I am asking this question, as Israel tends to negotiate with Arafat, because they feel that the alternative is worse. It seems that Arafat has little control of what actually happens in Palestine. He makes a deal with the Israelis and the next day Malotov cocktails fly at soldiers. Will things disintigrate immediately upon Arafat’s departure from either the political or physical realm? Do you think his being alive is only delaying the inevitable?
Erek
Thr invetable what? All-out civil war?
No, not a civil war. An all out war with Israel.
Erek
Howzabout we rephrase the OP:
“What would Arafat’s demise (and he is getting up there in years, right?) mean for mideast politics, especially regarding the Isreal v. Palestinian question”.
I think this is what the OP meant, please correct if this is not the case.
As for the answer (to this question), I’d venture a “damnifiknow”. More informed opinions welcome.
Considering that there’s only 1 Palestinian Authority with any recognition from Israel or any other meaningful country, and he’s the head of it, then his death would mean only that his successor in that role would assume the recognition that goes along with it.
That’s in strictly legal terms, though. It’s certainly debatable how much of the Authority’s legitimacy among the general Palestinian populace is institutional and how much is Arafat’s personally. If it’s mostly the latter, then we’re probably looking at a bunch of local gang leaders with more interest in gathering power themselves, mainly from each other, than in settling a permanent peace with Israel. That would not be pretty.
ElvisL1ves:
I think the gang member analogy is already in effect, just that Israel talks to Arafat who is an innefectual leader of the largest gang in Palestine. My question basically refers to what will happen when Israel has no one to pretend it’s making peace with any longer. Or does anyone think that someone MORE effectual than Arafat might come up.
Erek
Arafat might be the voice of Palestinian civilians and the police force, but negotiating with him to stop “terrorist” violence in Israel is like negotiating with Bush to stop gang wars in Los Angeles.
Good analogy! It might be more correct though, to say “…negotiating with Bush to stop the Montana Freemen.” But perhaps that’s just splitting hairs.
In response to the OP: due to recent events, Arafat’s gestures toward peace have been more heartfelt. IMHO, they’re probably more out of a sense of self-preservation than out of a genuine desire for peace (he’s really got to scramble for peace because of his history–and he could very easily be assassinated by the Israelis if he steps out of line. Of course, he’s in just as much danger from the more radical Palestinian groups, but that’s another thread). At this point, he’s the voice of moderation, so for once in my life, I am hoping for his survival. Even though his dedication to the peace process is questionable at best, I have far more faith in him than in his Lieutenants. If he were to die, all hell would break loose.
But then again, he will die one day; all hell will break loose one day, and the latter is not necessarily dependent upon the former. So to answer the question, I believe that while Arafat’s life isn’t truly postponing the inevitable, his death would surely hasten it.
You’re right, since the Freeman have a more specific target. Or maybe it would be like Japanese fisherman negotiating with Bush to stop Greenpeace. 
I’m very pessimistic in regard to Israel because it’s a conflict rooted in religion and perpetuated by each sides need for “revenge” from previous attacks. There’s no end to something like that unless you can force peace upon an entire generation and let the “vengeance” generation die off.
Many (not necessarily myself) would suggest that this is not out of Arafat’s control; that he wants the low-level conflict.
Don’t think even that would work here. They nurse their greivances for generations. Hell, there’s a lotta arabs still pissed about the Crusades. Sadly, Middle East Peace Process is an oxymoron.
I have little use for Arafat, and no respect for him. But I have a certain amount of sympathy for his predicament, simply because he’d be in a major bind, even if he were a more decent and more courageous man than he is.
I’m an Irish-American, and had relatives who fought against British rule. While the Irish were fighting for independence, my relatives viewed Michael Collins as a hero and patriot. When he helped gain independence for MOST of Ireland, but NOT for the 6 counties of the North, my relatives viewed Collins as a traitor and a coward, who’d sold out his countrymen. Many IRA veterans ignored what Collins had GAINED for them and saw only what he HADN’T delivered. Eventually, Collins was murdered by someone who shared my relatives’ views.
When determined people have spent their lives fighting for their ideals, they’re not likely to settle for half a loaf, or for ANYTHING less than 100% of their demands. That was true of the Irish, and it’s true of Arabs.
After spending years telling his countrymen to “push the Jews into the Sea,” how can Arafat POSSIBLY sign a pact that requires his people to settle for, oh, 85% of the West Bank? How can he POSSIBLY convince his people that’s a good deal?
My guess is, even if Arafat WANTED to jump at the deal offered by Ehud Barak, he’d have been afraid to. He knows that he’d be branded a traitor, and would probably suffer the fate of Michael Collins.
But while Arafat can’t or won’t make a real peace deal, it’s understandable that israel chooses to deal with him. First, because Israel recognizes that, for all his faults, Arafat is NOT a reckless, suicidal maniac, and he’s NOT eager for an all-out war with Israel. But the man who eventually REPLACES Arafat might be. In this case, from Israel’s standpoint, the devil they know is preferable to the devil yet to come.
The mistake in Israel’s and the Palestinian Athority’s parts are in portraying each other as the devil. I mean, in the many readings of the Torah and the Koran, the devil is not to be treated cordially, but must be banished in life.