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


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30205)5/20/2002 11:09:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The NY Times reports on the Palestinian political situation, including new poll figures from Khalil Shikaki that show Arafat's popularity has dropped back to 36%. Why, I wonder, is Palestinian politics still unable to say, drop this guy, he's been a disaster?

As Arafat Critics Close In, Deputies Vie in the Wings
By JOHN KIFNER

RAMALLAH, West Bank, May 20 — Yasir Arafat, for decades the very personification of Palestinian aspirations, is now in deep trouble with his own people, according to Palestinian political analysts and Israeli intelligence officials who see his authority challenged by a younger generation of street leaders who grew up fighting Israeli occupation.

For now, the analysts say, Mr. Arafat is likely to remain at the helm, however weakened, because there is no alternative in sight.

But a potentially violent power struggle is building, pitting different generations of Palestinian fighters against each other and also setting at odds rival security chiefs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Both of the security chiefs, Jibril Rajoub in the West Bank and Muhammad Dahlan in Gaza, had extensive dealings with the Central Intelligence Agency and the Israelis after the Oslo accords led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.

Yet the consequence to Israel of either of them emerging triumphant is unclear. They, and other leaders gaining strength, like Marwan Barghouti, who is jailed in the West Bank, are adamant that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian territories. At the same time, their outlook has been affected by Israel's democracy rather than the authoritarian Arab governments familiar to Mr. Arafat and cohorts who shared exile with him in Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia.

Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor at the University of Chicago who has known Mr. Arafat since the 1970's, said he visited Mr. Arafat recently and found him battered not only by the Israeli siege that confined him to his headquarters here but also by the recent calls for reform.

"He's in trouble, there's no question about it," Mr. Khalidi said. "It's twilight. People are really angry and fed up."

Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster, said his surveys show a steady erosion of support for Mr. Arafat.

"He's never been under such pressure to change his ways," Mr. Shikaki said. "But nobody is putting forth an alternative, even the young guard. Essentially by default, he remains the leader."

Mr. Arafat has long played factions and subordinates off against one another while retaining sole control. In recent days, Palestinian officials said, he has had stormy meetings with top aides.

His promises of pending reform are being greeted with cynicism not only by Israelis but by many Palestinians.

The director of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi, told the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, "In recent weeks, the Palestinian population's feeling of revenge are directed at him.

"This is new and deep. They tell him, `The policy you led has destroyed our future state,' " the Israeli intelligence officer said.

Israel's incursion into the West Bank, in which whole cities were shut down and much property destroyed, further hardened Palestinians toward Israel, but it also showed them the weakness of the Palestinian Authority.

During the operation, Mr. Arafat was trapped by Israeli soldiers in his compound as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel tried to isolate and perhaps exile him. But Mr. Sharon's strategy backfired, Palestinian and Israeli officials said, as sympathy for Mr. Arafat soared among Palestinians who identified with his plight.

But Mr. Arafat's liberation and the deals that made it possible have prompted Palestinians to start questioning his leadership again.

In the arrangement that freed Mr. Arafat, six Palestinian militants who had been tried under siege in Ramallah were sent to jail in Jericho under British and American supervision. Thirteen of the men who were under siege in Bethlehem have been sent abroad into effective exile.

Palestinian political analysts said the Bethlehem deal is proving especially costly for Mr. Arafat, who had been riding a surge of support during his own siege by the Israelis.

"The tanks were on his doorstep," said Hisham Ahmed, a political scientist at Bir Zeit University in Bethlehem. "His popularity was enhanced to a degree that we had almost not witnessed in the past. And then came this event that took it from the top level and threw it to the floor."

What Mr. Arafat had envisioned as triumphal appearances after his release from the siege drew only paltry, perfunctory crowds, and he canceled a planned speech at the Jenin refugee camp, scene of the fiercest fighting, apparently for fear of an angry crowd.

The strongest single emerging Palestinian figure appears to be Mr. Barghouti, the West Bank leader of Mr. Arafat's Fatah faction and its Tanzim militia, who was arrested here during the incursion and is held in an Israeli jail. Mr. Barghouti was a student leader at nearby Bir Zeit University during the first intifada, was jailed and exiled and returned after the Oslo agreements to take up a leadership role.

In Mr. Shikaki's just completed poll of Palestinians, Mr. Barghouti registered as their second most popular figure, with a 19 percent approval rate. Last December, he had jumped to 11 percent from zero before.

