Wednesday, November 10, 2004
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (4)
Open Arafat thread
Feel free to comment on the significance of Yasser Arafat's death here.
In particular -- is it good for the Palestinians?
If this Glenn Kessler story in the Washington Post is any indication, the Bush administration is intent on making progress on the Israeli/Palestinian issue:
Assuming that Arafat's successor recognizes the futility of the second intifada, one wonders whether, to use a crude analogy, the Palestinians will be to Bush what the Soviets were to Reagan -- an implacable foe that was transformed into a near ally after a display of toughness on the U.S. side and a change in leadership on the other side.
Of course, this requires a Palestinian version of Gorbachev. I leave it to the commenters to comment on the odds of that happening.posted by Dan on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM
i hope there is a positive change now.
cautiously optimistic.posted by: chris on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Arafat is dead.
These statements don't add up. Something else has to happen to allow the new leadership to sever Arafat's legacy.
Arafat -- dead, but not burried.
Patrickposted by: PD Shaw on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Color me pessimistic. Anybody who has risen to leadership in the PLO has been intimately involved in terrorism.
You could say the same thing about the Soviets and communism, but I have a feeling that more folks were just climbers who did it to get ahead.posted by: austin on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Given the state of Palestinian politics, what we'll probably see is a long struggle to fill the power vacum. God only knows what will happen when it's over, but I'm willing to bet it will be bloody. However, I am very ignorant of the details of exactly who is positioned how within the politics of the PA and the territories in general. Is there anybody who can shed some light on that?posted by: Jesse on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Marwan Barghouti is a possible successor. You can view a profile of him here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/profiles/1473585.stmposted by: Seneca on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Even in death, Arafat is constantly attacked. He wasn't the greatest guy, but when Sharon passes away, and people try to mention he was a war criminal, they'll be branded leftisit-america-first-hating-anti-smites. EsEspecially if the person making the criticism isJewish.posted by: Jor on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
"Even in death, Arafat is constantly attacked."
Because Jor, he was a murdering lowlife terrorist even if you cant seem to admit that. Wasnt the greatest guy indeed. What makes me sick is apologists for scum like this even try to spin it as any other way or defect it into a fight that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. When you have nothing to whine about make something up seems to be your types mantra.
Face it. The guy was pure scum and the world is a much better place with his dead. Get over it.
OxBlog put it best: "Fifty years too late."posted by: Mike on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Given the fact that Barghouti is still in prison, I doubt the Israelis will let him out to reform the PA. More likely at this point in time is one of three: Mahmoud Abbas, Ahmed Qurei, or Mohammad Dahlan.
Interesting dimensions: Does Hamas constitute a political threat, or has their political capital been decreased significantly by Israeli actions over the last four years? Would Dahlan be egotistical enough to run the Gaza Strip seperate from the West Bank, were the leadership to split? The Israeli government is going to continue the disengagement plan regardless of who comes to power, but could the selection possibly re-open the lines of communication more quickly, especially if the new leadership were to make quick policy changes and renunciations of terrorist actions?
Personal opinion: With most of the leadership killed or arrested, Hamas hasn't the potential to be as much of a political force, but it could still be a destabilizing one, in terms of threatening the new government (if they aren't included). Dahlan is a hard one, because he's cooperated with the Israelis before, and has had designs on the West Bank, which would more quickly consolidate because of the Israeli withdrawal. And to the last, a yes: the Israeli government has already stated that it will negotiate if someone is viable; Abbas and Dahlan both push policy minus the rhetoric, although Qurei could pose a problem (by virtue of Arafat lackey-dom).
The US angle: Just like the FP team, more of the same.posted by: Stephen S. Wade on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
FWIW, here's the CIA's view:
"Challenged to consolidate control and unable to match Arafat's ability to unite Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Diaspora, a new leadership would be more beholden to the sentiment of the Palestinian "street" and less likely to show moderation toward a Palestinian-Israeli peace process," the CIA warned.posted by: Carl on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Mark, Sharon is also a murdering lowlife terrorist. And it is unreasonable to talk about change occurring as a result of Arafat`s death without taking into account the fact that the conflict is driven as much or more by Israeli aggression and terrorism as it was by the PLO's.posted by: peter on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
I remember reading somewhere that the Palestinians "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Look for their winning streak to continue.posted by: fingerowner on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Well Jor and Peter have demonstrated for all time where they stand: on the side of the terrorists.
I'm not sure whether you are both Americans or not, but feel free to emigrate anytime.posted by: Matthew Cromer on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
I don't see a Gorby emerging amongst the Palestinians because any leader who emerges will be in a very weak position. I don't see how any Palestinian leader who emerges from this can give up the "Right of Return" and survive. Maybe if there are elections, a leader with sufficient strength to enunciate such a position will emerge. For that reason alone, democracy among the Palestinians is now something to encourage.
