(CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS!!!!!) Arafat calls for Democratic Elections in the U.S.A.!!!!

[Danospano]

''Arafat calls for democratic elections in the United States''
Printed on Thursday, June 27, 2002 @ 14:59:39 EDT ( )

By Rahul Mahajan
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist

(YellowTimes.org) – Palestinian Authority President Yasir Arafat stunned the world yesterday by demanding that the United States hold democratic elections for a new Chief Executive before it attempts to continue in its role as broker between Israel and Palestine.

"Mr. Bush is tainted by his association with Jim-Crow-style selective disenfranchisement and executive strong-arm tactics in a southeastern province controlled by his brother," said Mr. Arafat, who was elected with 87 percent of the vote in 1996 elections in the West Bank and Gaza, declared to be free and fair by international observers, including former U.S. president Jimmy Carter. (1) "Our count shows that he would have lost the election if his associates hadn’t deprived so many thousands of African-Americans, an oppressed minority, of the right to vote. He is not the man to bring peace to the Middle East."' (2)

Hugo Chavez, elected president of Venezuela with 62 percent of the popular vote, concurred with Mr. Arafat. Chavez has long been a victim of Bush's anti-democratic attitude, as the Bush administration funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars through the "National Endowment for Democracy" to anti-Chavez forces and reportedly gave the go-ahead for an attempted military coup by those forces. (3) "After it was over and I was back in power," said Chavez, "his administration actually told me 'legitimacy is not conferred by a majority vote.' Unless, of course, it's a majority of the Supreme Court. I respect the local traditions, however quaint, of the United States, but he hardly sets the best example for the Middle East, does he? Why don't we get back to that idea of an international conference to settle the question of Palestine?"

Bush was not without his supporters, however. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, elected head of a country that legally discriminates among its citizens on the basis of religious belief, forbids political candidates from advocating an end to that discrimination, and disenfranchises an entire people through military occupation, dismissed the call as "absurd."

Hamid Karzai, recently "elected" head of Afghanistan by a grand council, or "loya jirga," in which a foreign body, controlled by the United States, selected delegates; unelected warlords who had ravaged the country were permitted to control the meeting and to threaten delegates who refused to vote their way; and the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, refused to allow at least two other candidates to stand for election, added his support for Mr. Bush in his hour of need. (4) Said Karzai, "In Afghanistan, we have the loya jirga. In the United States, you have your own process - as we understand, it's traditional over there for corporations to play a large part in electing officials and writing legislation. We're very interested in looking into that kind of system ourselves."

Vojislav Kostunica, chosen head of Yugoslavia in an election where the United States spent an estimated $25 million to influence the results, was also keen to rush to Bush's defense, indicating that he saw no procedural problems with the 2000 elections. (5)

And Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, long derided for his claim that "Asian culture" is at odds with universal human rights, added, "The elections are strictly an internal matter, and should have no bearing on the status of the United States as a broker. The Palestinians' high-handedness is a serious threat to national independence."

In a surprise move, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, long an ally of the United States, supported Arafat's call, saying, "While we're at it, let's take another look at our agreement on American independence. George Washington was not only unelected, he did rather associate with terrorists. Benedict Arnold would have been a much more suitable partner for peace, n'est ce pas?"

Arafat, busy working on a plan to find a new Israeli leader not tainted with the massacre of hundreds of innocents in Sabra and Shatila to negotiate with, could not be reached for further comment. (6)

DISCLAIMER: This piece is satire – sort of. All the quotes have been made up. All the background facts are true, and have been footnoted for that reason. It's the kind of news piece that might appear in a world in which other countries' heads of state felt free to tell the truth about certain U.S. policies.

[Rahul Mahajan is the Green Party candidate for Governor of Texas. He is a member of the Nowar Collective (http://www.nowarcollective.com) and serves on the National Board of Peace Action. His book, "The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism,” (http://www.monthlyreview.org/newcrusade.htm) has been described as "mandatory reading for anyone who wants to get a handle on the war on terrorism." His other work can be seen at http://www.rahulmahajan.com. This article first appeared on http://www.counterpunch.com.]

