Without Arafat, Whither Palestine?

While some sources, including The Guardian, are writing what is tantamount to obituaries for Yasser Arafat, it is unclear precisely what ailment he is suffering, and whatever else may be said of the man, he has few peers as a survivor. It is nonetheless obvious that his condition is exceedingly serious since he will be flying out of internal exile in Ramallah Friday morning to be treated in France.

As expected, some in the rightwing Blogswamp eagerly await the old man’s demise, the only demurrer being that they hope he goes painfully.

The passing of old chiefs is supposed to be a time of renewal, redirection, rethinking. And, if we cast the best light on matters, this might come to pass when Arafat passes from the scene. But unlikely. His death will be no blessing for Palestinians - or whoever occupies the Oval Office come January. As Haaretz notes, a battle – or even a civil war – is not impossible, because Arafat has never appointed a successor or loosened the reins enough to establish a truly democratic process within the Palestinian Authority.

I've been told that nothing will start a fistfight at a leftwing sockhop quicker than mentioning Israel and Palestine. But the unwillingness of some people to engage in straight talk is how we wound up in Iraq. So, kindle the flamethrowers.

I am no fan of Arafat. Among the naïve, he has always been able to disguise his real behavior behind well-shaped public perception and public actions, all the while saying, as became almost a cliché, one thing in English and one thing in Arabic. Authoritarian, greedy, murderous, corrupt and incompetent, he has been a plague on his people. The tactics of terror that he condoned, supported, funded and at least sometimes planned have been corrosive of any sympathy engendered by the Palestinians' dispossession.

Neither am I an enemy of Israel. There is no going back to 1948 when the nation was founded or to 1938 when Kristallnacht ushered in the inevitability of that nation. Given the millennial-old enmity against Jews – who have been repeatedly dhimmified, exiled, pogromized and slaughtered, I find the still widespread objections to Israel as a state unpersuasive. If we lived in my perfect world, we'd do away with nationalism altogether and with it, blind patriotism, religious and ethnic hatreds. Uh-huh. Short of that, a slightly less perfect world might produce a one-state solution in Israel/Palestine, a unified, democratic, secular, peaceful land of Christians, Jews, Muslims and unbelievers. But, for now and the foreseeable future, that is not credible even as a pipedream.

However, without justice for the Palestinians in their own contiguous, wholly independent, unoccupied state, Israel itself will never gain true legitimacy. For decades, both Likud and elements of the Labour Party have presided over despicable, internationally illegal policies, grabbing and fencing off land, diverting water, engaging in torture and assassination, practicing collective punishment, making Arab-Israelis second-class citizens and generally dehumanizing and politically strangling the Palestinians, both those within Israel’s borders and those living on lands its leaders until recently refused to call occupied.

Criticize and detest Arafat all you like, he is not the reason the Palestinians fled or were driven (depending on your point of view) from their land. He is not the reason for building settlements on the high ground or ethnically cleansing Jerusalem of Arabs years ago and more recently. And while he may or may not have approved, he is not the reason that Palestinian children have strapped on bombs to blow up themselves and Jewish children.

It seems hardly likely that there is a Palestinian now or even on the horizon with anything close to Arafat's political clout and charisma - define this any way you like. Again, casting the best light on matters, if Arafat departs, perhaps Palestinians will find a younger new voice, one that discards some of the old man's authoritarian trappings.

But it is doubtful that this new leader will be to the liking of the leadership of Israel or Washington. As much as some in these circles pretend that they'd like to have a Palestinian Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi as their foe, that's the last kind of leader they really desire. In spite of their commitment to non-violence, those two men weren’t walk-overs; indeed, they perfected confrontation.

What top Israelis and their tunnel-vision pals in Washington want from Palestinian leadership isn’t peaceful demands for justice, but rather acquiescence. Thus do Hamas and al-Aqsa and their political kin have far more chance of filling Arafat’s shoes than any Palestinian radical pacifist. Whoever survives the internal Palestinian struggle for leadership likely will be the next Israeli scapegoat or missile target.

As time goes by, the situation inexorably worsens. While Israeli demographers worry about the prospect of a future Palestinian majority because of population growth, it is today’s demography, as M Aurelius notes, which has become crucial. The typical Palestinian today is more likely to be younger, less educated, more impoverished than his counterpart a decade or two ago. The educated, professional Palestinians, once the pride of a nation without a country, have dwindled as a proportion of the population and become less influential. In their place have come more and more extremists and with them a Gordian Knot that - despite the fantasies of extremists on the other side - cannot be cut with a sword. George W. Bush thinks otherwise. We can only hope John F. Kerry does not.

•  Fair Post

  As an Israeli-American, I'm no fan of the way my country (Israel) has behaved in regards to the Palestinians.  

  My one bone to pic is when you state he is not the reason that Palestinian children have strapped on bombs.   A very debatable point.   Particularly when there were some very reasonable peace offers on the table and he chose to walk away rather than negotiate further.

  Anyhow, this is a complex problem and my fear is that it is going to descend into black and white anti or pro-Israel or anti or pro-Palestinians even here on this enlightened site.

  Let's remember that many problems in the world are very intricate and not easily solved, particularly not by those who do not live there.  I'm not saying we're not allowed to have a point of view or to debate it.  But I just hope we can avoid hyperbole and have a good discussion.

  And I hope and pray that peace comes to Israelis and Palestinians in the near future, against all odds.

  by dansac on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:09:37 PM PDT

  •  Peace may be closer than ever

    (My glasses are not quite as rose-colored as that title suggests.)

    Consider what might be achieved with the following set of leaders in place:

    • President Kerry, a man who does not share Bush's blind support for all Israeli tactics, no matter how harsh

    • Prime Minister Abbas, (admittedly a dark horse, but think of it) sans Arafat's undercutting of his negotiating authority

    • A newly pragmatic Sharon, who is lately displaying remarkable political razor-walking skills

    That's a group of men who could conceivably lay out and follow a plan for peace in Israel and Palestine.

    by Kyle B on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:22:29 PM PDT

    •  Kerry on Israel

      Unfortunately, I think Kerry differs very little (and by that I mean not at all) in his views on Israel.  According to AIPAC, he has a 100% pro-Israel voting record, meaning that he has voted for all policies that stood behind Israeli policies.  Neither Kerry nor Bush is the solution to this conflict, as it seems nearly impossible that there can be an American leader who will wave her/his magic wand and solve the problem.  The solution will only come when the Israelis and Palestinians are both willing to have an honest, constructive dialog.  What does that mean?  I'm not sure, but the more we talk openly, the closer we'll get to our goal.

      by hotbutteredrum on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:57:39 PM PDT

      •  You are right.

        It is unlikely that an American leader can solve this problem. But not because no American leader has a magic wand. But because no American leader has the spine to stand up to AIPAC and other pro-Israeli organisations and risk losing the Jewish vote.

        by Gnarly Dude on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:17:53 PM PDT

        •  Is The Jewish Vote

          really that hard line? Maybe it's because I live in California, but the Jew's I've broached the subject with out here are disgusted with how their faith is being used to justify what's happening. I only have my bubble to evaluate but I would think many American Jews would prefer peace in their holy land, even if it meant less military aid to Israel.

          IMHO

          by kellygreen on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:54:52 PM PDT

          •  I am not sure...

            how monolithic the Jewish vote is in reality but AIPAC and other pro-Israeli organisations do a good job of convincing most politicians that it is monolithic. Nobody knows because nobody has had the guts to find out.

            by Gnarly Dude on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:04:01 PM PDT

    •  There is no such thing as a...

      newly pragmatic Sharon. More likely, he is building a Reservation in Gaza where he will put all the Palestinians in. Then he will annex the West Bank and declare Gaza a "Country". No more Arab majority in Israel. Problem solved.

      Aldous.

      by Aldous on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:03:47 PM PDT

      •  I think he's a war criminal

        but I still think he has more nuance then you suggest. Awhile back he said the thing to do is hit them (the Palestinians) hard and THEN negotiate. I think he's carrying through on this - first the stick now a newly conciliatory govt.

