PDA

View Full Version : Peace without Yasser Arafat: an easier path?


Monique
Nov 6th, 2004, 05:27 AM
Roger Hardy, The BBC Middle East analyst, thinks so, as revealed in this piece of information about Arafat's possible successor:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/issues/1362216.stm

note that most of the candidates considered are deemed as moderate or have had prior relations with Israel. There will certainly be a power struggle even though the Palestinian authorities are working hard for a smooth handover.
Palestinian officials told The Jerusalem Post that they expect the Palestinian Authority to improve with new leadership and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has better chances of success after PA Chairman Yasser Arafat.

Is Arafat such a powerful icon for both sides that his mere presence is enough to hinder any possibility of peaceful co-existance? or peace is still a far-fetched dream that won't get any closer should he pass away?

flyingmachine
Nov 6th, 2004, 12:55 PM
I don't know if peace without Arafat will be easier path or not. I think it depends on a few things.
Who will be in charge of the Palestinian Authority?
This is the matter of trust they need a leader who will untied palestinians and yet trusted by not just the Palestinian but also Isrealis. So a moderate leader is a must. This is a tall order and it will be very difficult as a results of the Interfide the trust between sides are in the bottom low. So it will be very difficult indeed.
Any in fighting within the Palestinian groups?
You have remember that there are many groups within the Palestinian politics not just the Authoirty (PLO) and Islamic groups.
What the Islamic groups like Hamas will do?
The Authority has to control these groups and keep them quiet. Arafat did that O.K. (I have to said is not perfect.) till Sharon for personally reason push him into the corner and as the result of that these groups let loose and you know what happened since them. The fear is that they will throwing bombs (like they always done.) in order to gain power themselves (Like they always wants to do) rather them untied with the rest of the Palestinian politcial groups.
There are also a Isreali questions as well but at the moment but I'm have to go now. :wavey: Anyway it will be uncertain times for the Palestinians for sure. The hope is that they elected a moderate leader who can untied the Palestinians group and keep the Islamist quite. However we have to wait and see.

Hulet
Nov 6th, 2004, 04:21 PM
I don't think peace will be any easier to achieve without Arafat, b/c such claim assumes that the present hinderance to peace are the Palestinians/Arafat. It seems to me the opposite is true. It will change the dynamic but as long as the Israelis don't agree to a sustainable, 'truly' free Palestine, I don't think there will be any change.

Paldias
Nov 6th, 2004, 05:08 PM
There is no such thing as peace to these people. Even if everything is resolved they'll still blow themselves up for fun. Let's all take note however that a Belgian started this thread. :tape:

tfannis
Nov 6th, 2004, 08:40 PM
There is no such thing as peace to these people. Even if everything is resolved they'll still blow themselves up for fun. Let's all take note however that a Belgian started this thread. :tape:
Your contibution to this discussion is really thought through :tape:

Paldias
Nov 6th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Your contibution to this discussion is really thought through :tape:

I'm just trying to make a point that even if Yasser Arafat is replaced there will be no peace because these people don't want peace. They just want to blow themselves up because apparently when you blow up an Israeli or a Jew you go to heaven.

I'm also trying to make a corolation(sp?) that whenever there is an anti-Jewish/Isreali it's always started by a Belgium. Even if it isn't controversial Belgians seem to care so god damn much when it doesn't even concern them.

tfannis
Nov 6th, 2004, 09:10 PM
I'm just trying to make a point that even if Yasser Arafat is replaced there will be no peace because these people don't want peace. They just want to blow themselves up because apparently when you blow up an Israeli or a Jew you go to heaven.

I'm also trying to make a corolation(sp?) that whenever there is an anti-Jewish/Isreali it's always started by a Belgium. Even if it isn't controversial Belgians seem to care so god damn much when it doesn't even concern them.
Nothing has changed really....Your contibution to this discussion is really thought through :tape:

For starters...did you notice there is nothing anti-semite about Monique's post? In fact it's a very interesting question.
But you probably just saw it as an oppurtunity to insult Palestines and Belgians ;) Good for you :yeah:

Monique
Nov 7th, 2004, 03:12 AM
I'm just trying to make a point that even if Yasser Arafat is replaced there will be no peace because these people don't want peace. They just want to blow themselves up because apparently when you blow up an Israeli or a Jew you go to heaven.

I'm also trying to make a corolation(sp?) that whenever there is an anti-Jewish/Isreali it's always started by a Belgium. Even if it isn't controversial Belgians seem to care so god damn much when it doesn't even concern them.thanks for the bit on what concerns us or not :wavey: ... you have such a clear understanding of the ways we, Belgians, operate and think, that it was silly of me to try to pose a question that demands a well thought response on which you apparently are not willing to offer...

