degrawj

In case you haven't heard, Ariel Sharon has cut communication with Mahmoud Abbas until he acts against the militants that attacked an Irsali checkpoint yesterday. Link to story:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...palestinians_3

Now this is the first time I've ever posted in the politics forum because politics is a pretty touchy subject for me and I get upset over it fairly easily, but I think I have a pretty safe discussion topic where I would like to hear other peoples opinions.

First off, I am not taking sides here (i.e. pro Israel or pro Palestinian). And second off, I don't want this to turn into a "Palastinians do this..." "Israelis do this..." thread.

On to the point! Basically, I find it unreasonable for Sharon to do this, since I don't see how it is Abbas' fault for the attack. Abbas does not control his own people, just like Sharon doesn't control his. How long has Abbas even been in his position? Not even a week, and Sharon just cuts communication. I even remember when Arafat was the Palestinian leader, and he was held accountable for his peoples actions. Can anybody explain this logic to me? And how does this help the peace process?

Mojo_PeiPei

As far as Arafat goes, the man incited the first infitada against the Israeli's, was in charge of the PA which is an umbrella front for terrorist organizations such as Al Aqsa and groups in the 70's like Black September (that's the name right?), Arafat was directly involved in terrorism and at the same time indirectly not doing anything which he had the power to prevent.

I don't know about this situation with Abbas, I liked him 10x more then Arafat, but after his election and him calling for death to the zionists, it's a shaky start. On this thing though I might side with Sharon, Arafat willfully didn't do anthing to stop the terrorists, Abbas needs to step up to the plate and act.

Also post content

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

As much as I am dissapointed at Sharon, I admit that I am looking forward to see how Abbas handels this. Abbas is a VERY smart man, and he holds great potential for his people. This could very well be the first step towards peace if it is handled correctly. How it should be handeled is beyond my political ability, but I have faith that there is a peacful and proactive solution. I wish Abbas luck.

cyrnel

I think it's a boot in the pants for Abbas. The Israeli leadership need to show strength to their people, especially the hardliners. If Abbas can't do more to control the Palestinian populace (of whatever nationality) than Arafat did, then in their minds (and for their politics), he may not be an improvement over Arafat and his historical ties to militant groups.

This "turning their backs with a harumph!" gives the Israeli's three things: It's an angry public response (without the violence); it leaves their options open for retaliation if enforcement actions aren't forthcoming; it motivates Abbas. If Abbas can do something, this is his chance. "We'll validate your power if you can demonstrate you have some."

I have no idea if there's a chance for this new Palestinian leadership. Abbas may be doomed no matter what he tries. There are more than enough fanatics and manipulators on both sides of the aisle, and as with Iraq it seems likely there are many players from outside.

Any students of the region here? I'd like to learn more about underlying forces. It's always seemed there's much more going on than a two-party feud.

Mephisto2

The logic behind it is that the Israelis are waiting to see if Abbas will deal with the militants.

I don't agree with the way this has been handled, but that's why they're doing it.


Mr Mephisto

Rekna

Isreal just drew a line in the sand. Either Abbas is with them or the militants. There goes Abba's carreer. Basically he now has to choose between shit and shit. Way to stop the peace process Sharon.

jonjon42

Sharon is not being reasonable...if Abbas goes with Sharon he will be quickly painted as siding with the "zionists" and weakened..if not ousted all together.

If he doesn't he has no way to negotiate making him just as ineffective...
truly seems to be a choice between shit and shit.

I just hope this plays out better then I think...because I usually am a bit pessimistic about this stuff...

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

powerclown

Agree 100% with the first 2 sentences. Disagree 100% with the rest. Abbas still has a chance to prove himself, he's not going anywhere yet. If Abbas can't prove himself willing or capable of stopping his people from attacking Israeli civilians, he is no different from Arafat and should be dealt with accordingly.

The message from Sharon is loud and clear: do something about the fucking terrorists, or this bus ain't movin. In diplomatic terms, it's called 'establishing trust'.

Mephisto2

Not necessarily. Abbas has already proven himself willing to deal with militant Palestianism. He opposes violence against Israel. He was a prime mover in the original peace plan.

But, as if often the case, he may find it difficult to actually handle them easily. This is his burden and his task. Israel should be helping him, not hindering him.