        <this sounds like more of an apology for the man then I really intend - he's awful, I just think he's also more complex then we sometimes pretend>

        by storme on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:32:34 PM PDT

        •  I doubt it

          The problem with Sharon is that he is a creature of the past. He is treating this the old-fashioned way. Defeat Egypt, Defeat Jordan, Defeat Syria, Defeat Everybody then Negotiate on Israel's Terms. This simply will not work with Palestinians. All Sharon has done is guarantee the second generation of suicide bombers. Sharon has peace now but his grandchildren will reap the whirlwind.

          Aldous.

          by Aldous on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:23:31 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    I am also Israeli-American.  In Israel I am slo on the left of the political spectrum.  My one comment is this: it shocks me that many Americans, including American Jews, are more Israeli than Israelis.  They cheer the free hand the Administration has given Sharon, but they do not bear the consequences of the actions they advocate.  While I would never vote for Sharon, and he is not the monster he is potrayed to be, (he has surpised me an taken some courageous stands such as the Gaza withdrawal), this "not one inch" crowd is not sending their children to patrol the Territories.  And giving Sharon (or any Israeli leader) a free hand is not the same as supporting Israel and being a good ally--but, this crowd does not see the difference.

    As for Arafat--good riddance.  He has brought death and destruction on both our people.  And history will not view him well.

    by thebrucie on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:23:50 PM PDT

    •  I had a conversation

      a while back with an American likudnik type, and he kept going off on how the Israelis shouldn't evacuate Gaza. So I just said, "easy for you to say, you don't have to waste the best years of your life guarding those settlements" and he just about blew a gasket.

      I would say, though, that the moderate Israelis are under serious threat right now. If this disengagement plan fails, the consequences to Israeli democracy will be dire. Too bad they don't have more support from real friends here in the States.

      by decembersue on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:58:24 PM PDT

    •  With all due respect...

      ...how is Sharon's Gaza withdrawal position "courageos" when every attempt to execute the plan has ended in retreat for fear of either looking weak to the Palestinians or starting a conflict with the settlers?

      by hotbutteredrum on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:59:54 PM PDT

      •  Hasn't started yet

        Well, they haven't started to execute the plan yet, if you've been reading the news. However, the Israeli Knesset just voted on the plan, and approved it this week.  It will be implemented next year.  Sharon has really pissed off the settler movement with this -- settler rabbis are calling on troops not to follow orders, and there are fears of a possible assassination attempt on Sharon, just as happened to Rabin.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:04:04 PM PDT

        •  One Question...

          Let's say Israel laid down its arms tomorrow, stopped building the fence, removed all settlers from the lands Sharon wants evacuated and OK'd a Palestinian state. Now, how many "minutes" would Israel survive?

          Also what has happened to all the money given to the Palestinians all these years by other middle eastern countries as well as the UN, etc.? The Palestinians could be living a better life (even in "exile"), if their own leaders didn't want to keep them down.

          Clinton tried to broker a deal and was stabbed in the back by Arafat. The majority of Palestinians have always wanted nothing less then the total destruction of Israel. It's in their laws and their teachings.

          They should have their own land, but they first must accept the continued existence of Israel.

          From the entries of two Israelis earlier and demonstrations held in Israel supporting the need for a settlement to this problem, we know that their are Israelis willing to peacefully negotiate, but when was the last time you saw or heard any group of Palestinians demonstrate for the same cause? Any who do usually wind up dead.

          by auapplemac on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:08:03 PM PDT

          •  Re: One Question...

            "Let's say Israel laid down its arms tomorrow, stopped building the fence, removed all settlers from the lands Sharon wants evacuated and OK'd a Palestinian state. Now, how many "minutes" would Israel survive?"

            How 'bout Israel removed all settlers from all occupied territories, instead of "the lands Sharon wants evacuated?"

            "we know that their are Israelis willing to peacefully negotiate"

            We also know that the Israelis are not willing to give up the land they are illegally occupying.

            by FullDisclosure on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:18:50 PM PDT

            •  throughout your postings on this thread

              and especially in this one, you persist in identifying Israelis with the very small minority who are settlers in the West Bank and Gaza. Admittedly, Israeli governments have bent over backwards to appease these settlers. But this has been mostly out of political necessity in forming coalition governments. The patience of most Israelis with the intractable ideological stance of the settlers wore thin long ago, and now there is a lot of pressure on the government -- the Likud government -- to stop pandering too.

              You would not want all Americans (including yourself, of course) to be identified with the current administration policies. Please extend Israelis the same courtesy of not presupposing that a small minority is representative of the whole country.

              by LisainVan on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:56:18 PM PDT

              •  Re: throughout your postings on this thread

                "throughout your postings on this thread and especially in this one, you persist in identifying Israelis with the very small minority who are settlers in the West Bank and Gaza."

                The settlers are there as a result of deliberate long-term policy of the Israeli government to legitimize the annexation of part or all of the West Bank.

                "Admittedly, Israeli governments have bent over backwards to appease these settlers. But this has been mostly out of political necessity in forming coalition governments."

                Again, the settlers are there because of Israeli governmental policy.  The settlements policy was designed partly to create a domestic constituency for preventing withdrawl.

                "The patience of most Israelis with the intractable ideological stance of the settlers wore thin long ago, and now there is a lot of pressure on the government -- the Likud government -- to stop pandering too."

                I think you badly misread the Israeli political situation.  There is little domestic pressure to remove the West Bank settlements.

                ---

                "Please extend Israelis the same courtesy of not presupposing that a small minority is representative of the whole country."

                A small minority?

                Israel has illegally occupied the territories for over 35 years now.  Israel has been building illegal settlements in the territories for over 25 years now.

                As a democracy, more than a small minority of Israelis have been complicit in the occupation by this point.

                You seem to think the issue is the settlers.  The real issue is the occupation.

                by FullDisclosure on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 01:13:47 AM PDT

                •  every

                  israeli I know,and I know quite a few, oppose settlements, and have been actively working against changing Israeli policy for at least 15 years. There are regularly large anti-settlement protests in Israel by Israelis. There are many Israelis who, working with Palestinian groups, have arranged very visible protests against the building of the Wall. A large part of the problem is that Israel is a multi-party, rather than a two or three party, parliamentary system. In most recent Israeli governments -- Labor and Likud alike -- the governing party in order to be governing has had to broker deals with one or more of the many ultra-orthodox parties that leverage the deal around settlements.
                  My point is simply that you extend the many Israelis, and yes, there are many, the same courtesy that you would want extended to yourself by Europeans and Middle Eastern Arabs who are vehemently anti-US. There is a vocal opposition there, just as there is here.

                  by LisainVan on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 07:12:53 AM PDT

                  •  Re: every

                    "My point is simply that you extend the many Israelis, and yes, there are many, the same courtesy that you would want extended to yourself by Europeans and Middle Eastern Arabs who are vehemently anti-US. There is a vocal opposition there, just as there is here"

                    Nowhere have I said there isn't a section of Israeli society that opposes the settlements.  Of course there is.  But so what?  There was a section of Serbian society that opposed Milosevic's policies.  Does that mean people shouldn't have spoken out against Serbia?

                    by FullDisclosure on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 11:38:56 AM PDT

          •  I rated you troll because this is offensive

            As the husband of a Palestinian woman, I find your stereotyping extremely offensive. "The majority of Palestinians have always wanted nothing less then the total destruction of Israel," is ridiculous.  If you were just speaking of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, then I would have no argument with the statement. However, "the majority" and "It's in their laws and their teachings," is just plain racist. I'm not even going to challenge you on specifics because that would dignify your silliness with debate.  As an African American male, I encounter silly "they" statements all the time.  Take a look at yourself, evaluate your racism, and get it together.  As long as you are willing to look at another people group as "they" and make sweeping statements about what "they" believe, you engaging in the same type of behavior as George Bush and his buddies.  Stop the madness.  As I am seriously offended, I encourge others to rate your comment as a troll comment too.

            by shinsetsuguy on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 08:51:01 AM PDT

            •  Racist?

