Reply to Topic
Yassir Arafat is dead and the undisputable palestinian leader is gone. The future of Israel and Palestine is very uncertain. Arafat personified Palestine and the struggle for independence in that he was both the President of Palestine, Chairman of PLO (the organisation that includes nearly all palestinian parties except Hamas and Islamic Jihad), plus leader of al-Fatah, the palestinian liberation movement he himself founded in 1959.
Arafat was responsible both of keeping the peace process in Israel/Palestine going as well as for it going nowhere (the latter responsiblilty he brotherly shared with equals as Ariel Sharon). His bloody past as guerilla leader approving of terrorism made him hard or impossible to accept for the israelis. But the Oslo Agreement in 1993 was the fruit of visions focusing on peace primarily and on land and history secondly. Arafat together with israelis Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres had the will to do this and created hope for the area. The active role that America played in the realization of such an agreement was if not decisive, then at least of utter importance.
So, my question is: what will Bush do to realize what he says are his visions for the Middle East? The Iraq invasion is said to be a step on the way towards stability, democracy and peace in the area. As someone who believes he has the knowledge enough about the complexity of the Middle East to start a war Bush should also be aware of that the Israel/Palestine situation holds the key to the solution of the whole problem.
Since Arafat held most offices and positions himself in the palestinian administration and there is no obvious successor, there will be a number of successors to fill his shoes. Most of them will probably be close friends or sidekicks of Arafat and more or less continue the path he started on. But the new probable leader of al-Fatah will be Farouk Kaddoumi who has never acknowledged the Oslo Agreement and because of this still lives in exile in Tunis. He is probably determined to fight Israel to the last drop of blood.
What is clear is that with so many palestinian leaders there will be many different ideas on how to lead the way into the future and what the goal of Palestine is. It will create fractions within the palestine movement of which some may choose to continue the armed war against Israel and perhaps also against competing palestinian sub-organizations. The ideal thing would be a strong uniting palestinian leader that the majority of the palestinians like and that Israel finds acceptable, but someone like that doesn't seem to be anywhere to find. There has been a few suggestions but some of them have been considered to be America-friendly "puppets", and that would surely be the starting signal for more violence.
The next few months in Israel/Palestine I think will be crucial. And I think it is necessary for USA to play an active role from the start if we'll ever see some hope for a more peaceful Middle East. But so far I haven't seen anything from Bush that indicates a strong will to make a difference. It shouldn't really be that much to think about. Sure, playing a moderating role in the conflict would probably annoy the pro-Israel christian right who played an important role in getting him re-elected. But you can only be re-elected once and Bush no more has to do things to please certain voter groups. I know he views Reagan as his idol and Reagan used his second term to make peace with the Soviet Union, so this speaks for the fact that Bush will do something similar. I think Bush's first term was influenced a lot by the administration wanting to secure the 2004 election. Now, they want to make history. And here's your chance, Georgie boy!
Arafat was responsible both of keeping the peace process in Israel/Palestine going as well as for it going nowhere (the latter responsiblilty he brotherly shared with equals as Ariel Sharon). His bloody past as guerilla leader approving of terrorism made him hard or impossible to accept for the israelis. But the Oslo Agreement in 1993 was the fruit of visions focusing on peace primarily and on land and history secondly. Arafat together with israelis Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres had the will to do this and created hope for the area. The active role that America played in the realization of such an agreement was if not decisive, then at least of utter importance.
So, my question is: what will Bush do to realize what he says are his visions for the Middle East? The Iraq invasion is said to be a step on the way towards stability, democracy and peace in the area. As someone who believes he has the knowledge enough about the complexity of the Middle East to start a war Bush should also be aware of that the Israel/Palestine situation holds the key to the solution of the whole problem.
Since Arafat held most offices and positions himself in the palestinian administration and there is no obvious successor, there will be a number of successors to fill his shoes. Most of them will probably be close friends or sidekicks of Arafat and more or less continue the path he started on. But the new probable leader of al-Fatah will be Farouk Kaddoumi who has never acknowledged the Oslo Agreement and because of this still lives in exile in Tunis. He is probably determined to fight Israel to the last drop of blood.
What is clear is that with so many palestinian leaders there will be many different ideas on how to lead the way into the future and what the goal of Palestine is. It will create fractions within the palestine movement of which some may choose to continue the armed war against Israel and perhaps also against competing palestinian sub-organizations. The ideal thing would be a strong uniting palestinian leader that the majority of the palestinians like and that Israel finds acceptable, but someone like that doesn't seem to be anywhere to find. There has been a few suggestions but some of them have been considered to be America-friendly "puppets", and that would surely be the starting signal for more violence.
The next few months in Israel/Palestine I think will be crucial. And I think it is necessary for USA to play an active role from the start if we'll ever see some hope for a more peaceful Middle East. But so far I haven't seen anything from Bush that indicates a strong will to make a difference. It shouldn't really be that much to think about. Sure, playing a moderating role in the conflict would probably annoy the pro-Israel christian right who played an important role in getting him re-elected. But you can only be re-elected once and Bush no more has to do things to please certain voter groups. I know he views Reagan as his idol and Reagan used his second term to make peace with the Soviet Union, so this speaks for the fact that Bush will do something similar. I think Bush's first term was influenced a lot by the administration wanting to secure the 2004 election. Now, they want to make history. And here's your chance, Georgie boy!
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".
--------
They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".
--------
They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.
