Arafat Interview..

[Boris]

IMO this interview is a pretty clear indictment that Arafat needs to be removed.

The U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution today demanding Israel halt threats to expel Arafat and condemning Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis. Both Israel and the United States voted against the measure.


Palestinian Prime Minister-designate Ahmed Qureia said today he will stand behind Arafat, and said the United States should treat Arafat as a real partner.

In an exclusive interview today with ABCNEWS' Bob Woodruff, Arafat responded to the Bush administration's accusation that he is not doing enough to stop attacks on Israeli civilians.

Woodruff: Is it international pressure that has kept the Israelis from moving against you?

Arafat: I have been elected by my people under international supervision. Even President Carter was one of the observers who was supervising the election campaign.

Woodruff: But the [Israeli government] did make a threat against you. Do you take it seriously? Do you fear for your life?

Arafat: For your information, I am here under siege for about three years. And not only that, the damage and what we have faced from their airplanes, from their tanks. But the most important thing is not what we are facing here, although it is against international law, but what our people are facing.

Woodruff: What is your opinion of the [Israeli] wall?

Arafat: They are not only building a wall around Jerusalem, which is preventing our people — Muslims and Christians — from going to pray, but also they have started building quickly this wall around all our cities and towns. But not only that, this wall is confiscating 58 percent of the West Bank. Who can accept this? We have accepted 22 percent only! 22 percent!

Woodruff: Is there any wall you would accept?

Arafat: If they want to make their wall in Tel Aviv, who can prevent them? But not in our land!

Woodruff: What is the line that you would accept?

Arafat: I am not speaking! It is not my business! My business is only when they make fatal mistakes on my land according to the agreement. How can this be accepted internationally?

Woodruff: How do you think it has been accepted internationally?

Arafat: Even President Bush had refused it!

Woodruff: President Bush said yesterday, on Thursday, that you are a failed leader.

Arafat: This is what he's saying, but he has to remember that President Clinton was dealing with me, his father was dealing with me. And he was in the beginning with me.

Woodruff: Are you saying you are the only one who can make peace for the Palestinians?

Arafat: No, the Palestinian leadership, which I am one of them, [is] making the peace, and I've been accepted to make the peace with the Israelis.

Woodruff: Are you able to control the street?

Arafat: I am doing my best.

Woodruff: Does Hamas have more control than you?

Arafat: You have to know we are the authority of the Palestinians — that has been recognized by all the Palestinians.

Woodruff: If you want to control suicide bombers, can you stop them?

Arafat: We have stopped them and we've succeeded.

Woodruff: Can you stop them again?

Arafat: Yes, and yesterday they had called, they are ready to return back to truce.

Woodruff: Do you want to stop them now?

Arafat: What?

Woodruff: Do you want to stop the suicide bombers now?

Arafat: Ask them and ask your American representatives how many times we have succeeded to stop the suicide bombers and arrest them.

Woodruff: But do you have the power now to stop them?

Arafat: You are not fair and thank you.

[Chris Alger]

What about this interview suggests that Arafat must be "removed?" To save time, let me assume that it's because Arafat implied that he wouldn't unilaterally crack down on terrorism without concessions from Israel, but said that he could deliver a cease-fire if Israel would return to the table. (His refusal to undertake more unilateral acts appears to be the most common argument against him).

1. Why is it more fair and reasonable for Arafat to unilaterally improve Israel's security than it is for Israel to improve Palestinian security by unilaterally dismantling all settlements and internal checkpoints and withdrawing?

2. Why isn't it the best interim solution one that the PA has requested but that hasn't been tried: an immediate cessations of all armed attacks by all parties (including an end of Israel's "targeted killings") during which the parties negotiate the terms of Palestinian sovereignty over the occupied territories?