The damnable thing about Arafat is he HAD the clout among his people to make a final peace and make it stick, and he chose not to do it. The Palestinians are better off without that kind of leadership.posted by: Appalled Moderate on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
The new Palestinian leadership will make peace. They have no choice. They know what happened to Rantisi, Yassin, etc.posted by: Matthew Cromer on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
It seems to me the Gorbachev is needed on the Israeli side. After all, they are the ones building the wall.posted by: stari_momak on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
If I am a Palestinian leader, and I attempt to make peace with Israel, I will probably be murdered by one of my feelow leaders, and it's unlikely anyone will raise a finger to protect me. On the other hand, if I continue with the current policy, it is likely I will continue to live, and, if I have to go into exile because the Israelis invade, I can live confortably on the Riviera on my Swiss Bank Account cash. (At least all those EU payments will be reinvested in the EU economy.)
Don't look for a whole lot of change in the Palestinian movement just yet.posted by: Appalled Moderate on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
My guess is that if he wants, Arafat's replacement could sell a new agreement along Taba lines. Perhaps by saying it's the final settlement in English and just the first stage in Arabic. And that would be smart, because it would put Sharon on the spot and make him the nay-sayer.
Lessee.. Paul in '67, then John, then George, and now Arafat. So sad.
(MattC. - the elections over. You can stop questioning the patriotism of everyone who disagrees with you anytime now.)posted by: wishIwuz2 on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Worried, self-sacrifice is not the highest calling a young arab can aspire to. I think you are assuming that palestinians and arabs are identical demographic groups. There huge numbers of arabs from Morocco to Saudi Arabia that I am sure do not aspire to blow themselves up and who have ambitions very similar to your own. The same can be said of many Palestinians.posted by: peter on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Peter: one either sympathizes with those who intentionally target civilians in order to gain political goals, or one does not. There is no gray area.
This week could be a turning point in the history of the ME. Arafat dead and Fallujah de-ratified. Obviously both of these things could end up worse than they were, but certainly there is an opportunity here. Something the nay-sayers should think about is that when the status-quo is untenable, stability is not a good thing.posted by: Mark Buehner on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Idiotic statements like that from Jor deserve opprobrium at any time, not just election season.
Nobody deserves to be slaughtered by terrorists, but folks like Jor who minimize their acts come awfully close. And Peter is just playing word games to justify the unjustifiable.posted by: Matthew Cromer on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
One point I haven't seen discussed much is the extent to which the next Palestinian leader will be selected by actual, free, fair elections, rather than a bloody power struggle or some back room deal.
I have the impressions that nobody - NOBODY - thinks that there will be real elections and that a real, respected leader will emerge from them. Well, why not?
I think our objective ought not to be to help choose which Palestinian best suits our needs. Rather, we ought to press for reall, free, fair elections, intended to choose a leader with the most support among Palestinians. Our only real chance to achieve lasting peace is to have a Palestinian leader who can implement a peace deal, and I think the best way to get that leader to to have him freely elected.
Anybody think there's any chance of that happening?posted by: Al on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Mark,do you sympathise with your government when it intentionally targets civilians as part of its political goals? For example, when Reagan paid the contras to blow up hospitals and schools in Nicaragua did you sympathize at the time (or retroactively)? And if you did support him as many Americans did, does that now mean that you are on Osama Bin Laden's side? Of course not.
Matthew, Nobody deserves to killed by a terrorist. I couldn't agree more. And I'd like to point out that the logical result of that belief is to oppose all forms of terrorism. Not just that employed by people we don't like. For example: A good deal of the rationale for bombing Falluja is to frighten the Iraqi people into submission and to get them to stop supporting the militants. That is a clear use of force and terror against civilians to attain a political end. Do you support that?posted by: peter on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
"Mark,do you sympathise with your government when it intentionally targets civilians as part of its political goals?"
"For example, when Reagan paid the contras to blow up hospitals and schools in Nicaragua did you sympathize at the time (or retroactively)?"
I know of no evidence that Reagan paid the contras to blow up hospitals. Reagan supported the contras in battling the equally if not more brutal Sandinistas who also were idiological enemies of the US. If you have evidence of Reagan ordering a school blown up I suggest you supply it.
