i’m sure many of you are aware of geroge w bush’s plan for the middle east. i firmly believe that both sides have to take it with both hands, choosing life and peace, over death and fear.
obviously the sticking point is bush’s demand that the palestineans find a new leader.
my two questions are:
if the palestineans react to this opportunity, with an act of defiance, and vote arafat back in, does this confirm the suspicion that they are a conservative nation, intent on prolonging conflict, and killling jews ???
(at what point does the culture of revenge get put to one side?)
and also, does today’s announcement that the elections will take place next january, show that either a) arafat needs time to generate support, in light of the opportunity bush has given them? b) confirm the desire to hold back the peace process that little bit longer, so there can be just a little bit more time for more sucide bombers, more israeli occupation, and more hatred against the israelis/jews? c) that amount of time is needed to rebuild the infrastructure that the israelis have damaged, an infrastructure that is needed before free and fair elections can take place?
Finding a new capable leader is similar to finding a needle in a haystack. Their country is ridden with politricks, dogmatic theives and liars supposedly representing the people’s interest. yeah/
They’d be very stupid to vote arafat back in, unless they agree that fighting is the only way. (How can one award the Noble prize to such a selfish dogmatic prick for “peace creating efforts” when he is a creator and a great influence of such??) His
would be a great liability to them. BUT…
he’s also Palestine’s greatest asset.
he did the most ‘lip work’ to put to war to end, but he was also with the others hijacking planes and committing other acts of violence. YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE, so if they vote him in again they are truly
[size=59]I’m not answering the other question.[/size]
I would laugh my arse off if an unelected head of state EVER preached about fair elections, and so i have spent the last couple of years in hysterics. What would really set me off is if they get rid of Arafat, and then some REALLY bad Islamist comes in. Oh, that would slay me.
I’ve read between Arafat’s infighting and Israeli assainations there are no real contenders to the crown but Arafat. There’s some student guy languishing in an Israeli jail somewhere and some priest who’s about to croak it and that’s about it. And then there’s people even worse than Arafat.
Anyway, I’m surprised that no-one’s said that Bush has a lot of bloody cheek, basically saying, “I’m not going to deal with Arafat, so vote him out or else”. How on earth does that fit in with Democracy? I hate Bush, such a flippin idiot.
no…i don’t agree with your anti-palestinian statement. The palestinians have every right to determine their own leaders, as was the case with the election of arafat in the first place. Israel also has to withdraw from the occupied territories to make a peace treaty work.
I also think it unhelpful to go along with popular but unconsidered sentiment in portraying the Palestinians as the ‘problem’ or the sole aggressors. Both sides are guilty of terrible crimes, and though we have seen a new spate of Palestinian terrorism lately, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a reaction to Bush’s insulting call for a replacement for Arafat - how can a purveyor of ‘democracy’ stipulate that the Arab world needs free elections…apart from when their choice of leader annoys him a bit? The only man seen to be a likely contender to Arafat is currently sitting in an Israeli prison cell charged with organising acts of terrorism - is he likely to be a better leader than Arafat? Assuming that he is charged and hence unable to stand against Arafat, there is nobody else the Palestinian people are likely to want to elect. The big hypocrisy is, why does Arafat have to be replaced for alleged links with terrorism, whilst Sharon is snug in his position despite being at the helm of a UN-condemned, unabashed illegal occupation of the West Bank?
As long as Israeli troops remain in the West Bank, peace will never be achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians - remove the incitement, and terrorism will collapse in on itself. Remember that many of these suicide bombers have been desperate young people sick of always looking over their shoulders - not ideological anti-zionists (as Cherie Blair rightly pointed out recently. The hammering she took just goes to show how biased Western governments are in favour of Israel). The Israelis cry terrorism at every opportunity, but isn’t it fairly ‘terrifying’ for young Palestinians to have to deal with the fact that enemy soldiers are occupying their territory - the Israelis are guilty of state terrorism as much as Palestinian splinter groups are guilty of appalling civilian attacks. The onus must be on both sides to act.
In response to your questions:
If the Palestinians reelect Arafat it does not mean that they want to prolong conflict. Look at the guy, he’s too old and frail to be taken seriously as some sort of Jew-killer. They see him as the best person to lead them so they are likely to vote him back in; that’s democracy. Also, Bush’s ridiculous notion of his own importance and the insult he paid to the Palestinians is likely to have strengthened Arafat’s support.
This is a more interesting question. I doubt Arafat needs time to drum up support, Bush has already done that for him. Does he need time to rebuild the infrastructure? Quite possibly. Does he want to allow time for more hatred between the two sides to build up? Not so sure. I think he wants to allow himself a cushion to try to achieve something before an election when he might theoretically be voted out - what does he want to achieve? That’s another matter altogether, but I think he has his people’s best interests at heart, whatever they might be - that’s why they keep voting him back in, and it’s not the role of George Bush or anyone else to interfere. If they are not willing to work with him, it is indicative of their non-committal approach to peace.