              No...just observing a group and commenting on their group actions of the majority is not racist. It might be if it were incorrect or misleading.

              Yes, individuals on both sides are working towards a peaceful resolution including a true Palestinian state and it can't come soon enough for me.

              I also belong to a minority so I do know something about prejudice.

              But it's interesting that no one has answered my first question...how long would Israel survive if she unilaterally laid down her arms and conceded to most of the demands put to her.

              by auapplemac on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 11:53:41 AM PDT

              •  No one is asking...

                Israel to lay down its arms. All it has to do is withdraw to its 1967 borders. In exchange, here is what it would receive:

                1. An unambiguous right to exist as a state.

                2. An iron-clad security guarantee from the international community against any threat from Palestine or other Arab countries.

                So in answer to your question, Israel would not only survive but enhance its security if it withdrew to its 1967 borders.

                by Gnarly Dude on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 05:09:31 PM PDT

                •  Were is it written?

                  By the time the International Community would act, Israel would be no more. They would argue it to death.  Who should do what to whom and how.  Would they actually send in armed troops to counter any offensive?

                  Sorry, the IC does not have a very good record of acting quickly. Just look at Dufur - how many more people have to suffer and die before someone steps in?

                  Would be nice if we could depend on a united front, but there is not.

                  by auapplemac on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 08:56:03 PM PDT

                  •  First of all...

                    Israel does not need the international community to defend itself. Not now and not in the forseeable future. It has the most well-trained army in the region with by far the most sophisticated weapons including an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

                    And you are seriously delusional if you think the international community's (especially America's) response to an attack on Israel would be the same as their (its) response to the crisis in Darfur. The pro-Israeli lobby in the US is so powerful and efficient, one can barely criticise Israel without being labelled anti-Semitic. Imagine the hue and cry they would justifiably raise if Israel actually faced an existential threat.

                    In case you are still unconvinced about the power of the pro-Israeli lobby, consider this. Is there any country other than Israel that could have its semi-official lobby in the U.S. under investigation for espionage, and yet have that lobby courted, praised, and visited by the official representatives of both major parties, including a sitting National Security Advisor? No, my friend. Only Israel wields that kind of clout in the US.

                    So breathe easy, my friend. Israel is not going to be wiped off the face of the earth if it pulls back to its 1967 borders.  

                    by Gnarly Dude on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:30:28 AM PDT

            •  Verification v. Villification

              "The majority of Palestinians have always wanted nothing less then the total destruction of Israel," is ridiculous.  If you were just speaking of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, then I would have no argument with the statement. However, "the majority" and "It's in their laws and their teachings," is just plain racist.

              Since the original author made empirical claims, I think the claims need to be tested before we get to the question whether the claims are "racist."

              "Always" is usually a dangerous claim to make.  Until sometime in the 1990s, it was clear that the official Palestinian position, embodied in original and the amended Palestine National Covenant, called for the total destruction of Israel.  To the extent one accepted the PLO's claim to be the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," I suppose one would have to say that the majority of the Palestinian people wanted to destroy Israel.

              At some point prior to the Oslo Accords, there began to be a willingness on the part of some signficant Palestinian figures to accept a two-state solution to the conflict.  In the mid-1990s, the PLO voted to amend its National Covenant to delete provisions purporting to nullify the State of Israel.  But it is not clear that the Palestinian Authority and its leaders made significant efforts to persuade most Palestinians of the virtues of a peaceful, two-state solution.

              As for public opinion, according to the most recent (June, 2004) poll I could find from the (Palestinian) Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre:

              45.5% [of Palestinians] believe the end result of the Intifada is to liberate all of historic Palestine compared with 43% last October, and 47% in December 2002.  Of those interviewed, 42.3% said the end result of the Intifada is to end the Israeli occupation based on UN Resolution 242 and the establishment of the Palestinian state compared with 44.6% last October.

              Poll no. 51 - June, 2004

              by one of the people on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 02:55:40 PM PDT

              •  Still racist

                The comment was "the majority"... In any of these numbers, there is no number above 50%, which would constitute a majority.  Therefore, the majority of Palestines don't support the destruction of Israel by that measure (assuming these polls are right, i.e. how did they do them, what's the margin of error).  My point, and it doesn't matter auapplemac if you are a minority or not, is that making categorical statements about a group of people that fit a stereotype, particularly a negative one, is racist!!! It's just like saying "the majority of black people are on drugs."  Nobody on this board would tolerate such a comment. While there may indeed be a sizable drug problem in the black community, its crazy to say something like that. I love my Jewish brothers and sisters, but it really really makes me angry that the zionist hardliner types have managed to shape the conversation such that people feel free to say racist stuff (and don't even acknowledge it). All Arabs are not a monolithic group.  All Arabs are not violent sucide bombers in waiting who want to destroy Israel.  Stop the madness!!!!!!  Stop the denial.  What you said was wrong, and the first step to no being a racist is to admit it.

                by shinsetsuguy on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 06:48:57 AM PDT

    •  The opinion polls I've seen...

      ...have repeatedly shown that a majority of Jewish Americans are pro-peace and support the idea of a Palestinian state at peace with Israel - at greater percentages than the American public at large.

      As an American and a Jew, I think it's a shame that U.S. politicians are feeling a need now to totally pander to the Israeli hard right, but I don't think it's likely that a Kerry administration - not rooted in Bush's armaggedon-based extreme Christianity - would actually give Sharon a total blank check to do whatever he wants. One hint of what Kerry may really think was when he told an Arab-American audience that he sees the Israeli fence/wall (whatever you want to call it) as an "obstacle to peace." I happen to support the border fence as a security measure, though the implementation is objectionable to a significant extent. But Bush's blank check for Sharon, sticking his finger in the Muslims' eyes, is an insane policy for a U.S. President, one that encourages terrorism against Americans. John Kerry also has vowed to reach out to Muslims throughout the world, and I believe he will.

      by New Yorker on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 07:45:46 AM PDT

  •  We need a food fight over Israel/Palestine now

    ...like we need four more years of George W. Bush.  Since the potential for a flame-fest has been invoked, allow me to piss off both sides by suggesting that we at dKos let Israel and Palestine look after themselves over the next 5 days regardless of how sick Arafat is.  

    I don't mean to disparage what is likely a very well-thought-out effort on an important topic. But I also can't help thinking that we've got a president to elect, and that if you have time to write a manifesto about Arafat and Sharon, you also have time to pick up the phone and GOTV/LTTE/buttonhole the media about Al QaQaa.  

    Luke...stay on target...stay on target...

    'Kay, bring on the zeroes...

    by turbonium on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:25:13 PM PDT

    •  agreed

      Not to downplay the possibly dire consequences of an internal Palestinian conflict, but I do hope the people here pause for a second and think 'Maybe we can debate this after Kerry wins.'
      
      Eyes on the prize.

      by kolors on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:32:40 PM PDT

    •  The current political upshot

      of Arafat's apparently imminent passing is--> another reason we desperately need John Kerry in the White House. Bush has demonstrated that he does not have the character necessary to handle the potentially explosive situation that will develop. He does not have the kind of deliberate patience and strength that is absolutely required in dealing with the world's most volatile region. John Kerry does.

      by bluesteel on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:49:59 PM PDT

    •  Since this ...

      ...and that if you have time to write a manifesto about Arafat and Sharon, you also have time to pick up the phone and GOTV/LTTE/buttonhole the media about Al QaQaa was apparently directed at me, let me make two quick comments:

      First, with others in 25 Los Angeles precincts, I raised $84,000 for the Kerry campaign, have with the workers I "oversee" in three precincts, spoken to 2114 voters in the past 10 weeks, registering more than 200 new voters in the process, and volunteered 10 hours a week in the Pasadena Democratic HQ. On Saturday, I will be in Reno trying to get Nevada into Kerry's column.

      Second, "manifesto"? Manifesto?!  

