Wake Up World! Wake Up! Wake Up!
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: Wake Up World! Wake Up! Wake Up!
topic by
Joey Farah
5/20/2002 (12:51)
 reply top
Does Yasser Arafat really want a 'Palestinian homeland'? Or, as many have suggested, is this 35-year-old demand merely a ploy to conduct asymmetrical warfare against the Jewish state of Israel?

While there is no doubt in my own mind that Arafat has no interest in governing a new Arab state neighboring Israel and living at peace with it, many in the West – even in Israel – remain convinced pursuing such a plan still represents the best hope for the region.

I just read a 1998 book, 'Arafat,' by Said K. Aburish, an author quite sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, which should dispel any such fanciful notions by those still daydreaming about any peace brokered by this man.

The most enlightening section of the book deals with the 1970 civil war in Jordan between Arafat's forces and those of the late King Hussein's.

Israel and the West could learn quite a lesson from this history.

'Between mid-1968 and the end of 1969, there were no fewer than 500 violent clashes between members of the various Palestinian guerrilla groups and the Jordanian army and security forces,' Aburish writes. 'Serious incidents included the kidnapping of Arab diplomats and unfriendly Jordanian journalists, unprovoked attacks on government offices, rape and the humiliation of army and security officers. The Palestinians, who were legally entitled to set up road blocks, molested women, levied illegal taxes and insulted the Jordanian flag in the presence of loyal Jordanians.'

Just like today's conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, there were debates as to whether Arafat controlled the violence or whether he was unable to impose discipline on his followers or challenge groups behind the attacks.

Repeatedly, shows Aburish, Hussein and Arafat hammered out extensive and specific agreements to bring the chaos under control. Repeatedly, Arafat ignored the treaties and personally violated them.

Aburish documents in detail the many steps Hussein took in trying to defuse the conflict between his regime and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had established a nation within a nation in Jordan. Even while members of Arafat's coalition were actively working on behalf of Hussein's overthrow, the king made the unprecedented and astonishing gesture of offering to form a government with Arafat – one in which the PLO leader would serve as prime minister.

'An amazed, almost speechless Arafat turned him down because he had no plan for Jordan, or for incorporating the PLO into a functioning nation state with or without Hussein,' writes Aburish. 'With this refusal Arafat, who survives on improvisation and constantly turns turmoil to personal advantage, was left with no option but to continue to contribute to the existing untenable chaotic state of affairs. Unable to control his followers or assume power, he was cornered into trying to maintain the status quo. As if to underscore the absurdity of the situation, immediately afterwards, in June, there was yet another failed attempt by renegade guerrillas to assassinate Hussein by ambushing his motorcade.'

How far did Hussein bend to accommodate Arafat? So far as to offer him a partnership in the Jordanian government – one in which Arafat would serve as prime minister.

If Arafat was even tempted to govern a Palestinian state, this opportunity represented the best chance. Jordan's population is 80 percent Palestinian. There are far more Palestinians in Jordan than there are in Arafat's Palestinian Authority today.

Arafat would have none of it. Why? Because he knew that such a deal would come with a string attached. He would have to curtail his terrorist operations against Israel. That price tag was too high for Arafat – and it always will be.

Instead, following more terrorist operations against Jordan – including what was until Sept. 11 the most dramatic series of airline hijackings in history on Sept. 6, 1970 – Hussein declared war on Arafat's forces. As many as 15,000 people died in the fighting that lasted nearly a year. So ferocious was the final Jordanian attack on Arafat's forces that many of his fighters chose to surrender to Israelis rather than face the terror from their own Arab brethren.

Arafat fled with about 2,000 of his fighters first into Syria and later into Lebanon – where they were eventually responsible for launching yet another bloody Arab civil war.

What's the lesson here?

It is one that has been overlooked by history. Arafat will settle for nothing less than all of Israel. There is little point in negotiating with him. Other Arab leaders have learned this first hand – which is why he will never again be allowed to operate on their turf.
reply by
Observer
5/20/2002 (13:38)
 reply top
All too true.

Very sad.

reply by
Peccavis
5/20/2002 (14:37)
 reply top
'The road to Tel Aviv goes through Amman.'

I believe Arafat said this during his attempt to overthrow Hussein. Back then, Arafat probably had bigger visions: Palestine would be all of Israel and Jordan. He gambled and lost. Today Arafat is just trying to survive as a popular figure.
reply by
Someone
5/20/2002 (15:07)
 reply top
I guess he was like this to begin with.

The question then arises why the enlightened leaders of Israel decided to talk to ONLY him for the peace agreement while he can easily be ignored being in exile.

Politicians on both sides are corrupt and stick to their throwns by creating fear in the hearts of their own people.

reply by
Peccavis
5/20/2002 (16:23)
 reply top
Israel has been using Arafat to their own advantage. Slowly but surely, as long as the Palestinians fight the Israeli occupation, Israel gains more ground. Arafat's stubbornness and 'fighter's' mentality only ensures that the war continues. Eventually, when all Palestinian lands are swallowed up by Israel, then the war will end. Then the only hope for a nation called Palestine will be in the lands of Jordan.

As Observer said... it's very sad.
reply by
Observer
5/20/2002 (17:01)
 reply top
Let me preface what I am about to say with the following:

1) I support the Palestinians right to either full Israeli citizenship or their own state.


