June 26, 2002

8:10 AM

Under pressure from the Bush Administration, the Palestinian Authority announced that it will hold presidential elections in mid-January 2003. Bush wants Arafat dumped, but polls show that Arafat is widely favored to win. Could Bush be giving Arafat an even bigger mandate? Should the US be allowed to force Arafat to sit out the elections?
posted by jennak (71 comments total)

Terribly sorry! Looks like we posted at exactly the same time. I Should have checked the front page. :(
posted by ( .)(. ) at 8:13 AM on June 26, 2002

Permalink to the story. I just realized I posted the NYTimes Middle East page link.
posted by jennak at 8:16 AM on June 26, 2002

The US should be allowed to do anything it needs to in order to ensure the Palestinians get a President who leads them to peaceful coexistence with their neighbor and receive international support for reconstruction.

Wouldn't it be neat to see a Palestinian equivalent of this Afghan Reconstruction portal on the web ...
posted by sheauga at 8:17 AM on June 26, 2002

Yeah, why don't we just put foreign leaders on our ballots?
posted by insomnyuk at 8:40 AM on June 26, 2002

i agree sheauga, people should not be allowed to choose their own leaders when they obviously do such a bad job of mirroring the US administration's objectives. no one said democracy worked all the time, sometimes you just have to have appointed leaders, or adjust the election outcomes. democracy is nice when it works, but when it doesn't, even in other countries, we shouldn't hesitate to end it in favor of more controllable governmental systems.
posted by rhyax at 9:04 AM on June 26, 2002

Stratfor explains it all quite well.
posted by revbrian at 9:04 AM on June 26, 2002

Yup, let's support democracy by not allowing foreigners to choose their leader!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:07 AM on June 26, 2002

Nobody has said they "foreigners" can't choose who they want. Bush has simply said we won't support certain choices. This isn't a difficult concept unless you are being willfully obtuse or rabidly partisan.
posted by revbrian at 9:13 AM on June 26, 2002

The Palestinians are perfectly free to choose Arafat to lead them. They should be aware that what goodwill and support for Palestinian statehood available from the US apparently dies with that decision.

In Gaza, like in America, an informed voter is the best instrument for democracy.
posted by UncleFes at 9:15 AM on June 26, 2002

willfully obtuse or rabidly partisan

decisions... decisions...

:D
posted by UncleFes at 9:20 AM on June 26, 2002

They should be aware that what goodwill and support for Palestinian statehood available from the US apparently dies with that decision.

Well, there's no guarantee that goodwill and support 'lives' with any other decision: it's all provisional this and possible that and "maybe if Mr Sharon says so and I get mashed banana for supper...".

Something I got sent from Salon:

Indeed, Bush's heavy-handed demands may actually backfire. For Palestinians who were ready to vote against Arafat, Bush's Israel-centric speech may only cause them to dig in their heels. The Middle East works by concrete, sometimes brutal quid pro quos, not lofty moral epiphanies: When Palestinians see that the U.S. president is prepared to spend some political capital to put pressure on Israel, they will believe that the U.S. is indeed an honest broker and will keep its word -- and then they will be prepared to make painful changes, including bidding farewell to a legendary but thoroughly discredited leader. But why should they make this sacrifice -- which in the shame-based culture of the Arab world amounts to knuckling under to a humiliating demand from a big bully -- without getting anything in return except vague promises to start negotiations at square one with an Israeli leader who has always regarded Palestinians as the enemy?

All reminiscent of the 'axis of evil' speech and its effect on the reformers in Iran.

It's also interesting that the Americans here are usually rather vehement over the fact that no pinko pussy Europeans are going to dictate domestic US policy, but don't see the inconsistency here.
posted by riviera at 9:28 AM on June 26, 2002

Nobody has said they "foreigners" can't choose who they want. Bush has simply said we won't support certain choices.

Actually, Bush has also defined the kind of State that the Palestinians should endeavour to be, before they can even be considered for provisional statehood, as well as insisting that their chosen leader be replaced.

Some of the very many ways in which Bush's 'Plan' fails to provide anything more than opportunities to laugh at his wilder fantasies are detailed here.

On preview: The Palestinians are perfectly free to choose Arafat to lead them. They should be aware that what goodwill and support for Palestinian statehood available from the US apparently dies with that decision.

Do we know what will happen to that goodwill and support should they choose a new leader who takes an even more hardline stance than Arafat?
posted by jonpollard at 9:31 AM on June 26, 2002

It'll probably evaporate. So what? The US is not obligated to deal with people and/or countries we don't like or who disagree with us. The Palestinians should know that. Now they do.
posted by UncleFes at 9:40 AM on June 26, 2002

No one said you were obligated. I think what some people have a hard time with is your (the US's) assumption that you have the right to tell other people how to run their countries. (Or what they have to do before they're even allowed to be regarded as a country.)
posted by jonpollard at 10:02 AM on June 26, 2002

Arafat Calls for Democratic Elections in the United States
posted by muckster at 10:14 AM on June 26, 2002

I think what some people have a hard time with is your (the US's) assumption that you have the right to tell other people how to run their countries

Option 1: The US ignores the Palestinian situation = "Look at great big America, the superpower allowing millions of people to die"

Option 2: The US lays out a plan for an honest government for the Palestinians = "There goes America, throwing its weight around again."

