1996.

So, an election 8 years ago still seems valid to you? Hitler had the same electoral legitimacy.

SpencerH · April 14, 2003, 08:57

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Arafat is a pragmatic man - peace is his only chance to stay in power.

Just a short while ago, similarly-minded pundits were posting the same thing here about Saddam Hussein.

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 08:58

Kroppie, is there a search function on that site? I clicked on the "Palestinian Authority" link in the upper right corner, but I couldn't find your quote.

Az · April 14, 2003, 09:00

Quote:

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.

since when does the expressed opinion of a bunch of interested nations became true?

Edan · April 14, 2003, 09:03

Quote:

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

You do realize that it was Sharon who convinced Begin that it was worth evacuating the settlements in exchange for peace with Egypt during the Camp David peace talks, right? Or was that not a favorable result?

Az · April 14, 2003, 09:05

from a clearly utilitarian pov, it was a grave crime, btw.

These lands now lay abandoned. They could thrive.

Oerdin · April 14, 2003, 09:06

Arafat has always been a roadblock to peace and he will always be a roadblock to peace. He could have signed a permanent peace treaty any time in the last five years but he's always-torpedoed peace every chance he's gotten. Why? Because he's not interested in peace; he's interested first in being absolute dictator of the Palestinians and second, deep down, he still believes that Israel can be destroyed demographically if he just keeps delaying peace indefinitely.

As long as Arafat remains the dictator of the Palestinians then the Palestinians will remain a people on the wrong side of history.

Oerdin · April 14, 2003, 09:09

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Januari 1996.

We're talking about real elections not fancied up Arab "elections" where the opposition gets no air time on the media and where thugs brutalize anyone who dares to speak out against the dictator.

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 09:10

Quote:

So, an election 8 years ago still seems valid to you? Hitler had the same electoral legitimacy.

If the nation is effectively occupied after the last election, of course.

For example, Johan Nygaardsvold was democratically elected in 1938, and was Prime Minister of Norway (partly in exile) until 1945. That's 7 years. Yet he was clearly the democratically elected leader elected.

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 09:12

Quote:

Arafat has always been a roadblock to peace and he will always be a roadblock to peace. He could have signed a permanent peace treaty any time in the last five years but he's always-torpedoed peace every chance he's gotten. Why? Because he's not interested in peace; he's interested first in being absolute dictator of the Palestinians and second, deep down, he still believes that Israel can be destroyed demographically if he just keeps delaying peace indefinitely.

Yeah, right... Who is it that is currently working incredibly hard to kill the soon-to-be-announced peace plan, and who has agreed to accept the plan without any changes?

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 09:14

Spenser:

Quote:

Just a short while ago, similarly-minded pundits were posting the same thing here about Saddam Hussein.

Who, exactly?

I was under the impression that Saddam would give up his WMD's, as the only way to stay in power. Lo anc behold, that's exactly what he did, apparently.

So who are the "pundits", exactly?

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 09:15

Oerdin:

Quote:

We're talking about real elections not fancied up Arab "elections" where the opposition gets no air time on the media and where thugs brutalize anyone who dares to speak out against the dictator.

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.

Oerdin · April 14, 2003, 09:19

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Yeah, right... Who is it that is currently working incredibly hard to kill the soon-to-be-announced peace plan, and who has agreed to accept the plan without any changes?

Publicly Arafat always says he'll accept what ever peace plan is put forward by the Americans but some how he always finds objections to signing the treaty when it is time to do so. What is important is what he does not what he says he'll do.

The guy is a serial liar.

Oerdin · April 14, 2003, 09:23

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Oerdin:

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.

I obviously read papers more often then you do since I can remember the Carter Foundation certify that the election before last in Zimbabwe was relatively free from the typical ballot stuffing.

Of course what the foundation didn't talk about was how Mugube only let the opposition run their ads on state radio late at night when no one else was listening.

Oerdin · April 14, 2003, 09:24

Carter is a very nice man and no one questions that he wants to do good in the world but he often sees what he wants to see instead of what is really there. That's why he made such a bad President.

SpencerH · April 14, 2003, 09:25

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

If the nation is effectively occupied after the last election, of course.

For example, Johan Nygaardsvold was democratically elected in 1938, and was Prime Minister of Norway (partly in exile) until 1945. That's 7 years. Yet he was clearly the democratically elected leader elected.

Point taken. Unusual circumstances can alter the voting procedures within a country. The analogy between 'Palestine' and Norway is flawed however. The palestinians were not an established state in 1996, nor have their circumstances essentially changed in the intervening 8 years. If they could run legitimate elections in 1996 why not in (for example) 2000? The only reason they have not happened is to keep arafat in power.

Kropotkin · April 14, 2003, 09:32

Cybergnu: It's on the second page, look at the bottom.

Oerdin: Maybe you should read the entire quote. It says that the election itself was with some irregularites resonable. Not much worse than how the count votes in Florida. You can harldy compare it with a Iraqi election for example.

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 09:42

Spencer, to some extenct I agree with you, but what would the point be? Up until the second intifada started, Arafat would have won by a landslide, and afterwards the analogy is more than apt...