Rahul Mahajan encourages your comments: rahul@tao.ca

Footnotes:

(1). Palestine and the Palestinians, Samih Farsoun with Christina Zacharia, Westview Press 1997, p. 284.
(2). See "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," Greg Palast, Pluto Press 2002.
(3). See, e.g., "Warning to Venezuelan leader," Greg Palast, BBC Newsnight, May 13, 2002, http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=155&row=1.
(4). See, e.g., "Stifled in the Loya Jirga," Omar Zakhilwal, Washington Post, June 14, 2002, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jun14.html and "Afghanistan: Gangsters, Murderers, and Stooges Used to Endorse Bush's Vision of 'Democracy,' " Robert Fisk, the Independent, June 10, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0610-02.htm.
(5). "Milosevic, Trailing in Polls, Rails Against NATO," Steven Erlanger, New York Times, September 20, 2000.
(6). See, e.g., "The Fateful Triangle: the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians," Noam Chomsky, South End Press 1999 (2nd edition).

YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction must identify the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

[Achtung Bubba]

So "all the background facts are true," and the quotes reflect historical reality?

So you ACTUALLY believe that Bush won in Florida because of "Jim-Crow-style selective disenfranchisement and executive strong-arm tactics"?

That Israel "legally discriminates among its citizens on the basis of religious belief," and the Arab world DOESN'T?

That Arafat was legitimately elected in '96? (No REAL strong-arm tactics in that case, right?)

That Sharon is "tainted with the massacre of hundreds of innocents in Sabra and Shatila" and Arafat is clean and pure as the wind-driven snow?

And that the American revolutionaries are "terrorists" to the same degree of the Palestinians who INTENTIONALLY TARGET CIVILIAN CHILDREN?

That's FUCKING ABSURD, and I hope no one else on this forum is dumb enough to nod their heads in agreement with this shite.

[sulawesigirl4]

I take it this was supposed to be funny?

[pax]

Is anyone laughing?

[speedracer]

1. Jesse Jackson hasn't bothered to put any more effort into exposing the systematic disenfranchisement of black Gore supporters in Florida during the 2000 elections than the corporate-controlled media outlets have. What most likely happened is that a number of first-time voters (of any race) were not allowed to vote because they failed to follow proper procedure (arriving too late, not bringing positive identification, etc) or just couldn't fill out the ballots correctly. But hey, there's no problem with meritocracy.

2. I absolutely cannot believe that anyone is complaining that the US invested money into making sure that Slobodan Milosevic did not get reelected.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba

That Israel "legally discriminates among its citizens on the basis of religious belief,"

People living in Israel and Palestine are required by the Israeli authorities to carry ID cards, on these a person is defined as either "Jew" or "Arab" and people who are defined as Arab can be detained by Israeli guards at will.

That Arafat was legitimately elected in '96? (No REAL strong-arm tactics in that case, right?)

Could you explain why you don't believe the elections were fair? I'm honestly curious about where your information comes from

That Sharon is "tainted with the massacre of hundreds of innocents in Sabra and Shatila"

It was actually an Israeli tribunal which found Sharon indirectly responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila in 1982. Sharon was removed from his post as defence minister because of this.

That's FUCKING ABSURD, and I hope no one else on this forum is dumb enough to nod their heads in agreement with this shite.

Bubba, I'm saying this in a friendly, constructive way...please could you refrain from calling those who disagree with you "dumb"? Nobody here is stupid, we just have different opinions and I think we can discuss them better if we all avoid resorting to insults.

[Achtung Bubba]

It may have been intended to be humorous, but humor - satire, specifically - must be first grounded in truth before it can ever assume to be funny.

In all honesty, I believe the article is anti-American.