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:56:20 PM PDT

      •  MB

        Let me extend you my thanks for keeping the big picture fully in view, even in the tense atmosphere of the run up to the election.  I do understand how some may feel it inappropriate. To them I simply suggest, skip it, read the latest Ginny update and send her a few last smackeroos, sign up for GOTV with ACT, to each their own.

        But I appreciate still being able to have my full brain engaged, not to lose sight of the bigger picture. Even in the heat of battle.  So thanks!

        by Dancing Larry on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:52:34 PM PDT

      •  "you" = generic "y'all"

        Well, if you read all the way through, you'll see I was addressing a chap named "Luke" ;-)

        I almost wrote "if one has time, etc."...should've gone with that, I guess.  Sorry for the ambiguity.  Your GOTV efforts (which far outstrip mine) are very impressive and much appreciated, and no, I don't think your reasoned essay is a manifesto (cf. "well-thought-out effort on an important topic").  I was anticipating a deluge of involved, contentious follow-ups that might merit the term.

        I don't have any beef with your ideas or your hard work in support of Kerry--it's just that I would have saved this particular topic for after the election.

        Best of luck in Reno...I'll be working the phones!

        by turbonium on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:55:07 PM PDT

      •  Wrong time for this thread

        This isn't about degrading your opinion, or even your right to start a thread and make comments about the Israeli-Palestinian issues. It's about making sure all the efforts you just mentioned weren't done in vain.

        So, you're high-profile in your locale, right? What happens if one of the people you registered comes to this site, maybe because they know you write here sometimes. They check the thread out. Maybe they are a big supporter of Palestinian causes. They see your comments about Arafat:
        
        Authoritarian, greedy, murderous, corrupt and incompetent . . .

        What if those comments are the ones that make that person think, Gee, if that's what Kerry supporters think, maybe that's what Kerry thinks -- I'm sitting this election out.

        What if it's not someone from California, a "safe" state. It's no one you know or have met. Maybe they live in Ohio. There's quite a few other comments in here that could alienate just about anybody from either a pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian side and cost a vote.

        What if someone from the other side who lives in Florida and who had been wavering in their support for Bush reads some of the things written in here. What if it sends them scurrying for the Bush lever, or touch-screen button? Again, a vote lost.

        I don't have to tell you that this place is high profile. You know it already. What we need now is unity, not an issue to argue over or to alienate.

        It's not that this issue doesn't deserve discussion. It's why now and why here? Arafat isn't even dead yet. Please, shut this thread down and out.

        by Brian Bell on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 08:50:05 PM PDT

        •  I'm sorry, Brian, but with all due respect ...

          ...I don't think this essay or the comments on it - even the most inflammatory, of which there are rather few - will send anyone who wasn't already predisposed to do so into the arms of George Bush. Nor, in my opinion, will it persuade anyone who was working in a GOTV effort for John Kerry to stop.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:52:01 PM PDT

    •  Actually

      given the subject matter this is a pretty civil and intelligent discussion.

      Presumably we are all here because we get some sort of release from spouting off on this topic. If I were a big baseball fan I'd be on another thread. But the truth is that this is an important discussion. We aren't going to solve it in the next five days to be sure, but neither will we ruin Kerry's chances for election by saying our piece now on a hot news story.
      

      by Christopher Day on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:14:02 PM PDT

  •  Black and black

    I'm sick of them both. I was told my whole life, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is too old and complicated for anyone to figure out. Undaunted, I decided to do some research. Now I've decided the Israeli-Palestinian too old and complicated for anyone to figure out. I've got a solution that works for me and my moral system (one democratic state, no state religion, and a complete, zero-tolerance regionwide ban on guns and explosives. And loudspeakers on every corner playing Marvin Gaye songs.) but I know they'll never get there.

    I don't hate Israelis or Palestinians, Sharon or Arafat, but I do hate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hate that we are forced to pay attention to it, forced to weigh it's moral issues, forced to consider the personal and political merits of the players involved.

    Quick, what's your opinion of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka who invented suicide bombing? Which contested patch of land deserves most of our attention: the Gaza Strip, Kashmir, or Darfur?

    Instead, it's "BibleLand, BibleLand, BibleLand". Every goddamn day. I'm sick of it. I think the Kyoto Protocol will save more lives than some phantom "Peace Process". Curing AIDS or frickin' diabetes will save more Israeli and Palestinian children than that stupid wall. Ah, forget it. You get the point.

    by Jumbo on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:33:08 PM PDT

    •  yes

      In the middle of this war on terrorism/securing oil fields/demonstrating American dominance, America has lost sight of the issues that are going to make or break the world for our species: the ENVIROMENT (it was barely mentioned once in the domestic issues debate) and GLOBAL ECONOMIC DISPARITY (of which I think terrorism is a symptom).  If we're going to have discussions about the future of Israel-Palestine, why not the future of the world at large?  That's the bigger picture.

      by fuckthefuckingfuckers on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 02:35:21 AM PDT

    •  Answers

      "Quick, what's your opinion of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka who invented suicide bombing?"

      Opposed. :-)

      "Which contested patch of land deserves most of our attention: the Gaza Strip, Kashmir, or Darfur?"

      Darfur!

      by New Yorker on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 07:49:26 AM PDT

  •  Itzhak Rabin , the death of a dream...

    When Rabin was murdered, the one man that the Palestinians trusted and the dream of an open dialogue died with him. Arafat's death will only be the final nail in the cofin of the peace process. The one thing that killed the last agreement was that the Israeli goverment reserved the right to send military forces into the territories. This made Palestinian soveriegnty as real then as Iraqi soverignty is now.

    That aside, Arafat should have steped aside long ago. His hands are too dirty. Now we have too old warriors (and both can be called terrorist) going at each other for the last time, because they value victory over peace and freedom.

    As was said last night on the West Wing, the Israelis want freedom from fear while Palestinians want freedom from Israel. This will not end anytime soon, for you can not have true peace without freedom....

    by Ralfast on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:38:46 PM PDT

  •  Suicide bombers - a realistic view

    My one bone to pic is when you state he is not the reason that Palestinian children have strapped on bombs. A very debatable point. Particularly when there were some very reasonable peace offers on the table and he chose to walk away rather than negotiate further.

    First, let's be perfectly clear. Suicide bombers are not -- maybe never -- children.

    Palestinian children have died in the conflict, but largely in conflicts with Israeli soldiers. Some -- perhaps a majority -- are innocent; others -- perhaps a majority -- are attacking with weapons ranging from rocks to AK-47s. The children who have died are not part of the class of suicide bombers, though.

    Suicide bombers are also not spontaneous, despite many years of Western media depictions as individuals driven to crazed jihad. Suicide bombings are complex affairs involving anywhere from half a dozen to scores of people, from recruiters, to trainers, to bomb-manufacturers, to scouts, to smugglers, to lookouts. The suicide bomber himself is, sadly, frequently a hapless chump who has been specifically chosen for this task by his or her manipulability and unsuitability for any other task.

    What I mean by this is that suicide bombers are not caused by the hopelessness of the peace process, or its setbacks, but are carefully coordinated military attacks run by one or the other Palestinian faction.

    At one point I believed that Arafat was genuinely seeking peace in his old age, seeking to establish a state in his lifetime; in those days I attributed the suicide bombings to "outs" in the Palestinian power structure. I've since concluded that Arafat and Fatah deliberately invoked a strategy of suicide bombings when they felt threatened by the power of Hamas and Hezbollah.

    Don't be suckered into thinking that having a peace plan, a bucket of unsifted hope as it were, sitting on a diplomatic table somewhere is a means of preventing suicide bombings. It isn't.

    With Arafat gone, Fatah will be desperate to retain its leadership role without its iconic figurehead; I foresee internecine warfare between factions, but I worry that Hamaa will have the upper hand from the beginning. I don't see them as being more pragmatic than Fatah, and I don't care to see an Islamist Palestine. I think that's what might happen, though.

    by dhartung on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:44:10 PM PDT

  •  You make a valid point...

    when you say people who do not in a particular place should not attempt to solve its problems. If only the British had listened to the people who lived in Palestine before allowing large scale Jewish immigration, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

    by Gnarly Dude on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:03:19 PM PDT

  •  one point of major criticism

    MB--I posted below, stating that you were pretty well versed about this issue.  At the same time, your link to "dhimmified"--to say the least, is misleading, and factually inaccurate.  
    The source you used is biased. Getting the definition of a "dhimmi" from the source you use would be the same as using Dick Cheney as the source of intelligence for the war against Iraq.

