Uh, Sparc, cite please for your “American and international scrutiny …” claim.
The last I read there were no accusations from other than from the Palestinians that the documents were anything other than legit. This included other Arab countries looking at them. The last I hears the US was dragging its heels on saying if the documents amounted to a smoking gun and kept them out of their most recent analysis of how much direct involvement Arafat has had in terror … the US is still committed to having Arafat as the means by which negotiation can take place.
Dseid admittedly I am skating on slightly thin ice here. Still, my point is and remains that claiming that Arafat actively leads the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade is not conclusively supported by the documentation at hand. This article points at some of omissions and errors in the Israeli documentation.
I have neither any business nor any desire to paint Arafat out as a lamb, but I object to painting any of the sides in the conflict in even worse colors than they have already deserved in their proven actions or obvious lack of the same. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/international/middleeast/17DIPL.html?ex=1022299200&en=7a8fe42ec488bcfe&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND]The official scrutiny by the US State Department covering the period up to December last year rejected the Israeli claims of Arafat’s direct links to Al Aksa, but these findings obviously do not include the current evidence produced by the Israeli army.
As far as I’m concerned the jury is still out on Arafat’s personal involvement, but I think it can be taken as fairly evident that the PA through several of its leading figures have engaged in acts of terror and violence. Hence, as far as the Israeli Palestinian conflict goes, we’re nitpicking.
I think its sad to see that on top of the absolute horror of the conflict in Israel we are all letting ourselves be pulled into a lifelong personal conflict between Misters Sharon and Arafat. It sidetracks the issue and it is not constructive, because it does not bring any of the parties closer to the negotiating table and lasting peace – to the contrary.
Even that Independent.uk link agrees that elements of the PA are involved … it merely takes the Reaganesque defense that Arafat himself is too incompetent and impotent to be aware of and/or control the factions that are allegedly acting under his umbrella. It’s closest claim to Israeli “fabrication” is saying that one of the documents that the IDF states was addressed to an Arafat right hand man, does not have his name on the copy of the original that they reviewed. This is a far cry from “American and international scrutiny of these documents has pointed out a number of fallacies and fabrications by the Israeli[s].”
But what if the Indepedent is right, and Arafat is not personally directing or facilitating terror attacks, rather Arafat is so powerless that he has no control of even those factions that are supposed to be under his direct influence? Boy, that is even worse! Because then there is really no reason to talk to him. He can’t deliver anything! (I don’t believe it, though)
Personal conflict between two bitter old men? Nah. Arafat for his part is more in power than his supporters portray but is scared to change and scared to pay the price of taking on those more extreme than him. He’ll need to be pushed into it by Arab moderates who are beginning to see the value of settling this thing. Sharon is moving more and more into the centrist position. It is easy to be a hardliner when you are not in power, but once there you may change your tune. Sharon has been abandoned by his hardline base in Likud who are rallying behind Bibi. He has said “screw you” to the ultra-Orthodox over the budget crisis. His response to the most recent sets of bombings has been restrained. His future now rides on appealing to the Israeli mainstream, which wants peace and doesn’t give a rat’s shit about the vast majority of the settlements. IF Arafat could make some good faith effort to apprehend some of those actively engaged in terror, ah hell, even not good faith, just a good show effort, then Sharon could further pull back and come to a negotiating table … for at least some interim steps.
I’ll concede that I was exaggerating the basis of my argument… BUT,
Pro Primo I never said the PA had clean hands. Rather the contrary:
Pro secundo. I never even went into the reasons for Arafat’s lack of direct involvement. I happen to believe that he has little to no control over the situation. Whether it would help if he did? It did in the past… now that’s what this thread was about from the beginning. To boot Sharon has a very large part in making sure Arafat has no control. I’m no lover of the man, but he has proven in the past that he can rally his people behind painful compromises, how about giving him even the beginning of a chance to get there?
Arafat and Sharon not personal enemies??? Kid me not! And this has nothing to do with it just because Ari lost support from his buddies even further out on Nationalist axis? Are we getting the same news? Sharon publicly admitted that he wished that he would have done Arafat in when he had the chance in Lebanon fercryinoutloud. I’m fairly sure that Arafat harbors significantly less than friendly emotions for his archfiend as well. Just splain to me how it would not have any influence on a conflict between two parties when the leaders are admitted personal enemies?
