Arafat on CNN, and he is mad!

[Tim4319]

He is pissed! I have never seen him this upset. Once again, it is Bush's foreign policies and tactics, or lack thereof which is making things worse, especially over in the middle east.

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. He is mad.

You were right the first time.

[Q]

2. Bush* doesn't HAVE a foreign policy...

...he reads scripts and repeats phrases taught to him by his trainers. Kinda like Reagan.

[DarkPhenyx]

3. He ought to be pissed off.

Bush, Sharon, et. al. are once again screwing the Palistinian people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. They have the madman Arafat to thank for that

He could have negotiated and instead chose Intifada. He has refused to deal with terror and instead supports it, backs it and allows it to flourish.

[DarkPhenyx]

8. You don't negotiate with your opressor.

Particularly when that oppressor is lead by a terrorist. Before you twist my words, I am speaking of Isreal here BTW. Araffat probably feels that, with all the other deal broken by Isreal, there is little point in negotiating directly, and now the Bush Admin has fucked him as well.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. You don't negotiate with terrorists

Which leaves out Arafat and the entire Palestinian terror network.

[seventhson]

15. War is terror. Nations at war are terrorist nations. Israel, the US and ..

Arafat as well as his terrorist backers are ALL engaged in terror.

By its very nature war is designed to destroy the enemy people (including civilians) and their will to resist occupation or the taking of their property and resources.

You perspective is WHY more Israelis are dying just as this perspectivwe ia why more Americans are getting targeted and killed.

You must make peace with your enemies and in order to do that you MUST negotiate. Israel negotiates with its enemies all the time and it is smart to. It wants to save its peoples lives.

But to hang a "truism" out there that you cannot negotiate with terrorists is just blind to the reality that you cannot have peace without negotiation. Ever.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. That is a silly comment

There is a HUGE difference between war and terror.

You can't always make peace with your enemies. Sometimes you just have to eliminate them. Hamas for example. They have sworn to destroy Israel. You can't negotiate that away.

[seventhson]

43. And Israel has sworn to destroy Hamas. But it isn't working. You cannot

make peace EVER if both sides refuse to EVER give up their goal of total annihilation of the "enemy". The war can never end.

That is the Bush doctrine: Perpetual war.

Hamas, I believe, like Israel, can be brought to the table by pressure from the international community.

But as long as the two sides refuse to negotiate because "you can't negotiate with terrorists" the terror from both sides continues.

Any historian of war knows that the purpose of war is to destroy the will of the enemy through death and destruction. THAT is terror, and the blase platitude you cite only leads to more terror for the Israelis and no peace for anyone.

War is, by definition, terror.

Not silly at all. It is the truth.

[kentuck]

46. "eliminate" is such a scary word...

Just how far do you go?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[number6]

68. yeah what.

"There is a HUGE difference between war and terror."

the HUGE difference; in war you kill a lot more Innocent civilians

[number6]

67. War is terror,... Damn RIGHT

this is the truth period

[DarkPhenyx]

32. And the entirity of the Isreali leadership as well.

Funny how that works.

[ClintonTyree]

12. You can't blame it all...............

on Arafat. Israel could also have backed down on several key issues that would have made peace a reality. Instead, they stubbornly held on to their "principals" and share equally the lack of peace and security in the region.
It's never just one person's fault.
Clinton came close to stopping the hostilities. I believe if he had a few more months in his administration he would have made significant breakthroughs toward a lasting peace.
Then the Supreme Court selected the Krazy Kowboy to be pResident, and everything Clinton achieved went down the shitter.
Arafat is not saint, but to lay the blame entirely at his feet is just plain wrong in my opinion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. I don't blame it all on Arafat

The I/P disaster has a whole bunch of blame to share for everybody from the Palestinians and Israelis to the UN, U.S., EU, Arab world, etc.

Sorry, I don't believe Clinton came close to stopping the hostilities. You have to remember that many of the terror groups -- like Hamas -- have sworn to destroy Israel. They won't go away and lord knows, Arafat isn't doing anything about them.

[bowens43]

4. As he should be. Bush is a freaking disgarce.

Every day he works to make the world a more dangerous place.

[Robbien]

6. The Arab League is meeting this week to discuss this

BushCo already has them pissed off over Iraq. This is not going to be pretty.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Regardless of views, I hope politics isn't dictating policy: WP

Analysis
Move Could Help Bush Among Jewish Voters

By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 15, 2004; Page A16

....Domestically...the move could enable Bush to chip away a few more of the Jewish voters who have traditionally been loyal to Democrats. And in a tight election, the small minority of Jewish voters -- who tend to have strong turnout levels -- could give Bush an edge in battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"Given that Jews turn out at an 80 percent turnout rate, if you swing the Jewish vote 10 percent in Ohio, that could give you Ohio," said Nathan Diament, a lobbyist for the Orthodox Jewish movement. Though he believes Bush's motive is principle rather than politics, Diament also notes that the courting of Jewish donors -- hugely important to Democrats -- could aid the Republican Party....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12952-2004Apr14.html

[molly]

11. Most Jews are Dems

[LeahMira]

33. They are... but Democrats need to be on their toes here

Most Jews are Dems

True...56% are Democrats and only 13% are Republicans, but 26% are Independent. Those Independent voters are the group that needs to be courted (although most probably lean Democratic).