    Here is a unbiased definition of what a dhimmi is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
    

    by Raiyan on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 08:36:30 PM PDT

    •  Point taken ...

      ...and link changed.

      However, I must say that I think the source you provided is a little bit sanitized regarding the practice of dhimmi-hood vs. the theory.  

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:26:34 PM PDT

      •  Nah, it's not so bad ...

        I mean, if all Dhimmi's have to do is pay the jizyah, then they get to keep their lives and be prosperous, right?

        by leadhead on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:41:14 PM PDT

•  Don't Believe the Hype

  "Authoritarian, greedy, murderous, corrupt and incompetent, he has been a plague on his people."

  I'm soooooo sick of Arafat-bashing.

  While Arafat complied with the spirit and letter of the Oslo accords throughout the 90's, every Israeli leader after the death of Rabin broke them.

  The man was freely elected by the Palestinian people in an election deemed flawless by Jimmy Carter, and he would handily win re-election if the Israelis would permit another election.

  Successive Israeli governments have sought to demonize Arafat to remove legitimacy from a Palestinian leadership that would actually be willing to negotiate a fair peace.  That fits the Israeli goal of permanently seizing the illegal settlements on the West Bank.

  Don't believe the hype.  The guy has his failings, but he's been an admirable leader of his people for over 3 decades, and he has been considerably more reasonable than any Israeli leadership since the death of Rabin.

  by FullDisclosure on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:14:03 PM PDT

  •  Oh no, here we go

    Do we really need to get into this now?

    No offense to anyone. But is this where we need to right now?

    Just a thought.

    by TocqueDeville on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:17:04 PM PDT

    •  Post

      I have to agree. I respect Meteor Blades immensely, but I think this is absolutely the wrong time for this kind of post. It's only going to foster disunity at a time when we need unity the most.

      His rationale - that we can't afford to have blinkers on, because "we" kept blinkers on re Iraq - just doesn't hold water for me. Not five days before the election.

      by DavidNYC on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:28:48 PM PDT

      •  If Arafat weren't quite possibly ...

        ...dying, I wouldn't bring this up. But I don't think I'm going to keep anybody from getting out the vote for Kerry and congressional Democrats by discussing an issue that, like it or not, has a lot to do with the situation in Iraq, the straightening out of which is, if I am not mistaken, a major reason many of us are backing Kerry.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:36:38 PM PDT

        •  11/2

          You are probably right - this isn't going to affect our ability to work for Kerry & Co. Nonetheless, the level of unity on this site in the past week or so has been quite a refreshing turn from a lot of the discord we had seen not long ago. I don't think one post is going to change that... but like I say, my personal preference would have been to wait until after 11/2 to talk about this one. (Else leave it for the diaries.)

          by DavidNYC on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:41:09 PM PDT

        •  Great Post

          Great post MB.  The big picture is still the big picture no matter what the time and I am glad you put this on the front page.  Next time, add something like Arafat has 57% approval, 63% of Palestinians think Gaza is headed in the wrong direction and it might flow with the tide alittle smoother ;)

          by Stevo on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:46:31 PM PDT

        •  Really appreciate this post

          If some combination of carrots and sticks can't be found by the rest of the world to bring a measure of justice to the Palestinians and reasonable security to Israelis, none of us will know peace.

          Enough for now. Got to GOTV.

          by janinsanfran on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:15:37 PM PDT

        •  Damn, an expired cookie ate my comment

          Reconstruction is 'hard work":

          Original title: Split screen

          Al Jazeera: US tanks in Ramadi - US-made tanks in Ramalah, both killing brown-skinned muslims on global tv. Osama is spitting a gut and praising Bush, who is now a bigger deity than "Allah"

          Arafat is truly a tragic figure (original definition) but then which symbol of national aspirations is not?

          Yes, we need to win. We also need to think about what we are going to do after we win. This is a debate we can have after Tuesday, but what do we (kossacks) want to do in Iraq, say?

          Oh, and we are a family? We can disagree, we can even blast each other, but there is still love there after we all calm down, right? RIGHT?

          by Athenian on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:21:31 PM PDT

          •  And it will be nice

            not to be the center of attention so we can say things without supposing that they might end up on tomorrow's nightly news. It's gotten a bit hectic around here. On the other hand, dKos may be a paradigm shift and we are now going to be under a microscope perpetually. In which case I suggest we need better signal - noise filters.

            This may seem OT but I want something that will distill the open threads. I know that a lot of important stuff gets said in those 250 comment threads but I do NOT have the time to read them all. How can we we some kind of summmary or consensus from them? I'd like to move the post-election debate we are going to have here on dKos in that direction. Is that unreasonable?

            by Athenian on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:41:11 PM PDT

          •  With all respect

            I don't see how asking a question warrants a rating. Not that I really care. But didn't even express an opinion above. I just wondered out loud if this was the best time to get into a whole Israel/Palistinian thing.

            As anyone who knows my post from way back when, I far prefer to discuss political philosophy and policy. And yet I still don't feel strongly enough to declare an opinion on wether this is a good time though.

            Rating someone a 3 or a 1 or a 4 for just inducing a thought seems inapropriate to me. But by all means, it is your right.

            Cheers

            by TocqueDeville on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:10:35 PM PDT

            •  I rate according

              to whether I think the post added to the discussion or detracted from it. We need more nuance. ; )  A 3 means that I thought your comment was GOOD, gamoto (credit to those who get that last word). So a good question is a good thing which pushes the depate forward. I am against grade inflation though I have contributed to it. <g> Cheers.

              by Athenian on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 08:39:13 PM PDT

      •  I don't see why

        reasonable people can't have a reasonable conversation. If someone flames, just ignore them. I do.

        Problems like this don't go away when people ignore them, and Arafat's current situation has sparked a talking point. It is relevent to this election, in that it reminds the public that Bush has no plan in yet ANOTHER part of the middle east.

        by decembersue on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:03:32 PM PDT

      •  a bad time?

        ok - it's a bad time to question the president during a "war" right? the need for unity and all... you don't feel that way.
        
        here's some things we all know, and agree with: vote for kerry... GOTV. we get it.
        
        to imply that this discussion is somehow eating away at "progressive unity" or whatever is bs. believe me, my intention to vote for kerry is not affected at all by anything you, Meteor Blades or anyone else on this board could post. i suspect that's true of everyone here.
        
        if you don't want the discussion, don't have it. more to the point though, let the rest of us have it without the scolding.
        
        

        by shux on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:32:42 PM PDT

  •  Unbelievable

    Almost every well-informed Palestinian I've ever talked to said that Arafat's regime is so corrupt that it gave rise to Hamas to fill basic needs.  Arafat diverted funds from education, health, etc.  

    Again, two wrongs don't make a right.  I'm not defending all Israeli leaders.  But that doesn't make Arafat an "admirable leader."  Hardly.  

    You're allowed to bash both sides.

    by dansac on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:17:05 PM PDT

    •  It was a combination

      Both the Israelis and the Palestinians were unable or unwilling to care for the Palestinian population. Israel allowed Hamas to flourish as a social services and hospital agency because they didn't want to provide those services to the occupied people themselves. And the PA's corruption, though less than found in many third world states, didn't help.

      I've said on this site a few months ago that the fundamentalists find social services a very convenient way to gain a foothold in a population. In Israel itself, the Israeli government is allowing Islamic organizations to provide many services to Israeli Arabs because they don't want to do it themselves. This gives the Islamic organizations more power there as well, and in my opinion is a stupid, stupid strategy.