I am not saying this in anger; in fact, I'm trying my very best to contain my temper despite this clearly inflammatory piece. Rather than in anger, I am saying this as a cold, rational analysis of its content.

Among other things, the work suggests the following:

- That George Washington is more thoroughly associatied with terrorists than Yassir Arafat - despite the fact that the American revolutionaries never targeted children.

- That the election that put George W. Bush in the White House was less legitimate and less free than the election of Arafat - despite the fact that every recount had Bush winning.

(It even shamelessly suggests that Bush won by supressing the black vote.)

- That Israel is much more violent and oppressive than Arafat's Palestine.

It aligns itself with Yassir Arafat and against the United States, its leadership, and its allies. Such an alignment is anti-American, if the word is to have any meaning whatsoever.

Shortly after 9/11/01, I got some flak for calling the comments of people like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson anti-American (on more than one occasion).

I have since backed off from the use of that word as a consideration for the feelings of others, but I believe that I should be free to call a thing precisely what it is.

Mahajan's article is anti-American, as is Danospano's support of the article.

Danospano, starting with the attacks on 9/11, you've been posting a LOT of the anti-American garbage by Michael Moore and others. In October, I asked you a very simple question that went unnoticed, so I ask you again:

Whose side are you on?

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
People living in Israel and Palestine are required by the Israeli authorities to carry ID cards, on these a person is defined as either "Jew" or "Arab" and people who are defined as Arab can be detained by Israeli guards at will.

And I still submit that the Arabs in Israel and its occupied territories are better treated than both Jew AND Arab in Arab countries.

Could you explain why you don't believe the elections were fair? I'm honestly curious about where your information comes from

I'm sure.

"Arafat directly controls TV and radio, and he uses the threat of violence or arrest to intimidate those who work for technically independent Palestinian newspapers. Even more significantly, between Fatah and Tanzim and his many different security forces, Arafat has the means to control the process from a distance with the mere threat of reprisal."

According to this article, there is neither a free press, nor free enterprise, nor the freedom of association necessary for a free election - and the '96 election was indeed a "sham."

It was actually an Israeli tribunal which found Sharon indirectly responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila in 1982. Sharon was removed from his post as defence minister because of this.

I'm not disputing this; I'm disputing the assertion that Arafat has less blood on his hands.

Bubba, I'm saying this in a friendly, constructive way...please could you refrain from calling those who disagree with you "dumb"? Nobody here is stupid, we just have different opinions and I think we can discuss them better if we all avoid resorting to insults.

I don't call all those who merely disagree with me dumb; it takes a rare breed for that qualification.

Not all opinions are merely "different." Some are based on things that are factually untrue, that are lies; the article above is one such opinion. Those who agree with and hold such an opinion is either literally ignorant (unaware of the truth) or worse.

I simply refuse to respect the opinion that George Washington is worse than Yassir Arafat. To do otherwise, to say that it's merely a different opinion, gives it the credibility that it simply does not deserve.

An opinion that ludicrous deserves to be picked apart, shot down, and mocked with impunity.

[Like someone to blame]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
That the election that put George W. Bush in the White House was less legitimate and less free than the election of Arafat - despite the fact that every recount had Bush winning.

(It even shamelessly suggests that Bush won by supressing the black vote.)

[/B]

I don't find anything shameless in suggesting that Bush won by suppressing the black vote, especially in Florida. Numerous media reports at that time exposed the Florida vote for what it was-a sham. My uncle (a white male) witnessed this first hand in Palm Beach County. After working his way past a police roadblock (strategically positioned approx. 3 miles from the polling station) he arrived a 7:35 pm local Florida time to vote. Lines were extremely long...at approx 8:00 pm over 300 people that had arrived some 20 minutes BEFORE my Uncle and right up until 8:00 pm were NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE! Many of those in line at this time were black men and women-of which Gore earned over 91% of the vote. This is from a first-hand report from an unbiased observer...my uncle was going in to vote for Nader. He didn't get that opportunity. This sort of thing occurred all over Palm Beach and Miami Dade county on election night. The bottom line is that yes, the disenfranchisement of blacks during the last presidential election is if not crystal clear than at least convincing.