Do you see now why so many of us throw up our hands and say "fine!"?
posted by owillis at 10:18 AM on June 26, 2002

Bush isn't telling the Palestinians how to have their own country, he's making sure the United States will have no responsibility for the matter. He's asking them to create the only real Arab democracy, end terrorism, and institute a set of sweeping reforms, all while under military occupation, with half the population allowed to leave their homes for only three hours every third day. It's impossible to form all the institutions of a state when your land is occupied, split into hundreds of cantons, and is pretty much ungovernable. This is Bush's way of saying that America does not want to be bothered with this problem anymore. There is some hope that such a hard line will work, but only if a similar hard line (in private, one would have to assume) were put to the other side. However it doesn't sound like that will ever happen. In other words, such an approach might have a slight chance of succeeding if the Israeli side were ready and willing to help form a Palestinian state if and when most of the conditions were met, however Sharon's mandate since he was a young man was to drive the Arabs out, not allow them to form a country on what Sharon and his supporters consider Jewish land.
posted by cell divide at 10:18 AM on June 26, 2002

I think what some people have a hard time with is your (the US's) assumption that you have the right to tell other people how to run their countries.

Since after all, the Europeans never do that.

*coughLePencough*
*coughHaidercough*

(I did not make this up. But I can't find the link to the warblog where I saw it. If someone does, tell me, and I'll give credit where credit is due)
posted by jaek at 10:31 AM on June 26, 2002

And if they don't vote for Arafat, what kind of a leader is a bitter, violent, occupied country going to vote for?

Very interesting column in the Guardian today. Yes, I know, the Guardian, yawn.
posted by Summer at 10:35 AM on June 26, 2002

Option 2: The US lays out a plan for an honest government for the Palestinians = "There goes America, throwing its weight around again."

The problem, Owillis, is that the US is willing to tell the Palestinians what kind of government they should have, but not willing to take the steps necessary to help them get there. America is only 'throwing its weight around' as you put it, to one side, making it very difficult to find an equilibrium, and frustrating everyone besides the hard-line Israelis.
posted by cell divide at 10:45 AM on June 26, 2002

The problem, Owillis, is that the US is willing to tell the Palestinians what kind of government they should have, but not willing to take the steps necessary to help them get there.

Is that the US's problem, really? First, it seems we have done a great deal to try and solve the I/P conflict, to the detriment of ourselves and our relationships elsewhere in the world. Second, it seems that the Palestinains should have the primary responsibility for taking the steps to get there, as it were.

I think a lot of this conflict stems from US foreign policy infantilizing smaller/poorer nations, even when their representatives commit horrible acts (this is not to say that Israel hasn't done some nasty things, they certainly have, and they still do, I'm just talking about the Palestinians here). "Aw, pity [insert country name here], they are poor, dumb and violent, we need to help them..." Pfui. There is no reason in the world why any country must necessarily choose a dictatorial government. The world simply does not need strongmen anymore. The strongmen, of course, think otherwise.

It comes down to this, I think: The world has to decide whether they want the US to serve as big-p Policeman or to back off and let local matters be handled locally. If the former, then the complaining about unilateral action should end; if the former, then the local authorities should understand and be comforatble with the fact that their actions have consequences, both internally and on the world stage. I'd prefer the world chose the latter, but I think America would be comfortable with either role. What we don't want is to continue to serve as the world's whipping boy.
posted by UncleFes at 11:07 AM on June 26, 2002

There is a lot of truth in that, UncleFes, but to be consistently honest we must acknowledge that when we HAVE chosen to act in other countries' internal affairs, we have often chosen to do so in short-sighted, excessively self-interested ways which have frequently backfired. I think that not only does the question of IF we should intervene/participate need to be asked, but HOW we do so also needs to be looked at.
posted by rushmc at 1:11 PM on June 26, 2002

The world has to decide whether they want the US to serve as big-p Policeman or to back off and let local matters be handled locally.

But "the world" will never decide this. Individual countries will always criticize the US when the US doesn't act in their perceived interest, and praise the US when they feel the US does. The US should pay attention to such criticism/praise only to the extent that we must maintain some kind of consensus among our partner nations as we do what we must to protect our interests.

That said, I agree, more or less, with cell divide: This is Bush's way of saying that America does not want to be bothered with this problem anymore.

It would be one thing if Bush actually had a coherent policy, or at the very least a general understanding, of the I/P, conflict that one could agree/disagree with. As it is, he is utterly clueless on the matter (as he is with most subjects that don't involve oil or baseball), leaving his underlings to fight amongst themselves to decide policy, with Bush seeming to support the line of whichever adviser he's been lunching with this week.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:19 PM on June 26, 2002

Right on, Ty! I was horrified when I saw the text of Bush's speech in the paper. There are too many interests vested in keep this conflict going, even if it's never resolved.
The I/P conflict has effects that spread throughout the entire Arab/Muslim world.
Even though I agree that Arafat should go, Bush was nuts for making such a suggestion publicly. He better pray Arafat continues in good health for awhile longer...
posted by black8 at 1:46 PM on June 26, 2002

Of course, the argument as to whether America should get involved at all in the I/P conflict would be so much easier if the USA didn't send so much aid to Israel. How long could Israel survive without US money? How long could any US President last if the Jewish lobby turned against him? Ted Turner was villified for a comment which was deemed to be no pro-Israel enough. What could that lobby do to a President?
posted by salmacis at 1:56 PM on June 26, 2002

If America did not support Israel, they would be run over by the Arab street. It's that simple. While I believe that the Palestinian people should have a homeland, I feel that Israelis have a right to live in peace and not be blown up in their discos and pizza shops.

