Rough Day In Israel. Anyone Heard From Anyone ?

[Edan]

The international community decided to annoint him the leader of the Palestinians: not the palestinians (until after 1993).

No, the international community didn't annoint him because he was already the effective leader in all but name. One of the issues Israel wanted during the Madrid conference was Arafat not to be there - but it was clear by the initial Oslo talks that they were talking with Arafat, albeit through Palestinian intermediaries and a wink and a nod that they weren't "directly" negotiating him.

[GePap]

Arafat had almost no control over what was going on IN the occupied territories before he came riding in with the Tunis gang. The problem was the only Pals with a working organization were the PLO, controlled by Arafat. That is not the same as saying the Palestinians had as a people chosen Arafat as their representative to speak for them: how could they? they never had (until 1996) the ability to stage any elections.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The international community decided to annoint him the leader of the Palestinians: not the palestinians (until after 1993).

Ive heard many people argue precisely that Israel's big mistake in Oslo was in bringing Arafat and the other Fatah leaders back from exile, and effectively setting them up in control over the territories. They argue that instead it would have been possible to negotiate with an emerging local leadership, a leadership that has been subordinated by Arafat.

To me oslo was the fllowing deal: Arafat would be made the legitimate leader of all Palestinians, get to go home a hero, and get a fiefdom to rule: his responsibility was to keep the Militants down and weak, so that thy would not attack Israel. Israel got to rid itself of the cost and worries of ruling the bulk of the Palestinians and all the cost involved without having to agree to anything long term, and free to continue building settlemets and so forth. Besides withdrawing from araes to be given to the PA, they had no significant other responsibilities.

So when askign why oslo faile,d given that only the PA had significant responsibilities, obviously then their inaction lead to failure of the process. But the process was fundamentaly flawed cause the Israelis had no responsibilties towards the Palestinians on the street themselves (like a freeze on all settlemets, access roads, movement restrictions and so forth).

The Israelis responsibilities included withdrawl from the specified areas,freeing prisoners, etc. Freezing new settlements (but not freezing settlement growth, and with no clarity as to whether construction in Jerusalem constituted a "Settlement"). Similarly the Pals were supposed to crack down on terrorists and stop incitement to terrorism. Labor under Rabin basically kept its commitments, and even looked the other way on incitement. Bibi chose not to look the other way on incitement, and even used the Pal failure on incitement as an excuse to do things that violated the spirit of Oslo by changing facts on the ground. Arafat responded by ending restraints on terror, and essentially using Hamas as a bargaining chip. i will leave aside the Barak era, which we have discussed enough.

The point is that Oslo process, with its vague deadlines for action, was based on a gradual building up of trust. That might have been more possible with a local leadership than with Arafat.

The question is whether there was a local leadership with real credibility. Rabin and his defenders say that basically there wasnt - it was Arafat or nothing. Critics, like Netanyahu, say yes there were alternatives. You seem to come down on the Bibi side, rather than the Rabin side.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Arafat had almost no control over what was going on IN the occupied territories before he came riding in with the Tunis gang. The problem was the only Pals with a working organization were the PLO, controlled by Arafat. That is not the same as saying the Palestinians had as a people chosen Arafat as their representative to speak for them: how could they? they never had (until 1996) the ability to stage any elections.

again my point was not blame the pal people for arafat - it was to suggest that Arafats role in the negotiating process has been a constant of the situation.

[GePap]

The Israelis responsibilities included withdrawl from the specified areas,freeing prisoners, etc. Freezing new settlements (but not freezing settlement growth, and with no clarity as to whether construction in Jerusalem constituted a "Settlement"). Similarly the Pals were supposed to crack down on terrorists and stop incitement to terrorism. Labor under Rabin basically kept its commitments, and even looked the other way on incitement

The settler population doubled under labor. Houses for 100,000 more settlers, even if one claims that they happened to only be additions to what already exised necessitated a huge new infrastrcuturte for them, and more hardship for the average Pal, speically fater the regular closings under Bibi and the slide in Pal. employment. As for withdrawls, from araes, that was the plan al alongtherwise the sraeli would have to bear the cost of services to those Pals they occupied.

As for sdding with Bibi: he never accepted where the whole process was to lead..so what was he going to negotiate with pals for? And sadly, after Arafat got to head the PA and had the '96 elections he was the one to speak too... oslo ave him the legitimacy he did not have before, making him the leader.

[lord of the mark]

As for withdrawls, from araes, that was the plan al alongtherwise the sraeli would have to bear the cost of services to those Pals they occupied.

LOTM - are you seriously saying that Rabin took the risks of bringing in arafat and withdrawing from the territories as a FINANCIAL measure? In fact the withdrawls were seen by BOTH sides as way of improving the Pal situation on the ground, and building up the trust needed for a final settlement. Rabin was generally held to be motivated by a desire to reduce IDF casualties (high in the first intifada), to restore the morale of the IDF, and to improve strategic positioning vis a vis Iran and Iraq.


As for sdding with Bibi: he never accepted where the whole process was to lead..so what was he going to negotiate with pals for? [/QUOTE]

Presumably some kind of autonomy, federation with Jordan, whatever. My point is not that that was a serious strategy - i dont think it was - just that Bibi has asserted there were alternative negotiating partners to Arafat.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
[q] Houses for 100,000 more settlers, even if one claims that they happened to only be additions to what already exised necessitated a huge new infrastrcuturte for them, .