The message from Sharon is always the same. I'm driving the bus and you can sit in the back if you want...

/sarcasm

In diplomatic terms, or real politik if you prefer, it's called 'hard ball'. It's got nothing to do with trust, or else we would trust Abass to act without punishing him already.

Mr Mephisto

Manx

Actually, it's a rather deft move on Sharon's part. This way, he can continue to maintain the status quo yet claim that he is trying for peace, by putting Abbas into an untenable situation.

Abbas cannot say "Yes'suh, massah Sharon suh!" because then the people that elected him will despise him. At the same time, Abbas must do what Sharon wants or Sharon is just going to blame Abbas for any future Israeli attacks on Palestinians.

powerclown

You may be right that he's willing to deal with the 'militiants' and he opposes violence etc..but how he has proven this? How does it look for Sharon, (who called Abbas to congratulate him on his election victory) to be seen as a punk by getting all friendly with Abbas, and two days later 6 Israelis are killed?

If anyone is going to sink Abbas, its going to be Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

"False Start, #2, Offense. 2nd Down."

powerclown

Wonderful.
So now it's ok for militants to kill Israeli civilians, after all.
Abbas has no responsibility AT ALL to control the militants.
Silly me.

OFKU0

I have hope for Abbas ( and the "Zionist enemy" thing is taken out of context.Anyone provide me with the context of that statement get's full marks, including why those remarks were made) but have no hope for Sharon. This again is a partnership that is doomed before it starts.

Sharon plays the victim card very well, and at times it is warranted, but not often,but any sovereign Palestinian state from now until the end of time will be seen as a failure of the Israeli's and Jews as a whole. That's because they believe that the land is theirs like the Palestinians believe in the right to return. Most importantly, if a viable Palestinian state exists, where will Israel get the extra 5 billion dollars it currently receives from it's major supporter, the U.S, to fight terrorism,.......Peace, to the Israeli's = Less money for being the victims. That ain't in the cards in my lifetime,,.but it is fun to dream.

__________________
" 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.

Mephisto2

And I think Sharon is playing into the hands of the militants. You seem to forget they (Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Aqsa etc) don't want peace with Israel. It is their avowed desire to destroy Israel. If Abbas fails, it's as much to their benefit as anyone. They want to destroy the peace process, and Sharon is helping them do it.

I do not make any apology for these people. But I, personally, think that Israel should be helping Abbas and not punishing him. If Abbas can show the Palestinian people real progress then they might withdraw their support for the militants. Real progress like improvements in travel, financial aid, removal of illegal settlers etc etc. Any peace process is a set of compromises. What has happened, and continues to happen, in Northern Ireland is an example.

One side cannot triumph over the other, or ride roughshod over their moderate leaders.

I abhor the actions of the militants, but I honestly think Sharon is cutting off his nose to spite his face.

No, if anyone is going to sink Abbas, it will be a combination of Israeli hardliners (like Sharon) and Palestinian hardliners (like Hamas et al). If it weren't so tragic, I'd describe it as "deliciously ironic"...

Mr Mephisto

OFKU0

You sir, Mr Mephisto have won the Friday POST of the day. Now go have a beer. If ever a hammer hit the nail so squarely on its head, that post did it. And where is Ustwo and the obligatory one liner.

__________________
" 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.

powerclown

Good points.

I think the single biggest player in all of this is the United States, by far. They need to get their asses and money in there tomorrow and fucking help out Abbas, and make life tangibly better for ordinary palestineans. If they don't give 100% effort in trying to help the palestineans, I think they can kiss any hope of Middle East stability for the next 50 years goodbye, and they will have no one to blame but themselves. I really hope the US plays this one with some goddamn foresight and intelligence.

Manx

Who said anything like that? Show me.
Clearly there is something between no responsibility and full responsibility. Sharon wants Abbas to take full responsibility, but that it simply not possible.

Seaver

Easily said, almost impossible to assure it will go to anything positive. My suggestion is do some research on the corruption of the Palestinian state. I dont have them online, for I did a research paper on it, BILLIONS in aid are given annually to Palestine. Yes, billions from all the Arab countries, and even Russia and I believe China still gives money there.

