Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Who Needs Arafat?  
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 9 months 6 days ago) and read 913 times:

QUIETING THE STREET

Who Needs Arafat?
The world could hardly be worse without the PLO chairman.

BY CAROLINE B. GLICK
Monday, December 17, 2001

TEL AVIV--Last week, in the wake of yet another massacre of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists, the Israeli security cabinet announced it was severing relations with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. Although it has been obvious for some time that Mr. Arafat is an obstacle, not a means, to peace in the Middle East, most policy makers have been loath to voice this simple truth. The main concern is that while Mr. Arafat is clearly a source of instability, his replacement could be even worse. Many argue that the Palestinian Islamic terrorist group Hamas, which overtly rejects Israel's right to exist, is the most likely successor to Mr. Arafat's leadership.
Given the Palestinian Authority's public complacency and private cooperation with Hamas in its attacks against Israel, a growing number of Israelis now greet the possibility of a Hamas takeover with the unblinking response of "so what?" As retired Israeli general and terrorism expert Meir Dagan explained to me some months ago: "In a way it would be better if the Hamas takes over. Then there would be no ambiguity. Today, Arafat conducts a terrorist war against us and still enjoys international legitimacy as a peace partner. If the Hamas takes over, our goal will be clear--to defeat them. No one will argue that we have to negotiate with these people."

Yet while the prospect of a Hamas-led regime may have the positive feature of clarity, it is also highly unlikely. Although Palestinian support for Hamas has risen over the past 15 months, this public backing is due mainly to increased hatred for Israel rather than a swelling of support for Hamas's political or ideological agenda. A source from Israeli military intelligence explains the seeming contradiction: "Hamas is now supported by 30% of Palestinians in contrast to 9% of Palestinians who declared support for Hamas before the outbreak of violence in September 2000. However, it is very unlikely that in the event of Arafat's removal, this support will be translated into political backing of a Hamas regime. Palestinians are far from interested in establishing an Islamic state."





If not Hamas, then who can replace the chairman? Mr. Arafat, who has personally symbolized Palestinian nationalist aspirations for over a generation, has no single replacement. When Mr. Arafat goes, he--like Stalin--will be replaced by a junta. Israeli experts concur that the most likely successor regime will be a quadripartite coalition comprised of two political leaders and two military commanders who together possess the necessary resources to assume the helm.
The two political leaders, Mahmud Abbas, Mr. Arafat's No. 2 in the PLO, and Ahmed Queria, the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, have risen to international prominence in their roles as lead negotiators with Israel over the past eight years. Mr. Abbas (a.k.a Abu Mazzan) is viewed as a statesman by Palestinians and Westerners alike. Last summer Mr. Abbas ran into trouble with Mr. Arafat when the Palestinian media reported that during meetings in Washington with Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice he discussed prospects for a successor regime to Mr. Arafat. After a few months in Mr. Arafat's doghouse, senior Palestinians prevailed upon their chief to bring his deputy back into the leadership fold. While acceptable politically to the Palestinians, Mr. Abbas lacks Mr. Arafat's charisma, and commands no military forces of his own.

Mr. Queria, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Ala, rose to international prominence as the chief Palestinian negotiator with Israel--a position he has held off and on since 1993. In this post, he cultivated good relations with the State Department and the European Union and built up the international bona fides to consolidate his position next to Mr. Abbas. More important for his future in a post-Arafat coalition is Mr. Queria's economic power. He has controlled and managed the PLO's finances for the past 20 years and has the economic muscle to ensure his place at the table.

The military commanders who will stand beside Messrs. Abbas and Queria are Jibril Rajoub and Mohamed Dahlan--the heads of the Palestinian preventive security forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While Mr. Arafat has 13 separate security forces, the preventive security forces in both areas are the undisputed masters of their realms. Whereas all the other militias are comprised of officers and troops who came into the region with Mr. Arafat in 1994, the preventive security forces consist chiefly of locals. This distinction is crucial, for the main bone of contention between the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza and Mr. Arafat's PA has been the feeling among the majority of Palestinians that they replaced one foreign occupier--Israel--with another foreign occupier--Mr. Arafat's forces and cadres from abroad. Mr. Rajoub and Mr. Dahlan's men--the best trained and most disciplined forces in the PA--are the only ones considered to be "of the people."

Both Mr. Rajoub and Mr. Dahlan are charismatic local commanders who joined Mr. Arafat in Tunis after Israel deported them in 1988 for their leadership roles in the Palestinian uprising. Both have cultivated relations with the U.S., the EU and the Israeli military, and neither has assumed a direct role in the attacks against Israel over the past 15 months. Mr. Rajoub has prohibited his men from participating in terrorism and Mr. Dahlan has charged his deputy, Rashid Abu-Shabah, with taking command of the terrorist attacks his forces carry out in order to maintain a semblance of plausible deniability before the Israeli and U.S. governments.

