Mr. Sharon and many hawkish Israel supporters say they’re done with Mr. Arafat, that some new leader has to emerge for the Israelis and even the Americans to treat with. “More moderate leaders” is often the phrase that gets used.
It’s been commonly noted that a) at the moment, a potential successor to Arafat would almost certainly be more militant and extreme and b) simply on logical principles, you can’t dictate to your adversaries who their leaders will be.
But there’s an historical context that is still more important. This gambit has been tried before and it didn’t work.
The Israelis didn’t decide to sit down with Arafat in the early 1990s because they liked him. They had no choice. The Israelis spent much of the late 1980s trying to find or create a Quisling Palestinian leadership they could negotiate with. But they couldn’t. Was a ‘moderate’ Palestinian leadership prevented from emerging because of violence and intimidation in the Territories? Maybe. But it really doesn’t matter. The bottom line was that they eventually realized that it was only the PLO and Arafat who could deliver anything.
Whether Arafat is inclined to do so or whether he can deliver enough is another matter. But the alternative to negotiating with him is continued military occupation of the territories in force. There’s really no two ways about it.
Perhaps that’s necessary. But keep in mind: the ‘moderate leaders’ strategy is dishonest and bogus.