"And if you did support him as many Americans did, does that now mean that you are on Osama Bin Laden's side? Of course not. "
Bad example, but i'm not arguing that those who support Arafat support Bin Ladin. It is one thing to support a group for valid reasons who then engage in terrorist activities. It is another to continue supporting a group who year after year engage in massive terrorism as their weapon of choice. It is even worse to pressure the world into treating their leader as a legitimate politician instead of a murdering thug.posted by: Mark Buehner on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Al wrote, I think our objective ought not to be to help choose which Palestinian best suits our needs. Rather, we ought to press for reall, free, fair elections, intended to choose a leader with the most support among Palestinians. Our only real chance to achieve lasting peace is to have a Palestinian leader who can implement a peace deal, and I think the best way to get that leader to to have him freely elected.
Who are you and what did you do with Al?
Seriously, I agree completely. And the winner would have to run from one hiding place to the next, with both israeli and palestinian hit teams after him.
There is no chance for an effective Palestinian settlement while Arab and European governments continue to use the Palestinians as a vehicle to attack the United States and Israel. Even when they stop doing that, if it ever happens, it will take the Palestinians generations to change enough for peace to have a chance.
Peace will come faster if the Palestinians are destroyed. What that is highly unlikely, it is far more probable than peace coming by any means faster than what I outlined above.posted by: Tom Holsinger on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
By what interpretation of events or definition of "terrorism" is the offensive in Falluja, a form of terrorism?
Your "rationale" runs counter to events on the ground. If the U.S. were playing by Hama rules (the indiscriminate killing of a civilian population as a form of deterrent), then civilians would not have been allowed to leave and American troops would not have been placed in harms way when the city could have been decimated from a safe distance.
Patrickposted by: PD Shaw on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Granted. Harsh tactics are sometimes deserved.
It's framing arguments with the "American vs. anti-American" slur that salts my campaign wounds.posted by: wishIwuz2 on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
I had always rather hoped that Arafat would die as a result of a suicide bomb malfunction. What a pity.
The United States ought to have appropriate representation at the funeral, to show respect for a leader many Palestinians revere, for one reason. And to make sure he's dead for another.
Posters who have suggested it may take a while for a stable Palestinian leadership group to form are probably right. The Bush administration should use the time to establish people and procedures for American participation in a revived peace process. In the Mideast opportunities to move toward peace do show themselves, but they don't stay around for long. We'll miss them if American diplomacy is passive, reacting to each day's newspaper headlines and television visuals.posted by: Zathras on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Terrorism is not the base cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As was mentioned above terrorism is a tactic. At the heart of the matter, with no gray areas is the simple fact that these people have a soul deep blood feud going on. There is religious and ethnic bigotry that only adds to the problem.
You do not solve the problem by picking a side and stating my side are the good guys and these other people are the bad guys. Lets go kill them until they say "Uncle". You do not solve the problem by denying the harm your good guys do in the conflict. It is partiotic and loyal and all but in the end it is counter-productive. STUPIDITY That way lies genocide.
Unfortunately, since we can not make a majority of the population on the both sides of the conflict give up their hatred and fear, we are going to be in the cycle of aggression and killing. That cycle will continue to ebb and flow until there is a concensus in the hearts of the people.
So in the end the best you can hope for is to inch toward that consensus and try to lessen the killing in the mean time.
That is the black and white of it.posted by: j swift on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
May God have mercy on his soul.posted by: LB on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
It is one thing to support a group for valid reasons who then engage in terrorist activities. It is another to continue supporting a group who year after year engage in massive terrorism as their weapon of choice.
Pure sophistry. Remove a couple of meaningless adjectives (eg "massive" and "weapon of choice"), and the act of terrorism which Mark was so ready to condemn in Arafat becomes a misdemeanor. An accident. A prank. Young rebels drunk on the love of freedom.
As long as there are assheads like this are willing to condone or excuse terrorism, it will continue to occur. Just as those willing to condone torture do nothing but perpetuate it.
As for Arafat- Ill shed as many tears for him as I will for Sharon- zero.
Wuposted by: Carleton Wu on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Swift, I don't doubt your patriotism or your sincere desire for peace, but I also don't doubt that a world in which terrorism is simply treated as an amoral tactic is a world in which terrorism will be much more common.
Arafat is evidence of this. The U.S. government overlooked Arafat's violence against the U.S., including his part in the 1973 execution of the U.S. Ambassador to Sudan, because the U.S. wanted someone to be in a position to negotiage for peace. Arafat's dead. No peace was negotiated. Our cool, dispassionate investment in his career has been a waste.
Patrickposted by: PD Shaw on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Mark Buehner: I know of no evidence that Reagan paid the contras to blow up hospitals. Reagan supported the contras in battling the equally if not more brutal Sandinistas who also were idiological enemies of the US.
