BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


NEWS: Bush tells Palestinians to 'replace' Arafat

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
06:38 / 25.06.02
New world's marching orders...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
07:12 / 25.06.02
During his speech, Mr Bush said peace required a "new and different Palestinian leadership" which could lead the Palestinians to their own state.

"If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on America's support for creation of a provisional state of Palestine," he said.

But Mr Bush said US support for provisional Palestinian statehood would only come after the Palestinians elected new leaders, built new institutions and new security arrangements to protect Israel from terrorist attacks.


How exactly are the Palestinians going to do this, given the current state of their infrastructure? And am I alone in thinking that Palestine will be expected to elect a leader who is acceptable to the US and to Israel? (i.e. a re-election of Yasser Arafat is presumably not gojng to do them much good...) It sounds almost like the assistance which the PA requires to begin to cope with its radical and militant factions will be withheld until the PA has, er, dealt with its radical and militant factions. Catch-22?
 
 
_pin
08:57 / 25.06.02
Surely by choosing Sharron, the Isralei's have opted to continue the occupation? Given the man's track record, I fail to see how America can only villify Arafat. Please tell me I'm wrong on that point if I am.

And precisly how can he even justify blatently attempting to hijack a democratic process in which a man actually won by getting more votes and is now in power (Bush. You fucking power stealing bastard.)?

Exactly how much money is George "on the board of an American arms company" Bush Snr. making out of all this? You know, as a hypothetical coincidence...
 
 
sleazenation
09:56 / 25.06.02
Surely Sharon is equally 'tainted' because of the accusations of his involvement in what would could reasonably be called war crimes. Yet again what we see is an uneven treatment of the different sides of the conflict and such favoritism is surely no way to promote a lasting peace.
 
 
rizla mission
10:14 / 25.06.02
It's worrying to say the least how the West (I won't say the US) seems to be taking an anti-Muslim approach to all international conflicts at the moment.. it's just plain racism really, and it's not doing anyone any favours (except possibly these 'terrorists' we keep hearing so much about, who have got even more to justify their ideologies when Islamic countries are being systematically demonised and picked on).
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:57 / 25.06.02
Ah, fuck.

This has been brewing for a while now, but it's still pretty appalling... No coincidence at all that it coincides with Israel sending the tanks into Hebron (again)... Where once Israel had 'Operation Defensive Shield', a handy appropriation of the hypocritical rhetoric of the 'war on terror', now they've got 'Operation Determined Path', which could hardly sound more ominous, really. What Bush has basically come out and done is endorsed precisely the same line that Sharon's been taking for a while - until Arafat is replaced with a puppet leader willing to make any and all concessions Israel requests, the Israeli/US campaign of state terror against the Palestinian people and Authority will continue unabated.

The only positive aspect I can see to this is that it should now be extremely, no-shit-sherlock obvious to anyone paying any attention at all that America is not an impartial peacemaker... Mind you, that should have been obvious already, and yet the BBC (seen as wildly pro-Palestinian in certain fucked-up quarters) is *still* calling this part of "Middle East peacemaking"...
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:54 / 25.06.02
Any links to the reaction of other world leaders here? What's the Blair line on this idiocy?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:57 / 25.06.02
I really miss Bill Clinton, at least he *pretended* to us that he was treating both sides equally in a non-Partisan way.

Otherwise, I'll try and dig up a transcript of an interview from American News Telly last week where the journo completely demolishes the Republican guy who comes on to give the usual line of how everything is the Palestinian's fault.
 
 
sleazenation
12:26 / 25.06.02
Maybe we should call on the American people to elected a leader also not 'tainted'
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:20 / 25.06.02
My first reaction on hearing this was exactly the same as everyone elses but on reflection Im not so sure. Just imagine for a moment that Bush and the US genuinely want to see a solution (its hard I know, but bear with me). One doesnt have to be a Zionist to see Arafat as an unpleasant man whose struggle for political survival could be at odds with a peace process. Moreover, the Israelis, rightly or wrongly, have built him up as a huge figure of hate.

