Israel kills Yasser Arafat in 1968

so I'm reading Striking Back by Aaron J. Klein, and he talks about Israeli assassination policy pre-Munich, noting that in 1968 the Mossad marked Arafat as likely trouble thus came up with a plan, they planed to set off a massive car bomb in Damascus outside Arafat's office where he both worked and lived, the car and it's 100 pound high explosive bomb where in Damascus when the Mossad went to Prime Minster Levi Eshkol for his blessing, Eshkol in his 6 years in office never green lit any assassinations feeling they did not work, this time was no different, he pulled the plug, Mossad was deeply disappointed, but what if things had been different what if Eshkol just this once said yes? or what if Mossad went ahead with out him, or what if Eshkol who would die in the early months of 1969 died early leaving more hawkish Yigal Allon or Golda Meir to make the call? in short what if in 1968 a massive car bomb leveled the Damascus office of Yasser Arafat killing him?
 
I don't know the depth of Fatah or the PLO at this time. Abu Nidal had not severed ties with Arafat yet. Perhaps a more ruthless PLO than OTL, if leadership goes to him?
Hammada was on paper the executive chairman of the PLO in 1968---what happened to him?
 
I don't know the depth of Fatah or the PLO at this time. Abu Nidal had not severed ties with Arafat yet. Perhaps a more ruthless PLO than OTL, if leadership goes to him?
Hammada was on paper the executive chairman of the PLO in 1968---what happened to him?

the PLO was not yet just Fatah the way it'd become under Arafat, it was growing it power however, it was the largest single block in the Executive Committee, I'd guess much of Fatah's top guys would be with Arafat at the time
 
Just don't have enough info about alternative players within the PLO and other Palestinian organizations. So, I can't really project if this means a more bellicose leadership, or less. Or a more fractured movement earlier. Or might even lead to a less corrupt, more imaginative organization that might even reach out to the West. Probably not the latter. Too much weighted to ideologically Marxist perspectives and too beholden to Soviet interests.

I'm wondering if Israel would have killed Arafat in the 70's or 80's if it could, given that Israel did start going after the leadership in earnest post Munich and during & after the 1st Lebanon War.
 
Depending on who succeeds Arafat this might actually give the PLO a competent, charismatic leader who can appeal to Arafat as a safe martyr and the man who was responsible for the PLO's shift to representing purely Palestinian interests. Nice job, Israel, it replaced a safely treacherous and incompetent man with someone who would actually know what he's doing. Perhaps Abu Nidal or Abu Mazzin.....
 
Just don't have enough info about alternative players within the PLO and other Palestinian organizations. So, I can't really project if this means a more bellicose leadership, or less. Or a more fractured movement earlier. Or might even lead to a less corrupt, more imaginative organization that might even reach out to the West. Probably not the latter. Too much weighted to ideologically Marxist perspectives and too beholden to Soviet interests.

I'm wondering if Israel would have killed Arafat in the 70's or 80's if it could, given that Israel did start going after the leadership in earnest post Munich and during & after the 1st Lebanon War.

I don't think the PLO was all that weighted to Marxism, though it certainly was pro-Soviet. The problem is that killing Arafat might actually lead to his replacement with either another of the Fatah leaders or more unpleasantly some of the other Palestinian extremist movements of the time that are forgotten nowadays. I doubt making the PLO into a strict Soviet proxy is feasible, however. If not Fatah, it may well be that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine takes over, as it's not beholden to any Arab state and guaranteed money and weaponry from the USSR, and it was the second-largest movement after Fatah.

If whoever leads that movement is more effective than Arafat, you again get the problem that Israel bumped off a leader who was menacing and ineffectual for one who might be menacing but very effective.....
 
Can't imagine Abu Mazen aka Mahmoud Abbas being that charismatic figure...
Pragmatic & relatively incorruptible, though.

True. On the other hand in simply being able to competently wield the PLO as a mish-mash of rival forces as an efficient organization dedicated to the existence of a Palestine and in being more pragmatic than Arafat, Abu Mazzin would in some ways be much greater as a threat than ol' Abu Ammar was. Arafat could always be counted on to sooner or later step on the rake, Abu Mazzin was and is smarter than that (which is one reason you don't hear a lot about the West Bank these days).
 
Depends on the faction & when, Snake. Some factions were more allied/related to the Muslim Brotherhood. Some were Baathist in origin. & some had a decidedly Marxist orientation---especially the better known figures involved in high-profile terrorist actions in the 70's.
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons... There are potentially far more charismatic individuals either in the West Bank or in Israeli jails, now. Particularly Barghouti, who I personally think should be released for pragmatic reasons by the Israeli government. Save that for another thread and one that I'd like Yonathan & Clint to participate in.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the faction & when, Snake. Some factions were more allied/related to the Muslim Brotherhood. Some were Baathist in origin. & some had a decidedly Marxist orientation---especially the better known figures involved in high-profile terrorist actions in the 70's.

Yes, and in Palestinian terms it's better to have the distant sugar daddy than to depend on the neighboring dictatorships, as far as legitimacy goes. There'd be more prestige in Moscow's backing than in that of Assad or Nasser/Sadat/Mubarak.
 
so I'm reading Striking Back by Aaron J. Klein, and he talks about Israeli assassination policy pre-Munich, noting that in 1968 the Mossad marked Arafat as likely trouble thus came up with a plan, they planed to set off a massive car bomb in Damascus outside Arafat's office where he both worked and lived, the car and it's 100 pound high explosive bomb where in Damascus when the Mossad went to Prime Minster Levi Eshkol for his blessing, Eshkol in his 6 years in office never green lit any assassinations feeling they did not work, this time was no different, he pulled the plug, Mossad was deeply disappointed, but what if things had been different what if Eshkol just this once said yes? or what if Mossad went ahead with out him, or what if Eshkol who would die in the early months of 1969 died early leaving more hawkish Yigal Allon or Golda Meir to make the call? in short what if in 1968 a massive car bomb leveled the Damascus office of Yasser Arafat killing him?
You make it sound like pulling the plug was a bad idea.

For all arafats numerous faults, he ended up being some one the israelis could work with. The alternatives, be they hamas style ruthlessness, somalian anarchy, or someone who was competant, would all be worse.
 
You make it sound like pulling the plug was a bad idea.

For all arafats numerous faults, he ended up being some one the israelis could work with. The alternatives, be they hamas style ruthlessness, somalian anarchy, or someone who was competant, would all be worse.

hm? I didn't mean to make it sound like a good idea or a bad idea, its a historical question.

if you must know my feelings I'm in agreement with Eshkol, assassinations don't work, they only embitter those around the person who is killed, and in case of leaders tend to bring new more radical leaders forward to take their place, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
 

Jason222

Banned
You make it sound like pulling the plug was a bad idea.

For all arafats numerous faults, he ended up being some one the israelis could work with. The alternatives, be they hamas style ruthlessness, somalian anarchy, or someone who was competant, would all be worse.

I once said last 100 years Palestinian did not have one good leader yes Palestinian could worst leader but Arafat bad enough that it worth the risk for both sides sake. Someone who Israeli real work with and get peace done.
 
Top