So, why does Palestine still look like Lebanon during the worst of the fighting? Well the obvious excuse would be the Israelies, and the one most Palestinians blame. When the truth is there is a warlord situation in Palestine, where the Palestinian "army" is actually a group of militias, with the warlords all vying for power and money. So, in order to keep their people militant they keep the entire nation as a giant slum. The billions go to the families of the "myrtars", so that only those directly related to the suicide bombers are given any sort of help. Naturally this keeps a steady supply of volunteers to keep the status quo. Besides, rebuilding a nation costs SO much money, and they warlords are too greedy for that to happen.

And about Abbas, he's in a tough situation. Sharone must play tough so his own career doesnt go down in flames for being a wuss. Abbas must play tougher so the militiants dont go out of their way (anymore than they currently do) to screw everything up. Meanwhile Israelies die while simply going to the market, and Palestinians live bombed out houses.

ObieX

The solution that Sharon is waiting for is probably this: "Mr. Abbas, negotiate with the terrorists. If they refuse to stop, kill them." That is what needs to be done in this situation. If you tell them to stop for the good of their people and they don't, then they are not working in anyone's best interest and should be removed. The terrorists are serving NO ONE in this situation. They are not serving Palestine, they are certainly not serving Israel, and they are not serving themselves. All they are serving is death.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

jorgelito

I don't think that Abbas CAN actually "do" anything really. He does not have effective "control" over Hamas or any of the militant groups. This was one of the problems that Arafat had.

Odd though, seeing how Hamas issued a willingness to declare a truce just the other day.

Anyways, that's is the real power of terrorism, how a few dirty,rotten apples spoil the whole shebang. All it takes is one incident and the whole house of cards falls down.

scout

If a bunch of Israeli civilians went berserk and attacked the Palestinians once or twice a week for several years after awhile if they wasn't arrested and held accountable in a court of law Sharon would be held responsible. I fail to see why it's not OK for Sharon to demand Abbas be responsible for his constituents, after all he was elected with 60 some percent of the vote. The Palestinians have a security force that is quite capable of arresting the guilty parties if they so chose.

Mojo_PeiPei

Hamas offering a truce is usually a tactic employed so no cruise missles end up hitting the back seat of their cars. It is not a real legitimate truce only a bid for time because they are probably low on cash and weapons. Hunt them down and kill them all like the dogs they are.

As stated here Abbas has a chance to prove himself by doing something proactive and lasting by going after murdering sociopaths like those in Hamas and Al Aqsa. Rewarding their evil by giving them a say in decision making is not the road I would take.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

degrawj

Awesome! Thanks cyrnel! This explains perfectly to me what seems to be going on right now. I knew that I could count on you guys! :-)

degrawj

Wow, I'm really impressed to get this great of a response. Thank you everybody! With that said, I would like to thank cyrnel, as I did in my last post, for explaining to me what Sharon is trying to do. I would also like to thank Mr. Mephisto for explaining why this is most likely not a good way to go about the situation. And I would like to apologize for not posting the entire content of the article in the first place.

Overall, I think it is quite obvious that there is no clear cut way to deal with this issue, and once again, it shows how the Mideast peace process is doomed for failure. I think this is very unfortunate but inevitable.

Now, in case people are still viewing and interested in this thread, I would like to begin to take it in a different direction. I looked through the politics forum, and didn't see any threads that seemed to be on this topic, so here it goes:

Does anybody think that what is going on in Iraq, and this war against terrorism, has put the Mideast peace process on the back burner? Again, I'm not taking sides, I'm just merely asking a question.

Mojo_PeiPei

Yes and No. For along while the peace process was on the back burner mainly for one big reason, Arafat was an asshat and we didn't want to deal with him. Also I think we were waiting to see what happened with the road map, things like this election. But even before Iraq and our refusal to deal with Arafat it seemed we weren't anymore involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

maybe if abbas had been in office more than, say, 24 hours, this move of sharon might have seemed reasonable, somehow. sharon does not want a coherent palestinian political entitity with which to "negociate"....this seems but more of the same...what is strange to me, still, is the degree to which sharon's logic is recapitulated as explanation. arafat as "asshat" as THE problem (sharon is of course neutral in this scenario--which is surreal)--the problem is militant groups not the israeli occupation (it is both, dont you think?)---now somehow it seems reasonable to demand that a complex process of refiguring political relations between various groups within palestine be already resolved, 6 days after the election. how exactly is this reasonable?