And boy, is the "jewish lobby" code for anti-semitism or what?
posted by owillis at 2:15 PM on June 26, 2002

Uncle Fes: The US is already too involved to back down now. It's not about being the global policeman, it's about finding a fair settlement that calms down the region and the world. The US economy is vulnerable to international instability, and this conflict breeds that kind of instability and thus must be minimized. It is in our best interests to, if not 'solve' the problem, at least get a settlement that will reduce the violence and make sure the overwhelming majority of people on both sides can live their lives in peace.
posted by cell divide at 2:22 PM on June 26, 2002

While I believe that the Palestinian people should have a homeland, I feel that Israelis have a right to live in peace and not be blown up in their discos and pizza shops.

Isn't it interesting that the mantras of Israeli liberty and normalcy represent things which have precious little to do with the region, and more to do with the values of those who keep bleating them? It's always about 'discos and pizza parlours', a reminder that Israel is, for the most part, an extension of US mall culture, an enclave of suburban Wal-Mart America, fronted on the news by people with suitably American accents. Palestinians fight for electricity and water and homes that won't get bulldozed; Israelis must have their right to pizza and discos protected at all costs. Talk about skewed fucking priorities. Because Americans can far too easily sympathise with the victims of a terrorism that hits them in discos and pizza parlours, but I suspect it's a leap of the imagination too far to imagine living in a slum 'refugee camp'. Let's just say that I can't imagine that the people of Jenin worry about the right to a deep pan special with extra anchovies.

I'm going to link to Robert Fisk, which I'm sure will piss people off here (good) just because he's the only commentator I've read who rejects both the 'bye bye Arafat' and 'Arafat or nothing' schools of thought:

it is becoming ever more obvious that Arafat did not fail in his duties as Palestinian leader. He failed in his duties as Israel's ­ and thus America's ­ proxy colonial apparatchik in the West Bank and Gaza. The fact he is a corrupt little despot does not change this.
posted by riviera at 2:30 PM on June 26, 2002

Jewish lobby v. Israeli lobby. The phrase does seem terribly loaded. "Zionist lobby" might be more specific and less problematic in some instances.

Some interesting citations of the phrase "Jewish lobby":

Bush's Israeli dilemma

Buying The Black Vote

Troops in gulf banned from discussing the 'Jewish lobby'

Anyway, Arafat has been talking about the planned elections for months. This is just news because the date was finally set.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:40 PM on June 26, 2002

"If America did not support Israel, they would be run over by the Arab street."

So?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:41 PM on June 26, 2002

Good gravy, "Zionist lobby" has been completely mis-used too. Never mind. I'm not going to call anyone anything.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:45 PM on June 26, 2002

And boy, is the "jewish lobby" code for anti-semitism or what?

no more than "Christian right" is overtly anti-christian, but it depends on the user and the context. That there is a well-organized, powerful pro-Israel (jewish) lobby in the US in not really in dispute. That's how representative democracy works, and I don't think anyone should have a problem with that.

Backhanded accusations of anti-semitism, though, always suck.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:50 PM on June 26, 2002

There are ethnic lobbies for just about every ethnicity-- those lobbies will focus on the issues that matter most to their constituents. Some ethnic lobbies have more money than others, some have less, some have a better understanding of the system and more people in higher places.

None of them represent all of the people they claim to.
posted by cell divide at 2:56 PM on June 26, 2002

(Sincerely, "so?"

If China were to stomp into America, carve off a whopping big part of Texas, boot all y'all out of it, and populate it with Tibetans, the American people would be in a blind rage.

Forever after, Americans would dedicate their lives to ending the unjust take-over of their territory. Compromise would be intolerable.

Not an American in the nation would feel that the Tibetans "deserve" a chunk of Texas. And no one in a post-division America would feel a tinge bad about eliminating the invading Tibetans.

But replace China with Britain, Tibet with Jews, and America with Palestinians, and you get exactly the same situation as I described...

...except that as we see throughout this thread, so many people figure it's a bad thing for the invaders to be pushed back out.

How's that work? How come sauce for the goose ain't sauce for the gander?

Give the Israeli Jews all of Florida. Everyone will be happier for it.)
posted by five fresh fish at 2:58 PM on June 26, 2002

I feel that Israelis have a right to live in peace and not be blown up in their discos and pizza shops.

How do you feel about Palestinians' right to live in peace without bulldozers coming in and tearing up their crops and houses to make way for new Israeli settlements and access roads as part of Sharon's plan to keep most of the West Bank under Israeli control?
posted by mediareport at 2:58 PM on June 26, 2002

Give the Israeli Jews all of Florida. Everyone will be happier for it.

Except the Cubans.
posted by rushmc at 3:47 PM on June 26, 2002

We'll give the Cubans Quebec.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:19 PM on June 26, 2002

Poor Palestinians. Bush just transmitted American popular opinion-the US doesn't gives a rat's ass about you-come back and see us once you get a life. So that's it. The war is over before it started. Isreal is going nowhere. Apparently, now neither are the Palestinians. In a bizarre twist, the Palestinians are the new Jews of the 21st century, doomed to wander in contempt.
Probably about 2048, after the Islamo-fascists are finally vanquished, the UN might carve out a little state for them somewhere.
posted by quercus at 10:01 PM on June 26, 2002

Talk about skewed fucking priorities. Because Americans can far too easily sympathise with the victims of a terrorism that hits them in discos and pizza parlours, but I suspect it's a leap of the imagination too far to imagine living in a slum 'refugee camp'.