      And the Faith Based Initiatives here in the states are based on the same principle.

      by decembersue on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:08:00 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, and Cubans have free health care...

    give me a break.  What's with this leftist fascination with charming Third-World tyrants?  Mao, Castro, the Sandanistas...

    by teenagedallasdeaniac on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:26:17 PM PDT

    •  aoeu

      Probably comes from a similair strand of right wing fascination with third world tyrants like Hussein, bin Laden, your various south american contras, and who can forget Cheney's support of apartheid in South Africa?

      by TealVeal on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:33:35 PM PDT

    •  Cubans are probably a lot better off than Iraqis

      So do we really want to muddy the water with this sort of discussion.  There are several hundred countries in the world and, like it or not, most are run by dictators.  As countries go Cuba is probably a lot better off than quite a few of them.  

      A dictatorship may not be ideal but the truth is most countries are not ready for a democracy.  The infrastructure is not in place.  The political power structure is not in place (if people are used to solving problems with force, it's hard to get a democracy to work).  Iraq frankly was not ready for a democracy either.  

      The real world is a rather imperfect place, unfortunately.  

      by Asak on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:35:14 PM PDT

      •  Cuba

        Cuba is most certainly not better off than pre-war Iraq. One could make the argument that now they're better off, but not before. Cuba is a poor, underdeveloped nation. The communists have been able to spread around what little they have and in that sense you could assert that Cuba is better off than Haiti or Honduras, but not Iraq, with its oil wealth. Despite this, I am more hopeful for Cuba's future than Iraq's. Sharon, Arafat and Fidel should let the younger generations take over. They have caused too much suffering to their people and need to be retired from power ASAP.

        by Gabriel Fuentes on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:21:17 PM PDT

    •  Ortega was elected

      in 1984.

      by Chris D on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:51:46 PM PDT

  •  Poll

    According to a recent poll (PDF) by the Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research, 82% of Palestinians think that Arafat's Palestinian Authority is corrupt.

    by DavidNYC on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:27:06 PM PDT

    •  That's the spirit.

      Why don't we have polls like that in the American media...

      ...oh yeah, must be that 'free press'.

      by pb on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:05:08 PM PDT

  •  freely elected by the Palestinian people

    and now completing the 9th year of a 5 year term.

    by Great Hunter on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:28:09 PM PDT

    •  Re: freely elected

      "freely elected by the Palestinian people and now completing the 9th year of a 5 year term."

      The Israeli government refused to allow the Palestinians to hold the next election.  Fatah was quite eager for the elections.

      Successive Israeli govenments have sought to de-legitimize Arafat to make it more difficult to reach a peace settlement that will inevitably involve giving up the West Bank settlements.  Reusing to allow the elections fits perfectly into that strategy.

      People can demonize Arafat endlessly, but as long as Israel refuses to give up the illegal settlements, there will be no true peace.

      ---

      Imagine if the US offered to withdraw from Iraq in exchange for permanent soverignity of 10% of Iraq's best land...

      by FullDisclosure on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:40:43 PM PDT

      •  The Okhrana and Hamas

        In the late years of the 19th century, RUssia was plagued with wave after wave of terrorist violence, carried out by the populist/socialist Narodnaya Volya.  They even succeeded in assassinating one of the Tsars.  In order to sow division among their leftist opponents, the Tsarist security service, the Okhrana, allowed the development of a competing radical stream, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, with their winding and mind-numbing rhetoric based on the works of Karl Marx, that couldn't possibly ever constitute a threat to the Tsarist state...

        Fast forward a century.  Gripped in struggle with the Palestinian Fatah, Israel's Shin Bet saw allowing the emergence of Islam based resistance as a means to splinter the Palestinian opposition, and like the Okhrana, took a hands-off approach to the new Hamas.  After all, how could a few radical preachers, who for all their virulent anti-Israeli, and anti-Jewish, rhetoric, be a greater threat than Arafat and Fatah.  Wouldn't it weaken Arafat to allow competitors to emerge?

        And thus, as the Okhrana was the nursemaid to the agents of the October Revolution, so also Shin Bet opened the door to jihad.

        by Dancing Larry on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:57:51 PM PDT

        •  Tme to change the bong water, Larry

          by Outsourcing Is Treason on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:15:53 PM PDT

          •  I hate to blogwhore...

            Oh wait, no I don't... I've blogged on this very subject!

            Careful What You Wish For

            by Diane on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:21:49 PM PDT

            •  Sorry

              That last comment didn't really say enough to let people know whether the link was about anything they would be interested in.  The link is to a blog post about Israel's establishing an Islamist infrastructure in the Occupied Territories in the 70's and 80's as a counter to the PLO, which evolved into present day Hamas.

              Apologies to anyone who was misled into thinking it was about bongs.

              by Diane on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:28:05 PM PDT

    •  Good one-liner, but it's not that simple.

      It is not Arafat who is afraid of a democratic vote in the Occupied Territories; he knows perfectly well he would win, and so do Bush and Sharon.  And that is a big part of the reason why there will be no election while Arafat is alive - our commitment to bringing democracy to the Middle East does not include democracies that vote for anyone other than our preferred candidate.

      In response to Bush's Rose Garden speech of June 2002, in which he called for democratic reform, the PA actually called elections for 20 January 2003. But with Arafat riding high in the polls after the Muqata siege in fall 2002 (any attack on him by Israel or the US sends his fading popularity way back up), it was obvious that if the elections were held, Arafat would be re-elected. Which is one reason why there was a resounding silence from the US when the PA asked for pressure on Israel to allow voter registration to take place. Ha'aretz discussed openly how there was no chance that the Palestinians were going to be allowed by the military authorities to organize elections, seeing as Arafat would get a new mandate. That was what killed off the 2003 elections.  E.g.:

      The real reason why the Israeli authorities, with the support of the United States, will not permit Palestinian elections is that they do not want Arafat to be reelected....So the PA can go on making all the preparations and its senior officials can talk as much as they wish about democratic processes and procedures, but as long as it's clear that Arafat will win, elections are not likely to take place.

      -- Danny Rubinstein, The Other Elections;  (Ha'aretz, 16 Nov 2002).

      And earlier this year, the Qureia government began a new push for elections in Jan 2005, as part of a three-pronged "non-violent intifada". E.g.

      The Palestinian leadership has announced a three-point programme of non-violent resistance in an attempt to wrest the diplomatic initiative from Israel. They hope to push Israel into allowing elections, to lead mass protests against the separation barrier and the maltreatment of prisoners, and to challenge Israel in the international courts.

      -- Palestinians' triple strategy: polls, demonstrations and court cases, The Guardian.

      Quriea's govt knows they are stuck with Arafat as President, and they know better than anyone that he can be a pain in the ass.  But they also know that he is the symbol of Palestinian nationhood, and is the key to selling a negotiated two-state solution - without a Right of Return - to the Palestinian people.  So the Qureia govt is resigned to Arafat, but trying to work around him, and elections are their preferred way of doing it.  They know that Arafat will win the Presidential vote, but believe local and parliamentary elections will sweep away Arafat's Old Guard and bring reformers into office with a mandate and a legitimacy to take on tough security decisions whether Arafat approves or not.

      Voter registration for the proposed 2005 elections has just finished, and a very respectable 70-75% of eligible voters have registered.  Except in East Jerusalem, where voter intimidation by the Israeli authorities - reported for example in Haaretz, Police trying to nix PA poll in J'lem by recording voter rolls - forced a halt to registration.  That didn't get much news coverage here, but BBC News noted the irony of the situation:

      Two years ago the US President George W Bush famously called on the Palestinians to elect a new and different leadership. It was part of his vision of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. The Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says there won't be movement in the peace process without a reformed Palestinian Authority.

      Palestinians have responded by beginning to organise their first national elections in seven years. But when it comes to Palestinian democracy in occupied East Jerusalem, Israel is obstructing them, and the Americans have little to say.  