I'm not entierly sure what Arafats motivation was for canceling the elections in 1998. A plausible reason i've seen in print was that he didn't want to afford Israels occupation any legitimacy. What we do know for certain is that his popularity in 1998 was just as strong as in 1996, when he won by 88% of the votes.

Kropotkin · April 14, 2003, 09:46

And how do we know that for certain? And how about now?

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 09:59

Pollings reported in the NYT, for example?

Right now, I don't know. The palestinian struggle for independence has taken a backseat to the Iraq war... But I think I saw some piece a couple of months ago, on how unpredictable the current situation is... In the writers view, it all depended on the circumstances of the election. If the palestinian people saw the elections as a Israeli/US way of forcing Arafat out of power, he would win again. If no credible opponent could step forward, he would also win. but if someone with credibility stepped forward and ran on a corruption platform, he stood a good chance of losing.

Overall, I don't think there is any question about how much popularity he has lost since the beginning of the intifada II. He staked his political future on the remise that peace would give palestinian statehood, and he failed.

Kropotkin · April 14, 2003, 10:01

Do you have any link to this poll, and in particular any text that says something about how the poll was made.

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 10:07

Oerdin:

Quote:

obviously read papers more often then you do since I can remember the Carter Foundation certify that the election before last in Zimbabwe was relatively free from the typical ballot stuffing.

It is not the quantity of the papers that is important, it is the quality.

From the carter center:
Carter Center Issues Zimbabwe Post-Election Statement

Contact: Deanna Congileo 404-420-5108

7 Jul 2000

ATLANTA, GA…The Carter Center followed closely the political process leading up to the June 24-25 parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe. The Center sent a pre-election assessment mission to Zimbabwe in May 2000 and a two-person staff team to observe the final election period. That team was among many unaccredited international observers at the election.
The election process was fundamentally flawed by pre-election intimidation and violence against the opposition by ruling party militants with tacit or even active support from the government, as widely reported by credible international and domestic observers on the scene. Nonetheless, candidates from all parties campaigned actively and relative calm prevailed on the two days of balloting, although a significant number of voters were turned away and scattered reports of intimidation in rural areas were received.

Despite an electoral process that failed to meet international standards and by no means could be called free and fair, the opposition did make major gains; and the Center is pleased to note that all parties to the contest have remained peaceful following the polls. In a landmark event in Zimbabwe's political history, the parliament will reflect a true multiparty system. The turnout of voters demonstrated the aspirations of the Zimbabwean people to have a fully democratic electoral process.

The Carter Center applauds the efforts of numerous domestic and international observers who improved the voting environment despite the difficulties they faced in receiving accreditation, which in some cases was refused outright by the government despite earlier indications by the government that such groups would be welcomed. The Center also was impressed by the engagement of local civil society in the entire electoral process and encourages the government to work in good faith with these groups at every level of the democratic political process.

In the immediate post-electoral period, serious attention must be paid to accountability for the systematic acts of violence committed prior to the election. Such acts are unacceptable under any circumstances, but are particularly egregious when they subvert the democratic process and impair the voting rights of citizens. The government has expressed a willingness to investigate and prosecute those individuals responsible for the violence. Actions speak louder than words; and such action would work to overcome the widespread perception of a culture of impunity and demonstrate the government's commitment to the rule of law.

Many constructive recommendations for improving electoral processes have been offered by domestic and international organizations. In the aftermath of the elections, it is clear that Zimbabwe must move beyond the events of the past few months and establish an open and free political environment if the country is to address successfully the serious economic and political challenges Zimbabwe faces. This is a serious responsibility not only of the government but also of the ruling party, the opposition party, and civil society organizations. The well-being of the nation depends on it.

http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc....3&submenu=news

gsmoove23 · April 14, 2003, 10:09

Why are we talking about elections in the territories. Nobody wants this, elections right now would bring Hamas into office or someone worse. You'd get exactly what your getting in Israel right now, someone not willing to offer any compromise.

As for Sharon, everyones ecstatic that he opened the possibility of abandoning settlements, what he said was he was open to the idea of abandoning SOME ISOLATED settlements, whoopee. As for everything else he has still not moved an inch. He has issues with 13 - 15 points in the roadmap and he requires that palestinians completely give up the right of return (not even offering any room for bringing it down to compensation, he said the palestinians must give it up before he even comes to the table). Even worse, accepting Israel exists and has a right to exist isn't enough. Now they have to "recognize the Jewish people's right to a homeland and the existence of an independent Jewish state in the homeland of the Jewish people" and "this issue must be clear right from the outset." So Palestinians have to become zionists?

The man isn't getting the best deal for his people, hes perpetuating terrorism.

Imran Siddiqui · April 14, 2003, 10:13

I can't understand what people have against the 'Carter Center'. Do people actually think Jimmy is reading every ballot?! I mean, come on.

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 10:16

Imran, it's just another way of fighting reality...

CyberGnu · April 14, 2003, 10:21

gsmoove:

Quote:

The man isn't getting the best deal for his people, hes perpetuating terrorism.

Depends on your values, doesn't it? The settlers certainly believes that sacrificing less than a 1000 isralis to avoid a peace settlement is worth it...

And until the israeli people decides that stealing more land is not worth all thus suffering, the only way to peace will be through external pressure...