Shenanigans
Nov 7th, 2004, 03:25 AM
I'm just trying to make a point that even if Yasser Arafat is replaced there will be no peace because these people don't want peace. They just want to blow themselves up because apparently when you blow up an Israeli or a Jew you go to heaven.

I'm also trying to make a corolation(sp?) that whenever there is an anti-Jewish/Isreali it's always started by a Belgium. Even if it isn't controversial Belgians seem to care so god damn much when it doesn't even concern them.

Blame the Beligians or maybe they are just more willing to talk about sensitive political issues.

Who does it concern? You do not have to be there to have an opinion on it!!

Justeenium
Nov 7th, 2004, 04:30 AM
It will change the dynamic but as long as the Israelis don't agree to a sustainable, 'truly' free Palestine, I don't think there will be any change.ummm, moron. Israel offered that to the Palestinians years ago. Arafat rejected it.

How fucking stupid are you psychon? seriously and you talk about americans.:rolleyes:

Hulet
Nov 7th, 2004, 09:10 AM
ummm, moron. Israel offered that to the Palestinians years ago. Arafat rejected it.


sustainable Palestinian State = a state which is not broken into pieces by Israeli settlements and roadblocks. Without the complete withdrawal of those artificial Israeli barriers from West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, there wouldn't be any contigious Palestinian state. Can you imagine a state where, if it's citizens drive from one province, say WB, to another, say Gaza, they have to pass through barriers, and outside military checkpoints? How is that kind of state sustainable? :confused:

Sustainable Palestinian State = a state not crippled by the thousands of Palestinian refugees that are kicked out of Israel and are now living in squalid conditions in refugee camps. The Israeli government never agreed to the "right of return" of those refugees to their properties in Israel or the appropriate recompensation for their lost property, thereby, enabling a Palestinian state not to be crippled by the refugee problem.

Truly free state = a state where the Palestinians control all their country, be it in terms of airspace, borders and ports. Israelis never offered to give a Palestian state complete independence. They still insist on complete control of the Palestian's airspace, ports and borders with its neighbours, for example the border with Egypt. Now, how is that a truly free state? :confused:

How fucking stupid are you psychon? seriously and you talk about americans.:rolleyes:
I don't ever remember accusing Americans of being stupid. I might have accused them of being too sure of their knowledge about the whole world, which is sometimes worse than stupidity. Because, in that case, you tend not to want to learn more about the world or other viewpoints because you "already know it" and because you already "possess the truth". But, even if you are stupid, there is stil some hope for you as long as you acknowledge that fact and ready to rectify your stupidity.

turt
Nov 7th, 2004, 10:01 AM
ummm, moron. Israel offered that to the Palestinians years ago. Arafat rejected it.

How fucking stupid are you psychon? seriously and you talk about americans.:rolleyes:BTW, why don't you discuss anymore in the other thread (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=139426&page=5)?
Out of arguments? Should I claim that some people in that thread "own you", as you like to say to other posters? :haha: :tape:

gentenaire
Nov 7th, 2004, 10:10 AM
Interesting question. Personally, I never believe peace was possible with Arafat and Sharon in power so I do think that with him gone, it'll be easier.
Arafat managed to bring attention to the Palestine case, that's a good thing. What he failed to do was to build a proper Palastine state, he always seemed more interested in driving the Israelis out rather than doing something constructive as building a state in which his people could live decently.
Also, I generally distrust leaders who have a lot of personal wealth while their own people live in poverty.
The Palestinians need a future, need opportinities, when they've got something to live for, they're not going to be as tempted to blow themselves up on busses. The thing is that Arafat is at fault too, for failing to provide his people with a future. It's too easy to blame it all on Israel (they're certainly not entirely blameless, don't get me started on the settlements). In the end, Israel certainly isn't against having a well governed Palestine as neighbour. Israel can't built this state for them, they must do everything they can to make it possible (like giving back the settlements for starters and giving them complete indepence like Psychon said), but in the end the Palestinians have to do it. Let's hope the next leader takes more interest in this rather than in vengeance.

