Last Thurdsay, the cargo ship "Karine A" was intercepted by the Israeli military, carrying a load of missiles and other weapons. Israel says they were bought by Arafat and headed for the Palestinian Authority (PA). Mike Watkins sent us this article, with another possible explanation. He writes:
I picked this up from an international Iranian news service. It offers a plausible account of these events. In particular the alignment of interests makes sense. Hardliners in Iran want to poison any effort by moderates at rapproachment with the west. Hezbollah and PFLP-GC want to undermine the peace process and weaken Arafat. Israelis would like to see Iran labelled a terror-supporting state and want to further weaken Arafat. The extremes on all sides want to sabotage any effort by the US to broker negotiations. And so the escalation continues...
Mr. Alireza Noorizadeh, an independent Iranian journalist told Iran Press Service that the operation had been worked out by a section of the Iranian Revolutionary guards under the control of the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, the Lebanese Hezbollah and Mr. Jibril "without the knowledge or Arafat and Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Khatami, the Iranian President".
Observing that the lamed and widely unpopular Khameneh’i, Mr. Jibril and the Lebanese Hezbollah, an organisation that is controlled by the Iranian leader, are all staunchly against the Chairman of the Palestinian Autority, Mr. Noorizadeh said the three had smuggld arms into the PA-controlled areas in the past using same methods "hence, he said, the presence on the ship of a member of the Lebanese Hazbollah and Palestinians beloging to the PFLP-GC". . . .
Reminding also that the policy of Mr. Khatami and his government concerning the Palestinian issue is "very different" from that instructed by the leader, who has the upper hand in the conduct of the regime’s foreign policy, Mr. Noorizadeh pointed to recent speeches by three reformist personalities criticizing the "Palestinisation" of the Iranian foreign policy.
Speaking at a recent a seminar on the "Palestinian issue from Iranians views" Mr. Mohammad Reza Tajik, an adviser to President Khatami and Director of the President’s Centre for Strategic Researches observed that while the Palestinians had adopted the strategy of dialogue (with Israel), Iran on the contrary advises the strategy of "war, war until victory, a position that is not progressive nor approved by any other nation".
You can read the whole article here. The folks over at Stratfor (no bleeding hearts they!) also doubt that Arafat was directly behind the arms smuggling in this article:
At the same time, logic argues against the idea that the Palestinian Authority was involved in the incident: The presence of Palestinian naval officers aboard the vessel, including one who later directly fingered two of Arafat's top lieutenants, limits plausible deniability. Though the Palestinian Authority does not govern a state, it nonetheless must behave as a government -- and governments engaged in covert or illegal operations usually act in a manner that allows plausible deniability. It would be either extremely stupid or sheerly lunatic for the Palestinians to think that a weapons-laden ship might transit the Red Sea and the Suez Canal undetected at a time when both are under heightened surveillance.
Furthermore, there are contradictory reports about the vessel's ownership. Israel claims Palestinians owned the ship, but Lloyd's List, a premier shipping publication owned by Lloyd's of London, reported Jan.7 that it was owned by an Iraqi national. According to Lloyd's, it was a Lebanese-flagged vessel operated by the Beirut-based Diana K. Shipping Co. and was sold in August 2001 to Ali Mohammed Abbas for $400,000. The ship was then re-registered in Tonga as the Karine A. Although a Lebanese Transport Ministry official has disputed the Lloyd's report, it lends credence to the Palestinian denials and countercharges that Israel manipulated the seizure to derail peace talks.
Ultimately, it matters little whether the Israeli assertions are true. The many apparent discrepancies, the illogic of the idea that the Palestinian Authority would attempt such an operation and finally the Lloyd's List report have combined to cast doubt on the Israeli claims.
So, is it possible that conservative elements in Iran are trying to push Israel and the PA into war? Or is this just another way that Arafat is ducking responsibility?
This article in yesterday's Washington Post quotes a "U.S. official" on the Iran-PA relationship:
"The Iranians and Arafat have been sworn enemies since September 1993," when the Palestinians launched peace efforts with the Israelis in Oslo, a U.S. official said. "Alliances and rivalries can turn on a dime, but I haven't seen any evidence of rapprochement, government to government. It would depend on who in Iran was behind the rapprochement and who they thought they were dealing with on the Palestinian side."
Still, the official said, if Iran is inserting itself into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, "it's important."
In a speech today, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel warned of what he called an emerging alliance between the Palestinian Authority, Iran and Hezbollah and said it posed a grave threat to Israel.
"This would have changed the strategic balance, putting Israel in an impossible situation where all of Israel becomes hostage to Arafat's terror strategy," he said. "The great danger is those relations that were developed between the [Palestinian Authority], led by Arafat, and Iran. Iran at the present time is the center of world terror."
It comes down to whether or not we believe Captain Akawi's claims that he was acting on official PA orders. According to this NYT article, the U.S. government now does, after initially expressing reservations. (So do William Safire and Michael Kelly.) And today's Debka claims that the PA Security Chief Mohamed Dahlan's recent travel intinerary suggests that he was directly involved.
So, pick your scenario: Arafat has joined forces with the Iranian militants, or he's a helpless pawn of militants both inside and outside of his territory. Neither suggests that peace is at hand any time soon.