My understanding is that the large scale roadbuilding was necessitated by the desire to create detours around areas which had been ceded to PA control, not congestion caused by population growth.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
LOTM - are you seriously saying that Rabin took the risks of bringing in arafat and withdrawing from the territories as a FINANCIAL measure? In fact the withdrawls were seen by BOTH sides as way of improving the Pal situation on the ground, and building up the trust needed for a final settlement. Rabin was generally held to be motivated by a desire to reduce IDF casualties (high in the first intifada), to restore the morale of the IDF, and to improve strategic positioning vis a vis Iran and Iraq.

Yes, i dot hink the cost to Israel of keeping rhe occupation going as was was a significant reason for Oslo: why, if considering all the other costs would they fail to consider that one, which is always important?

Presumably some kind of autonomy, federation with Jordan, whatever. My point is not that that was a serious strategy - i dont think it was - just that Bibi has asserted there were alternative negotiating partners to Arafat.

Yes, but he never said whom, and as I said, at that point, Arafat had coopted all the people in the occupied territories already. Note how both Mazan and Ala are still from Tunis.

[Japher]

Something is going on in the Gaza Strip...

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
My understanding is that the large scale roadbuilding was necessitated by the desire to create detours around areas which had been ceded to PA control, not congestion caused by population growth.

And why do this? So we let the Palestinians have their own enclaves, then ring them with roads they can not use without our permission and which can be closed at any time, and that makes their lives better because? And where exactly are these settlers going? 100,000 new people in new subdivisions calls for more of everything.

On the leadership thing: Barghouti was from the West bank and popular, but now he sits in prison. Dahlan has a weak standing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



Yes, but he never said whom, and as I said, at that point, Arafat had coopted all the people in the occupied territories already. Note how both Mazan and Ala are still from Tunis.

Yup - and the same voices i mentioned that say Oslo was a mistake, say that Mazen and Ala were also not potential partners for peace. I disagreed with them about Mazen - Ala im skeptical about.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




Yes, but he never said whom,

Im told he did say whom, and i should go read his book. Im not real inclined to just for the sake of that particular argument.

But I thought since you are saying that Arafat was not the Pals leader pre-1992, you might have some idea who was.

[GePap]

My point is not that Aaraft was not a trustworthy partner from peace period: my point is that he was never the best, and the structure of oslo was flawed, and allowed him to build his power while avoiding what was basic political suicide of taking on the militants, specially after things for the average Pal begun to get worse after '96.

Araft's fault is not that he is some terrorist mastermind with some evil plan to destroy Israel..I think that nonsense. The problem is that Arafat is a weak, glory seeking worm who wanted to be the leader of the pals without the responsibility that might go attached. He is great at playing people vs each other, ruthless in keeping his position, unable and unwilling to ever take any step that might seriously endanger that leadership.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And why do this? So we let the Palestinians have their own enclaves, then ring them with roads they can not use without our permission and which can be closed at any time, and that makes their lives better because? And where exactly are these settlers going? 100,000 new people in new subdivisions calls for more of everything.

On the leadership thing: Barghouti was from the West bank and popular, but now he sits in prison. Dahlan has a weak standing.

It makes there lives better cause they dont have israeli soldiers patrolling their cities and running their daily lives. Seems to me that when the Israelis went back in to their cities, they considered this a bad thing, and they are again asking the Israelis to leave.

Why build the roads - cause with the IDF no longer patrolling the villages ( in area A) , the settlers didnt want to have to drive through them - not surprising, considering that the villagers have a tendency to throw stones and shoot bullets at the settlers vehicles (and yes, i know that on occasion settlers have done the same)

And why would the Pals want to use those roads - the existing road system linked their towns and villages - and while they were still subject to closures (where the roads went through areas b or C) that was no worse than before.

As for bargouti - I have heard some talk the Israelis made a point of arresting him, and trying him, with the INTENTION of building up his stature. Not sure i believe that, but he continues to be the most likely non-tunisian.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
My point is not that Aaraft was not a trustworthy partner from peace period: my point is that he was never the best, and the structure of oslo was flawed, and allowed him to build his power while avoiding what was basic political suicide of taking on the militants, specially after things for the average Pal begun to get worse after '96.

Araft's fault is not that he is some terrorist mastermind with some evil plan to destroy Israel..I think that nonsense. The problem is that Arafat is a weak, glory seeking worm who wanted to be the leader of the pals without the responsibility that might go attached. He is great at playing people vs each other, ruthless in keeping his position, unable and unwilling to ever take any step that might seriously endanger that leadership.

I dont know if Arafat has an evil plan to destroy Israel - his behavior is also explained, as you point out, by his being a "weak glory seeking worm" or to put it more charitably, a man who was good at leading an insurgent movement, and unable to make the compromises for statehood. And perhaps fearing that statehood - or at least statehood achieved in any manner but by violence - would make him irrelevant.

The question is how to move past him.

And i realize that analogous questions might be raised about Sharon - a man who cant make the necessary compromises - Im not sure he can - but he has been far more moderate than I expected when he came into office 3 years ago - especially given the circumstances in which he came into office. Maybe its all machiavellian - waiting for the Pals to do themselves in - and if the Pals ever got serious, hed go back to being a hardliner - but the Pals havent tested him these last 3 years.

In that sense, if you want to get rid of Sharon, the most certain way would be to get rid of Arafat. Nothing keeps the Israeli center wedded to Sharon more than Arafat.