3. Let's assume that if (1) the PA does what Israel and the U.S. insist, that it declares war on all violent elements in the occupied territories, refusing to stop until the "total quiet" demanded by Israel is achieved, including (again as expressly demanded) the destruction of all militant and terrorist organizations, the confiscation of all weapons and an end to all "incitement" against Israel and its occupation, then (2) the most likely result is the destruction by civil war of Palestinian society while the occupation persists. In this light,

<ul type="square"> A. Are the U.S./Israeli demands still more reasonable than a mutual cease-fire accompanied by a negotiated withdrawal?

B. What guarantees have Israel and the U.S. given the PA if it ever provides "total quiet"?
[/list] I think you'll find that the Israel and the U.S. have merely demanded that the PA enforce Israel's occupation by crushing all armed resistance and anti-Israel agitation. In exchange, the U.S. (but not Israel) has offered (without any assurances) to accept a "Palestinian State" with unspecified powers over unspecified land, to be negotiated after all militant elements in the territories have been annihilated, but never to include East Jerusalem, the large settlement blocks, the border with Jordan and not even purporting to resolve the Palestinian refugee problem. The problem is therefore as bleak as ever. To mask this, the U.S. and Israel have tried to make Arafat the issue by arguing that his refusal to play along proves that he is an "obstacle to peace" or, in the rhetoric of the Zionist right, that he threatens to "destroy Israel."

[ACPlayer]

I have wondered recently, though am not sure yet, if the US is not being duped into some of these strange positions. After all Arafat made remarkable progress with Rabin, until a religious fanatic came along - with the Intifada and the brutal crackdown as a result.

When Bush Jr came out with his disavowel of Arafat as a potential partner, i at first thought this was a reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Sort of a guilt by association. But have recently wondered whether there is more to this, as in the connections back to Israel via the Wolfovitz camp within the administration.

Last observation- with Arafat under house arrest for two years and the infrastructure of the PA destroyed in the invasion of the occupied territories (sounds a bit strange!) the Israeli's are now trying to kill an unindicted, elected, head of state under house arrest with no infrastructure and expect to solve their problems!?! And Bush Jr is supporting this! I guess they are taking a line from the US position that this will be greeted in the streets with flowers as liberating the Palestinians, like we are being greeted in Iraq.

[Stu Pidasso]

Chris,

The suicide bombings as they are currently being carried out are completely immoral. Arafat should stop them simply because it is the right thing to do. You don't need to do a lot of analysis to figure this out.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

I agree they're immoral, but we just finished an 800+ post thread about whether Arafat has the ability to stop suicide bombings, and I didn't see anyone come up with a reasonable argument suggesting he could, or how he could. All I saw were the same asumptions you're making now.

But let's say he could. Can you find any evidence at all that if the suicide bombings against civilians stopped that Israel would be appeased? This is not, nor has it ever been, Israel's official position. I understand that Israel has always insisted that all resistance to the incursions, demolitions, checkpoints, settlements and other incidents of occupation completely cease, without offering any particulars of what it would do for the Palestinians if it did.

[Cyrus]

Although I tremble in anticipation of Gamblor's powerful sarcasm, when he sees this, I will go ahead and recommend an excellent primer to the peace process and its eventual hijacking by the Israeli Extreme Right. It's a penetrating and thoroughly researched account of that process, culminating in Clinton's honorable efforts and the chances missed by both sides. Yes, it's a b**k, sorry! /images/graemlins/blush.gif

"Shattered Dreams: The Failure of the Peace Process in the Middle East, 1995-2002" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1590510607/qid=1064070061/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/104-0399102-1304726)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
we just finished an 800+ post thread about whether Arafat has the ability to stop suicide bombings, and I didn't see anyone come up with a reasonable argument suggesting he could,

[/ QUOTE ]


Arafat seems to think he has the ability to stop the suicide bombings and its completely immoral for him to use this ability as a bargining chip.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

Damndest thing. I was just trying to remember the name of the who'se review I read in The Nation, was just about to search Amazon to order it....

Thx agin.

[Chris Alger]

Arafat doesn't purport to be able to turn off the bombings on his own, but only if Israel begins negotiating and withdrawing in earnest.