The strongest loyalty to Israel is found among traditional/orthodox Jews in the US. The more liberal congregations and those who self-identify as "secular" Jews do express a sense of attachment to Israel, but they tend to respond "agree" or "slightly disagree" to questions that are designed to probe that element of Jewish identity. They won't "strongly disagree" with statements like "American Jews and Israeli Jews share a common destiny" but they also don't "strongly agree" as often as the traditional/orthodox do.

There is a knee-jerk sort of response, though, perhaps illustrated by a local event that I happened to attend a few years ago. In election years our JCC and Hadassah group co-sponsor a candidate's debate. I happened to be sitting next to an elderly Jewish woman. Senator Joe Biden was running against a Republican candidate who is known to be of the far right persuasion. The incumbent (Joe) spoke first, and then, in the course of his remarks when his turn came, the Republican candidate mentioned his strong love for the State of Israel. Immediately, the lady next to me "stage whispered" that this Republican was the only one among all the candidates who had mentioned Israel, and so he had her vote. Not a bit of concern about the candidate's other positions, which included criticism of many of the issues that Jews traditionally support... all she heard was that he was supportive of Israel. BTW, the candidates had not been asked to address Israel. They had been given five or six other issues to address in their remarks. The Republican candidate had brought Israel into the discussion on his own.

[terrya]

9. How much longer can this country be an honest broker in the Mideast?

We're getting to the point...if we haven't gotten there already....where the Palestinians won't trust the United States to act as an honest broker for both sides. We're getting to be seen as acting solely in Israel's interests in the Mideast. This announcement of our change of policy regarding the West Bank settlements is nothing but trouble. This will further stir up anti-American hatred over there.

Bush is pandering to the Jewish vote over here by doing this. Election year politics. But that's the last thing we should be doing in this volitile situation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. For the record

The Palestinians sided with our enemies TWICE in the Gulf wars. Not just Gulf II, but even Gulf I where even the Syrians were allied to the U.S.

So, we are definitely NOT on the same page with their leadership.

[Avalux]

18. They have no leadership

they are not a state; they are nothing but a people oppressed and controlled. Forget it's Israelis and Palestinians for a moment. If you look at the situation objectively, everything the Palestinians do is out of desperation - the Israelis have the tanks and guns and power. There is no right and wrong side in the whole mess.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Arafat is their leader, like it or not

There is a right and wrong to terrorism. Arafat backs terrorism.

[rman]

39. there's also right and wrong to occupation. the US backs occupation.

and there's a right and wrong to resistance.

[Nihil]

21. Out of interest ...

How often has America sided with the Palestinians?
(I mean the American administration here, not individual Americans like
Rachel Corrie, posters here, etc.).

I can't recall any major occasions where there has been a clear
statement of support (i.e., > 50:50, fence sitting) for the Palestinian
side at the cost of the Israeli side.

(No sarcasm this time, I genuinely would like to know.)

Thanks,

Nihil

[keithyboy]

30. They sided with their people. We were attacking Arab nations WITHOUT

just cause. Just because!

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Gulf I was just cause

Not just because. Even Arab nations sided with us. Pretty much the whole world did, except Arafat and the PA.

[mike_c]

58. nor should we be at present....

They're right. We're wrong, as is Israel.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

17. Okay....that didn't work......time to go to war....

How many times have we heard, he turned down the deal of a lifetime? Therefore, we shall never deal again. We shall declare war and destroy our enemies because.....

[JohnLocke]

20. Arafat is a terrorist. He's mad? Get me my fiddle.

Boo friggin' hoo.

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:
:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:

[kentuck]

22. Right. Let's kill 'em all....that'll teach him.

Next time we make an offer, he'd better accept. If he says "no", there are no second chances. We will destroy them all. Wipe them off the face of the earth. We have no other choice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. You seem alone in that view

Israel is certainly not wiping out anybody.

[kentuck]

28. No. Of course not.

The entire Arab world is pissed for absolutely no reason. It's just hatred they are born with...

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. If the entire Arab world thinks Israel is "wiping out" the Palestinians

then they certainly have no evidence for that claim.

[Avalux]

34. They're not wiping them out

just keeping them down and treating them as if they're subhuman.

[rman]

47. ah, "wiping out" is not "killing"?

