Kerry Shifts His Views on Arafat

[FishForLunch]

Does Kerry have a backbone? Like Kerry apologists like to put it intellectual fluidity, we common people do not have the capacity to understand the nuances of his positions. Elitist a..holes


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Presidential Candidate Kerry Says His Views on Palestinian Leader Arafat Have Shifted

The Associated Press


TAMPA, Fla. March 9 — John Kerry says he no longer considers Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to be a statesman, but rather "an outlaw to the peace process" in the Middle East who has been rightly shuffled aside.

In a 1997 book, Kerry described "Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman." But in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday he said he no longer views Arafat favorably.

"Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process," said Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting. "He missed a historic opportunity and he's proved himself to be irrelevant."

The Bush administration has ruled out dealing with Arafat, a veteran Palestinian activist, claiming he is tainted with terror against Israel, a close U.S. ally. In peace process, the administration has dealt only with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other senior Palestinian officials appointed by Arafat.

Referring to the Palestinian leader as a statesman would be potentially damaging in Florida, which has a heavy Jewish population and a Democratic primary Tuesday. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas also hold primaries Tuesday.

"He was (a statesman) in 1995," Kerry said, recalling frequent White House meetings between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in search of peace in the Middle East.

"He blew his opportunity in 1999, 2000," Kerry said. "As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process."

In the wide-ranging interview, Kerry touched on a variety of topics, including the contentious nature of the campaign against President Bush, foreign policy and his process for choosing a running mate.

Of the campaign against Bush, he said, "It's not personal."

"He's an enjoyable person to be with," Kerry said. "He's funny and so forth, but he doesn't keep his promises."

Kerry added: "It has nothing to do with him being a good man, bad man. I'm not here to judge him personally, that's up to other people, that's up to God."

In discussing foreign policy, the Massachusetts senator said he couldn't guarantee that Saddam Hussein would now be out of power in Iraq if he had been president over the past year.

"I can't tell you that," said Kerry, who faults Bush for not allowing continued U.N. inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction Saddam was said to be hiding.

"If we had exhausted that process and built a legitimate coalition and Saddam Hussein had not complied, I would not have hesitated to march with that coalition against him," said Kerry. "You don't know how an appropriate global coalition with the proper amount of patience might have coerced him into a different set of behaviors."

Kerry, who was on the final day of a swing through the four Southern states that vote Tuesday, said the South has "changed dramatically" since the last election.

Al Gore, the nominee in 2000 and a native Tennessean, fared poorly in the region, which Kerry said was largely due to Gore's staunch support for gun control. A hunter and gun owner, Kerry said he expected to fare better.

Kerry also rejected suggestions that the gay marriage issue would be a potent weapon against him in the South. Kerry opposes same-sex marriage, but favors giving such couples certain rights. He also said he didn't think Bush's support for a constitutional amendment banning such unions would sell well in the South.

"The people of the South who are conservative would never want to disrespect the Constitution of the United States for wildly political purposes," Kerry said. He said economic issues will resonate more.

Kerry, meanwhile, said his former rivals have largely fallen into line and that he was meeting this week with Howard Dean and John Edwards, both of whom want to "be part of the team."

"I think our party is more united than it has been in years," he said.

Kerry declined to address any aspect of his search for a running mate. "I have not talked to anyone on my staff about this," he said. "I want to keep it personal and I want to keep it private."

[Drbio]

"You don't know how an appropriate global coalition with the proper amount of patience might have coerced him into a different set of behaviors."

What a tremendously huge load of stinking horseshit. I guess the 14 pervious attempts weren't enough Kerry? F'ing no-spine idiot.

[madape]

I'm glad he's at least coming to his senses about this piece of filth. I just hope that if he gets elected, he doesn't flip-flop again and start dealing with Arafat in the same manner Clinton did.

[Mavdog]

As much as I agree that Arafat is a murderous thief who is NO statesman but rather has led his constituency into depths which they may never recover, wasting not only time and money but also hundreds/thousands of lives...who is there to deal with? The moderates have been systematically either marginalized/ostracized or worse eliminated. The palestinians have been so radicalized it is a good question if they will ever accept peace, and there's a good question if the "leaders" such as Arafat would ever truly want peace as their basis for being "leaders" would be gone.

So the question is if an Israeli leader really wants to find a peace agreement with the Palestinians, who would they deal with? Arafat? he's no real peace partner. A lacky Arafat allows to be the Palestinian head? no deal without Arafat's blessing, so no deal. Hezbollah? not in any manner. Anybody left?

A depressing situation....

