[pjbrow]

It's simply incorrect to say that Arafat kept the radicals under control - there was clear evidence that he was involved with the militant / terrorist wing of his political party, Fateh (the Al-Aqusa Martyrs Brigades), which carried out a great many suicide bombings. I won't repeat myself (my theory is above), but if you understand the political circumstances at the time, Arafat was in fact the last remaining major road block to a grand bargain that Sharon was moving heaven and earth to get done. There were very compelling reasons to knock him off.

[nl]

Arafat's relationship with al-Aqsa was complicated. It is true that Fatah was paying al-Aqsa, but it's also true that Fatah was trying to get al-Aqsa to stop attacks[1]

Around the time of his death al-Aqsa was seeking to cut links with Arafat[2].

To claim that Sharon was trying to cut any kind of deal with the Palestinians is... unusual. (For those not aware, it was former Israeli PM Aiel Sharon's visit to the Moslem area of Temple Mount in Jerusalem that sparked the second intifāḍah[3] (prior to him becoming PM). The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is named after this incident).

Additionally, Arafat's Fatah group was seen as the one group strong enough to keep Hamas controlled.

The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade was a problem for Israel, but it was seen as much less of a problem than Hamas. Subsequent events would show this view was probably correct: When Abbas took control of Fatah it quickly lost control of Gaza to Hamas, and the Israelis have consistently struggled to find a successful approach to dealing with Hamas in Gaza (eg, they later fought a fairly unsuccessful war to try to control Hamas in Gaza).

Edit: Although I disagree with you, I think you do make some good points. You were downvoted when I wrote this, so I have upvoted you.

[1] http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CGiot772MSEC&pg=PA77&dq=...

[2] http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/me_pales...

[3] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/538892/Ariel-Sharo...

[pjbrow]

All reasonable points, here's why you're wrong, though.

First, I appreciate the acknowledgment that Arafat was indeed involved with Al-Aqusa (a terrorist group bombing Israeli civilians). Not sure why you think that that would make the US and Israel consider him a suitable interlocutor - I still think that stands in favour of my argument that Sharon was done with him and killed him to create the circumstances for a deal.

Arafat may have reduced funding to Al-Aqusa, but that's because they were on the ropes militarily by 2004. He certainly didn't stop funding because he thought terrorism was an unacceptable option. The simple fact was, that he was funding terrorists after the failure of Camp David, which again, makes him a very bad candidate for the next round of grand bargain negotiation.

To claim that Sharon wasn't looking for a deal is just silly (even if he was often inflammatory and arguably quite evil). The fact that Sharon was looking for a deal was widely acknowledged and published in newspapers - here's a quote from wikipedia: "In May 2003, Sharon endorsed the Road Map for Peace put forth by the United States, European Union, and Russia, which opened a dialogue with Mahmud Abbas, and announced his commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state in the future." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon#Founding_of_Kadim... I'd provide more quotes, but this is pretty self evident.

You also seem to suggest that because Sharon was an aggressive guy, he wasn't looking for a deal. That just doesn't follow (especially in the Middle East, where the perception of strength is everything).

You also say "Additionally, Arafat's Fatah group was seen as the one group strong enough to keep Hamas controlled." My response: killing Arafat would / did not prevent Fateh from acting as a counterweight to Hamas. In fact, it's likely that Fateh was ultimately a far better counter-weight to Hamas with Abbas at the helm. Israel was able to work with Fateh to squash Hamas in the West Bank in a way that may well have been impossible with Arafat running the show (supplies of weapons to the Palestinian authority etc).

On an anecdotal note, it was clear on the streets (I was living there at the time), that in many cases, Palestinian policemen went from carrying shitty old AKs to gleaming new M16s within a year after Arafat was out of the picture.