-

[JohnLocke]

24. Who said that?

Next time we make an offer, he'd better accept.
Well, when he was offered all of the Gaza Strip and 98% of the West Bank, he didn't accept. So, yes.

If he says "no", there are no second chances. We will destroy them all. Wipe them off the face of the earth. We have no other choice.
Nice hyberbole. You're real witty. :eyes:

[kentuck]

29. Attempted mind control will get you nowhere..

:)

[JohnLocke]

36. So you make a comment like "you wanna kill 'em all" and won't justify it.

:eyes::eyes:

[kentuck]

38. I said "us" - not "you"...

Why should you take it so personally? Are you an Israeli?

[JohnLocke]

60. No, I'm an American who hates to see an ally slandered.

[Darranar]

64. Um...

Arafat was never offered 98% of the West Bank.

[AskAlice]

25. Arafat has always been mad

His support of terrorism is proof.

[Avalux]

26. Sharon is right there with him then

that guy gives me the willies. I don't think I need to list his history of atrocities for you.

[LeahMira]

44. This is true...

Sharon is right there with him then...
that guy gives me the willies. I don't think I need to list his history of atrocities for you.

Sharon is as bad for Israel as Bush is for the US. There are differences, of course, but there are also many similarities in the situations, including the fact that both have backing from "fundamentalist" constituencies... Sharon probably out of some necessity because Israel's Knesset is more like Parliament than like Congress, but Sharon is also essentially as much of a bully as Bush is by nature.

At the same time, Arafat knows that if he signs a peace treaty with Israel and a Palestinian State of any sort is established, it will be the last thing he does in his life and he might as well paint a target on his person right then and there. The Palestinians as a group will grumble, but will be glad for their independence. Hamas, Hizbollah, and a few other folks, however, simply do not want Israel there at all and will never settle for any agreement that acknowledges the Israeli state... for a lot of the same kinds of reasons that bin Laden claims that he wants Americans out of the Middle East.

[JohnLocke]

27. Welcome to DU, AskAlice!

:toast::yourock::toast::yourock::toast:

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

71. should have knocked on wood

.

[oneighty]

35. If Israel had had a strong anti-immigration policy

perhaps these problems would never have developed in the first place. Not to mention nation building by the victors of WW two.

180

[LeahMira]

51. Huh?

If Israel had had a strong anti-immigration policy...

Israel was established as a homeland for Jews. Anyone who is Jewish, from anywhere in the world, is welcomed into Israel. It would be a contradiction if Israel were to restrict Jewish immigration into the Jewish state.

OTOH, if you're talking about Arab-Israelis, there are many of those who are citizens of the State of Israel. Admittedly, theirs is a hybrid sort of status... they are walking in two worlds... but they are accorded the benefits of citizenship and represented in the Knesset. They don't seem to want to toss their fates in with that of the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank at all.

[oneighty]

53. Yes.

That is what I said. My nephew went to live there for a while. A real fruit cake. I have another friend went there to live in a commune-how very romantic, another strange one. Neither had any business there. Fortunately for the Palestinians they moved back to The US of A.

180

[theboss]

56. I assume you feel the same way about Arabs or Asians in the US

They have no business living here either, right?

[oneighty]

59. Seems to me

Our government is moving in the direction; keep the "Undesirables out".

And no, I personally do not care who comes into this country or Israel either for that matter.

I am a helpless observer as are most of us in this world, a leaf in the wind.

180

[kentuck]

37. I simply cannot accept the argument that.....

since they turned down the "best offer" they could ever hope to get, we have no choice but to resort to force. Stop talking. Stop negotiating. Because they will only continue their terroristic ways anyway. Therefore we have no choice. Sorry, I don't buy that rationale.

I think Bill Clinton was making great progress. Just because he did not get an affirmative from both sides should not have ended the process. It should have been the beginning of the process. It seems that some people, including our esteemed leader and Sharon of Israel, look to war as the first option, not the last. Just my opinion...

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

48. Please explain "Likud enablers"???

They were being offered a lot - including land - best I recollect. Please enlighten us.

[Malikshah]

61. Here ya go.

http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/books_ME/Camp_David_Negotiations.html

http://www.mideastjournal.com/campdavid.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

(Malley, not O'Malley-- my mistake)

Before anything can be done to fix the situation-- we all need to find out what exactly went down and stop perpetuating myths.

[LeahMira]

55. Please tell YOUR thoughts...

The Camp David II myths must end here and now.

Understood. There is definitely misinformation about Camp David and about who walked away first.

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0205/article/020512b.html

"Prime Ministers Begin, Shamir, and Netanyahu pursued failure as a strategic
objective—pretending to negotiate while seeking to destroy any prospects for a two-state
solution. Their supposed efforts to achieve peace with the Palestinians—meaning addressing
the key questions of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, and refugees—resemble a
mountain-climbing expedition whose leaders are afraid of heights, but won't admit it. These
were "expeditions" that never left the base camp.

