Arafat was no Ben Gurion. I agree that he managed to be regarded as the personified Palestinian restistance. However, you should look beyond his public image.

Israel demanded from Arafat to stop terror. You are not equating operating terror organisations with political parties?!

Sharon was not the high guardian of democratic niceties, for sure, but he had to function within a democratic system and that’s what he did.

Arafat on the other hand had no intention whatsoever to accept the limitations of democracy.

see http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mowbray042502.asp
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp477.htm

Arafat could not have given up the terror option under any circumstances. After all he did not have (m) any other cards to his game.

Well Rabin was srong and may have reacted more ruthless. i agree with you but he may had more power to take desicions such as Oslo. Anyways Arafat was not the same as you are saying. Well it is difficult to give chance for democracy to be working naturaly while Israel demanded from him to stop any activities of Palestinian movements.

For example he prevented Hamas from becoming stronger in Gaza at his time because this could have made them stronger and attack more Israel. at the same time he supported several political parties that were a part of the PLO and even payed their budget. Sharon too when he withdrew from Gaza used force to prevent anyone from stopping him, he even obliged some ministers to vote for his plan. Sometimes democracy prevents hard desicions.

Arafat at the same time is the most one that gave aid and support for the Palestinian people. he was the most supported and had the power to control. He was a Political and an Army man at the same time. If you look at the history of the Palestinian fight he is considered by all of the Palestinian movements as a signal of of this resistance.

If Peace talks succeeded after Oslo and Barak gave more in Camp David i am sure he was to prevent any attack against Israel.

He is the Ben Gorion of the Palestinians.

ZIad

You misread me. I do not think that Palestinians are stupid. Therefore I do not believe that a state of Palestine in the 67 territories is really at the top of their priorities. Maybe part of this is subconscious.

Occupation is not healthy for any society. Hatred and terror is even more erosive for any society. I am afraid that Palestinian society has been impregnated is in mortal danger or even already lost.

Rabin was strong. He was Mr. Security while Sharon had the stain from Sabra and Shatilla (and deceiving his prime minister) against his name.

Arafat was not really interested. His vested interest was in the continuation of the Palestinian struggle as personified by himself, self-rule, the people be damned. We know that he was not only not interested in democracy, he did his utmost to uproot whatever loacal democratic sprouts had developed during the first intifada.

It was a serious mistake by Israel believing that Arafat would fight terror for them and that they therefore should accept or even welcome his autocratic approach to the Palestinian people.

I am pretty sure that Rabin’s murder did not “derail the peace progress”. Rabin would have reacted to the increasing terror within a few months and since he had much more backing in the Israeli population than Netanyahyu, he could have been more ruthless and determined.

Almost all of the Palestinians movements failed to change from Resistance movements into Political movements that know how to act and work democraticly. There are several reasons for this and it is complicated. Hamas refused after Oslo to join the other Palestinian movements and played the role of the True Palestinian soul that refused to sell its beliefs and that will continue on fighting.

Now Hamas failed in what it created before: Hamas went to the elections and now it cant change its basics that it used to convince the Palestinians to vote for it and change into a real Political Party that knows how to bring rights without violence. IF Palestinians succeed in returning to the peaceful resistance that they used to do before they will reach the Palestinian State faster than using any other method, but this is hard to be done because now the Palestinians have a body that represent them which is the Palestinian Authority and can be blamed or targeted easily.

I hope that they will succeed in making this change and i am sure that they will if they see results from any peace effort and people work to spread again the culture of peace and accepting the right of the other to live. This should teached to the both peoples the ISraeli and the Palestinian. I see too that there is no chance for peace now and it will never be done without pressure on the both sides.

Imagine if everything is made and all the attacks are stopped and the Israelis and the Palestinians reach the needed situation to make peace with a partner as you say, will ISrael be ready to give the Palestinians the 1967 lands and solve the East JErusalema nd Refugees cases with them? i find it hard to be done and that true sacrifices from the both sides are needed to solve this.

By the way the meanwhile Palestinian partner was brought by Israel and the U.S becuase they thought that he will be able to take desicions and control, and he failed in this. Imagine two strong right leaders like Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat meeting together and making peace would they have suceeded?

The problem is that there seems to be no way to end the occupation. Negotiations have not lead to any peaceful settlements and there is less and less of a possible partner for negotiations around. Unilateral withdrawals have shown that they encourage more and more forecful attacks against Israel. Self-rule in Gaza also does not seem to be an immediate success.

In the meantime we might just have to going on occupying the territories.

Resistance against occupation is also lawful as long as it is within the framework of the international law of warfare and we both agree that most of the Palestinian resistance is disregarding it.

My impression is that the Palestinian “resistance” is mostly still a fight for the destruction of Israel and not for a Palestinian state within the 67 territories. What is happening around us makes only sense if I define this target. Otherwise I would have to conclude that Palestinians must be extremely stupid since their actions are usually counterproductive if we define the Palestinian state as the goal.

Ziad, it seems to be that your accepting Israel’s existence is empty words, since you do not accept its right to self-defence. Self-defence does confer the right to kill in any body of law I am aware of.

Yes, occupation can be legal and the specific occupation we are talking about is legal according to international law.

You realize that you once more claim to be in the possession of “the truth” and that I should just accept it?