OxBlog

# Posted 9:40 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

UNDER FIRE: My criticism of Ariel Sharon and defense of the NYT isn't winning me any friends in the blogosphere.

Adding to the pile-on, Dan Simon insists that Israeli retaliation will not undermine Abu Mazen's authority since Israeli retaliation did not undermine the US effort to sideline Arafat and install Abu Mazen in the first place.

From where I stand, the flaw in Dan's argument is that destroying credibility is far more difficult than reinforcing it. A combination of American and Israeli intransigence forced Arafat to back down. But that same combination cannot persuade Palestinians to embrace Abu Mazen.

Next up, GMU law prof David Bernstein asks (via e-mail)

It's been reported that [Abdel Aziz] Rantisi was in charge of coordinating Fatah, Jihad, and Hamas into one big terror group. The attack on Israeli soldiers in Gaza earlier this week was their first operation. If that's the case, would you really expect Sharon sit by and let such a terror organization, a comibnation of Arafat's minions and Hamas', sprout under his nose?

No, not really. But would an attempt to kill Rantisi change all that much? If Fatah, Jihad and Hamas want to work together, they will. Even if killing Rantisi would've damaged such efforts, did Sharon have to attack him right after the Aqaba summit, at a critical moment for Abu Mazen? Moreover, if Rantisi is that important, why didn't Sharon try to kill him earlier?

Anyhow, what matters far more than my opinion of Sharon is the President's, and it seems that Bush is backing off his initial criticism of the Rantisi attack. In the meantime, Israeli helicopter attacks continue even while Israeli and Palestinian negotiators continue to talk about implementing the roadmap. What will happen next? I don't know.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion