Uncategorized

Kerry: Screw Arafat

The JTA reports,

Sen. John Kerry says he would refuse to negotiate with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat if elected president. In an interview with USA Today printed Friday, the Massachusetts senator and presumptive Democratic nominee for president defended Israel’s building of a security fence along the West Bank border and said he would be more active in engaging new Palestinian leadership. “Yasser Arafat’s moment in history is past,” he said in the interview. “He allowed it to pass, and it’s his problem.”

Not that I have a fraction of an ounce of respect for the man/demon/beast (Arafat), but isn’t he the Palestinian’s democratically elected leader? And if so, how can you refuse to negotiate with him?

69 thoughts on “Kerry: Screw Arafat

  1. mobius, Ahmed Qurei is actually the Palestinian Prime Minister. Arafat is just a barrier in the way of peace.

  2. “Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat’s transformation from outlaw to statesman, while those whose only object is to disrupt society require no such ‘role models.’ In fact, what most encourages and emboldens terrorists now are the unprecedented opportunities inherent in the new world of porous borders, instant communications, and access to weapons of mass destruction.” – From John Kerry’s book,The New War: The Web of Crime That Threatens America’s Security, pp. 113-114
    “I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the Green Line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” – From an address to the Arab American Institute’s National Leadership Conference in Dearborn, Michigan on October 17, 2003
    “Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense. No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes to innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defent its citizens. The fence only exists in response to a wave of terror attacks against Israel.” – Statement issued by the Kerry campaign, February 23, 2004
    meur? I’m confused.

  3. “And if so, how can you refuse to negotiate with him?”
    Kerry can refuse to negotiate with whomever he wants, just as any leader can refuse to negotiate with kerry (or bush). I dont understand your question.

  4. well yes, kerry doesnt have to negotiate with you jimbo, even if his voter’s tax money is paying for the occupation of your house and opression of you and your household.

  5. “well yes, kerry doesnt have to negotiate with you jimbo, even if his voter’s tax money is paying for the occupation of your house and opression of you and your household.”
    Im not sure what that means, other than you sound upset that arafat is being snubbed.

  6. um not really. arafat and sharon are very similar in a sense. both have blood on their hands. both have are pretty corrupt leaders (i admit that in arafat case its much worse with the 800m… haha) who cynically manipulate their own people.
    well the only difference is that i am israeli thus i cannot really complain about the palestinian leader (well i CAN, but it doesnt seem to help!), and my responsibility is towards the leaders of my people.

  7. Would you also put bush and kerry into that same basket? Both have blood on their hands, and both manipulate their people (as do most politicians.)

  8. Very nice, my young extremist friend. You are a radical among radicals, and I commend you for your honesty. As opposed to mobi who believes his views are mainstream liberal views.
    Can i expect to see you at the next G-8 summit?

  9. jimbo, still throwing the smack around eh? i doubt there’s very much difference between my politics and asaf’s.

  10. “i doubt there’s very much difference between my politics and asaf’s.”
    I agree, only asaf is more honest about his positions.
    Actually, nevermind. I just read his last post, and apparently he doesnt think grouping bush/kerry/arafat together qualifies his views as extreme.
    oh, btw mobi, i posted some comments on your post discussing how jews are still dems. Could you check those out. I would like to hear your response.

  11. Okay. All those who actually believe that Arafat was elected leader in any sort of fair and open elections, raise your hand.

  12. I doubt it’s really an issue
    I think Kerry will negotiate with Arafat
    right now by saying this he’s just got his nose stuck firmly in the rear of AIPAC and ZOA
    That’s all it is… politricks

  13. what jimbo’s saying is that our views are extreme, asaf, because 85% of the public doesn’t see things the way we do. thus early his statement that i believe my views represent the mainstream liberal view. i don’t think, however, that i’ve ever suggested anarchism to be a mainstream liberal political p.o.v.
    now, that i am an anarchist–does that make me an extremist? a maximum ultraist, perhaps (see page 6). but an extreist? only if you believe the spectrum of political thought can be narrowed to status quo dictates of acceptability. only if you play that game. but you’re not an extremist if you’re playing another game, which could be noting playing a game at all.

  14. also, i think jimbo’s suggestion that i think my views are the mainstream liberal views is tactical. i think what he’s trying to do is get me to paint some impression of liberalism–to claim to speak in the voice of “liberals” (the ficticious strawman)–while expressings views he deems extremist, thus enabling him to justify grounds for dismissing all liberal thought as extremism.

  15. “also, i think jimbo’s suggestion that i think my views are the mainstream liberal views is tactical. i think what he’s trying to do is get me to paint some impression of liberalism–to claim to speak in the voice of “liberals” (the fictitious strawman)–while expressings views he deems extremist, thus enabling him to justify grounds for dismissing all liberal thought as extremism.”
    although it was tactical, it isnt for the reasons you think. I have no interest in dismissing all liberal thought. I happen to agree with some mainstream liberal views, and welcome reasonable dissent. For example, like many liberals, i dont agree with bush on what we are doing in iraq, i think we should just leave.

  16. I can’t believe the ignorance here.
    In ’93, Arafat was elected ‘Chairman’ for a period of five years. In ’98, Arafat decided that no new elections would be needed anyway, so he dismissed them (sort of like Hitler did once in power).
    The same way that the world brought on WWII by negotiating with Hitler, is the exact same way the world is bringing on WWIII by still giving legitimacy to dictators like Arafat.
    Palestinian ‘Prime Ministers’ Abu Abbas/Ahmed Qurei and Abu Mazen/Mahmoud Abbas, were never elected, they were appointed by the dictator terrorist himself, Arafat.
    The labeling of terrorists and dictators with terms usually used in free democracies is quite misleading.

  17. The vital point that Josh, fineline, and Schneider bring up, but continues to go ignored, is that Arafat’s election (such as it was) has expired. Further, it had expired before both the collapse of Camp David and the renewal of the intifada. Without a Palestinian leadership willing to assert its legitimacy, there is no choice but for Israel to act unilaterally. So, the insistance by Asaf and mobius of Arafat’s necessity in any peace process, based on any legitimate political dynamic, is mystifying; and their failure to address this aspect of the situation is particularly frustrating.

  18. Elections were supposed to take place a number of time but were stopped by the Israeli government.
    anyway, i think that both arafat and sharon do not represent the Israeli and palestinian people. unfortunately, thats all we got right now. ANy better solutions?

  19. i think arafat is a shtick dreck, as i noted in the initial post, and i did mean chairman earlier, not president. i don’t think arafat is a hero nor should he necessarily be regarded as the leader of the palestinian people. he’s a cocksucker as far as i’m concerned. but–the palestinian people, to a large extent, regard them as their leader. and until they depose him, they’re who we have to contend with as their representation, simply because there is no one else.

  20. democratically elected? where do you come up with this bullshit? if you’re going to serve as a source of information then you should stop being ignorant. ELECTIONS ARE HELD ONCE EVERY 20 FUCKING YEARS! Moron.

  21. From Mo’s link:
    “After the forming of Israel parts of Palestine became legally part of Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza Strip). In the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, occupied by Israel since 1967, a Palestine Authority was founded in 1994.”
    “Became legally part of Jordan and Egypt,” but “occupied by Israel.” Nope. No agenda here….

  22. Asaf, I need some support for your assertion that the election (that should have occured ahead of the expiration of Arafat’s term in January 2000) was stopped by Israel.

  23. Mobius: “…but–the palestinian people, to a large extent, regard [Arafat] as their leader. and until they depose him, they’re who we have to contend with as their representation, simply because there is no one else.”
    Arafat’s presidential term expired in January 2000, ahead of the collapse of Camp David, and fully nine months ahead of the renewal of the intifada. Two things become obvious from this chronology: Arafat can no longer be regarded as a legitimate leader of Palestine; Arafat is not interested in a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
    At this point any responsible Israeli government should endeavor to end the conflict, either unilaterally or by reaching out over the proverbial head of the Palestinian Authority (either to interested third-parties, or to principal parties in the region).
    While it is arguable whether or not Sharon is the best person for the job, at least two things can be said: Sharon’s government is presently consulting with Egypt regarding post-disengagement security in Gaza; Arafat made the choice to deal with Sharon by responding to Sharon’s campaign stunt on the Temple Mount instead of responding to Barak’s peace initiatives.

  24. zionista, let me rephrase – israel’s sieges and military regime do NOT let any circumstances for normal elections.
    In any case, PA is currently a body that israel can put all responsibility on while it has no real power. but israel delibaretly distroyed the PA power in operation shield and by deligitmizing arafat. you tell me why.

  25. Sorry Asaf. But that’s not so much a rephrase as a backtrack.
    Israel did less to stop Palestinian elections in January of 2000 (2 1/2 years before Operation Defensive Shield) than Palestinians did to disrupt Israeli elections in 1996 and 2000. Again, if Palestinian leadership were genuinely interested in arriving at a negotiated settlement of the conflict and the emergence of an independent Palestine, it would have responded to Barak’s initiative. Instead, Palestinian leadership renewed the intifada in response to the opposition Likud party’s campaign stunt, cutting the political legs out from under not only Barak and Labor, but the Israeli peace movement, and quite possibly the nominee for President Clinton’s Democratic successor Al Gore, as the Bush-Cheney campaign was able to capitalize yet another perceived failure of Clinton-Gore policies.

  26. OK. Barak’s initiative had some boogers. Fine. What was Arafat’s counteroffer…? That’s how negotiations work. Remember? Palestinian leadership still had the choice of sustaining negotiations, or renewing the intifada.
    Instead of sustaining talks, rocks flew on Kotel worshipers on erev Rosh HaShana, and a futile, stupid, and dirty little war handed the Israeli electorate to Likud, and gave size to Bush-Cheney campaign claims that Clinton-Gore foreign policy in the Middle East was a bust.

  27. Choices have consequences. With all due respect to Gush Shalom, and with your indulgence, I respect Barak’s leadership choice much more than Arafat’s.

  28. i do not accept your narrative for the outbreak of the second intifada. months before there were those in the radical left who knew to recognize that after 7 years of dissapointment in the peace process, an intifada is going to break.
    i will not go into the discussion of camp david. its bores the hell out of me and so much was written about it. the facts are out there – there are many clashing narratives and i have chosen mine – based on what Americans, Israelis and Palestinians who were there had to say about the negotiations. Barak came with an offer he was not willing to negotiate. It was all or nothing. Arafat chose nothing. Barak was arrogant and a symptom of both the militarist society and the peace movement, and arafat- well we all know his problems.

  29. So what, indeed. Here is where perhaps we light our cigarettes and stare into our drinks with the proper amount of ennui….
    But just tell me first, if Barak was as unwilling to negotiate as your narrative suggests, then why was there a Taba?

  30. oh thats a easy one. he was in the end of his political career, wanted to take a last try in negotiations.
    in any case, taba proves that camp david is not the final word, and that better solutions came up when barak was under pressure and negotiations actually took place.

  31. But while Barak found his way to more concessions (albeit with Clinton’s help), Arafat still made no counteroffer. Made no move toward common ground, and absolutely nothing new at all… except maybe the notion that there never was a Temple on the Temple Mount, but that shouldn’t really count as the expression of good faith one would expect from a negotiation process anyway.

  32. so what happened in taba? why are you mentioning only barak and clinton? were no palestinians present?? taba proved negotiations were possible. sadly barak was indeed “a political corpse”

  33. I’m sorry, but I just can’t reconcile your two statements:
    “Barak came with an offer he was not willing to negotiate. It was all or nothing” (06/07/04 12:31pm).
    “…taba proves that camp david is not the final word, and that better solutions came up when barak was under pressure and negotiations actually took place” (06/07/04 12:54pm).
    It seems you would have to pick one or the other. And this goes to my fundamental argument in our discussion. Palestinian leadership appears unwilling, unable, or both, to make the choices necessary to cut a deal with Israel and get on with their national life. To believe otherwise, one would have to accept that the last three years of intifada have been some sort of a benefit to the cause of Palestinian national self-determination. I just don’t see it.

  34. It would appear that there might as well have not been any Palestinians present at Taba. Negotiations are supposed to move adversaries closer to the middle of opposing positions. Barak moved closer to the Palestinian position (at least as it was understood by the Clinton team), while there was not even a break in the intifada.

  35. i would like your opinion on taba and what changed from camp david – was it the palestinian side, or barak?

  36. I understand. But the first quote asserts an “all or nothing” position. If this was accurate, there could not have been more at Taba.

  37. well so lets not bring camp david as the final word, as some people like to show it. in any case, it was obvious these talks will fail. so what? so u try again. you dont escalate the intifada by supressing it with extreme use of violence (including against your own civilians).

  38. Thats my point – barak was at the end of his term and had no choice but to start negotiations on a differnent bases. that proves that camp david was just a big joke.

  39. The best I could offer from my limited perspective — through published observations by Dennis Ross, and an Israeli negotiator whose name slips my mind — most of the credit for change at Taba should go to Clinton. But you have to give Barak some credit for letting his arm be twisted.
    Now please tell me, as Barak’s Camp David initiative was so awful, what insight can you give into any Palestinian counteroffer at Taba?

  40. And speaking of elections, you condemned Israel for not allowing the circumstances for Palestinian elections in January 2000, but you don’t seem to have a problem with Arafat renewing the intifada during an Israeli election, with Ariel Sharon in the opposition no less.