rand
Nov 8th, 2004, 08:02 AM
sustainable Palestinian State = a state which is not broken into pieces by Israeli settlements and roadblocks. Without the complete withdrawal of those artificial Israeli barriers from West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, there wouldn't be any contigious Palestinian state. Can you imagine a state where, if it's citizens drive from one province, say WB, to another, say Gaza, they have to pass through barriers, and outside military checkpoints? How is that kind of state sustainable?bullshit, in 2000 they were proposed everything except the return of ALL refugees (which is logical because if they'd agree to it Isreal would just disappear)

rand
Nov 8th, 2004, 08:03 AM
Interesting question. Personally, I never believe peace was possible with Arafat and Sharon in power so I do think that with him gone, it'll be easier.
Arafat managed to bring attention to the Palestine case, that's a good thing. What he failed to do was to build a proper Palastine state, he always seemed more interested in driving the Israelis out rather than doing something constructive as building a state in which his people could live decently.
Also, I generally distrust leaders who have a lot of personal wealth while their own people live in poverty.
The Palestinians need a future, need opportinities, when they've got something to live for, they're not going to be as tempted to blow themselves up on busses. The thing is that Arafat is at fault too, for failing to provide his people with a future. It's too easy to blame it all on Israel (they're certainly not entirely blameless, don't get me started on the settlements). In the end, Israel certainly isn't against having a well governed Palestine as neighbour. Israel can't built this state for them, they must do everything they can to make it possible (like giving back the settlements for starters and giving them complete indepence like Psychon said), but in the end the Palestinians have to do it. Let's hope the next leader takes more interest in this rather than in vengeance.
:worship: this is what I wanted to post but was too lazy to :worship:

Hulet
Nov 8th, 2004, 12:46 PM
bullshit, in 2000 they were proposed everything except the return of ALL refugees (which is logical because if they'd agree to it Isreal would just disappear)
May be I was living in different world in 2000 :Confused: but I remember specifically that the Ehud Barak government claiming that to reach an agreement they will have to annex part of the WB and the settlements on them and there won't be any negotiations on East Jerusalem (again breaking up the Palestinian state into pieces). The border with Jordan and Egypt will be under Israeli military control. The Israeli military can set up roadblocks deep inside the Palestinian state.

Or, may be history is rewritten so much since then it's as if I haven't read/heard all those details of the 2000 peace proposal.

Hulet
Nov 8th, 2004, 12:47 PM
Btw, whatever happened to Hananah Nashrawi? The spokeswoman to the Palestinian Authority? I always thought she would succeed Arafat.

geewhiz
Nov 8th, 2004, 10:05 PM
Btw, whatever happened to Hananah Nashrawi? The spokeswoman to the Palestinian Authority? I always thought she would succeed Arafat.
Didn't she have some falling out with Arafat over how much power Arafat had compared to the rest of the PA? Her election would leave Fatah without a leader and as a Christian and a woman she would have a lot of trouble with HAMAS and PIJ too.

I'm not sure it will be easier without Arafat. There's bound to be a power struggle and that can only benefit HAMMAS and PFLP who are calling for shared power. To prevent that, the PA need to act quickly, pick someone to lead them and stand behind him/her without question to make them a strong leader, but it's looking unlikely that they will be able to do that regardless of whether there is an election or not. If Arafat had picked a successor, they would benefit by association from some of the personal charisma that Arafat used to somewhat keep things together. Without it, none of the moderate candidates have much grassroot support and their relationships with Israel and the USA are regarded with suspicion, which would make it difficult for them to keep HAMMAS, etc, under control.

Mahmoud Abbas was once Arafat's chosen successor and is a popular candidate with the USA and UK but he doesn't have Arafat's support anymore, is unpopular with Palestinians and is pro-right of return which is a big issue in the path to peace.

Ahmad Qurai', like Abbas, would be a popular choice for the USA/UK but he doesn't have much grassroots support and he's not regarded as a very capable leader. Muhammad Dahlan again doesn't have popular support, although he might be the Israeli's choice.

Jibril Rajub could keep HAMAS and PIJ in line, but only because of his military influence and personal army and that is probably not the way the PA would want to go and not something that would be popular with Palestinians.

Faruq Qaddumi as far as I know still lives in Tunisia and would possibly not be allowed to return by the Israelis. He is quite popular but not with Arafat loyalists in Fatah. And he's pretty hard-line.

Marwan Barghouti is very popular but is becoming increasingly militant and he's in prison in Israel.

It seems to me that there isn't really a candidate to succeed Arafat who has enough support and who is strong enough to make the kind of unpopular decisions that moving on with the peace process needs. And with weak, unpopular leadership there's a real danger that support for HAMMAS could increase to the point that someone like Mahmoud Zahhar is able to make a bid for the Palestinian leadership. If that was to happen, the only way the peace process could continue is if other Arab states became more involved and no-one really knows what might happen then.