It is, of course, sheer arrogance for the US to demand a change of Palestinian leadership. But what if it actually happened? It might be that the political onus would then fall on Israel. Arguably, it would be difficult for them to be as implacable to an alternative leader, especially if democratically elected. Moreover, this call for a change of leadership has come bundled with a call for a provisional Palestinian state.

It is too little, for sure, but this might be the quickest and most effective way to force Sharon to accept a proto Palestine. By going about it this way may also ease the pressures on Bush from his domestic Jewish lobby. IIRC elections have already been planned by Arafat and so this demand for elections and a change of leadership may be a way to capitalise on something that is already going to happen...

At the moment Israel is behaving almost without restraint and it feels justified in doing so. The Bush speech might be an attempt to change the political climate.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
15:36 / 25.06.02
But surely in that case the question of acceptability rises to the surface - and the most imposrtant aspect of that is, whether a leader acceptable to Palestinians is equally acceptable to the US and Israel. Say, for example, that someone known to be a member of Hamas or Al-Aqsa is elected by a democratic process (assuming he is even allowed to stand - I imagine candidates will be heavily vetted, especially given that Israel maintains a military presence in the West Bank and Gaza even when they're not specifically occupying those territories, so campaigning will be monitored) - say that that happens; how likely are Israel and the US to see that as a suitable beginning for a Palestinian state?

My guess is that such a process would be governed by interests and wishes other than those of the Palestinian people from the word go. The meaning of the word 'democracy' is probably not what it might appear in this case.

(Of course, militant groups are not exactly renowned for fair electoral practice either, and do not necessarily represent the wishes of the Palestinian people either - the ideal situation would be a leader acceptable to all parties, but where are you going to find him? Edward Said?)
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
16:08 / 25.06.02
Free and fair elections under occupation? Hmmm, think not. And I agree with Kit-Cat, can't see the Palestinians freely electing anyone trying to make nice with Israel and the US at this point.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
17:56 / 25.06.02
One doesnt have to be a Zionist to see Arafat as an unpleasant man whose struggle for political survival could be at odds with a peace process.

Arafat's identity is derived from a culture and an experience utterly foreign to a native of the UK. A sketch:

The West Bank, New Year's Eve, a decade and a half ago-

Arafat: Mr. David, why have you come?
David: Chairman Arafat, I have come to put my hand on the Palestinian Heart.
Arafat: Mr. David, it is here. [He takes David's hand and places it on his chest, then leads the conga line around the banquet hall.]

Arafat at this time never slept in the same bed twice running. His struggle for 'political survival' means something rather more immediate than it does in the West - and even now, Arafat not riding the Palestinian tiger may be Arafat killed by it. It's entirely possible that his desire to hold together some form of coalition sometimes means he can't say 'yes' to a given proposal. On the other hand, there's no point saying 'yes' to a proposal you can't honour. Which is what the 'moderates' favoured by the US and Israel may well end up doing.

I don't know on what you base the notion that Arafat is 'unpleasant' - I doubt it's even possible to apply that kind of standard to the notional leader of a fragmented people under siege by an enemy equipped with vastly superior force and allied to the single most powerful nation on Earth. If you mean 'Machiavellian' or something similar, consider what is being done by the opposition...

To Israel and her backers, it's attractive to point to Arafat as the obstacle in the path of peace. If the Palestinians then end up fragmented and partially under the banner of Hamas, the Israeli right can simply say 'we tried', and then bulldoze another city. If they get a 'moderate' (and someone without a history of terror) in place of Arafat, that person may be unable to deliver the Palstinian militants, with the same result. On the other hand, such a person, sticking to the rules laid down by the US and Israel, will be presenting a quiescent Palestinian people, an end to armed resistance to the land-snatching taking place in the West Bank and the occupation, and the handing over of those deemed terrorists - many of whom will be nothing of the kind. Win-win for the Israeli right, and a win for the Palestinians predicated on the honouring by the international community and that same Israeli right of a nebulous agreement on Statehood which will be dictated by the de facto victor.