  41. Asaf,
    You can say it as much as you want. But I am still not accusing you of playing favorites. It’s just that you seem to be more willing to make excuses for their failures than for ours. And I don’t mean for that to look like a question as to your loyalties, God forbid. And I won’t blame anyone for wanting to believe that they have the complete control necessary to change a bad situation.
    All I am saying is that from everything I had seen and still recall from the waning days of Barak’s government and the beginning of the Rosh HaShana intifada to the present efforts by Egypt to encourage Sharon to make good on his idea to leave Gaza, and eventually as much of the rest of the territories it takes to politicallt divorce Israel from an emergent Palestine (hopefully leading to an eventual international coexistence and cooperation, keyn-ahora!), it appears that both Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people expect something more than what this world can give. Whether that is a Palestine free of a Jewish national neighbor altogether, or an overnight 21st Century player in the global economy. And someone has to start leveling with them that it’s not going to happen that way, and that’s just the way it is.

  42. i have no clue on what you base this: ” it appears that both Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people expect something more than what this world can give.” In any case, i hope you read the articles, they’re pretty informative about camp david, and very credible.
    regarding your first remark – i simply want my country to take 50 percent responsibility of its share in the conflict – unfortunately it is much more that 50 percent. so its not that i am more apologetic for the palestinian side, its my interpretation of responsibility in this conflict.
    Check out in the Israel Forum: http://www.TheIsraelForum.org go to the sound files in the event archive- under the judt event, and listen to Raef Zreik’s talk. he makes an important point about responsibility in this conflict.
    I might be giving a talk this thursday – if so i’d like you to come if you’re interested… i will give my analysis of the peace movements probably, which includes also the peace process.

  43. We’ll keep typing. We’ll understand each other eventually. And I’d love you come hear you talk. But you’re in New York, right? If you find yourself anywhere near Chicago, let me know.

  44. Zionista wrote-
    “I’m sorry, but I just can’t reconcile your two statements:
    “Barak came with an offer he was not willing to negotiate. It was all or nothing” (06/07/04 12:31pm).
    “…taba proves that camp david is not the final word, and that better solutions came up when barak was under pressure and negotiations actually took place””
    This is where you lost, asaf. Take note for the future that the conversation should have ended. Your argument was a losing one.

  45. In case i was unclear, i wrote that asaf lost, not zionista (after zionista pointed out two contradictory statements that asaf made).

  46. Got it, Jimbo. I must have lost the comma on the first pass. Quote me and it goes right to my head. Butanyway…. We can approach this either as a competition or a process. It’s not like we’re making policy.
    Go Cubs!

  47. jimbo, zionista might have gotten it. but i didnt. i already explained that the first sentence referred to camp david. a lot has changed between taba and camp david. my first remark about remark was specifically to camp david. is that so hard to comprehend?

  48. Asaf,
    It is arguable that Taba would not even have been necessary had Arafat responded to Barak at Camp David with a counteroffer and sustained the negotiations. But Arafat just up and left like someone spit in his lunch. (Aside: I’ve read the Robert Malley article, and also the comments of Dennis Ross, the statements of Bill Clinton and Miller, whose first name I forget, and who is now the head of Seeds of Peace).
    Instead of Taba “proving” Camp David as some kind of joke, as you say, it does more to reveal Barak’s flexibility and Arafat’s determination to sustain the intifada. Surely Arafat recalled the division between Likud’s Yitzhak Shamir and the elder Bush (and his good old buddy James “fuck the Jews” Baker III). The only way Arafat’s behavior within this period makes any sense to me is that Arafat figured he would get a better deal with Bush than with Clinton’s VP. So why not wreck the party for both Labor and the Democrats, and roll the dice?
    A couple-few thousand corpses later, and we’re still talking like Arafat can be a legitimate partner in negotiation and Palestinian nation-building? Give it a fucking break.

  49. its amazing how much political weight you give to arafat. the alternative analysis i already gave in the articles, and i pretty much accept them.
    in any case, on thing is obvious – lets say the negotiations failed. what are our options? yes we can escalate the intifada (like the army strategically did) or resume negotiations. Sharon said he will not talk under terror- for a whole year. and suddonly he changed his mind. talking about corpses….

  50. Options? See above….
    Zionista • 06/07/04 09:36am:
    At this point any responsible Israeli government should endeavor to end the conflict, either unilaterally or by reaching out over the proverbial head of the Palestinian Authority (either to interested third-parties, or to principal parties in the region).
    While it is arguable whether or not Sharon is the best person for the job, at least two things can be said: Sharon’s government is presently consulting with Egypt regarding post-disengagement security in Gaza; Arafat made the choice to deal with Sharon by responding to Sharon’s campaign stunt on the Temple Mount instead of responding to Barak’s peace initiatives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.