No election under occupation ....

Bilal

Bush asked Syria several times to withdraw immediately from Lebanon before the election. He believes that no honest election under foreign occupation.

Just wondering …

What about the election in Palestine under Israeli occupation? Why he did not ask Israel to withdraw before election? At least 70% of Lebanese are supporting Syria … while Israel has no supporters among the Palestinian.

He claimed also that Iraqi election is great success, and this election was under American occupation.

I agree that Syria must withdraw from Lebanon, and Syrian people should transform to democracy peacefully.. But why Bush did not ask Israel to withdraw from The Syrian occupied land and letting 500000 Syrian refugees to return back?

By the way, Israel decaled that Syrian Golan Heights became permanent part of Israeli land in 1980, and the Syrian refugees lost their rights to get their houses or land!!! They use this time ''securing water resources and startigic location'' as excuse to steal the land of Syrian people.

klusener

good points there.. but on the topic of US elections, here is a news article that i found on the IVAW site from the Vietnam war era:

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
By Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times
September 4th, 1967

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Diem was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.
Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.


© 1967 The New York Times

misskitty

There is no explaination for what President Bush does or why he does it. He may not have asked the Israeli occupants to leave because there has been a lot of focus on the going-ons over there. Bush might have wanted to make it look as though he is concerned about people being occupied all over the world and not just Israel/Palestine and Iraq.

Then again I could be wrong. I'm speculating so its likely.

Israel and Palestine should be two separate countries with their own independent governments to make their own decisions instead of fighting over everything. I think the occupation has lasted way too long and needs to come to an end as soon as possible.

russ_watters

Both the current Iraqi regime and the PA are transitional governments. Lebanon is supposed to be a sovereign nation.

klusener

Palestine is not a transitional government atleast to my knowledge, they have been having elections for a long time, but again I don't a know a lot about them. I will wait till bilal comes..

russ_watters

Abaas is the 1st PM. He was actually elected a couple of years ago in their first election, but stepped down because Arafat wouldn't give up power. He was re-elected last year. Other than that, the PA has simply been run by Arafat as the political voice of Hamas.

But that's not the only reason to call it "transitional" - the main reason is that its a government without a country. A government that has never had a country. Until it gets a country, it isn't a "normal" government.

kat

Lol, I just can't believe Bush...doesn't he realize that just because Syria is not a democratic nation, run by a tyrant and is a country that has no history of bringing other countries to democracy that they are still perfectly suited to oversee another countries democratic elections! Shocking! How dense can he be?!

misskitty

This is a good point that your raise Russ. I agree with it too. However, supposed to be and are are two different things.

russ_watters

Absolutely. That's why I bolded it. We're dealing with that concept a lot lately, aren't we?: perception vs reality.

russ_watters

I don't know if it was too obvious, but somehow I missed that little piece of irony. Nice catch.

misskitty

Well, we can definitely say that the general public's perception of reality and the administration's perception of reality are on opposite ends of the playing field.

Can you imagine what some of these high ranking government officials spent some time with the general public and really got a good idea of what they really think about whats going on right now? Wow, now that would be a BIG reality check for them.

Bilal

Dear russ_watters
It is not mistake to have little knowledge about the region, but please correct your information.

First new election, under EU supervision, done in 1996, Arafat got 75% of votes. The second election should be in 2001 (every 5 years) but USA and Israel rejected to let the Palestinian to do it, because they sure that Arafat will win. Therefore, they waited till death of Arafat to do it.

Abu Mazen was not elected before 2 years, but USA forced Arafat to appoint him as PM and to give his some responsibilities.

Finally, Arafat is leader of PA-PLO which is secular organization established in 1963. He NEVER had good relation with Hamas which was established in 1988 by Ahmed Yassin.

In last election, The Palestinian had no other choose except to vote for Abu Mazen, otherwise Israel will continue destroying their country by American support.


There was no election before two years, just he was appointed as PM according to USA/Israeli orders. The first election was before 5 years. Arafat won by 75%.

