Editors of The Nation: Yasir Arafat

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Nation
Issue of November 29, 2004
Posted online Thursday November 11

Yasir Arafat

Yasir Arafat died just as he lived most of his life, giving mixed signals to the world, provoking rivalries among intimates and arousing wild speculation from allies and enemies alike.

It's not easy to take the measure of a man whose career has been obscured by so much propaganda and mythmaking. Especially in America, Arafat has been demonized as an arch-terrorist and derided as a bumbling rejectionist. Even as he lay on his deathbed, the New York Times repeated the accusation, branding him as "the man who refused to say yes" to Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak's inadequate and insulting Camp David 2000 settlement offer.

Brief as it is, this is about as fine a piece that will be written about Arafat in the coming days. There were reasons why such a flawed leader emerged among the Palestinians.

In the end, his flaws are what won out. The Palestinian territories may now descend into civil strife because his personal style made no time for such trivialities as choosing a successor in the event of his death.

We'll leave it to historians to wonder why Arafat did not take the steps necessary to secure peace. Did he fear assassination? That hardly seems likely. For decades, he had to live with such a threat. Yet he seemed reluctant to offend any of the myriad of factions among the Palestinians, although in order to make peace, some one would have to be offended. Those tough choices are left to whoever wins the power struggle in the months ahead.

He missed being the father of his country by a whisker. Instead, his legacy will be one of spilt blood, missed opportunities and major disappointments. Alas, the bloodshed will continue without him.

[kokomo]

1. Clintons, Carville, the right just don't get it why Arabs mourn Arafat

Larry Kaplow interviews PLO activist Abu Khadra in Jordan for Cox Newspapers. She first met Yasser Arafat in 1958 and knows him better than just about anyone. She laments that with the passing of Arafat, secularism in the Arab world is dying and yielding to Islamic fundamentalism. Arafat is from the thinning breed of pan- Arab secular leaders like the late Gamel Abdul Nasser of Egypt, Saddam Hussein, Hafez Assad of Syria, even the late King Hussein of Jordan who attempted to instill the Arab people with identity and hope, but failed to deliver on the democracy they once promised. These old leaders are being replaced by fundamentalists like Bin Laden, and a new breed of religious Islamic radicals.

Arafat greatest struggle in his later years was with the more radical, religiously inspired Palestinian groups like Hamas, and the outside influence of Hezbollah. Arafat even had problems keeping his own Fatah and Al Asqa Martyr's Brigade under control. In the past few decades, the Christian minority of Palestinians (including Arafat's Christian wife) have fled the Middle East, giving into the Islamists.

"Arafat is a throwback to another age -- the age of the brave, uneducated, wily Arab chief," writes Said K. Aburish in his book, "Arafat: From Defender to Dictator."

Abu Khadra said the young men in her family now follow Hamas, but still there is still great respect for Yasser Arafat among all of the Palestinian people, as he was the symbol of Palestinian struggle and most of all, hope. Like an old sheik, he protected those loyal to him, dispensed a paternal generosity and granted favors (similar to a mafia Godfather!). He had "old school" faults..."if he didn't get his way, he would sabotage his opposition." Abu Khadra said Yasser sometimes rebuffed her appeals to be more tolerant of dissent.

Arafat, like his other secularist Arab brothers, was marginalized, even demonized by Israeli/American politicians. Abu Khadra says, "I'm not disappointed (in him). I am very sad he wasn't given the opportunity to finish what he worked for his whole lifetime...a Palestinian state." But she said that invasion after invasion by Israeli Defense Forces, and political pressures from Israel and the U.S. made it impossible for Arafat to establish a democracy.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

13. so, Arafat was prevented from establishing a democracy?...

well, he sure got a kleptocracy going pretty good...

[Lithos]

2. I don't think he was a failure

He was not a revolutionary who changes the status quo, but a child of the status quo and powerless to do much to change it.

L-

[drdon326]

4. Powerless ??...Interesting choice of words.

OH.....He changed alot.

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Memorial/2000/In%20Memory%20of%20the%20Victims%20of%20Palestinian%20Violence%20a

[Jack Rabbit]

6. 'Failure' would be too strong a word

Arafat had his triumphs on behalf of his people. He is more responsible than any other individual for getting the international community to recognize the plight of the Palestinians living under occupation. The Palestinian people could be worse off without any national aspirations. They are destitute and the solution to that is statehood. Under Arafat's leadership, that goal was kept front and center.

Having said that, we cannot honestly judge him a success. That Palestinian state still waits to be born. He was close once to bringing it about, and couldn't or didn't. I think he was right to reject what was on the table at Camp David, but wrong to give up. As a consequence, the birth of the Palestinian state seems far more distant now than it did then.

Arafat's last years were disastrous for the future of the Palestinian people. In addition to his failure to achieve statehood for Palestine, his corrupt and autocratic administration of the Palestinian territories gave an opportunity to the Islamic fascists in Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant organizations. For all his warts, Arafat had a pragmatic streak for which these people show only contempt. No good will come from them.

[drdon326]

7. Jack...I've been thinking of you alot lately.

How are you?

[Jack Rabbit]

9. It has been a while since I have written this phrase to you, Doc

Please check your inbox.

[Lithos]

17. Agreed

He was a pragmatist. I do not think he had a crucial 'vision' though of where he was taking his people. He was certainly not comparable to Ben-Gurion or Chaim Weizman. If anything, he was more akin to Begin.

[umtalal]

3. Secularism died in the Arab World with Arafat Passing. May he rest in peac

[cantwealljustgetalong]

11. quite possibly since...

Arafat layed down with the dogs and the fleas took control...