I think you’re right, they probably won’t be doing that much handshaking and that’s not so great for a fair and stable peace. Like you point out it seems that the vast majority in Israel just want this to be over with by now, while they try to get there maybe they’ll be sensible enough to throw out Likud with Mr. Ariel ‘moderate’ Sharon following right after the defenestration of Bibi. The Israelis have some sensible opposition politicians that might be able to do something. Oust Arafat and you’re stuck with the likes of Naser Badawi.
DSeid, I know you’re not going to just admit the negotiating with an Arafat led Palestine is what needs to be done. But at least concede to Sparc’s claim that the personal animosity between Sharon and Arafat exists and is not facilitating a resolution. There’s nothing outrageous about this claim. The history is on the public table in plain view for everyone to see. What we have here is beyond two leaders representing fighting factions. It’s also a personal thing.
Oh I don’t dispute that they hate each other, just the premise that such personal hatred is the basis of what is going on there today. They could each be lusting for each other and there would still be the same bigger issues driving the conflict … things went to hellinthehandbasket while Barak was in charge, remember (although Sharon and Arafat did each lend that handbasket a helping hand …)
My comments were directed at the charge of Israeli presenting falsified evidence. And by way of that, the meat of your link .As to what that evidence actually proves … I haven’t seen it myself. I suspect that it does have some smoking guns, but would prefer to ignore it as long as the terrorism stops as a preamble to negotiating … because as you’ve pointed out, what is the other option for a negotiated solution if not Arafat. And that is why it does matter, because if he really cannot control the violence then unilateral solutions are the only viable ones for Israel to consider.
Which I never posited. It does aggravate the already complex conflict though. If Sharon wouldn’t be the one running the show in Israel, might not a continued dialogue have been facilitated in the early day of the Intifada? Once again I am not blaming Sharon alone, but it seems there are few viable alternatives to Arafat on the PA side.
I’ve already conceded that it was contentious of me to put it as distinctly as I did.
I have looked at the documents that Israel made public. I’m no lawyer, but IMHO to call them irrefutable proof of direct involvement is a little strong. It proves that Arafat knew some details. It proves that moneys flowed from the PA to individuals in Al Aksa. It does not prove he ordered or even gave clearance to go ahead with suicide bombings. But as you sort of put it, this is rather irrelevant as long as he’s the only guy to have a dialogue with. I guess that both this fact and the vague nature of the evidence is why we have not heard an immediate demand from the US and EU for Arafat’s arrest.
I never posited that he couldn’t, but I think he can’t as long as the hard liners in Likud are pressing the Palestinians further into a corner. As long as they do the militants will strike and strike again. Then you might argue that Likud is only responding to the suicide bombings, and that might very well be. However, as long as they do in the way they do the vicious circle of violence just goes on. And who’s fault it is becomes academic. So then one might ask why Israel should cool down first. There is no good moral argument for it, but there is a good practical argument in as much as that they have the means to restraint, while as the PA has been shattered, partly by the very same violence I’m saying they need to cool down.
That brings us back to the OP. If there would have been a bolder offer on the table, I believe that Arafat could have kept control and rallied the people behind it. A combination of that this did not materialize and the provocations by Likud and the tradition of terror in Hamas is what brought the situation to were it is today. IMHO the hinge that wasn’t there was autonomy for the Palestinians including right to self-defense. The Palestinians need to feel secure, just like the Israelis do and the offered pact did not provide for a feeling of autonomous security for the Palestinians.
As it is I think both parties have lost every single bit of credibility and the only thing that can be done is heavy international involvement and forced negotiation.
[Kofi carrying a large cudgel]
“OK assholes, all of you give your guns, bombs and bulldozers to Mr. Bluehelmet here. Young masters Likud and Hamas go to your rooms, you’re grounded, actually you’re tripple grounded. The rest of the Israelis on this side and the rest of the Palestinians on this and no one fucking move!.. OK, now we can talk.”
[/Kofi carrying a large cudgel]
If I misunderstod your position then I apologize. Your retraction is noted and appreciated.
The UN? They have less credibilty than either side. C’mon.
Sharon has been very restrained in the face of the most recent bombings. He is hardly pressing them further into a corner. Sharon’s first impulse probably would have Gaza invaded and major new actions in the West Bank against Hamas. (What less would you have him do?) He is responding to entreaties to give Arafat the opportunity to actually do something positive, to give him some rope. Sharon’s restraint won’t last forever, nor should it. Arafat has a chance now, again. I just don’t think he has what it takes to move on his chances.