2) I think the Israeli settlement policy was misguided and a strategic mistake for them.

3) I think the neighboring Arab countries have been criminal in their treatment of Palestinian refugees.

All that being said, for the long term stability of the region and the security of the lives of the Palestinians and Israelis, it really would be ideal if the Palestinians did make Jordan their homeland and vacate the West Bank. They would be compensated with additional land in Southern Israel and with a HUGE financial payout (150 Billion), making everyone who relocated a relatively rich person. Doing so would provide Israel and Jordan with a natural border (the River)and provide with the security that they would not be fighting wars in their major population centers. There is a tremendous amount of land in Jordan for settlements and the payout would finance the development of terrific settlements all over Jordan. The former Israeli land in the Negev would provide further land to build settlements on.

I can't imagine the Palestinians or Jordanians would want to execute this plan, but it really would be the optimal choice for reducing the changes of future military confrontations.
reply by
ARAB
5/20/2002 (18:16)
 reply top
If ur name is really Joey Farah, then u must be lebanese. christian lebanese specifically.

I am sure ur information are highly valuable and well researched.

The question I have for u is who are u giving advice to?
Ariel Sharon, a ruthless criminal. George Bush who doesnt even know were ur country is on the map?.. the pope?!

I would appreciate if you could reply and enlighten me on the purpose behind ur rethoric.
reply by
...Resources...
5/20/2002 (23:00)
 reply top
Go..To.. (1).. cactus48.com ..(2).. Hebron.com ..(3).. dailyhowler.com/ ...(4).. occupied.org
reply by
Breaking News Commentary
5/21/2002 (10:15)
 reply top
An alleged offer by Palestinian militant group Hamas to stop suicide bombings in Israeli territory may have been part of a carefully planned leak designed to alert the Israeli government that the group is willing to negotiate and ultimately may be trying to position itself as a workable replacement for Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority.

An unidentified Hamas official told the Saudi government that the radical Palestinian group was willing to halt suicide bombings on Israeli territory, according to Palestinian sources cited by Agence France-Presse May 16. The announcement came in response to requests by the Saudis – who are trying to bolster their influence in the Middle East and with the United States – that both Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad curb their activities.

Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin denied the announcement the next day. But the incident has all the characteristics of an intentional leak, allowing Hamas to show that it is willing to negotiate with the Israelis.

Although the group's overall ideology is focused on the destruction of the Israeli state, this is a long-term goal. There is no reason that the two sides can't work together to achieve mutual objectives in the short term, such as sidelining Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. In doing so, Hamas may assume the leadership of the Palestinian cause.

Though they are diametrically opposed to each other, Hamas and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon share a few common interests. Hamas regards Arafat and his cronies as corrupt collaborators, willing to compromise the Palestinian cause for their own gain. The Sharon government sees Arafat as a wolf in sheep's clothing, presenting himself to the world as an embattled peacemaker while endorsing attacks on Israel behind the scenes.

But Sharon's main problem with Arafat is that he is incapable of controlling his people. The failed Camp David talks in 2000 ignited the extreme groups among both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Moderates can no longer run peace negotiations because they are constantly being outflanked. Arafat cannot control the extremists and thus cannot be depended upon.

Sharon sees Hamas as a wolf as well, but at least it makes no other pretense and can offer a coherent, consistent position from the Palestinian side. And rather than relying on exploding suicide bombers, Hamas is looking to a more long-term strategy of exploiting the exploding Palestinian population, which is expected to eclipse that of Israel in a few decades. As such, they are a lesser threat than Arafat in the short-term.

At present, Hamas is licking its chops, waiting for the PA to collapse. Arafat has a tough choice. On one hand, he can push ahead with reforms advocated by both the White House and many Palestinian politicians – and which would basically chip away at his own power base and force him to devolve power to a number of squabbling subordinates. Or more likely, Arafat will stall and hedge while militant groups like Tanzim and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades continue their attacks.

Overall, the PA will be unwilling or unable to present a coherent, united front. It has been boxed into a corner, given an ultimatum to make reforms it cannot make. Sharon is waiting to abandon the PA as a negotiating partner, but needs the Palestinians to find a new representative voice.

The Bush administration is sick of the PA's recalcitrance as well, and may be willing to deal with Hamas if the Saudis will act as a sponsor for them. Taken together, the situation is tailor-made for Hamas to step up to the big time.

In many regards, Hamas is a natural alternative to the PA. The group has the military muscle to pressure the Israelis and to defend its turf from rival Palestinian groups. And Hamas has a broad political constituency, especially among the young, due to the combination of its fundamentalist religious message and social welfare programs.

Hamas' social programs – such as establishing clinics and schools – are an effective alternative to the PA's own social infrastructure, which was crumbling from corruption and mismanagement even before much of it was destroyed by the Israeli military.

What's more, the recent negotiations between the Saudi government and Hamas lend the militant group an extra shot of international legitimacy. Saudi 'sponsorship' of Hamas is in its embryonic stages, but should the relationship continue to develop, it would give Hamas another conduit to the outside world and a seat at high-level negotiations usually reserved for representatives of nation-states. Of course, such an arrangement would come at a price, as Hamas would be somewhat beholden to the Saudi government.

Right now, Hamas is positioning itself in the hope that the PA continues on its downward spiral. Part of that positioning involves showing the Sharon government that it is not a single-minded fundamentalist party but is willing to act like a conventional political organization.