[madape]

I think Sharon should let the bombs do his negotiating for him... but that's just me.

[dude1394]

You are correct mavdog. There is no one to deal with. Again that is why bush is changing the equation. It's called leadership.

[Mavdog]

Again that is why bush is changing the equation. It's called leadership.

??????
What has Bush done to "change the equation"? In fact, the Bush administration has changed nothing but rather has maintained the status quo.
What "leadership" has Bush shown in dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian situation? NONE.

While I am not overly critical of GWBush's hands off approach to the conflict, I also am not going to heap praise on someone when there is nothing to praise, such as you have done by calling the hands off approach of doing nothing "leadership".

Your constant pandering at the glory you see in GWBush makes sheep look like independent thinkers...

[dude1394]

Bush has decided:

1. NOT to deal with arafat. Not to treat a terrorist as a viable head of state by inviting him to the white house, dealing with him, etc.
2. Force the palestinians to look past the status quo by doing so.
3. Removed thier 20K per suicide bomber patron.
4. Refusing the call by the dictators in the middle east to "deal with the palestinian problem first" thereby doing nothing which has been going on for decades.


Of course israel is doing the real changing. The security fence will very quickly (unfortunately for the palestinians) force them to face reality.

Greatness is as greatness does.

[Mavdog]

Bush has decided:

1. NOT to deal with arafat. Not to treat a terrorist as a viable head of state by inviting him to the white house, dealing with him, etc.

So NOT dealing with the (regrettably) actual Head of State is doing something? no, it's doing nothing...

2. Force the palestinians to look past the status quo by doing so.

What? nothing has changed with the palestinians, they still remain in refugee camps, are unable to find work, and their future is no brighter today than it was before. The status quo remains unchanged with no change on the horizon...Again, it's doing nothing

3. Removed thier 20K per suicide bomber patron.

and this removal has stopped the suicide bombings from happening? NO, they continue...again, no change, and in effect doing nothing to stop the suicide bombings.

4. Refusing the call by the dictators in the middle east to "deal with the palestinian problem first" thereby doing nothing which has been going on for decades.

??? it seems (although not a very clear point) that you agree that he has been "doing nothing" in this case too...

Of course israel is doing the real changing. The security fence will very quickly (unfortunately for the palestinians) force them to face reality.

If you believe that the security fence solves anything you are very, very wrong. However, the issue is what Bush has done to "change the equation" and in that he isn't involved in the fence this point is also about...doing nothing. In fact, he has turned a blind eye to the fence and its incursion into areas that are Palestinian in make up. Here's an issue that he SHOULD have become more involved with perhaps to pressure the Israelis to NOT place the fence into palestinian districts.

Greatness is as greatness does.

As he clearly "does" nothing on this issue, it must be accurate then to say that there must not be any "greatness".

[LRB]

I nearly died laughing when I saw this topic. Then I saw the "f" in "Shifts". [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

So NOT dealing with the (regrettably) actual Head of State is doing something? no, it's doing nothing...

No, it's very much about doing something DIFFERENT. Refusing to deal with arafat will in the end (unless our european friends continue to support the terrorist) continue to erode his support and marginalize him. That is very different than dealing with him as an equai. It is also a very tough political move. You could think of it as refusing to deal with a crooked car repair guy. It does have an impact.

What? nothing has changed with the palestinians, they still remain in refugee camps, are unable to find work, and their future is no brighter today than it was before. The status quo remains unchanged with no change on the horizon...Again, it's doing nothing

So what has the years of negotiating with arafat done? Sooner or later the palestinians will have to realise that their policy of driving israel into the sea is getting them nothing. This has accellerated that.

and this removal has stopped the suicide bombings from happening? NO, they continue...again, no change, and in effect doing nothing to stop the suicide bombings.

Of course it hasn't "stopped" it. That's just too simplistic. Very few things in life is this black and white. The only thing that wiil "stop" it will be the palestinians realising that they are victimizing themselves with this policy. But support for terrorist bombers have been decreased, this will have again a strategic long-term effect. I also would proposes that the suicide bombings HAVE subsided quite a bit in the last year so again this is a changed and doing something.

??? it seems (although not a very clear point) that you agree that he has been "doing nothing" in this case too...

Again you are being way to tactical in your thinking. Bush is not thinking short-term in the middle-east at all. It's a long-term strategy to really make a difference in terrorists and terrorism.

