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?
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.
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.
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?