Watch for Israeli canonization of the greengrocer’s daughter! From the Chicago Tribune, in 1986, two years before the PLO said it would accept a Palestinian state on less than one-fourth of historical Palestine, Thatcher was saying that the Palestinian leadership was unacceptable, and no partner for peace. So an alternative must be found. Notice, that line never changes. Our side gets to pick your side’s leaders? Democracy!
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared Tuesday that the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat was an unacceptable partner for Middle East peace negotiations and said an alternative Palestinian leadership in the Israeli-occupied territories must now be found.
Thatcher`s remarks reflected a major reassessment in Britain`s Middle East policy and a shift toward the thinking of Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Western diplomats said…
She said the best basis for a solution to the Palestinian problem was a confederation between Jordan and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The proposal has the backing of the United States, Jordan and the moderate camp inside Israel, led by Peres.
An agreement between King Hussein and Arafat to work toward such a confederation collapsed in February over Arafat`s refusal to accept United Nations Resolution 242, which recognizes Israel`s right to exist.
She did, implicitly I suppose, recognize the Occupation must end.
What exactly is the iron lady’s legacy? We know she slayed unions, Irish freedom fighters, the Argentine military, and we know she truly believed that net, history’s Britannia ruling the seas was a good thing for humanity. Anything else? Here’s The Daily Beast’s tribute to her: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/08/british-prime-minister-margaret-thatcher-s-lasting-legacy.html
She had a black and white view of the world–this certainly makes anyone a formidable opponent or great friend, if you happen to be the good guy in her black hat-white hat inner world. Certainly, she would allow jailed Palestinian protesters to starve themselves to death, as she did with the Irish who did so. So, why should I admire her? Because she at least had operating principles that were not simply whatever kept her in power, a la that rat, Blair?
This is why the modern neocon movement loved her. She also not only backed – but actively lobbied for! – the 2003 Iraq disaster.
Strip away benefits for poor and vulnerable people, give massive tax cuts to corporations, take a pro-war militarist stance and basically give a free hand to the worst Jewish supremacists out there. If she had been asked to pose with the fundamentalists in Hebron she would have done it.
Then again, Thatcher was also crumming along with Saddam and other dictators. But that was way back when it was cool(in the 1980s). This also shows the total intellectual bankcruptcy of the neocon movement. They use democracy as a smokescreen for ultierior purposes just like they used gays and women as a facade when it was all about Israel re: Hagel hearings.
/Our side gets to pick your side’s leaders?/
Our side sometimes even gets to hang your side’s leaders if they misbehave enough …
And yes it’s democracy.
Thatcher was a failure.
No right wing fantasy for the palestinians is even remotely workable and her economic policies are responsible for where the UK is today.