These four men--and not Hamas--are the likely face of the Palestinian leadership in a post-Arafat era. Will they have more of an interest in ending the violence than Mr. Arafat?





The sense among the experts is that the four will be motivated to end the violence against Israel. One well-placed Israeli military source explains: "These four are going to need quiet from Israel and the United States to consolidate their power. To achieve this quiet they will have to put an end to the fighting."
Boaz Ganor, director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel, believes that even if the four are unable to end the violence, the situation under their leadership will be no worse than the current one under Mr. Arafat. In his view, "Even if Arafat is assassinated, the violence will not worsen. Today the Palestinians are hitting Israel with everything they have. Arafat's departure will not impact their capabilities so even if their motivation to attack Israel rises, their ability to do so will remain constant."

Although Mr. Arafat's removal will not be a panacea to the region's woes, and while the unabated Palestinian terrorist attacks of the past 15 months make it difficult to look to the future with optimism, a future without Mr. Arafat will scarcely be worse that the present with him. And, with the proper management, it could be far better.


Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

------------------------------

Something to think about.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 863 times:

arafat is a weak old man,blackmailed by terrorists in an attempt to hold on to power.

It would be better for all if he retired............



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39881 posts, RR: 74
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 860 times:

Who needs Sharon?


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 853 times:

Who needs Sharon? Everyone that wants peace for the Jews. Everyone that wants their country theirs again. Everyone that wants them to have the Promised Land again.

Who needs Superfly?  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 850 times:

Sharon is casuing more problems than he is solving right now.

User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 842 times:

All he is doing is protecting his nation from attack with his military. Completely justified as well as the only way to do it.

Do you expect him to take these attacks sitting down? That is no way to run a country. His duty is to protect his citizens, not members of radical groups that are attacking him.


User currently offlineDavid B. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 842 times:

"Who needs Sharon? Everyone that wants peace for the Jews. Everyone that wants their country theirs again. Everyone that wants them to have the Promised Land again. "

 Sleepy



Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 843 times:

Sharon is just as bad as Arafat! If he wanted peace, he would not go and attack Palestine! Especially getting their police stations and complain how they are not arresting enough people! Well duh they hardly have a police force left!
You need to get rid of these old guys who have so much hate, and the young purists, and get some middle aged eevryday people to run the regions, then there would be peace!
Iain


User currently offlineDavid B. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 842 times:

"Sharon is casuing more problems than he is solving right now."

 Big thumbs up



Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 829 times:

>If he wanted peace, he would not go and attack Palestine

Hey, the USA wants peace. That is WHY we are attacking. You are so blinded by your pacifism that you don't realize that war is the only way to peace in these situations. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, nor should you.

>Well duh they hardly have a police force left!

Yeah, all the Palestinian police are being killed by Israelis... for shooting into crowds of Jews and killing them.


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 816 times:

Considering the fact that the Palestinian Police force is not in proportion to the Palestinian population (about 4-5 times greater than necessary), I wouldn't worry about Arafat being left without armed goons. He has more than enough of them, and its no excuse for not preventing terrorist attacks.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineAvi From Israel, joined Sep 2001, 943 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 813 times:

It is amazing how all of you are forgetting that Sharon was NOT Israel prime minister when Arafat started the violence and he did it because Barak (Israel P.M at the time) was not ready to do a collective suicide.


Long live the B747
User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 810 times:

Sharon is a dangerous man, Arafat is a dangerous man. The future is not bright.


Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineLeftseat86 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 806 times:

The man is about to die anyway...  Sleepy

User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 808 times:

Hey, the USA wants peace. That is WHY we are attacking. You are so blinded by your pacifism that you don't realize that war is the only way to peace in these situations. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, nor should you.-You are deluded if you think you can fight terrorism on a long term scale.



User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 800 times:

400QX fighting back without goals (like Israel) will not solve the problem. The attacks will just go back and forth. About shooting the jews, the number of jews that have been shot are minimal compared to the murder of the palestinians by the Israelie police.
Iain


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 798 times:

Just when I think that N400QX can't possibly post anything more biggoted and conservative, he starts a new thread.

"Everyone that wants peace for the Jews. Everyone that wants their country theirs again. Everyone that wants them to have the Promised Land again."

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. The "Promised Land"? In case you haven't noticed, the so called "Promised Land" is Palestine. By your knowledge, just because Israel is the birthplace of Judaism doesn't give us the right to just kick out the Palestinians.

