...and the reaction

The quickie story on the reaction from msnbc.com:

Yasser Arafat on Tuesday brushed off President Bush’s call for new Palestinian leadership, saying it was up to Palestinians to decide the matter in elections. Elsewhere, reaction was also cool. Arab commentators called Bush’s hardened stance “dangerous,” and the European Union stopped short of endorsing the proposal. Israel, meanwhile, welcomed Bush’s speech.

No surprises there: Israel likes it, everyone else doesn't. Hmmm... I wonder which side the U.S. is taking in the conflict? What's funny is that, from an idealistic point of view, Arafat has the moral high ground. Bush is calling for a change in leadership in a foreign country. That's traditionally a very undiplomatic thing to do, and until recently was only done in cases of extreme human rights abuses; interfering in another country's electoral or successionary process (unless it devolves into civil war) is not kosher. Recently it's become more accepted, especially among Europeans, who have tied themselves to one another in the EU and thus have something of a right to be vocal about each others' leadership. But for Bush to call for new Palestinian leadership? Risque; calling for free and fair elections without condemning the incumbants would have been ok. It's always ok for the U.S. to call for democracy - that's our ideology, and it's understood. But to call for getting rid of the present leadership?

Just imagine if Yasr Arafat came out and made a speech - before Bush ever made this statement - saying that the current U.S. leadership was "compromised" by the Jewish & Christian Zionist lobbies, and that he needed to be replaced before the U.S. could be considered a negotiating partner! Just think how we'd feel - "who are these people to tell us who to elect?" Actually, Arafat would have more of a right to do that than Bush, because it's his own conflict, and he's just saying he doesn't want this administration as the third party. Bush is the third party and is calling for one of the leaders between whom he is arbitrating to be replaced? This is sounding worse and worse as I think about it. What Bush should have done was say that the U.S. can't negotiate with Arafat, therefore it is pulling out of the conflict and will only reengage if and when better leadership arises.

That was the theoretical side. To confuse it a little are some practical realities. First of all, Arafat was not elected head of the PLO, he was appointed in 1969 or something, and has run the ship by himself. He was "elected" to head the PA in 1995, but with only token opposition and if there had been a close race fraud would have been a given. If Arafat was pitted against somebody else popular in a real, uncorrupt election, he'd probably win anyway; but we can't prove that. All this to say that, yes Bush has more of a right to call for a dictator's removal than a presidents, but no he doesn't have that much more of a right, because at least half of Palestinians support Arafat.