Emphasis mine.

Would you believe me if i told you that the so called refugee camps in the occupied territories aren't the slums you desrcibe?
posted by Zool at 10:55 PM on June 26, 2002

I'll give you an example, there are slums on the outskirts of many African cities and even South American cities, but i'm yet to see evidence of 'slums' anywhere near Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Choose your words carefully, your hatred for one side is shining through with bright colours which is a detrament to anything you have to say.
posted by Zool at 11:04 PM on June 26, 2002

Funny how all the objectors left out my statement where I said "I believe that the Palestinian people should have a homeland". And for those bellyaching because I cited pizza parlors and discos, remember the Palestinian terrorists who marched into people's homes and killed them as they slept.

Look, I think Ariel Sharon lashes out much too harshly at "all Palestinians" but I feel (as many Americans do), that the Palestinians lose their moral ground as an opressed people as they continually support suicide bombings against non-combatants and express the desire for there to be no Israel. As an American, I'm going to sympathize more with the Israelis because they're "more like us" - as in they have a democratically elected government and some semblance of a real democracy (Florida 2000 notwithstanding). Contrast that with the Palestinians whose everlasting legacy to the world seems to be a pathological need to kill people (with the support of Bush's oil masters in Saudi Arabia, to boot).

Compare this to other "repressed minorities" of the world who have gained sympathy for their cause and understand why America collectively throws up its hands and says "we'll side with the people we can understand". I used to be a strong supporter of the Palestinians right to a homeland, but after Arafat's rejection of peace plans and the drip-drip-drip daily headlines of suicide bombing after suicide bombing, I've come to understand the Israeli's point of view.
posted by owillis at 11:53 PM on June 26, 2002

owillis: The isralis kill 1.8 times as many Palistinean non-combatants then suicide bombers do.

How exactly is a suicide bombing any less moral then buldozing someone's house while they are in it?
posted by delmoi at 1:21 AM on June 27, 2002

Do you have any stats to back that up? I'm honestly asking, because while the disinformation flows freely on both sides I'm wary of "Jenin massacres"
posted by owillis at 3:01 AM on June 27, 2002

Oh, wave that shroud with a bit more vigour, Zool. It's got ad hominem written all over it.

owillis: no, you've come to believe the propaganda: your last paragraph reads like it was dictated by the Likud press office, as should be clear from the dozens of times this has been discussed. Well done, you, for qualifying as a member of the receptive masses..
posted by riviera at 6:58 AM on June 27, 2002

The isralis kill 1.8 times as many Palistinean non-combatants then suicide bombers do.

I'd like to see a source for that number.
posted by swerve at 8:24 AM on June 27, 2002

All the stats you need

Here's an interesting one: around 400 Palestinians had been killed before the first Israeli victim of a suicide bomb (in the current intifada). Somewhat of a skewed statistic, because many Israelis died from shooting and other attacks.
posted by cell divide at 8:35 AM on June 27, 2002

riviera, normally I follow you, but your rant against "skewed fucking priorities" made what I saw as logical leaps. Although I would not suggest that the Israeli deaths are more tragic than (the more numerous) Palestinian deaths, this isn't an either-or scenario. Rank your priorities however you please, but don't dismiss everything beyond #1. All right, so Israeli behaviour has been atrocious. For the purposes of the discussion, we'll agree that it's been more atrocious than the Palestinian behaviour. The Israelis should stop their crimes. But shouldn't the Palestinians, too? As the stale adage goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right". I don't understand why continued Israeli murder justifies Palestinian murder. Can we not call with an equal voice for both to stop, even if politically we feel that Israel should withdraw? My support for Palestinian independence does not require me to support the murder of civilians. Why do you not feel the same way? And why is there so little condemnation of the suicide attacks from the Palestinian side? Sometimes it seems like Arafat's the only one speaking out against them, (for whatever that's worth).
posted by Marquis at 9:36 AM on June 27, 2002

Sometimes it seems like Arafat's the only one speaking out against them

Have you seen the recent "Urgent Appeal To Stop Suicide Bombings", Marquis? And Hanan Ashrawi wrote an essay called Where We Went Wrong" in February that appeared in the Progressive but should have gotten much greater play. "Why and when did we allow a few from our midst to interpret Israeli military attacks on innocent Palestinian lives as license to do the same to their civilians?" she wrote.

I agree it's not much, but the forces against a terrorist response are there, trying to focus on alternative strategies to block Sharon's plan to keep the West Bank for decades to come. But the obvious land grab itself has also got to be seen as one of the main things keeping the suicide bombers active. If the bombings stop, why would a Palestinian have any cause to believe Sharon will stop building new settlements and access roads? Do you?
posted by mediareport at 12:44 PM on June 27, 2002

owillis: If you're referring to the 2000 Camp David accords when you write "Arafat's rejection of peace plans," you really need to read Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors, co-written by a member of the U.S. negotiating team.