This stalemate position like any other is a classic example of game theory. There was an excellent play on a similar topic that I saw fairly recently called “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” - anyone should buy a copy if they can. The matrix simply looks as follows. (darn - i drew it in paint and now i don’t know how to upload it). Basically given occupation and suicide attacks, the violence will escalate. If Israel ends its occupation then suicide attacks may increase in which case more innocent Israelis die. If suicide attacks end but the occupation continues then innocent Palestinians will continue to be killed by Israeli soldiers. Peace and an independent Palestinian can only achieved if suicide attacks and occupation both end simultaneously but this is effectively impossible because both will only end once the other has ended. Hence the stalemate and hence no real solution at present. One side in the future will have to just give in first and I personally think that it is more likely to be Israel - its economy is suffering immensely, its people are trapped and so the government will eventually have to offer a good deal, an independent state and end the occupation. Terrorism has a crippling effect. The Palestinian suicide bombers will not give in because they have nothing to lose as they are already prepared to lose their lives for their cause.
So to conclude, the optimum solution cannot be reached with both ‘sides’ ending violence simultaneously. If Israel gives in, which is currently very unlikely, then some suicide attacks will end (but not all) and the optimum solution will be achieved. But what is more likely is that the worst solution for all will result and violence will escalate with no side wanting to be first to give in.
Bush’s proposal is in my mind irrelevant. Decisions are being made inside Israel and the occupied areas - what happens outside is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This is the worse the situation has been for many years - we should remember that the fad of suicide bombing is only 10 years old. Attitudes are being hardened and the indoctrination process is serving to increase the bitterness. A radical change is needed if there is to be any hope for peace.
What are people’s opinons on the wall that Israel plans to build around the West Bank? Is it a solution in any way (a short-term one)? a vote-earner for Sharon? Bear in mind that almost all suicide bombers come from the West Bank and not the Gaza Strip (where there is a similar fortification).
the problem is…every time a peace settlement is on the horizon the extreme factions on both sides contrive to destroy it by violence on the ground. Hamas and their buddies want the dismantling of the zionist state which will never happen. The palestinian people on the whole want peace and prosperity. I blame countries like saudi arabia for sponsoring groups like Hamas. those who have power in saudi have their own agenda for palestine. yet America buys the oil from these rich Sheiks which keeps them in power. in turn these Sheiks use their power and money to sponsor hamas, islamic jihad, al aqsa martyrs brigade etc. if the west keeps up with this dual policy there will never be peace…remember that the winner is american big business…the arms producers win by selling to israel and probably the other countries around it like turkey, jordan and egypt, and of course the oil guzzlers win…and those in power in saudi win. in fact i may be blurring my facts a little…im not saying necessarily that the saudi royal family is sponsoring terrorism, but i think there is a feudal system in arabia in which there are rich families such as the Binladens who are in the background. the losers in all this are the palestinian people and the israeli jews and arabs.
Sharon’s proposal to build a wall around the West Bank is an interesting one. In theory it should make it much easier to keep out suicide bombers/gunmen etc - after all, it’s not easy to get past the a physical barrier supported by armed soldiers. Then again, is it really likely that someone who has been indoctrinated to the point that he (or she occasionally) decides to give up his own life, that he will be put off by a pile of bricks? It’s difficult for us to understand the mindset of these attackers, but they are driven to the point of insanity by the sort of “training” regimes that can turn an unnassuming British public schoolboy into a crazed terrorist. I am sure they would find some new angle of attack, rendering the wall a wasted expenditure. Nobody could have envisioned the September 11th attacks before they happened - the audacity of it was probably the scariest aspect of it. Similarly, anyone who is beyond the point at which they care about their life, is likely to come up with something equally crazy.
A vote grabber for Sharon? Definitely; it’s a sort of psychological comfort for innocent Israelis who have to cope with the fact that they might get bombed on the course of the daily routine. I think it’s a good idea if for no other reason than the psychological advantage, and it will certainly put terrorists off for a while at least - that’s better than nothing. On the other hand it may be seen as an emblematic shunning of the peace process - as Alex says, all the characteristics of the Prisoner’s Dilemma extend through this whole situation.
If the Israeli army’s occupation of the West Bank does not provide an effective check against terrorist infiltration of Israel, will a wall make much difference? Perhaps Sharon would do better to withdraw from the West Bank and place all his troops on the border. That way, he would reduce the provocation to potential terrorists, and have an effective barrier against terrorist infiltration. I do not believe the occupation has the effect which Sharon claims, and I think world leaders should heed the UN’s condemnation of the occupation and urge Israel to remove its forces with the same commitment that they display in their reproach of Yasser Arafat and Palestinian democracy.
