Bush Administration Warns Israel Not to Expel Arafat

[Khephra]

The Bush administration, responding to increased tension in the Middle East, warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel today not to expel the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat from Israeli-held territory and called on Israel to exercise restraint in attacking Hamas and other militant groups.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said in television interviews that despite the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister, the administration would continue to refuse to deal with Mr. Arafat, whom they have called an impediment to peace.

But Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice each said the rationale of hard-liners in Israel that Mr. Arafat should now be expelled was flawed. Rather than reducing Mr. Arafat's power over the Palestinian Authority, they said, such a move would be likely to turn him into a martyr.

"What purpose would it serve? To give him a broader stage to operate from outside the region?" Mr. Powell said on the ABC News program "This Week."

more...............

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/08/international/middleeast/08CAPI.html


(As per BN rules: "7. Discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues is not permitted in the Latest Breaking News forum, and instead must be posted in the Israeli/Palestinian Affairs forum. If, however, the news item is primarily about U.S. policy in Israeli/Palestinian affairs, you may post it in the Latest Breaking News forum.")

[tinnypriv]

1. NYT writers are, on the whole, idiots

It is Israeli-occupied territory. Not just "Israeli-held". Dumbasses. These guys are to the right of the freaking CIA.

[Jim Sagle]

3. The Times is right, you're wrong, and that's the end of it.

[tinnypriv]

5. So, the CIA is wrong?

Interesting! :thumbsup:

Get a clue.

[Zhade]

9. Ooooh, I smell a flame war brewing!

Anyone want to take bets on how long until the phrase "anti-semitic" pops up?

[Resistance]

13. just a subtle insinuation

usually works - remember it's against the rules to openly make the charge.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Arafat is part of the problem. Where were Powell and Rice?

Where were Powell and Rice when Arafat was busily pulling the rug from his own PM, Abu Mazen?

Were were Powell and Rice when Mazen asked them to adhere to the Roadmap's requirements on the Quartet?

As far as Arafat goes, he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. As long as he is in charge, he will never relinquish control of the Al-Aqsa militia. This was one of the reasons why Mazen resigned.

[The Stranger]

12. This has been the Likud party line for quite some time:

As far as Arafat goes, he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. As long as he is in charge . . .

It has served to deflect attention away from the roadmap obligations, and focus instead of demonizing one Palestininian in particular. So long as everyone focuses on Arafat, no one focuses on the occupation and the withdrawal that still has not occurred.

[Julien Sorel]

4. The interesting thing here, is that Powell would feel it

necessary to tell Israel not to expel Arafat. Israel knows, every bit as well as Powell does, that expelling Arafat would destroy any chance for peace, yet Powell had to come out and say that anyway. Perhaps Powell lacks confidence in Israel's peaceful intentions.

In a similar vein, Bush's speech had a line in there where he said 'terrorism thrives in an atmosphere of oppression,' or words to that effect. I wonder how many people in Israel cringed at those words, trying to figure out if they were deliberately inserted as a message. I kind of doubt it -- this was a Bush speech, after all -- but the message was there, and to Bush's credit, he has said things in the past that show he 'gets' what's going on between Israel and the Palestinians.

[tinnypriv]

6. The Israeli security establishment is really ramping it up

Expect to see Arafat gone within 6 months if Israel is not restrained by the United States.

Apparently even IDF generals are now prepared to make strong hints at killing (not just expelling) Arafat. On Israeli TV no less.

Not a good sign, but predictable nonetheless.

As for Bush knowing anything about Israel and the Palestinians, I seriously doubt it. I'd be surprised if he could pick Ari'el, Tel Aviv, Hebron or Jericho out on a map.

[Julien Sorel]

7. He has actually done a decent job of educating himself

on the topic, and has made some half-way intelligent comments about the settlements and so on. And then there was the time when he openly criticized Israel for an assassination, pointing out that it was a severe setback to the peace process and so on. The backlash from Israel's shills was severe and intense, and he has since been properly timid, but it is literally the only thing he's done since he's been in office that I felt inclined to support, and the fist time since he's been in office that I thought he actually had a clue.

As for whether Israel does kill Arafat, it is quite possible. The value of Arafat as bogeyman has about been used up by Israel. Few people outside the U.S. really believe that Arafat is the reason for the failure of the peace process any more, but with an assassination, Israel could squeeze one more bit of usefulness out of him. His successor would certainly be a hard line guy, which would justify the maintenance of the status quo, Israel's only true goal for the past decade or so. The violence Arafat's assassination spawned might even be so intense that it 'provokes' a harsh response -- harsh even by Israel's standards -- as a 'lesson' to the Palestinians, or as 'self-defense' by Israel. Perhaps another expulsion of some Palestinians, for example.

It really is a scummy region of the world, and the only time I find myself thinking in these twisted ways is with regards to Israel, yet no matter how base I assume Israel will behave, I usually find I was being too generous in my assessment.

[Resistance]

14. ah yes

I also remember when Bush criticized Israel for bombing a crowd of civilians.

That was when our brave so-called "Democrats" stood up and criticized Bush for criticizing Israel. Because, remember, the status-quo is to defend Israel's terror unconditionally, regardless of any affiliation with a particular political party. So our courageous Democrats of course had to take a stand against Bush's criticism of Israeli strikes against civilians.

[Zhade]

10. Isn't there a standing order to kill him if he tries to leave the country?

IIRC. Not sure.

[drool_n_yank]

8. Part of the plan

Sharon doesnt want Arafat to go either .

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1395.shtml

Leaked Document

acknowledges that Yasser Arafat has been a great asset to Israel because "he looks the part" of a "terrorist." The installation of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian prime minister, and potential replacement for Arafat, comes "at the wrong time," because he has the potential to improve the image of the Palestinians, and that could put the onus on Israel to return to negotiations. The document advises supporters of Israel to appear to affect a "balanced" tone,

[bemildred]

11. Duh.

Most of the Arafat bashing, which IS deserved, is
misdirection, the Government of Israel loves him.