Can't comment on the hospitals, but my understanding is that the Sandinistas were a vast human rights improvement over the Somoza era.posted by: fling93 on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
quote Tom Holsinger
Err, Tom, do you have any evidence for this claim at all?posted by: DM Andy on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
My apologies for the lack of shrillness, J Thomas; I'll try harder next time.
I admit that I haven't had the time to peruse all of the usual news sources for this info myself, but has anyone seen a good article discussing the expected process by which a successor is to be chosen? I haven't seen much more than cursory examination it yet - perhaps because Arafat isn't even in the ground yet. I mean, there are supposed to be elections, but will they be real elections and will the elected leader have actual power? This is something I'd like to read more about, but have not found any good information yet.posted by: Al on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
"Of course this requires a Palestinian version of Gorbachev."
And, of course, an American version of Reagan.posted by: Charlie on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
It's called the last twenty years in that area. You might also follow the money.posted by: Tom Holsinger on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
The money seems to be going directly via President and Mrs Arafat's bank accounts to singlehandly support the French hotel industry. It's not too surprising that the French profit out of this.posted by: DM Andy on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
is it good for the Palestinians?
It can't be bad. It's hard to imagine worse leadership than Arafat provided.posted by: Bernard Yomtov on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
My own blog ran an article on Arafat's death about a week ago, when he was first reported "dead" and I assumed he went into an irreversible (and worsening) coma. I'll summarize the article, which turned out to be quite accurate.
In my opinion, what Palestine needs to do is:
If things go badly, Palestine will become decentralized (the only comparison I can make is to Somalia, and that is a bad comparison), in which case and Isreali-Palestinian peace is impossible because there would be no one to enforce it on the Palestinian side.
Personally, I am unsure of how to analyze the placing of Palestine’s security forces on standby. It could either be a legitimate effort to maintain stability, or it could be preparation for a military coup.
If this happens, the hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace would vanish, and Palestine would stay in anarchy indefinitely, thereby continuing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict indefinitely.posted by: Chris Edwards on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Chris - My understanding of Palestinians in the occupied territories is that they're not a particularly tribal people. Not the way Afghanis and Somalis are, with tribal loyalty trumping everything else. I could be wrong, but my impression is that they want a "normal" state, a centralized/federated state. They don't want to be divvied off into semi-automonous conclaves - I thought that's why they agreed with Arafat's turning down Barak's offer at Camp David in 2000.
They've been between a rock and a hard place for as long as Arafat's been in charge. He loomed too large as a national icon, no one could get a real government going while Arafat had veto power over everything and was willing to unleash violent uprisings to keep his status. With Arafat gone, this is their best chance to install a normal leadership, one that can bargain sanely and not use intifadas or splinter groups to sabotage its own efforts.
This might be their last best hope, too. Demographics don't look good: the Palestinians who remember, and have lived in, civil societies - the educated middle and professional classes - are being supplanted by a generation that has only known occupation, isn't well educated, has little socially or economically useful skills, that hasn't learned and might not learn to channel its anger more constructively than intifadas and suicide bombings, and whose loyalty is to their factional commanders, not to an idea of federation. If Palestine does devolve into armed tribalism, it'll happen when this generation reaches primacy.
If Palestine fails to grab this opportunity right away - and, yes, if Sharon and Bush also fail - then what I see happening is another Diaspora. Palestinians who want a normal life - for their children, and for their own old age - will be faced with yet another Hobson's Choice. Stay and fight a losing battle for at least another generation, in a culture going more and more feral...or decide that the idea of a "home" trumps that of a "homeland," and leave altogether.posted by: Palladin on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
You assume that the Palestinians are masters of their own fate, when all the evidence is that outsiders with lots of money have been doing their best to make things worse there for at least thirty years.
In particular, the Palestinians are being used by other Arab ruling groups as vehicles to distract their own people from local tryanny and backwardness. They don't want anything peaceful going on there lest they lose power at home.
I.e., the solution lies elsewhere - we knock off the outside troublemakers.posted by: Tom Holsinger on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
posted by: Alan K. Henderson on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
You are confusing Abu Abbas, who is dead, with Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen. Abu Mazen is a civilian and is opposed to the current Intifadeh, though in the past has come close to being a Holocaust denier. I've written my thoughts about Arafat here. Particularly good is Jonathan Edelstein's post on the same subject.
 - Abu means "Father of", which is a common way of calling people in Arab societies. Thus, Bill Clinton would have been known as "Abu Chelsea", and Hilary as "Um Chelsea".posted by: Danny on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Mark B, It is indisputable, I think you'll agree that Reagan backed the Contras and endorsed their violence. 'I am a Contra too' were his exact words I believe. It is also indisputable that the Contras engaged in terrorist actions. If you don't believe me then I urge you to consult just about any standard academic work on Nicaragua. Check out Walker's Nicaragua, Land of Sandino. Walter Lefeber's Inevitable Revolutions might also be worth your attention.