Also, I find this notion that if, as an American, you somehow question your country's elected leaders re: the present day situation that you are somehow "un-American". This is preposterous. There is nothing "un-American" about challenging the direction of our country. Michael Moore and others are not "un-American", they love their country...just not the direction it's headed in. What is un-patriotic about that?

[rafmed]

I agree that the article can't be taking in a seirious way, if only to mock the bases of some of the foreign politics of the USA, that only escalates a conflict in Palestina that is causing deads to not only innocent israeli cilvilians but also palestinan civilians, unless this count less for your account.
No one is going to disscus the past of Arafat as a terrorist or his links with extremist, and everyone should condemn every attack made on civilians, but to think that Mr. Sharon is an innocent dove, is simply wanting to be blind.
It seems everyone have forgoten how the Israel state was created, who were the ones that fighted for it and their methods, seems that many have forgoten how many british died in the wild terrorist acts commited by the ones of Ben Gurion, Golda Meyer, et al.
Most countries in this world have gained their status with civil wars, that in many cases can be considered as terrorism, I'm not aproving this methods, is a simply fact.
About the American elections, all I can say, is that if in any other country of the world, the election would has been resolved with the controversy it had, and in the state governed by the brother of one of the candidates in his favor, the USA would be calling it a fraud.
It doesn't surprice me, that when someone post contrary to your ideas you call it antiamerican, propagandistic, or any other adjetive u bring, its exactly the same mentality of Mr. Bush.
"Are you with me? if not you are against me" which only show how narrow his ideas are.
You can call my post antiamerican, propagandistic, or whatever, I can accept that people don't agree with me, I have no problem with that, as I do my best to don't post with anger.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Like someone to blame
I don't find anything shameless in suggesting that Bush won by suppressing the black vote, especially in Florida. Numerous media reports at that time exposed the Florida vote for what it was-a sham. My uncle (a white male) witnessed this first hand in Palm Beach County. After working his way past a police roadblock (strategically positioned approx. 3 miles from the polling station) he arrived a 7:35 pm local Florida time to vote. Lines were extremely long...at approx 8:00 pm over 300 people that had arrived some 20 minutes BEFORE my Uncle and right up until 8:00 pm were NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE! Many of those in line at this time were black men and women-of which Gore earned over 91% of the vote. This is from a first-hand report from an unbiased observer...my uncle was going in to vote for Nader. He didn't get that opportunity. This sort of thing occurred all over Palm Beach and Miami Dade county on election night. The bottom line is that yes, the disenfranchisement of blacks during the last presidential election is if not crystal clear than at least convincing.

Even assuming that the story is completely accurate (and that a Nader supporter is unbiased), it still requires a HUGE leap to go from what your uncle saw to Bush suppressing the black vote.

The most your uncle can logically claim is that the election was possibly mishandled, that those who showed up close to the time polls closed were denied their vote. That doesn't demonstrate what the article calls "Jim-Crow-style selective disenfranchisement", since blacks AND whites that were in line at the time were turned away, and since blacks AND whites who showed up before then had no trouble voting.

It further doesn't demonstrate a conspiracy to suppress the black vote, nor does it tie that conspiracy to the Bush campaign. It's simply a leap of logic that cannot be made on this little evidence.

(And if we're going down that road, I will remind you that the Gore campaign itself tried to prevent the absentee voting of Florida's servicemen and women from counting - that it can be demonstrated that the campaign itself tried to supress the military vote, which often votes Republican.)

Also, I find this notion that if, as an American, you somehow question your country's elected leaders re: the present day situation that you are somehow "un-American". This is preposterous. There is nothing "un-American" about challenging the direction of our country. Michael Moore and others are not "un-American", they love their country...just not the direction it's headed in. What is un-patriotic about that?

