"Democratically elect a new leader - or else"

I think they're hoping for the Palestinins to produce a Marshall Petain figure.

I think Bush wants a puppet.

Looks like they've basically told Stubya to go stuff himself with a barbed wire-wrapped mace. Anyone know, by chance, if oil exists in the Lebanon?

No oil in Lebanon.

Time to sell the car!

Dan, UHHH?

Troubles in the Middle East -> skyrocketing oil prices -> our cosy one income/one student family can no longer pretend to be able to afford our silver baby. *sniff*

does he really think the person who would take over from Arafat will have no connection with any of the liberation - and hence terrorist organisations

So all Palestinians are terrorists? Democratically elected Arafat's approval rating = 30%.

For what i know all important political groups has/had some connection to terrorism

I also think Bush just wants a puppet. Or else probably means go there take Arafat off and put whoever we want

Or maybe he thinks there's no way Israel is going to allow for the establishment of a state headed by a terrorist whose entire life has been devoted to the destruction of Israel.

Don't worry Dan, there is lots of oil in Alaska.

I think you drastically overstate the case, Blount.

Anyway it's an odd directive, and its a testament to the ridiculousness of the situation that such an odd directive seems even halfway reasonable. What interests me about it is the level of trust it puts in Palestinian civilians, insofar as it assumes (or anyway hopes) that a more democratic Authority would actually be a more workable partner in the peace process -- that Palestinians would vote for moderates and not radicals. I suppose we all hope this is true. My pessimistic guess, though, is that it'd been the same sort of fence-walking mixture of moderation and political appeasement of radicals that we get from Arafat -- and possibly worse, since a post-Arafat leadership would necessarily have less power to reign in radicals. But I hope, I hope: the mood of a good plurality of Palestinians-on-the-street really does seem to be that it'd be preferable to just ignore everything and be left alone in peace and try to build workable systems and lives, and once hopes that that mood will transfer properly into similarly-inclined elected officials. (One hopes the same of Israel in a similar time-frame, though.)

And bnw's right about Arafat's approval, but two things: (a) disapproving of an incumbent leader doesn't necessarily mean you'll vote for someone else if given the chance, and (b) even if he were drawing 5%, it still wouldn't matter unless someone else could pull 6%. And let's not forget that Palestine is not exactly a region where fresh untainted leaders can just spring into the political realm, given the fractious nature of the whole system: leading Palestinians into the peace process necessarily means moving into open conflict with groups who reject it. The impossible ideal, then, becomes what: a peace-friendly moderate with the sheer force to keep radical groups under his thumb? Good luck.

(Best possible Palestinian response to Bush: "We can't get rid of Arafat -- Ari Fleischer told us we're not supposed to criticize our leaders in times of conflict.")

What interests me about it is the level of trust it puts in Palestinian civilians, insofar as it assumes (or anyway hopes) that a more democratic Authority would actually be a more workable partner in the peace process -- that Palestinians would vote for moderates and not radicals. I suppose we all hope this is true

I don't hope that's true. I don't want to see the Palestinians elect an uncle Tom leadership that will acquiesce in the West Bank being cut up into Bantustans divided up by settlements and settler roads, with the territory's water resources being stolen by Israel. Because that's all the Barak and Clinton were offering at Camp David, and no one but an Israeli stooge will ever accept that.

I think this demand for the Palestinians to choose a leader not tainted by terrorism (while Israel is allowed have a leader tainted by war crimes) is a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose proposition for Sharon. If the Palestinian leadership doesn't hold elections, he doesn't have to talk to them. If they hold elections and anyone wins who is on for not surrendering to Sharon, he can denounce the Palestinians as being totally committed to terrorism, and refuse to talk to them. And if they elect a Quisling leader - sorted.

Well DV that's why I called it "an odd directive" -- it equates basically to "well maybe you can have a state, but only if you prove first that you'll elect the sorts of leaders we want."

Where I (sort of) disagree with you is in the assumption that "moderate" necessarily implies "stooge." I mean, any discussion of a "new Palestinian leadership" is bound to fall into this wish-dream thing where we posit that a certain type of leadership could exist (as if it will simply appear to fill the gap -- as if we don't have to deal with the political messiness of the field as it already exists) -- and while I know I too am speaking in that barely-informed wishful-thinking sense my reading still seems to imply that there's a much greater potential for the election of rigid moderates than for "stooges." In fact there seems to be a decent contingent of moderates who have become moderate largely because of their dissatisfaction with Arafat and the demolition of any normal Palestinian civilian life during the intifadas, moderates whose aim truly is to hash out a peaceful two- state solution not out of deference to Israel but for the sole purpose of letting Palestinians get on with their lives in calm and safety.

