SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : World Affairs Discussion

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ChinuSFO who wrote (39)7/1/2002 11:45:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 3959
 
It is important to ensure that the Palestenians do not vote Arafat back. And the US could have achieved this by remaining silent on the issue of Arafat

But Bush never mentioned Arafat -- just the need for a non-terrorist leadership. There's no getting around Arafat because Arafat has been permanently in place for forty years.

I am sure you caught Powell's interview on TV yesterday when he was directly asked if the US would refuse to deal with Arafat if he got elected

And Condi Rice was asked, and GW Bush was asked, etc., etc. When the press think they have a 'gotcha' question, they will ask it 5 million times of everybody they can lay their hands on. But Powell and Rice have not been backing down from Bush's speech; the message is the Palestinians can elect whom they please, but if it's Arafat, they can expect nothing from the US. That was a pleasant surprise. Steve den Beste has some good comments on the subject:

denbeste.nu

that person would have a problem controlling the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Hezbollah. It is they who are creating the problem. I wonder why the IDF is not targeting them and instead is just concentrating on the Ramallah.

Well, not they alone, I would submit. Besides, Arafat or somebody else, what does it matter? Arafat no longer controlls Hamas and Islamic Jihad. At the start of the intifadah he still more or less controlled them and could have put them down if he chose, but since then his position has weakened. Arafat never did control Hizbullah; they answer to Syria and Iran.

The IDF is very definitely going after Hamas this time around. Read the Israeli papers for details -- the IDF is in every city on the West Bank except for Jericho (no suicide bombers from Jericho) and Sharon has just about promised the invasion of Gaza soon. The Israelis just took out a head Hamas honcho with a rocket, Hamas is naturally vowing revenge, etc., etc.

I am sure the US and the EU would give their quiet OK if they did that. Instead they keep going after Arafat which to me is a waste of their time.

I think the OK has been given. The IDF is as active now as they were in April, but the coverage & attendant world outrage has stopped. Did you hear about the siege and destruction of the PA police headquarters in Hebron? That was about two days ago.

The Israeli pursuit of Arafat has a political, not a military objective -- to prove that he is no longer a legitimate peace partner, so that they are no longer pressured to hand him diplomatic concessions. Having Bush back them was a huge win, but they need to keep it up so that Foggy Bottom doesn't have a chance to revert US policy to diplomatic "evenhandedness" again.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext