Dead Man Walking?

Dead Man Walking?
Vol: 10 Issue: 1 Monday, July 1, 2002

Secretary of State Colin Powell kissed Arafat off on national television over the weekend, calling Arafat’s leadership ‘flawed.’ Powell confirmed that while US officials are in discussion with various Palestinian leaders, nobody is talking to Arafat. When asked if there were plans to include him in future meetings, Powell delivered the coup de gras. As he told FoxNews, “I don’t expect so because his leadership his flawed.”

His next comments make me wonder at what point the administration discovered that amazing fact.

“Leadership comes with responsibility, and responsibility is to lead your people in new, positive direction… Chairman Arafat has not done that,” Mr Powell said. “Quite the contrary. Every time we got something going, the terror came back. And Chairman Arafat was not doing enough to end the terror, either through the power of his voice, his position within the Palestinian community, or the use of the institutions that were available to him.”

When Did This Happen?

This immediately caused me to search my archives for anything since the 1993 Oslo Agreement that Arafat has EVER done that indicated responsible leadership moving in a new, positive direction.

I found instead that only days after promising in writing in 1993 to exchange aspirations for a Palestinian state, control of Jerusalem and additional territorial demands for autonomy, Arafat stood on the Jericho-Jerusalem road and claimed it and the West Bank as part of his planned Palestinian state with its capital at Jerusalem. Things went downhill from there.

When did this administration discover that Arafat was a flawed leader?

Powell also said that some Palestinian leaders were coming forward and expressing reservations about the kind of leadership they had received in recent years.

Oh, Yeah?

Palestinian Authority Ahmed Abdul Rahman was quick to respond to Powell’s ‘outrageous’ comments, ‘urging’ all Palestinians not to meet with Powell or Israeli officials. It sounds comical — almost. But in dictatorships, words often have dual meanings.

Such ‘urging’ is significant if you are one of Arafat’s subjects.

Palestinians who held unauthorized meetings with Israelis in the past were either stood before a firing squad or butchered in the streets by angry mobs as collaborators.

And Now, A Word From Our “Allies”

America s so-called allies responded to President Bush s vision of a democratically elected Palestinian Authority without Yasser Arafat with typical enthusiasm. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana

“We don’t know who will be elected after the elections but we know who is elected now. We don’t have to repeat their names… every time we speak. But you know that for us the elected leaders are the elected leaders.”

Translation: “As for me and my house, we will recognize Arafat.”

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan

“There’s been a call for a new Palestinian leadership. What happens between now and until the new leadership exists? Do we work with the government that we have, or do we create a vacuum? These are issues that I think are on everybody’s mind and we need to work out.”

Translation: The United States is ‘creating’ a leadership vacuum, presumeably where none existed. So subsequent anarchy is Washington’s fault. Our hands are clean.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin

“It is up to the Palestinians alone freely to choose their leaders

Translation: “We are for whatever America is against.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres

“I’m not disappointed by the speech. I know that one speech cannot bring redemption to the world. But this was an important speech. There are still problems left that need to be dealt with and dealt with seriously.”

Translation: “We still don’t know if that means you are with us or with Arafat.”

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak

“I do not see in this speech the removal of Arafat, but a demand for reforms of the Palestinian Authority and the formation of a new administration.”

Translation: “The cost of defending the Palestinians is too high. We’ll accept anything that maintains the status quo. Even Arafat.”

Spokesman for King Abdullah of Jordan

“President Bush’s speech is in line with our position that an end game and a timeline should be defined so that the political process can be re-launched on solid grounds.”

Translation: “Support from Jordan is conditional on America setting an artificial timeline and the evenutal imposition of the Saudi peace plan.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao

“China hopes and believes that Palestine can soon resume its reconstruction work and we wish that under the leadership of Chairman Arafat the new government of Palestine can work more effectively.”

Translation: “We’ll let you know where we stand on the issue when we see what’s in it for us.”


During the First World War, the United States entered the war on principle. During the Second World War, the United States entered the war in Europe on principle, not provocation. America was attacked by Japan, not Hitler. But America’s war was against the political ideology known as fascism.

Since the outbreak of what King Abdullah of Jordan termed the Third World War on September 11, the United States declared war on terrorism as a consequence of provocation, rather than principle. However, it is against a political ideology — that of state sponsored Islamic terrorism.

However, it is unclear whether or not King Abdullah is correct and that September 11 marked the outbreak of World War Three — or the outbreak of the First World War Against America.

Our ‘allies’ are evidently fighting a two-front war — with America in individual operations against specific terrorist cells — and against America in the war against its sponsors.

Germany continues to supply war materiel to Iran and Iraq while the European Union continues its policy of normalization of relations with Iran — despite Iran’s open sponsorship of Hezbollah. And in spite of [or maybe because of?] revelations of Hezbollah’s alliance with al-Qaeda.

It’s a German thing. Churchill once remarked that the “Germans are either at your throat or at your feet.” The Germans stood up when the Wall went down. [Why it went down has quickly faded from German popular memory].

As far as the French are concerned, they never forgave us for embarrassing them by defeating the Germans after they failed on both occasions. It’s a French thing.

This time they’re gonna wait and see who’s winning and join that side just in time to claim a glorious victory for the French Republic. Then they’ll make the vanquished learn French.

The Arab ‘moderates’ are about as ‘moderate’ on the issue of a Jewish State in Israel as are the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Support from those states for America’s peace plan will be in direct proportion to the personal safety and self-interest of the various dictators who rule them.

In the war on terror, America doesn’t stand completely alone. But our enemies are legion and we can count our allies on the fingers of one hand.

Will we win? As ‘one nation, under God,’ there would have been no doubt.

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s