"...Israel is said to have made a historic, generous proposal, which the Palestinians, once again seizing the opportunity to miss an opportunity, turned down...As orthodoxies go, this is a dangerous one...For a process of such complexity, the diagnosis is remarkably shallow. It ignores history, the dynamics of the negotiations, and the relationships among the three parties. In so doing, it fails to capture why what so many viewed as a generous Israeli offer, the Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an offer. Worse, it acts as a harmful constraint on American policy by offering up a single, convenient culprit—Arafat—rather than a more nuanced and realistic analysis."

It's been posted here many times, and really is must-reading, at least as a starting point for discussion, for anyone who wants to write about Camp David.
posted by mediareport at 1:00 PM on June 27, 2002

If the bombings stop, why would a Palestinian have any cause to believe Sharon will stop building new settlements and access roads? Do you?

Because he hasn't authorized a single new settlement since he took office; Sharon's coalition agreement with Labor forbids him from forming any new settlements. The claim that Sharon has is pushed by the left-wing group Peace Now, whose methodology for deciding is that once a building is over 700 meters from the other buildings or is enclosed by a separate fence, it automatically forms a new settlement rather than a settlement expansion. This bit of creative license, which neatly ignores the hilly geography and the natural separation of the commercial, residential, industrial and farming areas, allows them to disingenuously claim that Sharon has founded dozens of new settlements. The volume of links that mediareport has dug up excoriating, demonizing and psychologizing Sharon over this non-existent outrage is a testament to the huge echo chamber the leftists have managed to construct out of an essentially hollow argument.
posted by boaz at 5:07 PM on June 27, 2002

It's been posted here many times, and really is must-reading, at least as a starting point for discussion, for anyone who wants to write about Camp David.

Be sure to also read the response of Dennis Ross, the US lead negotiator, where he patiently explains that the reason that it is so widely perceived as Arafat's fault is that it was Arafat's fault, appeals to the Chairman's peculiar psychology notwithstanding:

Consider Arafat's performance at Camp David. It is not just that he had, in the words of President Clinton, "been here fourteen days and said no to everything." It is that all he did at Camp David was to repeat old mythologies and invent new ones, like, for example, that the Temple was not in Jerusalem but in Nablus. Denying the core of the other side's faith is not the act of someone preparing himself to end a conflict.

The Barak interview and subsequent response are also quite interesting; rather than attempt a response to Barak's claims, Malley and Agha unleash a stream of ad hominem attacks on him so unrelenting and unilluminating that it makes me suspect that our very own riviera was perhaps their ghostwriter.
posted by boaz at 5:14 PM on June 27, 2002

Sometimes it seems like Arafat's the only one speaking out against them, (for whatever that's worth)

Here's a good clue to what that's worth: It seems that his speaking out against them, promising to fight them, etc. aren't enough to keep him from funding them.
posted by boaz at 5:21 PM on June 27, 2002

boaz,
the sites for the original settlemenst were purposefully huge so that the settlers could continue to build, all the while claiming "no new settlements." You're the one with the suspect methodology.

re: Camp David. Here's a bit (a big bit) from a speech by Robert V. Keeley, given to the Council for the National Interest, April 29, 2002, in which he references the account of Robert Malley, President Clinton’s adviser for Arab-Israel affairs.

Which brings us to the most recent and perhaps the biggest myth of all, namely that at Camp David II in the year 2000 Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s “most generous offer” that Israel had ever made or ever could make. Arafat came to that meeting reluctantly, believing–correctly, as it turned out–that the situation was not yet ripe for a settlement, and he extracted a promise that he would not be blamed if it failed. It did fail, and President Clinton blamed him, and that has become the conventional wisdom ever since.

I am indebted to Uri Avnery and to Robert Malley for setting us straight about this alleged “most generous offer” myth. Unfortunately, little of substance was put into writing at those sessions at Camp David, so we have to rely on witnesses who were present such as Malley. Avnery, a leader of the Peace Camp in Israel, has pointed out that Barak proposed that 69 Israeli settlements, populated by 85 percent of the West Bank settlers, would be annexed as blocs to Israel. This would have required the Palestinians to relinquish another 10 percent of their meager 22 percent. Yet another 10 percent of that land would be retained under “temporary Israeli control” for an indefinite period. This area contains the settlements of the most extreme religious zealots. Roads
for the settlers and checkpoints would further separate the Palestinian areas into three or four Bantustans, with movement among them so hindered as to make a normal life impossible. Israel would continue to control the borders with Jordan and Egypt, something no sovereign state
could accept. The later talks at Taba modified these proposals somewhat, as regards the temporary control zones, but the election results bringing Sharon to power sent all of that to the dustbin. Arafat had no choice but to reject this so-called generous offer, which was only
generous to the Israeli side. Had Arafat accepted it, Sharon would have rejected what his predecessor had done, so there would have been no settlement.

Robert Malley published his expose in The New York Times in July 2001 (as well as in The New York Review of Books). Malley was present at Camp David as President Clinton’s adviser for Arab-Israel affairs and is the most authoritative witness who has gone public about exactly what went on there. He called his revelations “fictions” rather than “myths” but they are the same thing. He then listed three myths: (1) Camp David became a test of Arafat’s intentions, but what prevented progress, from Arafat’s point of view, was that the gaps had not been sufficiently
narrowed, his relations with Barak were not good, he believed that Barak was simply trying to skirt his obligations to carry out more withdrawals, and none of the still unresolved core issues had been discussed. (2) Barak’s was not the “dream offer” it has been made out to be, from the Palestinian perspective; to accommodate the settlers Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank, and Palestine would receive the equivalent of one-ninth of the annexed land from Israel proper; how would Arafat defend the 9 to1 ratio of land swaps? In Jerusalem Palestine would have been given sovereignty over only some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, but only custody, not sovereignty, over the Haram al-Sharif; no solution was offered for the refugee problem. (3) The Palestinians were accused of offering no concessions, yet they accepted the annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlements; they accepted Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem that were also occupied territory; they agreed to
settle the refugee problem in a manner that protected Israel’s demography by limiting the number of returnees.