A few days ago, a large portrait of Mr. Barghouti was hung on a building in Manara Square in the center of this city, the effective Palestinian political and intellectual capital. A police force directly answering to Mr. Arafat promptly tore it to pieces. Fatah supporters of Mr. Barghouti gathered angrily and another portrait went back up.

Mr. Arafat's standing in the poll was a 36 percent approval rating, back to roughly where he was before the Ramallah siege. In 1996, when Mr. Arafat was basking in the aftermath of the establishment of the Palestinian authority, his rating was over 70 percent.

In Mr. Shikaki's view, the current intifada is as much about dissatisfaction with Mr. Arafat as about Israel.

"The young guard has turned to violence to get Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip unilaterally (as it withdrew from South Lebanon in May 2000) and simultaneously to weaken the Palestinian old guard and eventually displace it," Mr. Shikaki wrote in Foreign Affairs in January.

The young guard is not, however, unified. There are splits between nationalists and more out-and-out Islamic militants, and between Gaza and the more prosperous West Bank.

A central part of this competition is between Mr. Rajoub and Mr. Dahlan, both heads of branches of the powerful Preventive Security Service, whose task under the Oslo accords was to keep Palestinian militants from attacking Israel.

Both men rose from obscurity to be street-fighting leaders in the first intifada, and both endured years in Israeli jails, where they learned Hebrew.

Both have also been living large: Mr. Dahlan built a mansion in Gaza so huge that Mr. Arafat had to tell him it was ostentatious. When an outraged Mr. Rajoub led a press tour of his damaged house after an Israeli rocket attack, journalists were fascinated by his marble whirlpool bath.

Mr. Dahlan, widely believed to be an American favorite, expanded his role in the West Bank after the Israeli incursion. Mr. Rajoub lost ground in public opinion when he turned over several hundred people, including a half-dozen prisoners, to the Israelis after they attacked his palatial headquarters.

Mr. Dahlan is seen as being allied with several members of Mr. Arafat's old guard, including Muhammad Rashid, Mr. Arafat's financial adviser.

Mr. Rashid, who last week met top officials in Washington, is regarded by many Palestinians as the bagman for the most notoriously corrupt elements of Mr. Arafat's regime. Palestinian reformers were outraged over an interview Mr. Rashid gave to the London-based Arabic paper Al Hayat in which he said the moves for reform were being coordinated with William J. Burns, the State Department's assistant secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. .
nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30205)5/20/2002 11:17:07 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Indeed, more than ever, recent IDF operations conform to the modern concept of a "Revolution in Military Affairs" ..."

Interesting concept of declaring victory in the face of failure. Or weren't the terrorist bombings supposed to stop any day now.

-- Carl



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30205)5/20/2002 11:28:02 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Clinton's disrespect for the military helped embolden Osama.

THE WESTERN FRONT

Sept. 11's Echoes of 1969

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Monday, May 20, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

opinionjournal.com

"We are especially not going to tolerate these attacks from outlaw states, run by the strangest collection of misfits, loony tunes, and squalid criminals since the advent of the Third Reich."--Ronald Reagan, July 1985

That was the kind of line the Gipper loved to deliver, and a legacy Bill Clinton squandered. Mr. Reagan was responding to a recent hijacking, and he went on to describe an international terrorist network he described as "Murder Inc." that comprised Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba and Nicaragua. Two of those countries made George W. Bush's "axis of evil."

It's worth remembering this history as official Washington is now asking "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" In a town run on political advantage, we should expect such a question to dominate discussion when new information surfaces that George Bush was briefed weeks before Sept. 11 on pieces we all now recognize as part of an al Qaeda terror puzzle.

What the rest of us need to ask is, What does official Washington know that it's not admitting?

The answer is quite simple. Until 8:46 a.m. Sept. 11, America was in no mood for the aggressive military and intelligence operations required to head off, neuter and destroy a band of terrorist thugs. And Bill Clinton personified this lackadaisical attitude about national security.

Mr. Clinton, of course, is no more responsible for Sept. 11 than Mr. Bush is. But Mr. Clinton did fail America with his nonchalant attitude towards the military and military operations. As a college student in 1969 Mr. Clinton famously wrote a letter in which he described himself as "loathing the military." He may have overcome his loathing by the time he entered the White House a quarter century later, but it's clear he hadn't learned to respect or understand the military.

