Mephisto2

I thought I'd post this interesting article from BBC that gives brief biographies of Arafat's potential successors.

I'm embedding the links to the detailed bios (where available) for those who have more than a passing interest in this topic.

I'm wondering what people think? I know there is a lot of animosity towards Arafat in the US (and on this board), but who do you "prefer" from these potential replacements?


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

You know I just reread this a second time and it occurred to me that all of the above are listed as "moderates" or "pragmatists".

One wonders if there are any "hardliners" potentially up for the post.


Mr Mephisto

daswig

I've heard that SouthPark pinkslipped Satan. Maybe he'd be interested? (we need a "smartass" smilie)

Irishsean

One of the guys up to succeed him is currently in jail with 5 consecutive life sentences hanging over him? I really doubt the isreali's will just let him go so he can lead their enemies.

__________________
There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.
Leon Trotsky

Locobot

So which one is the Libertarian? Should have set this up as poll, get us warmed up for Nov. 2. I don't really follow Palestinian politics all THAT closely though. In the past I've been pretty impressed by Seab Erekat and what he had to say. He's apparently been nudged out of the government though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3033601.stm

powerclown

I think its going to be an extremely rough transition. On the one side, you're going to have Palestinean radicals like Hamas demanding a hardline, inflexible successor to Arafat. The other option will take more courage and imagination: elect a moderate Palestinean willing to 1) acknowledge and accept the existence of Israel, 2) take an honest stand against Palestinean terrorism, 3) have a sincere desire to establish a peace treaty with Israel, 4) LEAD the Palestineans out of the 10th Century.

I see outside Arab forces playing an enormous role in the process as well. The power vacuum will be immense, and EVERYBODY in the region is going to want to have their say in the matter. The entire situation is at a Crossroads.

I also wonder if Israel will let Arafat back into Ramallah if he survives his illness, regardless of what they're saying now. I think now is a good time to banish him from the region permanently.

roachboy

and what would the point of banishing him now be? i think it would be a political blunder of the highest order to do it. even by the low standards one applies to sharon, this would be seen as a problem, a pr disaster for the israelis.

btw, powerclown--your position seems consistently likud or to the right of it---why is that? not looking for a personal explanation, rather for a poltiical one. just curious.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

The point in banishing him would be to 1) establish a leadership committed to raising its people out of the desperate situation Arafat led them into, 2) establish a leadership interested in dealing with Israel for a real peace, which Arafat has proven unwilling to do.

One could ask you the same question in regards to your outspoken, universal left-wing ideology.

My stance on the Israeli-Palestinean Conflict is well documented here on this board. I don't believe in terrorism as a means of social change. Its a morally bankrupt tactic of the weak-minded. Simply my opinion on the matter, no more or less valid than anyone else's opinion.

roachboy

i wasn't questioning the validity of your position, actually: i was just curious as to why it was so.

for myself, i come out of marxism--but my work as a historian is about the implosion of marxism as a political formation--the consequence of this is that i think it impossible to still be a marxist in any way--not analytically, not conceptually, not politically. but it does influence how i understand things. my basic assumption is that the left remains caught in the vacuum created by the implosion of the older frame of reference, that a new collective elaboration of a very different type of opposition must be undertaken, but that the process has barely started.

in specific situations, this general orientation deploys differently--in the case of the question of the israeli/palestinian conflict, i tend to see the palestinian people as being crushed by a vastly superior military force, subjected to oppressive conditions every day, to be the losers in the conflict as a function of a wide range of political factors, the blame for which extends to all sides and which include arafat.
i do not question israel's right to exist, but i do think that it can and must be held to account according to the same kind of standards that would obtain for any other state.
i do not see how the occupation is justified.
i do not see how it is possible for anyone to look at the politics of theis conflict and not factor in the fact of the settlement policy as fundamental to exacerbating it at every step.
i do not understand how the brutality of the occupation squares with the ideals of the israeli state.
and i do not see why one cannot be critical of that state.

so there you are: your turn.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

OFKU0

Don't want to hijack the thread but,... I think this would be a golden opportunity for the U.S to come and help in the progress of a future Palestinian leader. They appear to have done a satisfactory job in Iraq with Karzai and could do the same in Palestine.

Further this could give the U.S a lift is public opinion with regards to the Arabs and at the same time could do some dearly needed damage control regarding the one sided nature the U.S has chosen by catering to the Israeli's while totally ignoring the Palestinians.

Of course this would be all in the name of future peace between both sides. If such an attempt were made and were quashed by the Israeli's, their international reputation which is flailing already, would be worthless. Arafat is their biggest excuse to avoid peace and they have done well to convince people of that. With Arafat out of the way and somewhat paradoxically, if the Israeli's don't come to the table showing that indeed they don't want peace (Actually they do want peace, they just don't want to see the creation of an independant Palestinian state,for those who continue with the notion that the Palestinian's don't want Israel to exist--tit for tat), they will be the bigger losers seeing as they still have something to lose unlike the Palestinian's.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.