"Prime Ministers Rabin, Peres, and Barak (again in the first half of his brief tenure in office) did
negotiate with the Palestinians at Oslo (after suffering a painful rise in Palestinian violence
against Israelis in 1993), but avoided the key issues. They ensured failure by strategic error.
Each hoped to use time and fact creation to produce a phony Palestinian state, one that would
be as comfortable for Israel as possible regardless of its consequences for the requirements
of the Palestinians. They avoided tackling the key problems, deferring them for the "permanent
status" talks. They were mountain-climbers who left the base camp but circled the mountain
rather than seeking to ascend it.

"But late in 1999 Barak changed his policy. He made proposals flawed in the details of their
substance and presentation, yet representing a real basis for moving toward a two-state
solution. He contributed to failure, not by strategic error but by tactical blunder, a fact clearly
apparent from the success of Israeli-Palestinian talks at Taba just a few months after Camp
David II. Once Barak abandoned traditional Israeli demands for sovereignty over Muslim holy
places, for keeping existing settlements, and for a West Bank divided into more than one
hundred Palestinian pieces, virtually all the main issues were resolved, leaving negotiators just
a few months from an agreement. Unlike any Israeli leader before him, Barak actually led the
expedition up the mountain, though he failed to reach the top."


That said... What are your thoughts on the Geneva Accord?

[Malikshah]

62. Alas, for Sharon

All the post Camp David II talks etc. went out the window when Sharon decided to stir the hornet's nest.

Barak's made public statements repudiating later talks as he knew he was on the way out.

Guess Sharon won...just like Bibi did.

Master puppet players, those two.

[0007]

57. Clinton had stopped most all terrorism between Israel and Palestine

Since junior, we all know the outcome.

Sharon isn't even respected by his own people.

[theboss]

40. Oh, F him

Arafat is little more than a gangster. The fact that he has been the face of the Palestinian people for 30 years is probably the main reason they still don't have a state.

He's been given more opportunities to help his people than I can count and has never made the right decision. Mainly because he personally benefits from the current situation. The few times he's actually attemtpted to be an administrator as opposed to a guerrilla fighter, he has failed miserably.

And for the record, I support the creation of a Palestinian state and am far from happy with Sharon.

But Clinton's biggest failing in the Middle East was that he attempted to elevate Arafat to respectibility.

[kentuck]

41. One wonders why so many of his own people respect him....

We all know he is a gangster and a terrorist???

[seventhson]

45. Same can be said honestly of Sharon and Bush

the whole lot of them are gangsters and terrorists.

And support for all three of them is mostly media manufactured and false.

[kentuck]

50. The world is being led by gangsters....

Bush, Sharon, and Arafat are only three of them.

[mseltzer]

63. Arafat has always

been a gangster ever since he moved back to the west bank in 1960s. Unfortunately, that's all he knows. He's a caricature of the old line "never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

He's killed americans, as well as protected the killers of americans, so pity for him is misplaced. If the europeans would finally give up on him, maybe the palestinians would toss him aside and present a respectable leader for others to deal with.

[DemonFighterLives]

52. Let me try

Ever since Bush stole power in the US, the situation has spiraled out of control.
Arafat is no great guy, but represents the Palestinians, like it or not.
Sharon and Israel have had many UN resolutions against them that the US has vetoed and virtually everyone ignores. Meanwhile Israel moves in more settlers and takes more turf.
I'm not sure how many resolutions have been issued to Palestinians.
I guess we are at the stage of the road map where Bush said the elections would get in the way.
Carter and Clinton had the right ideas!

[kentuck]

54. Perhaps the mods should move this thread before it gets out of hand?

We all understand the emotion that comes with this issue. It's too bad it cannot be discussed more rationally but....history gets in the way...and that is reality.

[Darranar]

65. I'm no fan of Arafat...

but he has every right to be mad.

[sushi]

70. I hope

Arafat, Sharon, and Bush will leave the stage in the near future, and I agree with you that Arafat has every right to be mad.

[gayboy]

74. yep they will exit soon...

and Arafat will not...

Why? well......theres 2 democratically elected leaders exiting...and 1 megalomaniac terrorist who never understood democracy staying......

...unless of course theres some kinda extra judicial intervention.....

[Darranar]

75. Bush was democraticallly elected? n/t

[JohnLocke]

76. LOL (nt).

[Jim Sagle]

72. Arafat ain't nuthin' but shit.

[gayboy]

73. he is pissed?

So who cares?

[walmartsucks]

77. And Arafat's opinion matters why?

Please refresh my memory. I forgot why anything he says should be taken with more than a grain of salt