Say that you live in Texas, California, or any former Mexican terrority, and your family has lived there for generations. Then one day, out of the blue, it is agreed that the US will cede Texas to Mexico, as Mexico claims that the land rightfully belongs to them, and the land is ceded to Mexico. Mexican troops occupy your town, take your home, and force you out. What would you do? This is what happened to the Palestinians.

According to N400QX, Palestine should just bend over and take it without complaining, or doing anything. I know damn well that you wouldn't do this if your home was taken. Admit it QX, you'd be one of the first terrorists if your home was taken in the same unfair manor that Palestine was. Now, if you support Israel, but say that you'd fight to the death to defend your homeland, then maybe you need to have your head examined.

I'm not saying that I support the Palestinean terrorists, and I don't have anything against Jews, or Israelies. Some of my best friends are Jewish, and have family living in Israel. The problem with this conflict is that we have a very difficult situation, and two hot-heads on opposing sides. Sharon is a butcher, and it doesn't look like Arafat is much better.


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 784 times:

No responses? I was in the mood for a debate too.

User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 779 times:

>By your knowledge, just because Israel is the birthplace of Judaism doesn't give us the right to just kick out the Palestinians.

It is much more complicated than you'd like to make it seem. The Jews were given the Promised Land thousands of years ago and have inhabited it for nearly all of it. Of course they were subject to Muslim occupation for some of that time (Islam has been around for... 1400 years?). I wonder if you knew that when the Muslims came in, they tried to find the EXACT location of the old Temple so they could place their mosque on top of it.

>This is what happened to the Palestinians.

That is not what happened to the Palestinians. The Palestinians (a) haven't lived there nearly as long as the Jews, and (b) aren't really Palestinians-- they are a big group of Muslims from other Arab areas that migrated there.

>According to N400QX, Palestine should just bend over and take it without complaining

Well, Palestine doesn't exist, but the Palestinians aren't bending over to take anything! What they are 'taking' is retaliation for their sensless and barbaric murder of innocent civilians on busses, stations, malls, and streets.

>you'd be one of the first terrorists if your home was taken in the same unfair manor that Palestine was

More crap... "unfair manor"? Give me a break. And I don't think I'd ever stoop so low as a Palestinian terrorist. You just DON'T target civilians for your cause. It is cowardly and barbaric.

>Now, if you support Israel, but say that you'd fight to the death to defend your homeland, then maybe you need to have your head examined.

You're not making much sense. Of course I'd fight to the death to defend Israel. I'd do the same for America. Why would I need my head examined?

>I'm not saying that I support the Palestinean terrorists

You sure sound like it...


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (12 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 776 times:

In case you haven't noticed, one of Islam's sacred sites is located in Jerusalem. The Palestinians lived their almost as long as the Jews did. Just because the Jews believe that God revealed Israel as their promised land does not give them the right to kick out Palestine. It would not have happened either had the US and the Brits written off Palestine. Just another example of poor US foreign policy.

User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 775 times:

>The Palestinians lived their almost as long as the Jews did.

Not true. They haven't lived there a FRACTION of the time the Jews have.

>Just because the Jews believe that God revealed Israel as their promised land does not give them the right to kick out Palestine

But the Jews CAN get rid of the Palestinians and it is too bad they haven't yet.

And your statement about the US and UK and poor foreign policy is just pitiful, but hardly out of character.


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (12 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 768 times:

"But the Jews CAN get rid of the Palestinians and it is too bad they haven't yet."

So it's just perfectly fine for the Jews to come back after 2000 years and just kick the Palestinians out?

Creating Israel was a bad foreign policy move, and I will stand by that. All of the Islam countries of the Middle East used to love the USA, until we supported Israel.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (12 years 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 765 times:

You all should whistle while you work, will make your debating (or work) a little more enjoyable.




NO URLS in signature
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Who Needs Galileo? posted Thu Dec 29 2005 17:50:56 by Dougloid
Billboards - Who Needs 'Em? posted Wed Dec 10 2003 04:10:24 by Sleekjet
Who Needs Cuba? America Or Republicans? posted Thu Jun 27 2002 15:33:50 by Jm-airbus320
Who Needs A Landscape Gardener? posted Mon Jun 17 2002 01:58:12 by EGGD
The Who Question Needs Answer posted Wed May 29 2002 16:07:15 by TechRep
Who Was Working On TEC For Their Computer? posted Thu Mar 15 2007 22:43:33 by TedTAce
Who Still Got Messed Up By New Daylight Savings? posted Sun Mar 11 2007 18:37:21 by Allstarflyer
Who Wants To Make $50? posted Thu Mar 8 2007 20:06:08 by YOWza
Deputy Revives Man Who Had Been Pronounced Dead posted Wed Mar 7 2007 22:51:39 by KFLLCFII
Who Wants To Go Shooting In ATL On Sunday? posted Tue Mar 6 2007 23:40:17 by DL021