American position on the PA

Saint Marcus · June 25, 2002, 12:11

The US wants the PA to become more democratic. Yet it also wants Arafat out.

What would happen if Arafat was democraticly (re)elected?

And what would happen if the democratization of the PA results in the election of Hamas members (or other terrorists)?

DinoDoc · June 25, 2002, 12:13

The position is that the US would like a leadership not compromised by support of terrorism.

drake · June 25, 2002, 12:16

Quote:

The position is that the US would like a leadership not compromised by support of terrorism.

Unlike Sharon right

Boris Godunov · June 25, 2002, 12:16

Saint Marcus, the Bush administration has shown no regard for democratically-elected governments in the past (Venezuela), and is itself not quite one, so why would it be inconsistent of them to not support a democratically-elected PA?

DinoDoc · June 25, 2002, 12:18

Quote:

Originally posted by drake
Unlike Sharon right

Sharon isn't a terrorist.

DinoDoc · June 25, 2002, 12:20

BTW, was the election of Arafat actually certified as fair by an international body? Or is his election as valid as those in Iraq?

Urban Ranger · June 25, 2002, 12:22

That's just silly move attempting to pull wool over everybody's eyes. The US knows that they can't get rid of Arafat, so Dubya is basing his support of a Palestinian State on his removal. He's thinking that, if the PA rejects his demand, he'd just shrug his shoulders and say, "Hey I tried."

It's clear as day how one-sided this proposal is, with absolutely no demand for Israel, nothing like removing all settlements on the West Bank, nothing like withdrawing from occupied territories.

Ming · June 25, 2002, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
and is itself not quite one

Oh please... not that crap again.

Boris Godunov · June 25, 2002, 12:31

Ming: It stings because it's true!

Roland · June 25, 2002, 12:53

Well, Arafat's election was fraud-ridden but it's unlikely it affected the outcome. Bush's election saw only little fraud, but that was likely decisive.

Apart from that, Bush saying that Arafat lacks democratic legitimacy is mildly amusing.

DanS · June 25, 2002, 13:21

What Bush said makes a lot of sense. I have little faith that either of the current leaders can move toward peace. It looks to me like Bush thinks this as well, with Arafat going this year and Sharon going in the next couple of years. It's sort a mid-term bet.

Arafat isn't going to last much longer anyway. What is he, 80 years old? Sharon's an old fart too.

Saint Marcus · June 25, 2002, 13:25

the problem is that the Palestinians are more likely to elect a hardliner than a moderate, with all these Israeli actions going on (right or wrong). I think that elections are the worst thing that can happen in the region.

Arrian · June 25, 2002, 13:47

If the Pals want to elect a hardliner, fine - they will then have to live with what that hardliner does as their leader (same as Israeli's having to live with having Sharon running the show). I hope they don't, of course. Arafat, so far as I've heard, is basically ignoring the part about getting rid of him and is welcoming the rest of it. We'll have to wait and see how it all pans out. I wouldn't get your hopes up, though.

-Arrian

DanS · June 25, 2002, 13:53

"the problem is that the Palestinians are more likely to elect a hardliner than a moderate"

Oh how naiive you are, Marcus. How many hundreds of billions of dollars is it worth to the U.S. to make this problem go away?

Uncle Sam's a big spender.

Arrian · June 25, 2002, 13:56

"I'll take the moderate for $500 million, Alex."

-Arrian

chequita guevara · June 25, 2002, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
Bush's election saw only little fraud, but that was likely decisive.

Actually, there was massive fraud in Florida. Most importantly, Govenor Bush illegally struck from the voter rolls 40,000 ex-cons who had moved from states where their voting rights had been restored. Despite being told twice by the courts to reinstate their voting rights, Bush has refused to do so. There is also the matter of the people who were mistakenly removed because their name was similar to a convicts name. The state actually told the company making the list not to do an error checking, even though it was specified in the contract. I can produce a copy of that memo.

Since the last election, the State of Florida has required the state itself to draw up the convict lists, yet Katherine Harris has already hired an outside firm to do this work. The current Administration seems to have little regard for the law.

DanS · June 25, 2002, 14:12

Yeh, I always thought the democrats were a bunch of felons.

chequita guevara · June 25, 2002, 14:36

Faeelin · June 25, 2002, 15:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's just silly move attempting to pull wool over everybody's eyes. The US knows that they can't get rid of Arafat, so Dubya is basing his support of a Palestinian State on his removal. He's thinking that, if the PA rejects his demand, he'd just shrug his shoulders and say, "Hey I tried."