      Qureia dispatched Erekat to the State Dept this summer to try to get US backing for elections, but - in a move that was interpreted as a diplomatic victory for Israel - Colin Powell made it very clear that the US isn't interested in the Palestinians' voting. e.g:

      WASHINGTON -- In another diplomatic victory for Israel's government, the Bush administration is turning a cold shoulder to a Palestinian initiative that would schedule general elections in the West Bank and Gaza as soon as January 2005.

      The Palestinians are touting the idea as a tool to produce a new, reformed leadership, but the administration has indicated that it agrees with an Israeli contention that the early date would be the wrong timing for Palestinian general elections, according to Israeli diplomats and pro-Israel activists.

      The administration rejected the initiative because of the concern that elections would reproduce and thus reaffirm the existing leadership, headed by Yasser Arafat...

      -- White House Cool to Palestinian Proposal To Hold General Election, The Forward   

      So it's all very well to make snarky comments about Arafat being in his ninth year of office or whatever, but it is we and Sharon who are more opposed to Palestinian elections than Arafat is. And I don't think we can just brush it off with witty one-liners, because our refusal to countenance Palestinian elections unless they produce a ruler we like is symptomatic of a bigger problem in our MidEast policy in general, which is the absolute bankruptcy of the Bush Administration's claim to be bringing democracy to the region. Given a free choice, the people of the Middle East are not going to choose the CIA-backed pro-US Emirs, Kings and unelected Presidents that currently rule, so democracy is absolutely not on the cards and never was.  (Remember Rumsfeld's comment two days after the invasion of Iraq that a Shiite-led Islamic govt was "not going to happen"?  Well, that's a pretty odd thing to say with confidence if you really plan to give a democratic voice to a country that is 2/3 Shiite and where the most respected community leaders are Ayatollahs, isn't it?)

      I'm not trying to pick a fight here - as a lot of people have said, there is a more immediate battle to concentrate on - but our policy towards the Middle East is basically built on the lie that we care about democracy when really we care primarily about compliant Arab governments who will keep their populace in line.  Just saying it's all Arafat's fault doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem.

      by Diane on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:06:43 PM PDT

  •  Arafat's No Saint

    All sides bear a measure of responsibility for the present situation, most certainly including Arafat.

    More specifically, as part of the Oslo Accords, Arafat promised:

    The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

    The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

    Both during and after Rabin's assassination, Arafat has failed to honor these undertakings.

    by one of the people on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:30:05 PM PDT

    •  Israeli Settlements have increased...

      200% after Oslo. How can you expect peace when theives CONTINUE to steal your stuff? Can you seriously negotiate when one side is still getting what it wants and you do not?

      Israel wants Peace. Palestinians want their Land. Israelis NEVER stopped taking Palestinian Land. So you expect Palestinians to give Peace?

      Aldous.

      by Aldous on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:23:50 PM PDT

      •  The question is peace

        My comment pointing out Arafat's failure to honor his Oslo Accord undertakings to resolve all disputes through negotiation was not meant to be comprehensive.  Indeed, I expressly said that all sides bear a measure of blame.

        That said, one has a judgment to make.  Mine is that the Israeli public has responded positively when the Palestinians have appeared to them as a credible partner for peace; that the Clinton proposals -- which Prime Minister Barak accepted as a basis for negotiation -- embody a just and reasonable basis for a peace settlement; and that the Israeli public would have supported, and still would support, a peace agreement based thereon.

        This judgment puts the onus on the Palestinians and their leadership, i.e., Arafat, for rejecting the Clinton proposals and failing to put forward their own (plausible) alternative.

        by one of the people on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 03:31:32 AM PDT

        •  Not enough time

          This was near the end of Clinton's Term. Remember, Arafat was not exactly a Dictator or Absolute Ruler of Palestine. I doubt if he could sign anything without consulting Hamas, Islamic Jihad and who else? If only Clinton had 6 more months...

          Aldous.

          by Aldous on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 04:13:28 AM PDT

      •  Stealing vs. murder

        "How can you expect peace when theives CONTINUE to steal your stuff?"

        Stealing vs. blowing up as many noncombattants as possible. Both wrong, though not equally so, but note that Barak offered to give up 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, part of Jerusalem (including the top of the Temple Mount), and land in the Negev to compensate for keeping some suburbs of Jerusalem and Arafat rejected it in favor of the current terrorist Intifada. So the claim that terrorism was the only way to get rid of the settlements is inaccurate.

        But, really, we won't resolve this debate here, and I think most of us would like the two sides to resolve their differences with the help of a U.S. President who won't keep silent while noncombattants from one side are brutalized by the other. George Bush is not that President, and I have some hope that Kerry might be. Will either of them resolve the conflict? No. Only the parties to the conflict can make peace, but third parties can help or hinder that. And Bush has done nothing to help and worse, created a disaster in Iraq.

        by New Yorker on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 08:02:03 AM PDT

        •  Re: Stealing vs. murder

          "Barak offered to give up 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, part of Jerusalem (including the top of the Temple Mount), and land in the Negev to compensate for keeping some suburbs of Jerusalem and Arafat rejected it in favor of the current terrorist Intifada."

          Here's what Barak offered Arafat:

          

          Wourld you have accepted this map in return for dropping all future claims?  I wouldn't have.

          Educate yourself about this situation.  Israel does not deserve our support until it decides to return the occupied territories.

          by FullDisclosure on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 11:46:33 AM PDT

        •  Stealing and murder v. murder

          Let's stop pretending the Israelis are the only victims of violence, and the Palestinians are the only perpetrators of violence. The balance of violence is grossly in Israel's favor. From the year of independence to the first intifada 40 Palestinians had been killed for every Israeli. From the first intifada to the beginning of the second, the ratio had dropped to 7 Palestinians killed for each Israeli, since the advent of the suicide bomber in 1993, the ratio has dropped to 3 Palestinians killed for each Israeli. To this day the Palestinians shed more blood then the Israelis. The Palestinians are disproportionately victimized. If an Israeli nightclub is bombed, you'll read about it on the front page of the New York Times, if an apartment complex in Nablus is strafed with Hellfire missiles killing 25 people, mostly woman and children, you'll hear nothing of it.
          

          by Robert Drake on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 05:33:10 PM PDT

  •  Never mind the fact that ...

    Arafat is worth several hundred million dollars.  Gosh, I wonder how he got all that money.

    by leadhead on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:46:08 PM PDT

  •  Don't believe that hype either

    Yasser Arafat was the world's most notorious terrorist until Osama appeared on the scene, and he had been playing this role for 40 years.

    Background, and I mean way back background: There was plenty of ethnic strife between Jews and Arabs before Israel's formation -- the first shootings of Jewish settlers driving along West Bank roads happened in the 1910s when Jews first brought cars to Syria -- but Arafat's uncle, the Imam of Jerusalem, really turned up the heat. I forget the guy's name. He gave speeches against Jews the way Hannity and Coulter go after liberals, causing multiple genocides of both settler and long-standing Jewish communities from the late 1910s on through to 1948.

    To defeat the Ottomans, the British had a policy of inflaming Arab nationalism and the sense of Arab superiority to other cultures and ethnicities, specifically the Turks. It worked, but that really didn't help relations much between Jews and Arabs.

    When the British took over from the Ottomans, they let the Imam remain as a powerful spiritual and political leader, alternating between ignoring and supporting him. While the Jews remember a British-occupied Palestine, many Arabs remember an independent Arab Muslim state.

    The Imam later became a Nazi general commanding southeast Europe where he massacred many Serbs, seen as an inferior race by the Nazis. When Hitler's armies were destroyed, the Imam returned to Palestine and began raising a new army of Arabs in the Nazi image to continue the Nazis' goal of exterminating the Jews. Arafat later said that the experience he is most proud of was in joining his uncle's army.

    The Palestine Liberation Organization was founded by the several Arab states in the early 1950s with the explicit purpose of liberating Palestine from the presence, not merely control, of Jews. Jews had already been ethnically cleansed from Arab-conquered territories (West Bank, Gaza) in 1948 and Jews had done a bit of ethnic cleansing of their own with the Dalet plan of terrorizing Arab populations near the front lines into leaving their homes.