[umtalal]

12. Such as Sharon??? Now there is a hedious fat dog.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

14. yeah, whatever...

and Arafat was his bitch...

is Sharon responsible for the billions absconded that should be going to the pawns left in the refugee camps instead of to Madame Suha and the rest of the cronies, thugs, and henchmen?...

[umtalal]

15. Sharon will go down in history as the Jewish equal of Hitler. n/t

[drdon326]

16. Hitler, huh ??

And you make that analogy based on what ?

[umtalal]

19. The irony.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

18. yeah, sure...

history needs to be written by the David Irvings of the world corroborating with the crackheads - won't civilization be grand in that alternate universe?...

[ashiebr]

20. But then Arafat....

...wasn't responsible for assassinating the one israeli Prime Minister who might have been able to close a deal with President Arafat. That was an israeli.

Nor was he responsible for not reconvening the successful Taba talks. That too was an israeli.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm...........a pattern begins to emerge..!

[bemildred]

5. I must say Jack, the amount of drivel that is now written about him

is in itself an indicator of something. One wonders what all these people
are going to do when it sinks in that he is dead and nothing at all has
changed. Like most of these leaders, he was not himself from the people,
but one of the well-off. Sorting out who really owns his pots of money
should be a thoroughly satisfying exercise for the hordes of lawyers so
employed.

The Palestinians will have to consider how to carry on without his
"leadership", the Israelis will have to construct some new villain on
whom they can place all the blame for their follies.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. That drivel was to be wholly expected

Thanks to the good doctor, we have on display here what is to be expected from the Israeli right wing. The Israeli rightists, of course, denounce Arafat as a terrorist and that is not without justification. Nevertheless, the Israeli right would have been no less horrified by Mahatma Arafat as they were by Arafat the Hun. They oppose Palestinian nationalism and play on natural revulsion to terrorism to rally others against the Palestinian cause. If there were no Palestinian terrorists, General Sharon and Conrad Black would have to invent them.

And then there is the nonsense about Arafat as the great leader of his people. Today, the goal of a Palestinian state is more distant than it was just a few years ago and the prospects for civil war in the Palestinian territories is a real threat owing to Arafat's lack of concern for an orderly succession of power. If Palestine were a fully independent and sovereign state, would Arafat have been so revered? Let us assume that under those circumstances he would not have resorted to terrorism as he would have had no need for it, but he would have been just another crooked autocrat lording it over a developing nation.

The human condition is neither the moral depravity that Christian fundamentalists take it to be nor the demi-god that Pollyannish New Agers tout. Instead, it is moral ambiguity. In few public figures was that ambiguity more pronounced than it was in Arafat. For much of that, Arafat's legacy is indebted to the time and place in which Arafat lived. Scholars will be busy for decades sorting out the real meaning of his life's work.

[drdon326]

10. OUCH !!

"Thanks to the good doctor, we have on display here what is to be expected from the Israeli right wing."

Well...lets dissecte your theory.

The Israeli rightists, of course, denounce Arafat as a terrorist and that is not without justification.".....so do you...so do most liberals...so do all peace loving people.



"Nevertheless, the Israeli right would have been no less horrified by Mahatma Arafat as they were by Arafat the Hun.".....we could never prove that but it is inflammatory.




"They oppose Palestinian nationalism and play on natural revulsion to terrorism to rally others against the Palestinian cause"....Yeah thats why a state was offered to arafat and he turned it down because
he didnt get his ROR...and considering sharon will be pulling out of gaza,doesnt seem to hold much weight.


I'm saddened you said that.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. The lack of a succession plan was very inconsiderate...

Sharon could have been working on a Demonise The New Leader As A Terrorist routine, and now he has to wait until the dust settles to find out who it will be. I suspect that his aides have had a form denounciation waiting in the wings for ages where all they have to do is type in whatever name it will be...

I totally agree that the reaction of the Israeli right and certain folk in this forum does stem from an opposition to Palestinian nationalism. I don't imagine for a moment that any of those sort of folk really give a toss about the rather oppressive and short-sighted way he ruled, because that would involve giving a shit about the Palestinian people, and unless they can be cynically used in order to further the latest ranting of the right-wing, all the Palestinian population is good for is to be painted as terrorists or supporters of terrorism. They carry on like silly twitterers only because of the face of Arafat that threatened their vision of a Greater Israel - Arafat as the symbol of Palestinian nationalism. For a bunch of people who carried on and on and on about how irrelevant Arafat was, they sure aren't acting that way right now...

Violet...

[ashiebr]

22. Indeed Violet........

..........If he had such a succession plan, he would have been accused of "chosing his own successor" of "circumventing democracy" and of "not listening to the people".

This is a strange issue for many like me on the centre-left in Europe where we find our colleagues in the US have a complete blind-spot about the ME. I can't believe some of the propaganda on this board masquerading as fact.

I'm old enough to remember the 1967 war when the whole non-Arab world was on israel's side (me too). How can a nation have wasted so much good-will? In fact it was a feat not equalled in history until the USA post-9/11!

[Violet_Crumble]

23. That blindess in the US...

I think part of the reason for that is because the highly polished Israeli PR machine has exerted much of it's energy on the US public. They're an easy market as their media is nowhere near as open as the media that those of us in the rest of the world enjoy. And also the likelihood that the rest of us are more inclined to recognise spin and PR for what it is, no matter how shiny and glittery the packaging it comes in is...

I don't remember the 1967 war, but I know why it was the point where Israel squandered a lot of good-will. Up to that point, things that had gone before could be overlooked, but occupying the territory of another people and proceeding to build settlements all over it is something that couldn't be ignored. Though I bet Israel couldn't squander it's good-will in as spectacular a short space of time as the US did after Sept 11...

btw, welcome to the I/P forum :)

Violet...