[nl]

Arafat may have reduced funding to Al-Aqusa, but that's because they were on the ropes militarily by 2004. He certainly didn't stop funding because he thought terrorism was an unacceptable option. The simple fact was, that he was funding terrorists after the failure of Camp David, which again, makes him a very bad candidate for negotiating a grand bargain.

I suspect (given your other comments) that you are familiar with the realpolitik of the middle east - there are no lily white good guys. Of course Arafat funded terrorists!

My view is that the Israelis viewed him as "the devil they knew", and that he was infinitely preferable (and more controllable) than Hamas.

It's true that Arafat didn't want a complete peace deal (he turned down the alleged Barak offer to split Jerusalem or whatever it was), but it's not at all clear to me that there was any Palestinian leader with anything like real power who did want a deal. I mean.. Abbas? Seriously?

Sharon endorsed the Road Map for Peace put forth by the United States, European Union, and Russia, which opened a dialogue with Mahmud Abbas, and announced his commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state in the future.

Has any Israeli PM not endorsed whatever the latest peace plan is? Even Netanyahu sometimes says things that could be read as an endorsement if you didn't know better. The endorsement is meant for US consumption.

OTOH Sharon's plan (essentially isolation from the Palestinian territories) wasn't the worse plan ever, and even sort of worked.

Oh hell.. I'm persuading myself that you might be right. Persuade me of this: killing Arafat would / did not prevent Fateh from acting as a counterweight to Hamas. In fact, it's likely that Fateh was ultimately a far better counter-weight to Hamas with Abbas at the helm.

That clearly failed, and to me it was obvious even at the time that Fatah would lose Gaza. Why do you think otherwise?

[pjbrow]

Will attempt fast responses. Don't want to piss everyone off by getting too far into the weeds on a topic that probably shouldn't even be on HN. Also, I prefer coding to dwelling on a previous life. :)

You say: "My view is that the Israelis viewed him as "the devil they knew", and that he was infinitely preferable (and more controllable) than Hamas."

I say: That's where you're getting it wrong. It wasn't a choice between Arafat and Hamas, it was a choice between Arafat and Abbas. Abbas was clearly preferable (for all the reasons stated above).

You say: "...it's not at all clear to me that there was any Palestinian leader with anything like real power who did want a deal. I mean.. Abbas? Seriously?"

I say: Yes, Abbas, seriously. Sharon was pursuing a strategy that was largely unilateral - in other words, a weaker leader on the other side was fine, as long as they didn't get in the way and kept the PA running. Arafat was in Sharon's way (not a good place to be historically).

You say: "The endorsement is meant for US consumption."

I say: No, I am absolutely sure that the Israelis are deadly serious about a Palestinian state (or something that can be called that). Israelis are terrified of the "demographic bomb", which is what they call the far higher fertility rate of Palestinians. The Palestinian birth rate threatens the Jewish majority even in what is currently agreed to be Israel over the next few decades. Giving away areas of current Israel with high Arab populations to the Palestinian state is often mooted as an option in a final status deal, in exchange for bits of land covered with Israeli settlements (which would be a double win for Israel).

Don't want to write more on this here. If you'd really like to continue the discussion, you can email me on slooge[at]hotmail.com.

[berntb]

I follow the Mid East because it is informative about my Swedish media. (The journalist profession was more or less taken over by the extreme left of the 1968 generation, it gives a hair raising insight to compare what doesn't get into Swedish news from the top news of NY Times/BBC.)

I must say thanks to you and to nl for having a reasoned discussion, you seldom see that on this subject. Made my day.

[lostlogin]

Sharon looked for a deal with Abbas. That says it all. That lame duck was propped up just to split the opposition. That fact that the US and Israelis supported a deal with him is evidence enough. Negotiating with Abbas was never an attempt to negotiate with the Palestinian people, it was a an attempt to appear reasonable whilst running a prison camp that is widely likened to apartheid South Africa.

[gadders]

Hard to negotiate with Hamas when their founding charter dedicates them to the elimination of Israel.