    Incidentally, the PLO's founding charter explicitly states that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not part of Palestine and are not claimed as Palestinian land, but rather belong to Jordan and Egypt. They changed the charter after Israel conquered these areas in '68. Bet that will surprise a few people to learn.

    After a few years, Arafat was put in charge of the PLO, which under his command became the center of coordination for all non-state terrorism against Israel and Jews worldwide. Among the PLO's accomplishments are bombing airliners, attacking the Olympics, assassinating the Imam of Mecca while he prayed in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and bombing synagogues and Jewish community centers throughout the world. All the while until 1973, there was intermittent shelling of Israeli towns and cities by the mainline forces of the surrounding Arab states.

    When the PLO attempted a coup in Jordan because Jordan was not sufficiently hostile to Israel, Jordan fought back and killed about 2,000 Palestinians in a month that became known as Black September, while simultaneously fighting off Syria's invasion in support of the PLO so effectively that Iraq called off its own planned invasion in support of the PLO after they'd already deployed their army to the border.

    After being evicted from Jordan, the PLO moved to Lebanon and, between launching mortar attacks on Israeli towns, started the Lebanese civil war with Iranian and Syrian backing. After Syria moved troops into Lebanon in support of the PLO. Israel invaded in support of the Phalangist fascist-Christian movement that had become the greatest native Lebanese opposition to the PLO. The second time around this happened, after a newly elected Christian Lebanese President was assassinated, Israel went further in their invasion until they'd kicked the PLO leadership out of the country. As a part of this conflict, a Phalangist militia massacred about 2,000 Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila. As a result, Israel sacked defense minister Ariel Sharon as being ultimately responsible for allowing it to happen under his watch, although there is no evidence he knew about the massacre until after it had taken place. The militia commander who directly led the massacre was recently assassinated, some say by Israel to keep him quiet.

    After the unified Arab armies' 1973 surprise attack on Israel was defeated, Arafat led a reform of the PLO from a primarily terrorist organization to one which used both terrorism and diplomacy. The stated goal of the PLO's diplomatic efforts was to convince the world to pressure Israel into giving up some of its land where the PLO could form a state, and then to use this territory and the shield of national sovereignty to raise an army with which to invade Israel and kill all the Jews. Many PLO members opposed this change and split off from the PLO to become notorious terrorists in their own right, notably Abu Nidal.

    It wasn't until the PLO was expelled from Lebanon to Tunisia, and hence wasn't in a position to attack Israeli civilians on a continual basis, that the PLO diplomatic efforts began to bear fruit. Soon, Israel was convinced to allow the PLO to return to Israel.

    All the while, Israel didn't do anything for Arabs in the captured West Bank and Gaza strip other than abuse them, and when this resulted in the Arab riots and excessive Israeli retaliations of the First Intifadah, the Palestinians and the PLO became the underdogs in the non-US Western world's eyes instead of the aggressors that they had been since the 1910s.

    In 1993, Israel ceded control of some small, disconnected regions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the PLO, which renamed itself the Palestinian Authority. The PA immediately claimed rights to all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and since 1993 you now see maps showing these as "disputed" territories or as "Palestine", although the PA's official maps show Palestine as all of post-1979 Israel, in some cases minus all the Jewish cities.

    The PA under Arafat continues to be a terrorist organization, with the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades being the PA's most prominent military operations wing. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are separate organizations.

    The Second Intifadah ended when the United States invaded Iraq, ending a key source of financial support that the PA and Hamas needed to continue their pace of attacks. Terrorism against Israel continues, but at no greater pace than before the peace talks broke down.
    

    by Cecrops Tangaroa on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:07:20 PM PDT

    •  Regarding the PLO National Covenant

      Cecrops wrote:

      Incidentally, the PLO's founding charter explicitly states that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not part of Palestine and are not claimed as Palestinian land, but rather belong to Jordan and Egypt. They changed the charter after Israel conquered these areas in '68. Bet that will surprise a few people to learn.

      Founded in East Jerusalem in 1964, the PLO's founding National Covenant asserted that "Palestine with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate is a regional indivisible unit."  (Article 2.)

      The 1968 amended Palestine National Covenant carries over Article 2 without change.

      See Palestine Liberation Organization From dKosopedia, the free political encyclopedia

      by one of the people on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 01:45:14 PM PDT

      •  Re: Regarding the PLO National Covenant

        "Founded in East Jerusalem in 1964, the PLO's founding National Covenant asserted that "Palestine with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate is a regional indivisible unit."

        You are literally quite correct in this post.  But as I imagine you are already aware, this section of the charter was changed during the 90's by the Palestinian Parliament, and explicitly disavowed multiple times by Arafat...

        by FullDisclosure on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 01:52:05 PM PDT

        •  PLO National Covenant (Again)

          I was responding to the mistaken claim that original the PLO National Covenant did not treat Palestine as geographical unit separate from Jordan and Egypt.  It literally did not occur to me that my comment might be taken as suggesting that the Covenant still claims all of Mandatory Palestine, i.e., negates the State of Israel.

          I agree that the PLO National Council has voted to annul provisions of the Covenant that contradict the existence of Israel.  But, without meaning to undercut the preceding sentence, I have not seen a new edition of the Covenant showing exactly what's been deleted and what, if anything, has been added.

          by one of the people on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 02:12:43 PM PDT

      •  S'more on that

        From the same charter:

        Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area.

        This seems to conflict with Article 2, as does Article 18's statement that "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based upon them are considered a fraud." This combined with Article 2 can be read to illegitimize the 1922 League of Nations partition plan (essentially a unilateral British decision) and the resulting Arab nation of Jordan, formed from within Palestine.

        Thanks for bringing the rest of the charter and its history to my attention. That history of mine was the short version from memory of quite amateur research, and I expect I got a lot of things wrong.
        

        by Cecrops Tangaroa on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 10:03:10 PM PDT

•  I've been fighting ghoulish thoughts

  all day, as I reflected on Arafat's condition.
  I settled on an old jewish proverb that goes something like "when you see smoke in your neighborhood, don't pray that it is your neighbor's house that is on fire."

  I wish no ill on Arafat's health, but...
  if Arafat exits the scene and Kerry wins there might be a chance for some positive change.

  Lord knows that alot of other "positive" changes need to happen (A.Sharon and family in prison, and the Israelis agree to share the scarce water resources, just for starters)for a real peace in palestine and Israel to be possible, not to mention any chance of "victory" in our "WoT".

  by TustonDAZ on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:16:21 PM PDT

  •  Jewish sayings

    The point of that statement about seeing smoke in your neighborhood is this: if you see smoke coming from your block and you say "Please God, let that not be my house!" you're implicitly wishing for your neighbor's house to be on fire.  And that's an immoral thing to wish from God.

    I'm also Jewish, but I'm not a Zionist.  When it comes to Israel, I think of the following story about Rabbi Hillel:

    Roman soldiers were mocking Hillel one day.  One of them said, "Rabbi, I'll convert to Judaism if you can explain all of Judaism while you're standing on one foot!"

    Hillel lifted one foot off the ground, looked at the Roman soldier, and said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.  That is Torah.  The rest is commentary."

    by Pesto on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:32:28 PM PDT

    •  Jewish Sayings ...

      "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor."

      If only we (as humans) could act this way just part of the time, what a world it would be ...
      

      by muffilator on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:50:47 AM PDT

•  Great Post MB!!

  Israel's confrontation with the Palestinians over the last 25 years offers a critical lesson for the U.S. confrontation with radical Islam. These fights are one and the same.
  
  25 years ago, Israel was confronting hostile Arab neighbors and a violent but SECULAR Palestinian opposition. Today, Israel's Arab neighbors are in mixed stages of cold peace or detente, but every neighboring regime is struggling to deal with the spread of radical Islamic movements seeking to topple these govenrments. Palestine has followed the same path. 20 years of confrontation, "facts on the ground" and other efforts to contain and channel the Palestinians has done the same to them. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have far more power and credibility than the decaying structures of the old secular Palestinian groups like Fatah.
  
  Israel has u