Conclusion: if this was the most generous offer ever made to the Palestinians, it was also the most generous set of compromises ever offered to Israel by any Arab interlocutor. Malley concluded that the process at Camp David had its flaws, but that tackling the final status issues came too late, not too soon, and the failure to achieve a major breakthrough at that point guaranteed there would be an escalation of violence, which is of course what happened, especially after Sharon came to power.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:29 PM on June 27, 2002

The PA is a bad, deadly joke, so quit trying to defend it. The Palestinians have had years, no, DECADES to get their house in order (funding their "house" is one thing, but by now, they could have had a little, if poor democracy). But they have done the exact, extreme opposite. So there's little overbearing about what President Bush has decided.

What will happen? Probably more Arafat deceit, bullshit and thuggery. And deaths on both sides.

Again, putting bullets in the heads of Arafat and his immediate cronies would be a great step forward.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:01 PM on June 27, 2002

...the left-wing group Peace Now, whose methodology for deciding is that once a building is over 700 meters from the other buildings or is enclosed by a separate fence, it automatically forms a new settlement rather than a settlement expansion. This bit of creative license...allows them to disingenuously claim that Sharon has founded dozens of new settlements.

I think Boaz is spinning the facts here. Here's the left-wing argument he's talking about, in FMEP's March-April 2002 settlement report:

Ha'aretz reported on November 21, 2001, that 26 new sites have been settled since Sharon assumed power in February 2001.

Many are located at sites along roads and intersections where settlers have been killed by Palestinians. Some are no more than temporary, rudimentary encampments. The placement of most of these outposts, however, reveals a strategic intent as well...These new settlement locations define areas of future settlement expansion in an attempt to remove from settlements like Yizhar and Itamar the potentially fatal designation as "isolated settlements."

That last part is key, since isolated settlements are more likely to be dismantled, but I don't see how FMEP is failing to back up their case or using "creative license" here. I await boaz's reply. More:

Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer declared on June 25, 2001, that 15 of these outposts were security risks and would be dismantled...U.S. sources confirm that an undetermined number of these outposts remained under settler control. At others, civilians were replaced by military personnel. Past experience suggests that civilians will eventually return to these sites.

These are not mere "settlement expansions," as boaz calls them; they are clear examples of a slow, inexorable Israeli policy to take over the West Bank. Many settlements began as this kind of military outpost, which then become part of the basic Israeli infrastructure:

In early December, it was reported that more than 50 outposts will be connected to Israel's national electricity grid, a move described by Kol Hazeman as "another step in cementing their viability as [settlement] communities."

Instead of addressing any of these specifics, boaz tries to dismiss most of what I've posted at MeFi with an insulting wave of his hand:

The volume of links that mediareport has dug up excoriating, demonizing and psychologizing Sharon over this non-existent outrage is a testament to the huge echo chamber the leftists have managed to construct out of an essentially hollow argument.

Non-existent outrage? That's rich. I offered a cite from FMEP of the bulldozing of Palestinian crops and land for a new access road that took place in February. Sharon allegedly admitted to Colin Powell that his plan was an expansion of Israeli control over the West Bank. boaz has yet to address that, either.

p.s. You can psychologize Arafat but attack me for doing the same to Sharon? Whatever.
posted by mediareport at 6:08 PM on June 27, 2002

Paris, Palestine was allowed to have some self government in the mid 1990s. Before that it was ruled by an occupying power (you may have heard about that). In 1996, the first elections in Palestine were conducted under watchful eyes, including former US Prez. Jimmy Carter, who pronounced them to be fair. Politically immature, it is not surprising that one candidate (Arafat) was able to get more than 85% of the vote.

Your invective against the PA is understandable and supportable, but your refusal or inability to grasp the concept of occupation from 1967-Oslo is, at best, very annoying. Furthermore, your violent textbursts are also understandable, but not appropriate. This is a discussion forum, not a chance to contemplate bloody revenge fantasies. I believe you had a thread deleted (one of the first, if I recall correctly) for advocating just such sentiments, so you should know better.
posted by cell divide at 6:15 PM on June 27, 2002

How can I respond to vapor, mediareport? How does a new road count as a new settlement? How does getting hooked up to electricity count as a new settlement? How does a new outpost within an existing settlement's lands count as a new settlement? How do IDF outposts count as settlements at all? The FMEP can call those things 'new settlements' till the cows come home, and it won't make it true. All FMEP's doing is confirming my facts and your spin, not a big surprise considering that my claims are factual and FMEP naturally spins in your direction.

From the FMEP report: Many are located at sites along roads and intersections where settlers have been killed by Palestinians.

This remark is especially telling; it's blithely assumed to be nothing more than a horrible provocation to set up a military outpost to protect settlers in a spot where settlers have already been murdered. Breathtakingly naive.
posted by boaz at 8:16 PM on June 27, 2002

p.s. You can psychologize Arafat but attack me for doing the same to Sharon? Whatever.