Arafat relation with Hamas is similar to the relation of neoconservatives with the extreme liberals.


1- First government in Palestine was elected in 1936 from 5 political parties. It was the second elected government in ME in modern history after the election of Iraqi before the First World War.

2- This Palestinian government took brave decision in 1939 to stop the Palestinian revolution (1936-1939) and to support the British army during Second World War 1931-1945. UK issued in that time the ‘’white book’’; declared to give independence of Palestine and to stop the illegal immigration of Jews.

3- Due to that agreement, the Zionists organizations started the first wave of terrorism in ME by bombing the British, Palestinian and non Zionists Jews …. Some of them collaborated with the NAZI, e.g. Stern, and later they arrested and killed by British.

4- Palestine as State and government finished in 1948 by dividing Palestine among three occupation armies : Israel (80% of Palestinian kicked out by force from their houses and replaced by Jews settlers), Jordan and Egypt.

Bilal

Palestinian presidential election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...ection%2C_2005


((The 2005 Palestinian presidential election — the first to be held since 1996 — took place on January 9, 2005 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Voters elected PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas as their new President of the Palestinian Authority to replace Yasser Arafat, who died on November 11, 2004.
Ten candidates were registered by the Palestinian Central Elections Committee by the end of the registration period, with another two would-be candidates being rejected on eligibility grounds. Candidates had until December 15 to withdraw their candidacies. All of the candidates are from the West Bank.
The election was boycotted by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the grounds that an election held under occupation can hardly be free and fair. In the Gaza Strip, where Hamas has its most supporters, it is estimated that about half of the eligible voters voted.))

Bilal

hmmm

Iraq is the first country formed in ME!! how you call it not a sovereign nation!!

misskitty

Does your country still have five political parties? I'm asking because there must be a bigger diversity in opinions than I thought if there are that many different parties.

Bilal

You will find short information about different Palestinian parties that survived till now and still active. This is chronology of the power of these political parties:

(For example Left secular wing represented more than 70% of the Palestinian in 60s and 70s, while now they are less than 15%, Islamic parties were not exist till 80s)

- 1920s-1950s : Secular organizations + Communist party

- 1960s-1970s : Rise of nationalists , extreme secular and left parties

- 1980s-2000s : Rise of Islamic parties

This is the main current Palestinian organization with political wing:

FATAH

Established in 1963; Secular Democratic, largest Palestinian organization in the last 40 years. First leader Arafat murdered/died in 2004. Estimated support among the Palestinian 20% -35%

Hamas

Established in 1988; Islamic Democratic, part from “Muslims Brothers organisation: Egypt– one of largest Islamic organizations in Islamic world". First leader Ahmed Yassin-murdered by Israel 2004, estimated support among the Palestinian: 15%-30%

Islamic Jihad

Established in late 70s, Islamic-nationalist-democratic, supported by the Islamic revolution of Iran. First leader was Fathi Sheqaqai, murdered by Israel in 1996. Estimated support among the Palestinian: 2% - 5%

PFLP (The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine)

Established in 1967, Left nationalist secular, Spiritual leader : George Habash , estimated support among the Palestinian : 4% -8%

PCLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command)

Established in 1968, Left nationalist secular, leader : Ahmed Jibril, estimated support : less than 2%

PPP - Palestinian People's Party

Reformed Palestinian communist party in 90s, established in 1921. Estimated support: less than 2%

The Palestinian Revolutionary Communist Party

Palestinian communists in Lebanon in favor of armed struggle, estimated support : less than 1%

The Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA)

reformist movement within the PLO, arising from a 1990-1 split within DFLP, with Yasir ‘Abd Rabbu, critically support Madrid and Oslo processes, estimated support 2% -4%

Palestine Liberation Front

Established in 1967, Radical left organization – formerly Marxist, estimated support; 1%

Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP)

The DFLP is a Marxist-Leninist and formerly pro-Soviet group that split from the Popular Font for the Liberation of Palestine(PFLP) in 1969 , Leader : Naif Hawatmeh, estimated support 2% - 4%