Whatever Arafat is (and he is a former - perhaps even current - terrorist, whatever the word means in this age where civil disobedience is being accorded that title with increasing frequency), this demand is remarkable in its arrogance - but also in its futility. How would any people react to a demand by a foreign government supporting their greatest enemy that they replace a leader regarded by many as a war hero with a leader from a pool of candidates chosen as acceptable to the enemy? There's no democracy in this, but more importantly, I don't see it working, even in the long term. The East has a long memory.
 
 
Naked Flame
20:27 / 25.06.02
I don't agree with Bush- or rather, I think Arafat should probably step down, but I think the same goes for Sharon. Regardless of Arafat's status as a terrorist/democratically elected leader, it's fairly clear that either he is a) insincere when he pledges to halt the bombers or b) unable to rein them in.

If b) is the case I'd hypothesise that the only way the US/Israeli axis can halt the bombings is to allow the election of a leader with ties to Hamas etc. Assuming, that is, that even Hamas retains some measure of control over its ranks. A cell-structured organisation, under the kind of pressures we see on the West Bank, may have no one effective leader: 'control' may yet turn out to be a myth of the bureaucratic Powers That Be...

monsters are being created on a daily basis, I fear.
 
 
Saint Keggers
04:45 / 26.06.02
Im I the only one sick and tired of the Amer. sticking their nose into other countries buisness? Up here we had one of the "war on drugs" guys telling us what we need to do about the war on pot just a week or two ago...stupid shits.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:08 / 26.06.02
Don't be daft. We can't criticise the US on the one hand for not embracing greater internationalism and consensus - where everyone has a role in everyone else's life - and then gripe because they take a hand in issues which have relevance to US interests.

This is their business, just as much as it is ours. And just because some pre-pubescent consular snot got to come tell you about marijuana doesn't mean otherwise.

What is culpable is the heavy-handed and possibly disastrous line, and the extraordinary lack of justice on display. What Bush is attempting may work here, but if it does, I doubt very much it will do anything to defuse tension between the global islamic community and the US.

So Bush seems determined to take the hard, warlike line. Perhaps he's being told that's the way to peace. I'd have to disagree...
 
 
Rev. Wright
09:15 / 26.06.02
[1] FM Peres predicts a bloodbath

Some of the most outspoken criticism of President Bush's speech on the Middle East came from none other than Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister in the Sharon Government. The veteran Yediot Aharonot journalist Shimon Shiffer had watched Peres watching the Bush speech on TV last night and today gave a vivid description:

"Shimon Peres' face became more and more weary and angry, the longer Bush went on with his speech. "He is making a fatal mistake" remarked Peres. "Making the creation of a Palestinian state dependant upon a change in the Palestinian leadership is a fatal mistake" he repeated again and again. "Arafat has led the Palestinians for 35 years, kept their head above the water in the international arena. No, no, you can't just brush him aside with one speech." Peres did not watch the speech to the very end. He got up, turned off the TV and left the room, saying before he left: "The abyss into which the region will plunge will be as deep as the expectations from this speech were high. There will be a bloodbath."

For once, the words of Peres correspond quite closely to what we in Gush Shalom, the Israeli Peace Bloc, feel. Therefore, we today decided to once again address a public appeal to Peres,
something which we gave up in despair some time ago. We called upon Peres to leave the government immediately, to help get out the Labor Party as a whole, and to consistently address the Israeli and American public opinion in the spirit of his recent remarks. "It is your unique chance to atone a bitt for all the harm you have done, serving as a fig-leaf in a government of war and bloodshed."

[2] Yediot Aharonot: Bush can wait - we can't

The following, today's editorial of Yediot Aharonot - Israel's biggest mass-circulation paper - may interest you. (June 25, 2002 - written by Offer Shelach)

A big smile must have spread over Ariel Sharon's face at listening to the Middle East speech of his good friend George W. Bush. After all the hesitations and delays, the highly publicized power struggles between the State Department and the Pentagon, the tense waiting and the inaccurate advance leaks (which included the briefing by the White House spokesperson, an hour before the speech itself) - after all these, the leader of the Free World came out with one single meassage: anything but Yasser Arafat. The man with the beard must go - in a free democratic way, of course. How many other people will be gone by then, ours and theirs, the president did not say.