I agree that there is nothing wrong with mere disagreement on individual policy. (And before one accuses me of blindly supporting Bush, I still disagree with his signing into law the McCain-Feingold bill, and I generally disagree with his reluctance to veto Democratic bills for apparent political gain.)

But it is niave to assume that everyone - Moore, Chomsky, etc. - "love their country." Specifically, Moore has always impugned the economic freedoms on which this country was built (not just a recent "direction" of this country), and he believes that America got what it deserved on 9/11.

Damn shame the terrorists targeted Democratic strongholds like New York. Or, as Michael Moore himself put it...

Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!

Why kill them?

More germane to this discussion is the fact that the article suggests that GEORGE WASHINGTON is worse than YASSIR ARAFAT. That is no disagreement with the direction this country is headed; that demonstrates pure disdain for this country. Period.

What's unpatriotic about that? Everything.

Perhaps America deserves to be hated as much as these people clearly do. I think otherwise, but such hatred is, by definition, anti-American either way.

[diamond]

Didnt Gore get the "CONVICTED FELON VOTE" where as 2500 illegal convicts were allowed to vote for him in FLORIDA?

This is ILLEGAL in our country btw.
Looks like w even THOSE ILLEGAL votes he STILL LOST

Simutaneously he WAS TRYING to SUPPRESS the oversea's MILITARY VOTE over a postmark/mailing snafu?

Wow what a man!
His character SPEAKS VOLUMES...

PLUS lest we for FORGET-"lets not get snippy"-Gore to Bush on the night of the election.


DB9

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by rafmed
Most countries in this world have gained their status with civil wars, that in many cases can be considered as terrorism, I'm not aproving this methods, is a simply fact.

I strongly disagree.

True, many countries gained their independence through guerilla tactics, that is, through unconventional tactics that allow a military underdog a chance to actually be successful.

But TERRORISM has an additional quality that matters a great deal: the intentional targeting of civilians.

It is the difference between destroying a bridge used by military forces and walking around with a bomb strapped to your chest, looking for the largest number of children to kill.

Those associated with George Washington did not systematically target civlians. Those associated with Arafat DO.

[rafmed]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba



But TERRORISM has an additional quality that matters a great deal: the intentional targeting of civilians.

It is the difference between destroying a bridge used by military forces and walking around with a bomb strapped to your chest, looking for the largest number of children to kill.

Those associated with George Washington did not systematically target civlians. Those associated with Arafat DO.

I agree that there are diferences, and as I stated, I totally condemn the target on civilians, also I'm not comparing Washington with Arafat, the contexts are simply not comparable, even if their final objectives were similar, the independence of their countries.

Sadly to take civilians as targets by terrorist groups around the world, is more a sign of our times.

My point, is that, who once were considered terrorist by their enemies, can later be "respectable" state leaders.

[diamond]

What some view as a 'state leader'
others view as a 'terrorist'

Late
Peace
Out-
DB9

[V Nura]

I dont' see why you ppl are so shocked by this



arafat is a f*cker....this is nothing new...it's just a stall tactic because bush has been calling him out lately

he's trying to hold out for 15 years..till arabs are the majority in israel...then he can have it all..and he'll be immortalized.

the only comparable obstacle to the process is Sharon



we have a terrorist vs a war criminal....peace...is not part of their language

[pax]

If anyone would like to continue the Arafat-Sharon debate (which now, bizarrely enough, seems to somehow encompass George Washington), please feel free to do so in another thread that doesn't manage to anger a whole lot of people in a very short amount of time. By "very short amount of time" I mean less than 12 hours.

Also, please do not begin your thread with a satirical article and a post heading that implies it is factual. (Yes, I know Danospano indicated afterwards that it was satirical, but the subject head is misleading.)

Peace out.