View Full Version : Major PR coup for Israel goes almost unnoticed
ibrodsky
05-31-2002, 03:42 PM
Quietly, Israel has succeeded in convincing the U.S., most of Europe, and (amazingly) even some of its Arab neighbors that the PA under Arafat is corrupt and that peace is impossible with a governing body that mistreats its own people as well as its enemies.
Is it not extraordinary that virtually everyone agrees the PA needs to reform? There is such a clear consensus that even Arafat has been forced to pretend he is going to lead the reforms. Funny how a "resistance" movement that for so long could do no wrong is now, it is admitted, corrupt.
I believe that Natan Sharansky deserves alot of credit here. He has been perhaps the most eloquent and consistent in arguing that a democratic Palestinian regime is a prerequisite to true peace.
NewsGuy
06-01-2002, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
Quietly, Israel has succeeded in convincing the U.S., most of Europe, and (amazingly) even some of its Arab neighbors that the PA under Arafat is corrupt and that peace is impossible with a governing body that mistreats its own people as well as its enemies.
Is it not extraordinary that virtually everyone agrees the PA needs to reform? There is such a clear consensus that even Arafat has been forced to pretend he is going to lead the reforms. Funny how a "resistance" movement that for so long could do no wrong is now, it is admitted, corrupt.
I believe that Natan Sharansky deserves alot of credit here. He has been perhaps the most eloquent and consistent in arguing that a democratic Palestinian regime is a prerequisite to true peace.
It is true that the rest of the world has become convinced that Arafat is a brutal corrupt dictator and a threat to Western civilization.
But, as for your last point about democracy in the PA, it presents an interesting dilema. As you pointed out in another thread, the PA now proposes to include terroist groups like Hamas, Palestinian Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad in the elections as legitimate government candidates.
In a truly democratic Palestinian society, IMO, those terrorist groups enjoy widespread support. So, in essence, having a democratic Palestinian state would put terrorist groups in the drivers seat, with foreign funding dispersed directly (and legally) to those group's projects, including no doubt missile factories and suicide bomber recruiting and training.
ibrodsky
06-01-2002, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by NewsGuy
In a truly democratic Palestinian society, IMO, those terrorist groups enjoy widespread support. So, in essence, having a democratic Palestinian state would put terrorist groups in the drivers seat, with foreign funding dispersed directly (and legally) to those group's projects, including no doubt missile factories and suicide bomber recruiting and training.
I have to disagree with you, NewGuy. A democratic society must be based on rule of law.
In a truly democratic society, decent people would be free to speak out against terrorism. Groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad use intimidation and murder to gain recruits. Plus, in killing Israelis and "collaborators" they take the law into their own hands. To wit, a truly democratic society is obligated to ban and fight groups that flout laws that apply to everyone else.
I think what you are really saying is that the PA is built on lies and so no one should be surprised if they establish a mock democracy that includes terrorist gangs. Worse, the people in places like Europe and U.S. State Dept. who swallow the "illegal occupation" lie are likely to just fall in line and hail the new Palestinian "democracy."
After all, there is no democratic tradition in the Arab world. If they can call Jews "Nazis" with a straight face, they can call a reorganized thugocracy "democracy" with a straight face. They have little idea what democracy is, and most Islamic fundamentalist groups openly reject democracy as a Western (i.e., infidel) form of government.
Originally posted by ibrodsky
Quietly, Israel has succeeded in convincing the U.S., most of Europe, and (amazingly) even some of its Arab neighbors that the PA under Arafat is corrupt and that peace is impossible with a governing body that mistreats its own people as well as its enemies.
It seems that some of the "Arab neighbors" were pretty much aware of Arafat's vices right from the start of the "peace process" and didn't share the delight of the enlightened Western world. Here is a nice example from 1996 (!):
http://www.ibnkhaldun.org/newsletter/1996/oct/country3.html
I find it hard to tell how much such knowledge could have penetrated the governmental circles - in this case of Egypt. And, if it did, given the nature of the Egyptian government itself, it would hardly be much disturbed by such petty irregularities ;)
Which brings us back to Sharansky's plan and to the recognition of the fact that the "Arab neighbors" are unlikely to be helpful should it come to the creation of a functioning Palestinian state.
NewsGuy
06-01-2002, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by ibrodsky
I have to disagree with you, NewGuy.
Hey, it's been done before and I hope it will be done again. :)
In a truly democratic society, decent people would be free to speak out against terrorism. Groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad use intimidation and murder to gain recruits. Plus, in killing Israelis and "collaborators" they take the law into their own hands. To wit, a truly democratic society is obligated to ban and fight groups that flout laws that apply to everyone else.
Well, one of the closest models to look at in Arab society would be Algeria.
In Algeria, there was a democratic vote that was supposed to be held in 1992, but when it became apparent that the extremist Islamic Salvation Front party would win by a landslide, there was a military coup, and there has been barbaric violence in Algeria ever since.
The main point of comparison between the Palestinians and Algeria is the amount of popular support that the terrorist extremist Islamic parties would enjoy. Although the PLO has a big following and there probably would not be a landslide victory for the terrorist groups, still the Hamas, Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad would together garner a very large percentage of the Palestinian vote. That's why I say that in a popular vote, the terrorist groups would be promoted into a legitimate (by virtue of democratic vote) position in the Palestinian government.
Your point that these are groups that should be outlawed in a true democracy, is true of course, but would become moot if they are allowed to run. To counter international opposition to these groups' position in the Palestinian government, the Palestinians will claim, as they do now, that it is only the "political wing" of those terrorist organizations. I think that the world would be apt to swallow that excuse.
I think what you are really saying is that the PA is built on lies and so no one should be surprised if they establish a mock democracy that includes terrorist gangs. Worse, the people in places like Europe and U.S. State Dept. who swallow the "illegal occupation" lie are likely to just fall in line and hail the new Palestinian "democracy."
True. That would be my best guess, that the infrastructure of official corruption and violent intimidation in the Palestinian political establishment is so deep-rooted, that it will not be overcome in this generation. Although, I would hope to be pleasantly surprised.
cerulean
06-01-2002, 08:46 PM
It's an interesting question as to what happens if a democratic society votes to make itself undemocratic. In the United States, there is a constitution in place to make this situation essentially impossible.
NewsGuy
06-02-2002, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by cerulean
It's an interesting question as to what happens if a democratic society votes to make itself undemocratic.
That might very well be the case in Arab societies where the Islamic groups wish to impose Muslim dictatorships, i.e., a society ruled by the undemocratic "Sharia" (Mulsim law).
ibrodsky
06-02-2002, 12:33 PM
Actually, it would be great if Hamas and/or Islamic Jihad joins Arafat's "cabinet."
Since both groups are on the U.S. State Dept's list of terrorist groups, there would be calls for the U.S. to treat the PA as a terrorist supporting regime.
Originally posted by ibrodsky
Actually, it would be great if Hamas and/or Islamic Jihad joins Arafat's "cabinet."
Since both groups are on the U.S. State Dept's list of terrorist groups, there would be calls for the U.S. to treat the PA as a terrorist supporting regime.
I think they would just morph into "political parties", like Hisbollah in Lebanon, and scream "Democracy!"
Mediocrates
06-02-2002, 01:23 PM
You need real institutions like multiparty government, courts, a legislature, checks and balances, legal review, term limits, voting registration and voting and vote counting laws. You need criminal, civil and administrative law (regulatory process), a way to create legislation, currency, a post office, a free or semi free media.
Else you wind up with Algeria where they more or less elected a military dictatorship in opposition to a religious dictatorship. Or you wind up with one of the popular one party fascist states like Zimbabwe or Egypt.
Originally posted by Mediocrates
You need real institutions like multiparty government, courts, a legislature, checks and balances, legal review, term limits, voting registration and voting and vote counting laws. You need criminal, civil and administrative law (regulatory process), a way to create legislation, currency, a post office, a free or semi free media.
Else you wind up with Algeria where they more or less elected a military dictatorship in opposition to a religious dictatorship. Or you wind up with one of the popular one party fascist states like Zimbabwe or Egypt.
You also need the majority of the population to be ready to obey the law and capable of disagreement without turning violent.
Mediocrates
06-02-2002, 02:55 PM
I don't think people are born obeying anything. They learn to when they see the advantage of doing so with the understand that is derives actual results.
In the US in the 1770's people didn't naturally abrograte their own impulse to do whatever the **** they wanted in order to form a government. They instead saw the benefit in being partially coupled to the reigns of power through a democratic republic as opposed to living under the rule of King and Parliament and the English Army.
No one will simply wake up one day and decide to follow the law. They have to be pushed and shoved and shown that within the framework of such a thing, the benefits and the results they desire AS WELL AS the punishment for breaking the law is PREDICTABLE. That's rule of law is about at it's base. Society plods along in its predictable fashion so that citizens know:
What they have to do
How they will benefit from it if they do
That they will be punished in a fair and predictable way if they don't
Similarly the Palestinians - and by this I mean the middle class - will see the benefit in having for example a way to arbitrate land tenancy disputes or contract law or criminal law in a manageable process driven way that is somewhat more transparent then they will probably get behind it. It certainly beats the **** out of the night and fog they have impressed upon themselves with vigilante justice, free fire anarchy and no political or civill institutions that exist from day to day.
All the takeo's of the world can carp and whine that the Palestinian reality is the worst thing done to any people in the history of the earth and it is the Jews fault - but simply put - neither the creation of a civic order nor the destruction of it can occur from the outside. That is something that can only occur from within. Others can help but that's it. The West and Israel will not agree with everything about any democratic order that arises out of the PLO thugocracy but there isn't much they can do about it. By local standards if the Palestinians manage to pull off any semblance of democratic civic institutions at all it may be a miracle so one should not get their hopes set too high. Conversely though we shouldn't assume that it is impossible to construct one either which is the cornerstone of the arguments from all the takeos of the world - Palestinians can never, according to them, ever contruct anything, unless paradise is handed to them first on a platter. This is just self serving nonsense and the people who make it would be living in caves if their ancestors believed it too.