It's clear as day how one-sided this proposal is, with absolutely no demand for Israel, nothing like removing all settlements on the West Bank, nothing like withdrawing from occupied territories.

You've just been added to my list of people with no common sense.

Perhaps he's saying that they don't have a chance in hell of getting their own state until they stop with terrorism. What, exactly, makes that an unacceptable demand?

Bush also called for, specifically, an end to Israeli settlements.

Now maybe you can get outraged over one of hte more serious cases of injustice and oppression.

faded glory · June 25, 2002, 16:59

I reckon there are a few dozen ME threads already

Imran Siddiqui · June 25, 2002, 18:16

Quote:

Sharon isn't a terrorist.

Oh, that wasn't a joke?

----

Good thread, Markus. I agree with you. Elections are going to bring in Hamas or some hardliner in power, and then where will Bush be? Will he still create a provisional state if there were free and fair elections, like he said he would?

Kropotkin · June 25, 2002, 18:19

The basic idea is pretty good. It would be a lot better for a number of reasons if the palestinians where lead by a group of people without blood on their hands (I think that's pretty good for any goverment really). But actually making it so in reality would be to rig the election.

Sprayber · June 25, 2002, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Sharon isn't a terrorist.

Oh, that wasn't a joke?

----

Good thread, Markus. I agree with you. Elections are going to bring in Hamas or some hardliner in power, and then where will Bush be? Will he still create a provisional state if there were free and fair elections, like he said he would?

Are you and Marcus saying that the Palistinian people do not want peace with Isreal? If that is so, why is there any reason for Israel not to continue their current soulution? Is it impossible to find a person in the West Bank or Gaza without links to terrorism? Are you both saying that Arafat is the best that they have to offer?

Dr Strangelove · June 25, 2002, 18:27

I think I have the problem solved: Mahatma Gandhi should take control of the PA and Neville Chamberlain should take the helm for Israel.

DinoDoc · June 25, 2002, 18:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
Are you both saying that Arafat is the best that they have to offer?

Sad isn't it.

Sprayber · June 25, 2002, 18:30

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Sad isn't it.

I honestly think everyone would be better off if Jordan assumed control of the West Bank. Maybe not good for Jordan though.

Imran Siddiqui · June 25, 2002, 18:30

Quote:

Are you both saying that Arafat is the best that they have to offer?

Probably... he's a moderate in this situation.

DinoDoc · June 25, 2002, 18:35

Imran: Arafat is a bumbling, incompetent, foolish, liar. Any reasonably inteligent person would have recognized Hamas for what it was long ago and squshed it once he rose to power.

If he is the best that the Palestinians have, they are dire staights even if the occupation ends right now.

Imran Siddiqui · June 25, 2002, 18:56

Perhaps.. but the idiotic thing is how can you have a democracy in a non-state. A democracy that doesn't really have self-rule? Silly.

And Arafat NEVER has had the power to squash Hamas, and no Palestinian leader will be able to in the next 20 years.

Saint Marcus · June 25, 2002, 19:07

Quote:

Are you and Marcus saying that the Palistinian people do not want peace with Isreal?

I never said that.

I was merely pointing out a potential problem and inconcistency in Bush' plans.

Bush wants pacificts to lead the PA. Bush also wants to make the PA more democratic. Those two goals don't mix. It is in fact dangerous to make the PA democratic. Should there be democratic elections in the PA, there are only two possible outcomes. A re-election of Arafat, which neither Bush nor Sharon wants, or the election of a Hamas (or pro-Hamas) hardliner, which is 10 times worse than Arafat. And yeah, there are people within the PA who are more moderate than Arafat. But there are few, and none could wish to win an election.

And should Arafat get re-elected, what would Bush then do? He can't go on saying that he wants to get rid of Arafat, since Arafat will be democratically elected in the way Bush wants a Palestinian leader to be elected. His whole play just backfired.

And it would be 10 times worse if a hardliner is elected. Bush got what he wanted. Rid of Arafat, and democratic elections for the PA. Yet the situation resulting from that is far worse than the situation is now.

In short: bad idea.

I wish I could just say that this is yet another Shrubya screwup, but sadly the EU is also (mostly) supporting this idea. I personally prefer to have the PA as it is, until a state has been given to them. Elections will only make matters far far worse, either by making Arafat's leadership legal and official, or by making way for extremists to run the PA.