A case in point: One of his first actions as president was to announce his intention to scrap the military's ban on homosexuals. Whatever the merits of Mr. Clinton's position, the high-handed way in which he attempted to impose it reflected a disregard for military culture. Congress and the military leadership balked, so the result was a political compromise: "Don't ask, don't tell."

Mr. Clinton also planned to put aside a bit of Reagan-era symbolism. The 40th president had started the presidential tradition of saluting soldiers--particularly the Marine who stands guard at the steps leading into Marine One, the president's helicopter. Keeping the saluting up was the only piece of advice the departing commander in chief offered George Bush as he handed over the reins in 1989. Bill Clinton quietly hoped to do away with the tradition, but then reversed course when it was clear the military was outraged.

Mr. Clinton wasn't shy about using the military. He sent the armed forces on so many missions that by the end of his second term the military was complaining about deployment fatigue lowering morale and contributing to low retention and recruiting rates. But he did so in a passive way that sent a message of weakness to America's enemies.

In 1999 Mr. Clinton decided to intercede in Kosovo in hopes of preventing genocide. Early in the conflict, the president announced the U.S. would not wage a ground war. Later in the conflict bombers held off hitting one of Slobodan Milosevic's palaces because it contained a Rembrandt painting. The message? We'll fight this war, but not if it takes a real commitment. When three U.S. soldiers were captured, President Clinton sent in Jesse Jackson to kiss Milosevic's ring.

Perhaps the clearest example of Mr. Clinton's halfhearted approach to the military came in Somalia. In Mogadishu, U.S. forces were led into a trap and 18 Americans were killed and two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down. Anti-American fighters dragged the naked body of a fallen Army ranger through the streets of Mogadishu. The operation had many flaws, one of which was the American forces were not given tanks and other armored vehicles. Mr. Clinton quickly pulled U.S. forces out, sending the world the message that America wouldn't fight if it meant real danger.

Osama bin Laden got that message. He has said that his followers, trained during the Soviet-Afghan conflict, were among those who fought the Americans in Somalia. In a 1998 interview with ABC News's John Miller, bin Laden said: "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda . . . about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

The American people must shoulder some of the blame for the failures of the Clinton years. After all, we elected Mr. Clinton, and democracy tends to give us the leaders we deserve. Voters in 1992 weren't very worried about foreign threats, which seemed to have receded in the wake of America's victories in the Cold War and the Gulf war. Mr. Clinton focused his 1993 campaign on domestic issues. "It's the economy, stupid," was his slogan. Americans never demanded more aggressive military and intelligence agencies.

But it's also the job of a leader to lead, and sometimes circumstances demand a change in focus. Mr. Clinton failed this test even when the United States was directly attacked. In August 1998 al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224. In October 2000 the group bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 American sailors. Mr. Clinton never made it a public priority to wipe out the terror network.

Four men were convicted for the embassy blast, and Mr. Clinton ordered a desultory missile strike against Afghanistan. In the waning days of the Clinton presidency, FBI agents were dispatched to Yemen to investigate the Cole attack, only to be lost amid diplomatic wrangling. Rather than strike back, the legacy-conscious Mr. Clinton devoted his final days in office to another failed Mideast peace attempt--and a series of questionable pardons.

The world changed on Sept. 11, and part of that change was the end of the Clinton military mindset. Last week a tough-talking Sen. Hillary Clinton took to the Senate floor. "The president knew what?" she demanded. "My constituents would like to know the answer to that and many other questions, not to blame the president or any other American, just to know." She might want to ask her husband the same question.
______________________________
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Mondays.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30205)5/21/2002 7:08:52 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Saw a guy who was "dressed" like this on the beach today. "Yeeech!"

>>>>>The thong appears to be a major weapon in the swinger's fashion arsenal. This is not necessarily a good thing. Your taut-bodied individual may be able to pull it off (har!), but when you see a portly middle-aged man who has more body hair than a musk ox and (I swear) a tattoo of Elvis on his right butt cheek stroll past wearing essentially a No. 8 rubber band, you begin to think that maybe it's time Congress enacted strict Federal Thong Control.<<<<<

washingtonpost.com
Thong Throng
A swingers' convention is a sight to see

By Dave Barry

Sunday, May 19, 2002;
washingtonpost.com