Wednesday, June 26, 2002

Arafat Says Ballot, Not Bush, Will Decide His Leadership
While officials tried to sound upbeat, some Palestinian analysts and reformers expressed consternation. They accused Mr. Bush of seeking indefinite postponement of substantive negotiations toward Palestinian statehood by setting impossible and even self-defeating conditions.

In the vacuum, those Palestinians suggested, violence might only intensify in the coming months. Today four Palestinian security officers were killed by Israeli forces as the troops moved into Hebron, the seventh town to be reoccupied by Israel in response to suicide bombings last week.

On the streets of Gaza, Palestinians said they were pleased to hear Mr. Bush describe the Israeli presence there and in the West Bank as an "occupation" from the 1967 war.

But they bridled at the demand that Mr. Arafat, 72, be replaced. "I am for reform," said Muhammad Hussein, 31, a computer engineer. "There is corruption. But I'm against change and reform imposed by an external force."

Referring to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, Mr. Hussein said: "We don't have a Karzai, like America imposed on Afghanistan. We would refuse such a thing."

Palestinian offficials said that demanding Mr. Arafat's removal might only increase his popularity, prompting Palestinians to rally around the familiar leader they call "the old man."

The reviews in Israel of President Bush's policy were strikingly consistent. The leading analysts for Israel's two mass circulation Hebrew dailies — echoing a view widely held by Palestinians — declared that the president's speech could have been written by Israel's right-wing prime minister, Ariel Sharon, or by Mr. Sharon's political peers.

On Israel's right, Mr. Bush's demand that Mr. Arafat be replaced was enthusiastically received. Avigdor Lieberman, one of the most hawkish ministers in the government, called the speech mostly "positive and constructive."

Others were less cheered. Avraham Burg, the speaker of the Israeli Parliament and a critic of the Sharon government, called the speech "strong and determined" but warned that it left too much uncertainty about how to ease the conflict now.

"The president leaves the State of Israel alone facing the violence and the loss of life caused by the terrorist attacks without any clear commitment, without a sponsor for peace and without a roadway leading to his vision," Mr. Burg said.

Writing in the daily Maariv, Hemi Shalev, a political correspondent, called Mr. Bush's vision of reform "fantastical" and mocked it as "Jefferson-style democracy, New England on the banks of the Jordan River."

"Bush's speech might have been a giant step for Ariel Sharon, but it was probably a very small step for the chances of peace," he wrote.

…Foreign Minister Shimon Peres had been undercut by the speech, because he has been a consistent advocate of intensive diplomacy with the current Palestinian leadership in parallel with the use of force. Mr. Peres was reported by the daily Yediot Ahronot to have walked away from a broadcast of the speech, declaring that Mr. Bush had made a "fatal mistake" and that "a blood bath can be expected."

But in public today, Mr. Peres was more restrained, telling reporters the speech "contained some very clear and important things." But he added, "Problems still remain that need to be handled, and handled seriously."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/26/international/middleeast/26PALE.html

No comments:

Post a Comment

con·cept