edit: ran across this after i posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...735405,00.html

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Mojo_PeiPei

To the victors of war go all the spoils. Palestine was never a legitimate state having been severly destabilized by it's Arab "brothers" waging war time after time against Israel and getting worked. That having been said Israel has the right and has the responsibility to protect it's citizens, it's clear that the PA can't and won't do anything about it, therefore I am all for the occupation. The Palestinians need to man up and realize Terrorism is not going to work for them.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

powerclown

My opinion on the matter: It better not. The Israeli/Palestinean conflict is the lifeblood of Middle East terrorism. Arabs will never accept what they consider a double standard in how the US treats the Israelis and the Palestineans. From this conflict flows 90% of the animosity the Arabs have for the United States and its allies.

Speaking of palestinean militant groups, it remains to be seen exactly what the militants want. They're saying 2 things: better living conditions for their people (attainable), and the destruction of Israel (unattainable).

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think Sharon has any option left, as far as the US is concerned. He will be pressured into negotiating.

Willravel

The Middle East peace process will begin when they run out of oil and they all become athiests.

OFKU0

Or when the entire world refuses to give a shit anymore and both sides collectively realize that after 3000 years, in awe and unbeknownst to them, they are no more special than any other culture on the planet.

__________________
" 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.

cyrnel

I suspect the explanation of tribes/warlords plays into this. It's not so much a guided vision for the people but rather a bunch of power hungry individuals intent on maintaining their postitions. To a large extent, an effective peace process would remove their positions. "Conditions" and a common enemy (the U.S. and the Zionists) are lip service to gain support.

Agreed. I'm afraid though there are too many undeclared interests at odds with peace. My amateur take on it is that it's similar to Iraq in this way. Lots of power plays under the table. How do we deal with warlords besides just leaving?

Can any students of history provide examples of when nation-defining/splitting situations resulted in a clean resolution and exit? (Honest question.) Isn't it likely the warlords will be paid off, killed, get immunity, and a few generations will pass before things settle down?

The entire region is frustrating to me.

Willravel

Don't worry, I did not mean to single out the Middle East as far as poor behavior. I live in America, the giant ADHD troubled kid who is always pissing off everyone else and thinks he is the most popular. We live south of Canada, our own Lisa Simpson. They know they're better than we are but they'll never get the attention we get, so they make it cheaper to film movies and TV programs there. Our best friend, Britan, is the Millhouse of this disfulctional group. It tags along and, against it's better judgement, complies with America in it's hair-brained schemes. Each nation and area has it's problems, I was just pointing out that particular area.

OFKU0

Tongue in cheek my friend, tongue in cheek. Funny stuff though. By the way, it isn't cheap labour in Canada that brings Hollywood stars here,...it's the beer. Err,..or maybe the pot. Maybe not

__________________
" 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.

Tophat665

Could it be that the only practical solution to the Israeli/Palestintian thing is circumvallation? It looks more and more like it every day.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

degrawj

After looking up the definition of circumvallation, I agree with you Tophat. I had an idea of what it meant though, with the whole "circum" part in it.

MSD

I maintain my position that Sharon has no interest in the peace process beyond trivial efforts to look good. He is doing a great disservice to his people. Until both sides have leaders who are willing to work toward peace, there is no chance for anything other than further bloodshed.

MuadDib

I think the Israelis are in a very tenuous position. The fact the PLO only loosely has control of the Palestinians anymore and the president has even less control over the PLO. The PLO is highly factional and until Abbas can show that he can control "his people" I think Sharon has no choice to remain unfortunately hardline or his people will suffer.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Sun Tzu

Whomever assumes leadership is in a bad situation. The Jewish settlers located within the West Bank are not only staying, but they are expanding. The palestinian agression will not stop until the settlers leave the West Bank and Gaza Strip entirely.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

powerclown

A clear sign that the move by Sharon to 'cut ties' with Abbas was in fact simply to motivate Abbas into action. Hardball diplomacy, Middle East-style.

Sharon is many things, but he's no fool.

NYTimes