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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (15655)	6/30/2002 3:35:43 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23908

Editorial in a leading Saudi Arabian newspaper. Didn't realize they could think that straight. Sunday - 30 June 2002 Who’s to Decide? Apparently, President Arafat has become an Israeli-American problem. For the first time ever, a superpower is demanding the ousting of a democratically elected leader. The superpower is also using its military might and economic pressure to prevent aid from reaching the Palestinians. The American stand is very similar to that of the Israelis. The call made by President Bush to oust Arafat was refused by most G8 leaders. This is because they feel that this may be a bad precedent which may be repeated in countries where the US feels that the leaders are not playing the roles assigned to them. In the past, the US had refused to confer with Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Ahmad Sukarno, despite the fact that all these leaders had emerged from jail and exiles and lead their people. these leaders are considered heroes in their countries. Though many hold contradictory views about Arafat, nobody has the right to dispose him accept the Palestinian people who had elected him in the first place. The Europeans are of the opinion that Arafat is not the problem and the real problem is the power struggle between the White House and the Congress. This is because decisions in the Congress are taken with the approval of Israel and then these decisions are used to put more pressure on the Bush administration. These decisions contradict the views of the Europeans and the Russians. The problem is that whenever Arafat tries to come closer to the peace proposals that reflect the interests of his people Israel, using military force and diplomacy, backs off. The Europeans, who have earlier had both conflicts and reconciliation with the Arabs, do not want to go against international law, which gives protection to countries. If the US thinks that Arafat’s government is a dictatorship then this is not an excuse as they are many other such governments in the region. Just as the heads of states of other democracies, Arafat has every right to suspend the constitution and pass emergency laws during crisis. The main points in the American statement on a Palestinian state side by side with Israel are based on UN resolutions. They also include points on solving the problems between the organizations and the Palestinian Authority by forging national unity in order to facilitate the peace process. All of these points were previously stated, except the disposal of the Palestinian Authority. riyadhdaily.com.sa

To: calgal who wrote (15655)	7/1/2002 12:15:55 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 23908

Arafat's catch-22 Robert Novak July 1, 2002 WASHINGTON -- The potentially fatal flaw of President Bush's Middle East peace framework was exposed just days after his speech last week. To make his historic call for a Palestinian state palatable for Israel and its allies in Congress, Bush demanded removal from power of Yasser Arafat. But, it quickly became clear, that strengthened the old guerrilla leader's sagging position with Palestinians and in the broader Arab world. This development profoundly depresses sincere supporters within the Palestinian Authority of a peaceful two-state solution. They know that Arafat, depleted at age 72, is not the solution today and probably never was. Prominent peace-seekers in Saudi Arabia have always envisioned Arafat as no more than a figurehead in a future Palestinian state. Instead, Arafat is the Catch-22 of the Middle East. Bush echoed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's insistence on new Palestinian leadership to cloak his historic proposals for peace that were unthinkable even months ago. However, by inadvertently contributing to Arafat's retention in a free election, Bush undermines his own framework for a Palestinian state -- much to Sharon's delight. Understandable attention last week to Bush's Arafat-must-go dictum has obscured details in the president's speech that thrilled Arab peace-seekers. For the first time, the U.S. is solidly on record in favor of a Palestinian state. Calling it "untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation," Bush recognized "deep anger and despair of the Palestinian people." More specific are his implicit support of pre-1967 borders, his call for an end to "Israeli settlement activity" and his concern for the "plight of and future of Palestinian refugees." Contrary to claims that Colin Powell was humiliated by the president's speech, the secretary of state advanced U.S. policy toward a negotiated peace over aggressive opposition in the State Department and White House. "As never before," a Saudi official told me, "the stars are aligned for real progress." All the stars, that is, except the demand for new leadership. The U.S. has its candidates for Arafat's successor: Mohammed Dahlan, former Gaza security chief, and Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen), who is Arafat's official deputy. Identification with Washington is no asset in a Palestinian election campaign. Reports that Dahlan's office was left untouched by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) in their recent offensive encouraged belief among Palestinians that he is Israel's -- and America's -- man. A more popular leader might be Marwan Barghouti, secretary general of Arafat's Fatah movement. During the IDF's military offensive, he was arrested April 15 on charges of planning dozens of terrorist attacks. Responsible Palestinian officials say the charges are unfounded, but Barghouti remains in Israeli custody. Whether he would be permitted to campaign for president in the planned Palestinian election is at least questionable. If permitted to run, Barghouti might have a better prospect of winning than American-approved candidates but less chance than a commander from the civilian-killing Hamas organization, which deplores a negotiated solution even more than Sharon. In truth, however, all are underdogs against Arafat. His election is the Catch-22 that negates Bush's bold promises. Disaffection with Arafat is nothing new among important Palestinians who privately express the view that he should have declared victory in 1993 and resigned when the Oslo accord won him a share of the Nobel Peace Prize. While attacked as a diabolical master of terrorism, he actually is a failing bureaucrat who is a disaster for his people. Powell has become convinced that Palestinian Authority leadership was culpable in the suicide bombings, but the secretary of state must employ diplomatic ingenuity for a greater purpose than just getting rid of Arafat. How can the democratic process be fine-tuned to eventually elect a new Palestinian leader free of the American taint but not barred from the negotiating table by Israel? The difficulty cheers Arik Sharon. Nobody who has listened to the prime minister has any doubt about his determination to persist with Jewish settlements that will split up the occupied territories and block the Palestinian state envisioned by George W. Bush. There is not all that much in Bush's speech that Sharon approves, but the president's demand for a new leader is enough to preclude all the rest. ©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc. townhall.com