If you believe that the security fence solves anything you are very, very wrong. However, the issue is what Bush has done to "change the equation" and in that he isn't involved in the fence this point is also about...doing nothing. In fact, he has turned a blind eye to the fence and its incursion into areas that are Palestinian in make up. Here's an issue that he SHOULD have become more involved with perhaps to pressure the Israelis to NOT place the fence into palestinian districts.

Sorry... Look at gaza. That fence has been very,very effective. When the security fence is open the balance of power will shift dramatically. They can lob morters but they can't walk into restaurants, busses etcetera and blow up women and children. Lobbed mortars Israel can deal with easier, they are very inefficient. The palestinians on the other hand will see their plight become even worse unless they undergo reforms. Again the responsibility for this is theirs.

As he clearly "does" nothing on this issue, it must be accurate then to say that there must not be any "greatness".

I'm sorry that your thinking is so shallow on this subject and does not have the capacity to grasp the broader strategic impact of bush's middle east policy. We should hook up in about 5-10 years from now and we will see what he has wrought. A monumental shift in a very desperate and diseased region of the world.

[mavsman]

Originally posted by: madape
I think Sharon should let the bombs do his negotiating for him... but that's just me.

Well that's what he has been doing for the last couple of years. The amazing thing about those bombs is: Whether a stubborn prime minister (or president) orders to drop them or an equally wacky fanatic goes on a suicide mission, they both kill an equal amount of civilians. In fact, the fanatics kill less, because their bombs are usually built cheaper. But, hey, let's just kill what we don't understand, my ancestors would be happy, it used to be the German way of dealing with things.

[madape]

Well that's what he has been doing for the last couple of years. The amazing thing about those bombs is: Whether a stubborn prime minister (or president) orders to drop them or an equally wacky fanatic goes on a suicide mission, they both kill an equal amount of civilians. In fact, the fanatics kill less, because their bombs are usually built cheaper. But, hey, let's just kill what we don't understand, my ancestors would be happy, it used to be the German way of dealing with things.

Israel isn't indiscriminately killing innocent palestineans. They are trying to defend themselves by taking out terror leaders and otherwise trying to thwart their ability to make terror. Sure, there may be some collateral damage, as there are in any military excersize in highly populated areas. But there is a big difference between accidentally killing a handful of innocent bystendards and deliberately murdering civilians in a targeted act of terror. Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorism.

I think the palistinian people have the ability to coexist with the Israelis. Israel has made some semblance of peace with every one of it's neighbors. There is no reason to think that peace cannot be achieved with Palestine. What needs to happen is that the Palistinians must accept a leader willing to make peace and end the terror. That hasn't happened yet. The Palestineans seem intent on promoting leaders with a terrorist agenda. But you can rest assured that Israel will never negotiate with a leader who advocates terrorism. If such a man were to ever rise to power, he would quickly find himself "negotiating" with the business end of an Israeli bomb.

Peace is not going to happen overnight. There is too much hatred entrenched among the Palestinians for there to be a quick transition to peace. But it all starts with the leadership. Take out the terrorist organizations, take out leaders who advocate terror, and support outspoken Palestinean leaders who promote peace (with help from the US). That's how this shit's going to end. Not through appeasement, and certainly not through turning the other cheek when a bus blows up and sprays 40 kindergardners' brain matter all over the street.

[Mavdog]

Look, I didn’t post any attack on GWBush and his Israel/Palestinian policies,

I even said what he did/didn’t do was understandable.
but at the same time it’s not that there has been any “greatness” to crow about.

Not talking to Arafat increases his support among his constituency, and he marginalizes anybody who deals with us. That’s the reason GWBush doesn’t want to get involved, and what he’s done he’s done reluctantly.

I wonder if Arafat will ever give up power, he’ll probably die still in office.

Your rationale for the “greatness” of GWBush’s policies is that with patience the Palestinian’s will come to their senses, throw him out, and embrace Israel.

Let’s all sing kumbaya…

History is not on your side here, and neither is arab politics.

The last year has seen an escalation in the bombings, there were the first female bombers, and also for the first time an Israeli Arab.
The Palestinians believe that these bombings ARE making a difference in their fight. Who knows what will stop this, it’s a good question if a peace agreement will even stop them.

A fence certainly won’t do the trick, and Gaza is a very small area to draw a parallel to.

Finding someone on the Palestinian side to negotiate with would be an accomplishment.

Getting the Israelis to stop their assasination policy would be an accomplishment.

Getting a moritorium on suicide attacls would be an accomplishment.

Just getting the Israeli team and the Palestinian team to regular meetings would be an accomplishment.

Sorry, no credit due to GWBush on this one. No “greatness”, greatness is when something is accomplished