But at any rate, when the West or the Israelis say that a precondition is the establishment of a civil society run by modern people who can grasp the reality of running a proto state, this is what they mean. They mean that it is silly and pointless to work with someone, a proven corrupt lier working at the head of a violent corrupt kleptocracy who is responsible for and answerable to - NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES. Would the takeos of the world NEGOTIATE with a Bokassa? No of course not. But this was the fallacy that the west deluded themselves with, with Mugabe. The faint hope that a toxic brew of violence, greed and nascent Marxism would breed someone they could deal with because it was felt and generally agreed without question that it was without question...
I agree entirely. That's what I was trying to say, albeit unsuccessfully.
Originally posted by ibrodsky
Quietly, Israel has succeeded in convincing the U.S., most of Europe, and (amazingly) even some of its Arab neighbors that the PA under Arafat is corrupt and that peace is impossible with a governing body that mistreats its own people as well as its enemies.
Is it not extraordinary that virtually everyone agrees the PA needs to reform? There is such a clear consensus that even Arafat has been forced to pretend he is going to lead the reforms. Funny how a "resistance" movement that for so long could do no wrong is now, it is admitted, corrupt.
I believe that Natan Sharansky deserves alot of credit here. He has been perhaps the most eloquent and consistent in arguing that a democratic Palestinian regime is a prerequisite to true peace.
Has anyone actually noticed that the still frequent IDF incursions in the Palestian areas, with mass arrests and everything, are not front-page news anymore? Compare this to the frenzy in April. Looks like all the "friends of the Palestinian people" have screamed themselves out and are now back to daily issues ;)
... a fact not everyone is happy about:
Background / World's silence over Sharon's military policies
By Bradley Burston, Ha'aretz Correspondent
Monday, July 01, 2002 Tamuz 21, 5762
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=182098&displayTypeCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=2
The world's sudden, uncustomary silence over Israeli military policies could give Ariel Sharon unprecedented latitude - license to take far-reaching military actions, or to refrain from acting diplomatically - in what could mean license to kill the peace process.
A number of factors - some as curious and fleeting as the month-long World Cup soccer championships - have acted in concert to effectively free Ariel Sharon from the glare of international scrutiny.
[...]
Other elements mitigating criticism of Israel include the evacuation Sunday of illegal outpost settlements in the West Bank; foreign media trepidation after a red-faced CNN publicly prostrated itself for devoting more airtime to a suicide bomber's adoring family than to the anguish of the relatives of a toddler and a grandmother that he killed; boycotts of The New York Times and other major news outlets over alleged anti-Israel bias and a subsequent shift in media focus, centering on the suffering of Israeli victims of terror.
Underlying all is the reluctace of European powers and State Department officials to go to the mat with an unusually determined George Bush.
In one example, IDF troops besieged, bulldozed, stormed and demolished parts of the Palestinian Authority administrative headquarters in the West Bank town of Hebron with nary a whimper from the international community. Similar Israeli actions during Operation Defensive Shield, launched in response to a tsunami of suicide bombings in late March, elicited fierce condemnation, headed by uncompromising United Nations censure.
[...]
Ha'aretz commentator Gideon Samet argues that Sharon carefully sidesteps any commitment in his statements on diplomacy. In voicing the opaque phrase "We are in the midst of the beginning of the midst of the peace process," Sharon may actually be referring to the beginning of the end of the peace process, Samet says.
ibrodsky
07-02-2002, 12:35 AM
It was a string of terrorist mass murder attacks that did it. The West's intellectuals who support Arafat's terrorist clique are only willing to go so far in defending him.
They complain about Bush's speech, but it's kind of hard to argue with democracy.
This is almost a sensation: not a single Middle East report on the http://news.yahoo.com front page now. I hope it will stay this way (would it be realistic to say forever?).
Originally posted by Vic
This is almost a sensation: not a single Middle East report on the http://news.yahoo.com front page now. I hope it will stay this way (would it be realistic to say forever?).
Dream on! :)
cerulean
07-02-2002, 05:59 PM
I see it's time again for the XIV National Conference on AIDS. I had noticed for a long time that every summer there is a short period of time in which AIDS stories are prominent in the media, and it coincides with the time of this AIDS conference. There is progress in terms of using expensive drugs to treat AIDS, but on the other hand, the transmission statistics in developing countries seem to be worse every year :( .
Once again, it's a matter of creating the stories and handing them to the journalists, who can then use them almost verbatim. Once the conference ends, AIDS stories diminish to a relatively small number again, despite their significance.
cerulean
07-05-2002, 06:15 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_2094000/2094282.stm
'Gentle' incursion raises Palestinian fears
===
The BBC is not the worst anti-Israel news source, but it does tend to have noticeable bias. In this story, one would think that the "gentleness" is a cause for praise, but no, it's somehow a cover for further nefariousness on the part of Israel. (Another question: Is there really a qualitative difference between now and then, or is this manufactured for this story.)
The article mentions an angle I hadn't heard before - that of resentment that "teenage soldiers" are telling older people what to do.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.