Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jill who wrote (6033)	10/18/2001 4:34:05 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

I have a friend who has worked in this field for 40 years who only half jokingly said Sharon himself probably ordered the assassination, to stop the peace process No need, the Palestinians are quite stupid enough to do their own killings. But Sharon will take advantage of the opportunity.

To: Jill who wrote (6033)	10/18/2001 5:09:07 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

There was good op-ed column from the Jerusalem Post today comparing Ben-Gurion and Arafat. Note: the "Altalena" refers to a ship carrying arms and volunteers for the Irgun that approached Tel Aviv in June 1948. Ben-Gurion ordered the Altalena turned over to the regular army. When Menachim Begin refused, Ben-Gurion had the ship sunk. Here's an except from the column: Ben-Gurion was never caught hailing his rivals' battle glory, nor pretending to be friends with people he actually hated. "I am not going to his funeral," he said when begged to pay last respects to his arch-rival Levi Eshkol, "and as far as I am concerned he can also not come to mine." In Arafat's case this attitude, not to mention the Altalena precedent, would entail a major clampdown that would make it plain the Palestinian Authority will tolerate no challenge to its authority, no matter the source, method or identity of its perpetrators. Arafat, however, has consistently refused to confront his real opposition, namely Islamic militancy, beginning with his pronouncement in 1993 in a South African mosque that his signature on the Oslo Accords should not be binding in the long term, through his hailing in 1996 of suicide bomber Yihye Ayash ("we are all suicides"), all the way to his consistent refusal these days even to merely arrest the militants opposite him, let alone talk to them through a cannon barrel, as Ben-Gurion did in his time. There is a reason for this gap. Surely, it may also be in the realm of personality: Arafat is essentially a weak man who thrives on maneuvering to please everyone rather than standing alone even when it means provoking everyone. Yet the real difference between him and Ben-Gurion is not psychological, but ideological. The former spent a lifetime building a state, the latter spent decades ramming into one. State building the way Ben-Gurion understood that task was never Arafat's thing. When it came time for Arafat to take the generous aid packages the rich world offered him on a silver platter and finally give his destitute people a life, he looked at the mobs behind him, turned his back at history's calling, followed the fanatics' lead, and squandered the opportunity to deliver prosperity and build a state.

To: Jill who wrote (6033)	10/18/2001 5:15:04 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I have a friend who has worked in this field for 40 years who only half jokingly said Sharon himself probably ordered the assassination, to stop the peace process As Nadine suggests, there are plenty of groups out there ready to distrupt things so no need for Sharon to play such tricks. Hopefully we can leave that to Tom Clancy. The situation and conjunction with the US war on terrorists has put Arafat into the final bind he can probably not escape from - "route out all terrorists and those who harbor them". Sharon / Israel leadership must be delighted, its now much harder to deny them moral authority to hunt terror down. What do PFLP or other such groups gain with Arafat out of the picture? Are they simply looking for more effective leadership? Or completely different goals? Is there a moderate, progressive Palestinian leader out there, ready to take the lead, who's lead will be followed, if Arafat is gone? If there isn't, then maybe that means something.