In addition, the Sandinistas were far less brutal that both the previous regime and the contras. They ruled with the support of their people as witness by their victories in two democratic elections, judged to be of exemplary fairness by international observers. Again, if you don't believe me, the historical record is crystal clear and easy to find in any standard text on the subject.
My basic point remains. To have a serious talk about the future of Israel-Palestine or anti-american terrorism or any related topic, we need to recognize that terrorism is a tactic used by us and our allies as much as by our enemies.posted by: peter on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Pipes says the likeliest scenario is that two dictators will emerge, one in Gaza and one on the West Bank. That seems pretty likely to me, too.
Prognosis for meaningful peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs - no chance in the forseeable future. Any Palestinian Arab who even suggested that he might agree to (1) give up on the "right to return," (2) settle for less than total control over Jerusalem, or (3) accept less than a retreat by Israel to the 1967 armistice lines, would be killed in short order. No permanent peace treaty is remotely conceivable without all of these.posted by: DBL on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
If two Palastinian states emerge, would Gaza settle for less than the 1967 armistice lines and control over Jerusalem? Would a right of return become less consequential if the two Palastinan states emerge as rivals? Would Gaza accept a compensation package to help stablize its territory and secure its political leadership?
Patrickposted by: PD Shaw on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
the wall is being built to keep people out and not in.
arafat was the only constant leadership in the peace talks for the past 50 years. there have been many israeli prime ministers with just as many visions for the future of israel. you can bitch about sharon but you cant blame the past 50 years all on him. a change in the palestinian leadership could be a positive. its never happened so who knows.posted by: michael on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Mathew, keep questioning my patriotism, you are a true American. You have taken the Bill of Rights to heart.posted by: Jor on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Getting my PLO denizens mixed up. I knew there was an terrorist from way back named Abbas who pulled off a big job and got away, and a terrorist from way back who pulled off a big job and got away and is alive to this day. The latter is a different guy from an even older terrorist episode: Mohammed Daoud Oudeh, mastermind of the 1972 Munich Massacre (which, coincidentally, Mahmoud Abbas is alleged to have funded).
Mahmoud is a mixed bag. The bad news is that he's a founding member of Fatah. The good news is that the more militant terrorists are annoyed with him - refer to the above Wikipedia link.
There's more bad news:
In almost the same breath as Abu Mazen condemned terror, he praised the "courageous uprising against Israel's aggression" and claimed that Palestinians had "fought with honor." How would a Palestinian learn from this that suicide bombings or shooting children in their beds is wrong rather heroic? Why didn't Abu Mazen simply condemn suicide bombings, which would have gone far to remove this ambiguity?
Looks like it'll be business as usual.posted by: Alan K. Henderson on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
The Palestinian Arabs do not know how to save themselves. It seems all they want to do is kill. They had a peaceful settlemtnt handed to them with the Clinton peace talks.posted by: Veloer on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
They did not have an acceptable settlement handed to them at the Clinton peace talks. Learn your history. And they certainly want to do more with their lives than just kill. They'd very much like to have normal lives free of oppression, theft of their property and state-sponsored terror.posted by: peter on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
The best monument we could possibly build over Arafat's grave, is an outhouse.posted by: Bithead on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth and let not thine heart be glad if he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it, and it displease him. Proverbs 24-17.posted by: lisa on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
peter wrote about the Palestinians:
"They'd very much like to have normal lives
So you think the Palestinian people will
posted by: pragmatist on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
"Pragmatist", before the palestinians had any of those 'overlords' they had nothing to speak of.
Israelis called them refugees and said there was no palestinian culture and had never been a palestinian state and no palestinian people, they suggested that the refugee problem should be handled entirely by other arab or moslem nations taking them in.
It wasn't until they started doing violence that israelis took them seriously at all. It could be argued that they're worse off when the israelis take them seriously than when the israelis claimed they didn't exist at all, but this history is no indication that "peace" for palestinians would involve treatment nearly as good as native americans get on their reservations.
Pragmatist, getting rid of the militant Palestinian groups will not bring an end to the victimization of their people. It might allow for the stabilization of a system of permanent exploitation, exclusion and misery. More likely it would simply result in the formation of new militant groups.
Shouldn't this read "Open Arafat DEAD"??posted by: NoAcademic on 11.10.04 at 11:41 PM [permalink]
Post a Comment: