Bush on arafat?

[kb]

So... Any opinions out there on bush's demand that palestine replace arafat before the US will support a palestenian state?

I know it's a controversial topic and I don't pretend to know how to 'solve' the conflict in the middle east between israel and palestine. However, i really cannot believe that bush has the audacity to make such a statement.
At any rate, it seems to me that it is the palestenians themselves who should - and who will, ultimately - choose their leader, NOT bush (although god knows we've meddled around in enough places enough times and put in a puppet government or supported someone who would act in 'our' interests).

[thinking]

((((kb))))

First, I want to say that I think it's really brave of you to bring up this topic!

I agree with you - in a democratic society, which the US and the western world claims to be, it is the Palestinians right to choose their own leaders. That's fundamental and it scares me that the president of the world's perhaps most powerful nation makes such a statement. We all want the conflict to end, but that is no excuse for trying to interfer with another nations democratical process.

For being a non-US citizen, it is a huge relief for me to see that there are americans who are able to see both sides of the US international politics. There is always two sides, and pretending that everything is just perfect isn't going to solve anything.

Thanks again :love

:greenfish Sara

[Cris Tina]

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

why is this also overlooked by g.w. bush? or is it that which he is basing a biased decision? i haven't followed recent current affairs. and i do lean toward peace negotiations with respect to trust and independence. what has been arafat's response?

[pageling]

:hugon kb :hugoff

I agree that it was brave of you to bring this up, and I'm glad you did. Regardless of how I feel about Arafat, I think it was pretty audacious of Bush to make that statement. I know that the US is a powerful nation and looked to for world leadership, but if we are truly a democratic example for the world, isn't his statement a little contradictory? just asking . We all want peace, and no one's hands are clean in this. As I've said, I'm no fan of Arafat, but the Palestinians still have the right to choose their own leader.

:hugon Sara :hugoff thanks for what you said. I hope you can continue to find other :usa who see both sides of the international coin.

:hugon :world :hugoff
:hugon :bowl :hugoff

:love
paige

[Cris Tina]

"The Muslim Affairs Department of the Ministry of Religious Affairs supervises the activities of the courts only in the execution of the laws of the state and administrative matters (registration of marriages, payment of taxes). It does not get involved in judicial matters, and the courts are required only to present monthly reports of their activities."

[lovtophish]

:hugon KB :hugoff

It's so awesome that you brought this topic up!! I have to agree...it was pretty cocky of Bush to make that statement. Who are we to tell the Palestinians who they can/cannot have as their leader. I've never been a fan of Bush, a lot of what he says makes me nervous about what will happen to our country.

Steph

[juliaf]

Good topic and like others said..brave of you to bring up.
I seem to be on a political kick today. I guess it comes from watching too much CNN on a rainy day. I thought it was very "balsy" of Bush to make such a statement. He is acting like Arafat started the problems over there just last week. Hell they have been bombing and blowing each other up in that area almost since the begining of time. I think our goverment has a great way of shifting the publics focus off internal affairs and on to external affairs. We are trying to save the world as our country is falling apart every day. While i don't think too highly of Arafat's views, i think bush needs to look at the messes in this country (like the INS and the social service system, especially child services) before he preaches to others what they need and must do.
just my thoughts.
~julia

[kb]

Lots of good responses!
I felt somewhat trepidatious about posting about this b/c i DO know that it's a sensitive topic, particularly for people in this country who do support israel. and i do support israel as a nation and feel strongly that the jewish people have their right to a nation. but it just seems that the palestinians have spent years and years displaced.

As for the US on foreign policy - well, i think we need to take a role in foreign affairs, but we have such a fucked-up approach ('scuse the language). I mean, on certain occasions, we take a purely machiavellian 'whatever-benefits-us' view, but then we pretend to have some "moral high ground" (particularly regarding terrorism, although we have CERTAINLY supported "terrorist" groups, as long as they fought the US's enemies).

Anyway, i'm off on a tangent. but i LIKE tossing these ideas around. and it's great to have a forum to do this - silly, but i feel that i don't know enough to be on a forum sponsored by a newspaper or magazine, but i just like talking about this stuff.

[Vicks]

As a political science minor I have a lot of interst in this topic. I am a firm believer, that what Bush did any president from any party would have done. It was the right thing to do. Since Israel's conception in nineteen forty eight, the US has been their number one supporter. The Palastinians never elected Arafat. His entire government is based upon a dictatorship. In the decade millions of dollars have been sent to Arafat's government and it hasn't done a thing to improve the west banks economy or anything else. As the leader in International affairs, it is not presumtuous on our part to speak up, in fact it is our duty.

As far as the Palastinians go. They have been displaced but you know what? Not one middle east country has welcomed the Palastinians in with open arms. Not one. They give Palastinians which in all honesty, are considered some of the best educated Arabs in the middle east, the lowest and most degregading jobs.

And one has to remember that in all honesty, not once in history has a country that has one territory in war ever had to give it back. Israel gave back huge chunks of land they captured the six day war. They know they ahve to give land back. But I don't feel sorry entirely for the Palestinains. I feel they are treated as second class citizens ect.... (I have been to Israel and seen this) but I also believe, that the Arab countries in the region have a responsibility to pick up the slack which they haven't.

As far as Israel goes, can't have Sharon there either, him and Arafat are both soilders from a long gone era, and neither one is willing to compromise.

I just wish that the US people along with the US government would educate themselves about the rest of the world. Contrary to popular belief, if you don't know about other cultures, countries ect... how can you even begin to understand why people dislike our country.

Vicks (victoria)

[juliaf]

I just wish that the US people along with the US government would educate themselves about the rest of the world. Contrary to popular belief, if you don't know about other cultures, countries ect... how can you even begin to understand why people dislike our country.

Not everything the government tells its people is true...media may not be government owned, but the government definately has control over it. My biggest problem is with Bush because he comes off as so self-rightous. Like when he spoke today from the summit regarding the "under god" in the pledge he said..."our rights come from god" hmm not if you don't believe in god. I may believe what he is saying, but the an american indian living on a reservation may not feel the same.

I felt a little akward about the second half of what i quoted because despite not traveling to isreal, i am a well traveled and educated person and i can see why people both love and hate this country. In a perfect world no one would lie, people would be educated and senseless acts of violence would stop, but history will keep repeating itself as long as ignorance still exists...i agree wit that.
~julia

[Cris Tina]

from debating islam in the jewish state, alisa rubin peled

concurrent with shitrit's retreat on the issue of muslim autonomy, hirshberg began to advocate more communal independence, leading to a convergence of the two men's views. like shitrit, hirshberg was quite concerned about the challenges and opportunities provided by the massive demographic changes in the arab population is israel, which had become much more clear in the aftermath of the nineteen forty eight war. for example, according to hirshberg, before the outbreak of the hostilities, the percent of muslims, christians and druze had been eighty nine, ten, and one percent, respectively. after the war, the corresponding percents had shifted to sixty, twenty one, and ten percent. in his opinion, this major upheaval had created an opportunity to reshape arab society, focusing on the rural areas as the base of government support:The Arab society based on the feudal class system has been almost completely destroyed, and that is not regrettable. But it is not yet possible to see the form of the new society that will take its place. The shock is especially strong in the cities, and that is why extremist currents have found their way into them. On the other hand, the Arab villages are still raw material, from which it is possible to form different shapes.hirshberg concurred with the conventional wisdom that arab nationalism posed the main threat to israel from the minority population, propagated by urban communists who were the remnants of the british mandate arab intelligentsia. hirshberg and many other government officials strongly believed that there was no room for two antagonistic nationalist movements, arab and jewish, in such a small state as israel. the traditional muslim villages could still be molded, and policy towards muslim communal institutions could play an important role in the process of modernization and the forging of minority loyalties to the state.

"the arab population in the state of israel" (in hebrew), kama three (nineteen fifty):two eighteen-two twenty one.


"A dreadful mistake is burning my soul like poison."
"Do you want fascism to win, like those around the king?" he asked.
"Of course not."
"Then look at the forth of February in that light."
He was elected again in nineteen fifty. Sadness filled him as he felt the Wafd deteriorating; a cancer had sneaked to its will and integrity, and people's enthusiasm had waned. He quivered with joy when Mustafa al-Nahhas abrogated the treaty and proclaimed resistance, the day a scent of nineteen nineteen spread through the valley. Disappointments followed like blows until the July nineteen fifty two revolution.
He was excited. "The Wafd will return unchallenged," he told me.
As the revolution followed its charted course, he hoped it would make the Wafd's supporters its base but was crushed when political parties were dissolved.
"We're embarking into military rule, only God knows its extent," he said.
"Retire from politics," I said sincerely, "and focus on your profession."
"No choice," he replied with a laugh.


Reda Hamada Mirrors, Naguib Mahfouz

[kb]

Vicks,

I agree with you that what bush did, probably most US presidents would do - mainly b/c there is such a large pro-israel lobby here in the US and that person would certainly want to continue to court this lobby.
And it is true that many palestinians do want arafat to go - he WAS elected in ninety-six (whether the elections were clean or not, that's another question).
As far as elections go, the US doesn't necessarily honor democratic elections - I can list a few instances (Chile, anyone?) in which we blatantly ignored what the people of the country wanted and imposed our will.
I do think that the US needs to play a role in international politics - I'm certainly not an isolationist. But i think the pretense of a moral high ground is rather hypocritical.

[felicity]

Interesting.

I had more to say, but my computer erased it.

And, I am not trying to be argumentative but I was a bit annoyed with this comment.

`It�@is always a relief to me to see that their are Americans who are able to see both sides of the U.S role in international politics.`

ok, i understand that u.S citizens unfortunately do not have a good reputation when it comes to foreign affairs and the international history of their nation.


But, what would people think if i said `it is always a relief to me to see that their are Palestinans who are able to see both sides of the Palestinain role in international politics.`

Or- `it is always a relief to me to see that their are British citizens who are able to see both sides of the British role in international politics.`

well i think i made my point. Thanks for this topic kb.