Please point me to where I psychologized Arafat in this discussion. The person most guilty of psychologizing Arafat is probably Messrs. Malley and Agha that you linked to, who spare no expense in using his psychological state to conveniently explain away some of Arafat's more *erratic* behavior at Camp David. Well, them and Paris. :)

Sharon allegedly admitted to Colin Powell that his plan was an expansion of Israeli control over the West Bank. boaz has yet to address that, either.

Shall I address the allegations of a massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in Jenin while I'm at it? How about the one about the secret ingredient in Hamantashen?
posted by boaz at 8:18 PM on June 27, 2002

BTW: sorry for the multiple posts. I'm having a problem where I never get a response to the preview button if my post is over 1200 characters long; I'd take it to MetaTalk but it's obvious that not everyone is having the problem, and my new Wi-Fi router may be to blame.
posted by boaz at 8:19 PM on June 27, 2002

I feel bad about getting this discussion all sidetracked, so as penance here's an astute observation on the Palestinian elections by Islamic Jihad bigshot Mohammed al Hindi:

"The elections are a response precipitated by American pressures," said Islamic Jihad leader Mohammed al Hindi in reaction to Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat's announcement of presidential and legislative elections in January 2003, with local elections slated for March 2003 .

According to AFP, al Hindi accused the United States of wanting "to abort the intifada." He added the scheduling of local elections for March was meant to tip momentum towards the Palestinian "peace camp" and away from those opposed to a negotiated settlement with Israel.

Of course, to him, those are all bad things.
posted by boaz at 9:47 PM on June 27, 2002

How can I respond to vapor, mediareport? How does a new road count as a new settlement?

boaz, I wrote in my first post in this thread "new settlements and access roads." The relevant point remains the violent theft of Palestinian cropland and destruction of Palestinian communities, which is still happening under Sharon. You're the one playing word games while refusing to acknowledge that. I'm curious, boaz, how do you feel about the fundamentalist settlers who've threatened to fight their own army rather than leave Judea and Samaria? In your view, are they a problem at all?

it's blithely assumed to be nothing more than a horrible provocation to set up a military outpost to protect settlers in a spot where settlers have already been murdered. Breathtakingly naive.

Or refreshingly honest. FMEP is clearly not trying to avoid any of the horrible realities of the situation, but includes them in its data. Your characterization of their argument as disingenuous "creative license" is the vapor here, boaz.

You're right, though, that FMEP's word isn't conclusive evidence about the contents of discussions between Sharon and Powell. I'll look for more.
posted by mediareport at 9:58 PM on June 27, 2002

Again, putting bullets in the heads of Arafat and his immediate cronies would be a great step forward.

Yeah...this is productive discussion. Tell me again, ParisParamus, because I may have missed it the first time, why haven't you been banned yet? Is it your open-minded comments, or perfectly plausible arguments?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:15 PM on June 27, 2002

Riviera, show me evidence of slums in the occupied territories.

I'm still waiting.
posted by Zool at 11:43 PM on June 27, 2002

boaz, I wrote in my first post in this thread "new settlements and access roads."

So somehow your statement about Sharon "building new settlements and access roads" [em mine] isn't directly contradicted by a complete lack of Sharon-built new settlements? This sounds a lot more like you getting caught in a fib than me playing word games.

The relevant point remains the violent theft of Palestinian cropland and destruction of Palestinian communities

Howzabout this: Give me the name of one destroyed Palestinian community as a result of the settlements. Even though you pluralized it, I'll settle for just one. All it needs is to have existed and through some interaction with Israeli settlements not exist anymore. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you're either a pathological liar (a class of people the Palestinians need less of on their side), or you have a complete misunderstanding of what the word 'and' means.

I'm curious, boaz, how do you feel about the fundamentalist settlers who've threatened to fight their own army rather than leave Judea and Samaria? In your view, are they a problem at all?

Treason is a crime in Israel too, mediareport; if they refuse to leave peaceably, the IDF will either arrest or, if that's not possible, kill them. Problem solved.

Your characterization of their argument as disingenuous "creative license" is the vapor here, boaz.

Let's not confuse the issue further; the group I was referring to in my initial comment was the left-wing Israeli group Peace Now (if you go back to read it, you'll see that I do give them a shout-out in there), which did use the disingenuous method I outlined to come up with a new settlement number of 34. I believe I actually referred to that particular point of FMEP's as 'breathtakingly naive'. However, since they titled their report, "SHARON GOVERNMENT VIOLATES PLEDGE NOT TO ESTABLISH NEW SETTLEMENTS", and then proceeds to enumerate a laundry list of complaints that somehow fails to include the actual establishment of new settlements by Sharon's government, I'd say overall disingenuous fits them like a glove too. In fact, wasn't that the same fib you started this whole discussion off with?
posted by boaz at 12:18 AM on June 28, 2002

Cell, you should knowby know (or perhaps by now), that some portion of my comments are for shock value; and due to the fact that overwelmingly (although less so, recently), Israel gets short shrift here on Mefi.