My main concern is that even if such a leadership (a) magically developed strength, (b) magically came to power, and (c) magically managed to reign an even more pissed-off radical fringe, I on some level don't trust Israel to respond properly to this. As you've said, if the offer is still a partitioned, heavily-settled, nominally- autonomous but entirely hemmed-in Palestinian state, the message that's sent is that Palestine really does benefit from terror as its sole source of leverage. Which is to say: even if peace were (somewhat) achieved, my fear is that Israel might not reward it quickly enough.

My main concern is that even if such a leadership (a) magically developed strength, (b) magically came to power, and (c) magically managed to reign an even more pissed-off radical fringe, I on some level don't trust Israel to respond properly to this.

And this spins right around to Israel as well. If all the border disputes were somehow magically settled, do we really believe that'd be the end of all hostilities toward Israel? History tells us otherwise.

Oh, definitely, Byron. But I stick by my policy, which is to hold a nation-state more accountable for its official actions than I'd hold an assortment of civilians responsible for the actions of arbitrary civilians within itself. As far as I can tell this is basically the core of our usual disagreements on these issues: that you (quite reasonably) proceed from the question "What course of action best safeguards the nation of Israel," whereas I can't quite stomach safeguards -- even if they're by and large effective -- that rely upon holding an entire population responsible for the actions of some of its members. Which is just the opposite question, really: "What course of action best safeguards the human rights of the average -- i.e., non-terrorist -- Palestinian?" Looking at one without looking at the other leads to the present situation, really, wherein Israel basically attempts to safeguard its typical-person at the expense of the Palestinian typical-person*; I can understand that but not quite condone it. It works from the assumption that "our lives" are more important than "your lives," a mentality that can really only encourage further terrorism by inviting the other side to flip that mentality on its head. (And by this I'm not trying to imply that either "side" "started it," only that logic of terrorism and and the logic of restriction/occupation/retaliation both reinforce one another.)

(Actually ignore that I said that: it's been my conclusion for a while now that principle-, moral-, or rights-based approaches to this issue are so vexed and contested as to be pretty much irrelevant for the time being. It's realpolitik at this point: fair or not, historically valid or not, the only thing that really matters is an approach that nearly-ends terrorism and ends settlement and occupation.)

(I say "nearly-ends" versus "ends" for the reasons in my last post: a nation-state can officially desist actions, but no matter what you do with Palestinians you can't necessarily ensure that a couple lone radicals won't blow themselves up now and then. It's the same with any equivalent racism, which one assumes this basically compares to for a certain subgroup of Palestinians: even if you transform the society at large there will always be stragglers.)

(Well then to use the parenthetical modifier, scratch what I said about "history," because once we start talking history or causality, it's pretty obvious the debate goes nowhere.) Stragglers are one thing, but on both sides right now, it seems the people in charge have no desire to head towards peace. I'd say the PA's encouragement of terrorism does more harm then Sharon's military actions, but that's also another -who is worse- debate which goes nowhere. If Bush had real guts, he'd tighten his grip on Sharon, since that is the side America has some leverage with. Which would in turn require the Arab states to tighten their grip on the PA. Make sure their money is going into schools, roads, and plumbing, instead of terrorists.

One other thing to add, if military incursions only encourage terrorism, then those arrows point the other way as well. The Palestinians can do worse then Arafat, and Israel can do worse then Sharon.

Clearly the next leader of the Palestinians should be appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I was in an airport and I saw a newspaper that said BUSH SAYS ARAFAT MUST GO and my dad says that arafat said that bush didn't mean him.

To clarify my earlier (over)statement, the Israeli people will never accept peace with Arafat and the Palestinian people will never accept peace with Sharon. Bush's proposal doesn't go nearly far enough (my understanding is that it isn't even as good a deal as Barak offered, that deal also being somewhat overrated in just how much it "gave" the Palestinians) but it does acknowledge that peace with Arafat at this point is impossible, and that if the Palestinians genuinely want peace they can show this by the leadership they choose; the same can be said about Israel - any country that embraces Sharon and dismisses Peres as a punchline deserves civil war, if not quite the undefendable tactic of suicide bombings, but whereas you can assume Sharon won't be in power in two years, it's almost impossible to imagine anyone other than Arafat heading the Palestinian Authority anytime soon. An extremely generous reading of Bush's proposal would suggest that he's demanding that the Palestinians produce a genuine democracy; a system in which the most prominent opposition to the majority party is Hamas can hardly be called that.