It is common to say that following September 11 the Bush Adaminstration is in the habit of dividing the world into goodies and baddies. It is true, but not the whole truth: even before that terrible day in New York, the president has been consistently dividing the world into those who are like America and those who are not. Those who are like America have tranparancy and a free market, elections to change the government and independent judiciaries. Those who are not like America have nothing. Bush's message to the Palestinians is simple: if you become like us, we will help you improve your life; if you don't, we will just wait until you do.

The fact that a free market and an independent judiciary are impossible for a people under occupation does not appear to disturb Bush, member of a nation which saw no foreign invader on its soil for the past two centuries. Nor does the fact that legitimate self-defence against terrorism drags Israel into activities which perpetuate and aggravate that occupation interest a person who can send the marines anywhere he chooses and pull them out again at his discretion. And he does not seem to lose sleep even over the fact that while these contradictions bump against each other, the blood of hundreds of civilians is shed over here every month. As far as the White House is concerned, either a new America will arise here, or we will just have to wait.

The White House is not concerned with many of us and how many of them will not survive to see that day.

So, Arafat is an obstacle - to his people, to us and to the region; a despicable fanatic. Still, peoples are not in the habit of changing their leaders at an order from Washington. Just 90 miles from the shores of Florida there is a country ruled, for more than forty years, by a man which the United States government despises and in whose overthrow successive administrations invested enormous efforts. The Americans impose a blockade on Cuba, starve its people to punish them for daring to adopt such a regime, and wait for Fidel Castro or his people to take the hint. They are waiting for a long time already. And what is true in Cuba is certainly true in the Middle East.

America can wait for the Israelis and Palestinians, and they can wait for America while shedding each other's blood. In the coming days, we will undoubtedly hear a lot from Sharon's aides about how this great diplomatic coup was achieved, due to Sharon's charm and Arafat's sins. We will hear how wondefull it is that the American president was convinced to sit on his hands a bit longer, to give some more time for suicide bombings and military operations to follow upon each other undisturbed. We will hear how we won some more time, time in which we can continue to live in fear, to become a bit more impoverished and bit more desperate with every passing day. "Anything but Arafat". The president said it.

What a great victory. It was a speech of encouragement to the rejectionists on both sides. No action of any kind was announced. No declaration was made of involvement - by the US alone, or togehter with its allies - in any effort to stop the intolerable bloodletting in one of the globe's most sensitive regions. There was nothing but the narrow worldview of a person who is willing to help everybody become an imitation Amercian, and wants nothing to do with anybody else. Nothing but a promise that, while the roses continue to bloom in the White House garden, the red spots seen on Israeli and Palestinian streets will be no flowers.
 
 
Tom Coates
10:17 / 26.06.02
Guardian: UK rift with Bush over Middle East

Britain, in a rare breach with Washington, aligned itself yesterday with the rest of Europe in expressing dismay over George Bush's Middle East peace plan. It is the first serious rift on foreign policy between Tony Blair and Mr Bush since the Palestinian uprising began 21 months ago. Ahead of a difficult meeting with Mr Bush today at the G8 in Canada, Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, openly rejected US demands that the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, stand down. Mr Blair insisted: "It is up to the Palestinians to choose their own leaders."

And Steve Bell says....
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:23 / 26.06.02
I take your points about Arafat, Nick. I suppose I was just wondering if putting pressure on him to go might free up the situation despite the overtones of US imperialism.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:20 / 26.06.02
That is exactly what everyone's afraid of.

I can make up scenarios where this isn't a disaster.

I just can't make up any which don't sound like a prayer for the dying.
 
 
Naked Flame
13:07 / 26.06.02
I suppose we have to take some hope from the international reaction to the speech- stressing its impracticality and impropriety. That at least creates some room for damage limitation...
 
 
Fist of Fun
13:50 / 26.06.02
Just out of curiosity - who thinks that Bush's speech actually improved Arafat's position with the Palestinians?

I think so because, from what I have seen, the Palestinian people see America as an Israeli supporter, and any friend of my enemy is my enemy, etc. etc.