That said, why should terminating someone directly supplied to terrorisim, aka, murder, be that controversial? Why do you bend over way further than backwards to not see that certain dictatorial murderers have earned their own demise? In any case, you and others may disagree, but the proposition of assasination is hardly beyond the pale. Many babies and children, as well as adults, have now been assasinated due to the PA.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:29 AM on June 28, 2002

intended to write "(or perhaps not)"
posted by ParisParamus at 3:30 AM on June 28, 2002

why should terminating someone directly supplied to terrorisim

Killing == Wrong
posted by zzero at 7:26 AM on June 28, 2002

Just so we have a mental image of what we're talking about, here's a photo of one of the new outposts. It will, I'm convinced, soon look like what's to the left of it.

I just got off the phone with the former U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem, Philip Wilcox, who's now president of FMEP. Here's what he says about those who refuse to see new settlement outposts as part of a continuing Israeli expansion into the Territories:

"I regard that as a kind of sophistry to conceal the facts. The point is there has been inexorable expansion of settlements that has doubled the settler population in the last 9 to 10 years."

And what about the "Sharon has a deal with Labor not to build new settlements" argument?

"That's a trick," Wilcox says, "that allows for continuing the expansion by calling it 'natural growth.'" He added that new apartments in East Jerusalem usually get overlooked but should also be counted as new settlements, and that new land grabs have clearly continued under Sharon.

Now, keep in mind that the former U.S. Consul General might be a "pathological liar," so be sure to take his words with a grain of salt. But if instead of relying on boaz' spin you actually read the relevant section of FMEP's report or the March 2002 Peace Now press release that made the case, you'll find that, far from being "disingenuous," both are very clear about the methods they used. Their conclusion based on the evidence they've collected -- that Sharon is allowing the settlers to build new homes on new land -- becomes, in boaz' world, an example of lying. That's quite a whopper of a distortion. Peace Now and FMEP simply refuse to accept the claim that these new outposts aren't an example of expansion that controls new territory, and so they call them "settlements," while remaining very clear about what exactly they are and providing pictures so the world can decide for itself. To boaz, this makes them "pathological liars."

This sounds a lot more like you getting caught in a fib than me playing word games.

Sharon, like every other Israeli government of the last 10 years, is clearly finessing the definition of "new settlement" while expanding the number of housing units and amount of territory under settler control. In some cases, according to the very detailed settlement timelines posted at FMEP's site, this continues to involve the bulldozing of Palestinian cropland. Notice that boaz ignores the cropland question and demands I give the name of a "community" that has been destroyed. Ok, I will, boaz, just as soon as you tell me how you feel about continued Israeli destruction of Palestinian cropland to make room for new access roads under Sharon.

Note, too, that FMEP's timelines do not shy away from carefully documenting terror attacks on settlers. They remain the single most honest source of information I've found on this question; I challenge boaz to come up with a better one.

I've got a call in to Mr. Aronson, the reporter who made the claim about what Sharon told Powell and who keeps a close watch on the destruction caused by the expansion. I'll be sure to let you know when he calls back.
posted by mediareport at 2:13 PM on June 28, 2002

No. killing is sometimes good. When killing someone will prevent the target from killing others.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:14 PM on June 28, 2002

You just have to notice the difference between Mr. Wilcox's statements and yours to see my point, mediareport; in both quotes he made it clear that he was opposed to settlement 'expansion'. Does that ring a bell?

Now, keep in mind that the former U.S. Consul General might be a "pathological liar," ... To boaz, this makes them "pathological liars."

A non-hallucinatory reading of my comments will show that I called you a liar, not him, an assertion you obviously wish to obfuscate rather than respond to.

that Sharon is allowing the settlers to build new homes on new land

Which is right next to the old land and still within the land reserved for that settlement. If I built a house that was within the city limits of a city but slightly away from the other houses in the city, would it be a new city? No. Mr. Wilcox's quoted words show that he is perfectly willing to concede this point so why are you still arguing it? Further, I would like to congratulate Mr. Wilcox for choosing his words here in a manner that genuinely illuminates his position rather than blindly attempting to overstate his case.

Notice that boaz ignores the cropland question and demands I give the name of a "community" that has been destroyed. Ok, I will, boaz, just as soon as you tell me how you feel about continued Israeli destruction of Palestinian cropland to make room for new access roads under Sharon.

So you won't bother to substantiate your claims until I give my opinion on all your other claims; this is too weak for words, mediareport. I suspect by this point you are perfectly aware of whether your claim of the "destruction of Palestinian communities" is true or not, so why not just tell us?

I've got a call in to Mr. Aronson, the reporter who made the claim about what Sharon told Powell and who keeps a close watch on the destruction caused by the expansion. I'll be sure to let you know when he calls back.

You're already twice a liar. I don't see any point beyond morbid fascination in waiting around to see if you'll make it 3 or not.
posted by boaz at 5:25 PM on June 28, 2002

I'll just note that one of the things boaz says makes me a pathological liar is the use of the term "new settlements" to describe the obvious increase in settlement activity. Wilcox completely defends the use of that term. How that makes me a pathological liar but not Wilcox is beyond me.

Re: his second "lie" accusation, I will admit to overstating the "destruction of communities" without having direct names of those communities at hand. Rest assured I'll provide them. Also note that boaz continues to selectively ignore the bulldozing of cropland, a debate strategy that hardly entitles him to mount a high horse here.

I think we've both demonstrated some slippery debate tactics in this thread, although I think boaz has been the more loose with accusations and mischaracterizations of his opponents' positions. Hopefully, we can do better the next time around.
posted by mediareport at 6:24 PM on June 28, 2002