Well, here we are, at one of Blogstreet's "most influential blogs". It's a routine truth that this usually means a propaganda slot for Bush, but we may as well pay some attention to the 'tothersiders for a while.
1. We may note that they share an obsession with Yasser Arafat as the root of all evil. "In response, Condi Rice said that "no good would be served" by forcing Arafat into exile. I don't agree. I think that a lot would be gained, both in the short term and in the long run. Having him be dead would be even better, but it isn't politically possible for Israel to send troops in to take Arafat away, for a private execution." Well...what do you say to that, except to note with fear that the "politically possible" rarely restrains Ariel Sharon from doing anything vicious and counter-productive.
""President" Arafat was "elected" in a process which was far from honest, and in any case his election was seven years ago. If he were actually anything like a leader of a democracy, he'd have submitted himself to new elections long since. He's promised to do so a couple of times, but there always ended up being some reason or other why the elections had to be cancelled. Usually he found some way to blame the Israelis"
"President" Bush was "elected" in a process that was far from honest. And in any case, why the hell should the Palestinians be told what term limits should apply in their constitution? France seemed to manage with a 7-year presidential term, but let that pass. Exactly how elections under curfew and internal closure could happen is vague. That's an excuse of course.
"He offered the Palestinians an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza, but before that could happen, he insisted on fundamental reform. Part of that was a refusal thereafter to deal with Arafat or with anyone viewed as being a direct representative of Arafat."
This is technically known as spreading democracy, of course. But the whole style of this posting reveals a central point of the Middle Eastern war - neither side are capable of insight. The Israelis constantly bang on about "corruption" in the PA, as if the internal financial arrangements of that body were any of their business, and now the Americans have picked up on this too. (Note the remark that the Palestinians must "institute something akin to honest government".) It's so reminiscent of a violent marriage - the wife beater's eternal moan of "Why do you make me do this?" Equally, the Palestinian leadership are terribly good at saying - Who, me? Terrorists? Never! Neither side are at all capable of perceiving their own responsibility. This lack of insight is visible here, too.
"Thus the point of the Road Map was that only Palestinian accomplishments would be rewarded, and they had to deliver first"
Indeed, and this is why it failed. The Palestinians were ordered to risk civil war in exchange for vague promises of change. Israel did not remove the checkpoints, end the economic blockade or cease work on the wall - but the bombings did stop until Israel initiated another round of warfare. If you are serious about making a deal, you pay cash. But the sentence quoted is considered in a positive light here. Finally, let us examine another quote:
"What this is about is changing the Palestinians themselves"
Or as Bertholt Brecht put it, after the brutal repression of the East German workers in June, 1953 - "Would it not be better if the government dissolved the people - and elected another?"
The RSS feed will be added to Ranter Coverage for purposes of further monitoring....