I suppose it is possible that Palestinians will think 'Sacrifice Arafat and maybe the gamble will pay off', but if I were in their shoes and even willing to take the gamble I would want to see much more concrete proposals on the benefit to be had. Without such proposals, the action of disposing of Arafat would simply seem like indicating weakness in the face of the enemy.

Any thoughts?

And finally, if I am correct and Bush's speech simply makes Arafat's position stronger, has Bush effectively cut himself off from allowing any further improvemenets whilst Arafat is in change? Because whilst normally diplomats use such abstruse language they can weasle out of a position if it becomes necessary in a real politik sense to do so, in this case Bush has made his position so explicitly clear that he has no weasel room. And therefore could be shown up as a complete jack-ass in international affairs if somehow Arafat manages to pull peace out of the hat. (OK, more of a jackass. And the speech was probably in very clear language because that's all Dubya can cope with.)
 
 
Fist of Fun
13:51 / 26.06.02
Just out of curiosity - who thinks that Bush's speech actually improved Arafat's position with the Palestinians?

I think so because, from what I have seen, the Palestinian people see America as an Israeli supporter, and any friend of my enemy is my enemy, etc. etc.

I suppose it is possible that Palestinians will think 'Sacrifice Arafat and maybe the gamble will pay off', but if I were in their shoes and even willing to take the gamble I would want to see much more concrete proposals on the benefit to be had. Without such proposals, the action of disposing of Arafat would simply seem like indicating weakness in the face of the enemy.

Any thoughts?

And finally, if I am correct and Bush's speech simply makes Arafat's position stronger, has Bush effectively cut himself off from allowing any further improvemenets whilst Arafat is in change? Because whilst normally diplomats use such abstruse language they can weasle out of a position if it becomes necessary in a real politik sense to do so, in this case Bush has made his position so explicitly clear that he has no weasel room. And therefore could be shown up as a complete jack-ass in international affairs if somehow Arafat manages to pull peace out of the hat. (OK, more of a jackass. And the speech was probably in very clear language because that's all Dubya can cope with.)
 
 
grant
14:15 / 26.06.02
Important point to remember: Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. He supervised the planting of bombs in public areas (train stations,etc.). Those bombs killed civilians. That's why he was in Robbins Island.
So it's possible for a guy to talk peace and mean it and still be complicit in acts of terrorism.

Not that Dubya knows that.
 
 
Baz Auckland
07:02 / 28.06.02
Regardless of Arafat's status as a terrorist/democratically elected leader, it's fairly clear that either he is a) insincere when he pledges to halt the bombers or b) unable to rein them in. - Naked Flame

From what I'm guessing, it's pretty hard to reign in terrorists when your police force keeps getting killed by Israel. 'We trapped him in his HQ, killed his security, and destroyed the "terrorist infrastructure"(water? electricity? security vehicles?)...now, why hasn't he stopped the bombings?'

I just posted something along this in the Mrs.Blair thread, but I guess it belonged here. Arafat could be the best chance they have as a leader. The only benefit of him leaving would be if Israel ditched Sharon as well. I remember reading someone saying that if these old leaders who have been fighting for too long to consider peace went away in favour of some younger and fresher faces and opinions, the area would have a better chance for peace.
 
 
sumo
07:11 / 01.07.02
This is perhaps not useful to a continuation of the discussion being had, but just an observation:

Grant: Nelson Mandela was not imprisoned for supervising the placement of bombs. He spent most of his life in a cell on Robben Island for being a member and leader of an outlawed political organisation. He was arrested in Rivonia, a suburb of Johannesburg, in 1963, at the inception of Operation Mayibuye, which was the ANC's plan for an armed struggle. His incarceration for treason was largely predicated on the information contained in those documents, but no actual bombings had yet been officially sanctioned by the ANC. Also, it was policy not to bomb populated areas; the stated targets were infrastructure: electicity substations, etc. Naturally launching an armed campaign implies the acceptance of the almost inevitable loss of life, but Nelson Mandela himself never oversaw the planting of any bombs.
 
  
Add Your Reply