"If Bush had real guts, he'd tighten his grip on Sharon, since that is the side America has some leverage with." - it should be noted that one key factor of the Oslo accords occurring in the first place (and the key factor in Israel's restraint during the Gulf War) was Bush the Elder's overt willingness the play the pursestrings with Israel. Two reasons why this tactic is practically impossible for Bush the Younger: 1) The political climate has changed; when Bush called for Sharon to retreat from the West Bank, the fiercest attacks came from the left and nearly every editorial page in the country noted the inconsistency of a president who vows to give no quarter in the war on terrorism but urges restraint on Sharon. America's power with Israel has always been tied to the absurd amount of foreign aid we give them. Any attempt to reduce this aid would have to go through congress and congressional support for Israel is higher now than anytime in at least thirty years, perhaps ever. 2) American perceptions of the conflict have changed. Whereas it was possible to muster sympathy for the Palestinians during Intifada I - images of boys throwing rocks at tanks screamed (ironically) "David vs. Goliath"; it is impossible, for most Americans at least, to sympathize with a suicide bomber who deliberatly targets civilians. The perception is growing that Intifada II has less to do with land and more to do with hating Jews, and while during Intifada I the Palestinians came off as a beleagured people fighting an occupying army, during Intifada II they come off all too often as kamikaze (or, in the regrettable phrase now making the rounds, Islamikaze) psychopaths. This perception isn't accurate needless to say (neither was "beleagured people fighting and occupying army"), but it's a perception Arafat has fostered nevertheless.

arafat being democratically elected is a bit of a laugh, he threw out the original party run-off results and filled the rsoter with his selections. then had to face off agains samiha khalil, a 72 year old woman who was granted 47 minutes of air-time on television while arafat jailed editor of al quds because he did not accede to arafat's demand to be on the front page. all this and he didn't get the normal dictator vote count of 99%, which is what the recent majority was in cuba where everyone proclaimed their love for communism. the terrorists are not acting in hopes of getting their own state, they are working for the destruction of israel and the death of all jews. this is not a position that can be reasoned with. democracy is alien to the middle east to think it will magically appear in three years is a stretch. the 1967 borders idea is a mess, pardon us for wanting to destroy you in the 1967 war and for blowing up babies please give us our land back especially since when we tried to destabilize jordan in 1970 we were banished.

From my blog:

"I call on the American people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practising democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the American people actively pursue these goals, we here at Blogged Off will actively support their efforts. If the American people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with all nations on security and other arrangements for independence. And when the American people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbours, the rest of the world will support the creation of a United state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the North American continent.

Today, the elected US president has no authority, and power is concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few. A United state can only serve its citizens with a new constitution which separates the powers of government. The American parliament should have the full authority of a legislative body. Local officials and government ministers need authority of their own and the independence to govern effectively.

Today, the American people lack effective courts of law and have no means to defend and vindicate their rights. A United state will require a system of reliable justice to punish those who prey on the innocent.

Today, American authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the rest of the world will not support the establishment of a United state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. This will require an externally supervised effort to rebuild and reform the CIA/FBI security services. The security system must have clear lines of authority and accountability and a unified chain of command.

The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the American people and their leaders. If they energetically take the path of reform, the rewards can come quickly. If big business, republicans and the dollarstocracy embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on world support for the creation of a peaceful United States of America.

Thank you very much."

The Stratfor elves have some thoughts over this way -- the article will soon be in the pay-only archive, but their viewpoint is that the whole thing is a larger power-politics exchange between the US and Saudi Arabia over al-Qaeda.

Today's L.A. Times runs a poll indicating that if a vote were held today, Arafat would take it with "an overwhelming mandate." One question asks which leader Palestinians "trust most" -- Arafat takes 25%, Sheik Ahmed Yassin of Hamas comes in second at 9%. It really really won't be in Israel's interests to pull Arafat from the top of that heap until some workable moderate faction can pull at least 15-20% support: otherwise you have a fractious heap of impotent regional leaders with someone far more radical than Arafat commanding more support than any of the rest. Demanding elections isn't the key -- the Israeli papers all agree that Arafat would be reelected. What's important is what comes before elections, the creation of an open political field and forum where moderates can emerge. And they do exist, but where do you see them? Sitting in their homes talking to the American press, bitching about Arafat and bitching about the fact that they have no route to leadership or influence apart from brute force.

And not just them: as of this morning 700,000 Palestinians are essentially under house arrest due to 24-hour curfews. Is there any other situation in the world where anyone would condone the effective internment of over half a million innocent people based on religion and ethnicity? (Except in internment camps, you at least get fed.)