World Events

Arafat

John Quiggin15 Comments

According to numerous reports, Yasser Arafat is near death. I don’t wish him ill, but I hope that, should he recover, he will not return as Palestinian President or in any other active political role. With the break between Sharon and the expansionist settlers over the Gaza withdrawal approaching the critical point, a new Palestinian leadership that can distance itself from the failures and crimes of the past, is exactly what is needed if there is to be a chance of a successful resolution. Of course, there’s no guarantee that this is what will happen – chaos or Hamas could easily emerge to replace Arafat.

15 thoughts on “Arafat”

  1. Arafat has been an obstacle. At the very least, his absence will offer new opportunities to find a peaceful solution. It will also pose new challenges. On the Palestinian side, there will be the post-Arafat power vacuum. On the Israeli side, a long standing excuse – blame it on Arafat – will be removed. However, with or without Arafat, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be resolved without some form of outside intervention.

  2. Sadly, the last half dozen words or so, sum up the problem. I thought I was extremely pessimistic in the 60s; but by comparison with now, I was a naive optimist then. We made a disatrous decision in 1947 [which, I have to confess, I didn’t see then] and consequently, ever since, the world has had two tigers by the tail.

  3. Arafat has been an obstacle, but primarily to reform within Palestinian society. A not uncommon problem for national liberation movements that find themselves faced with the more delicate task of creating a civil society. Democratisation is desperately needed and Arafat has not helped, though not always in the ways claimed. There are many within Palestinian society who have recognised this need but out of respect for Arafats position, have been waiting till he is no longer around before they push for real reforms. Unfortunately, Hamas have been waiting for the same thing but with a different goal.

    The effect within Israel is going to be interesting. Arafat has been Sharons’ excuse for unilateralism. The “no partner for peace” call is likely to find a less sympathetic hearing in the US post-Arafat. A recent Haaretz article said that despite the popular image of Arafat, it was he who was more flexible on the right of return, rather than other supposed ‘moderates’ such as Ahmed Qureia.

  4. Michailh

    Who are the Israelis going to partner in peace now? Hamas, Hezbollah – the palis are so radicalized they will never partner in peace until they are crushed. Th eonly alternative is to cut them off completely from Israel so they can’t continue the bombings.

  5. Razor’s remarks are pretty much par for the course. That the Palestinians might decide for themselves who represents them is apparently inconceivable. It’s worth remembering that once upon a time that any contact with the PLO was also considered impossible. Even if you accept Razor’s ‘analysis’, the realty is, as Yosephat Harkabi (Israeli military intelligence) once said- you don’t negotiate with your enemy because he has a good behaviour award, but because he is your enemy.

    Hopefully the recent move to register voters will enable elections for the PLA to take place sooner rather than later, and start the process of devolving power from a single individual, to where it should be.

  6. I would agree. While Arafat is an obstacle, his departure should open avenues for negotiation at least. What happens after that is anyones guess, but at least there will be options where none existed before. I wish him a speedy, painless exit if that is to be his fate

  7. While Arafat has been an ineffective politician in terms ofthe Palestinian Authority,he is nevertheless for the suffering Palestinians the symbol of their struggle against Israeli oppression. In a sense the Palestinians are more like the East Timorese in their sufferings at the hands of a major military machine,which occupies and massacres without shame or pity. Yet it is for the Palestinians to decide where they wish to go, not their Israels persecutors..and Why wouldn’t they opt for Hamas.or Hazbollah or others in the teeth of Israeli savagery ,and in a sense the Palestinians can continue to bleed the israeli economy which would implode without the huge US subsidies which keep it afloat.The war condemns Israelis to a state of constant tension and for many,poverty ,like that suffered by the Palestinians …history/demography and perhaps geography may be on the side of the Palestinians in the long term,which might be a century or more …. So the Jews have their Homeland but will they ever be at peace to enjoy it ?…better perhaps to go back to Brooklyn or Newark !!..

  9. The last comment is the sort that makes me sick. Criticize Israel and you must be a racist. If Israelis deserve justice and peace, Palestinians deserve it equally. They are the ones who had Israel imposed on them. They are the ones who are still living in refugee camps, unable to return to their homes. They are the ones living under a brutal occupation in which collective punishment has become routine. When Israelis are able to accept that Israel is in fact a colonial settler society, then there might be some chance for peace.

  10. Thanks Melanie..perhaps Doucouliagos might find something of value in”The Politics of Anti-Semitism” edited by the noted UK Journalist ,Robert Fisk,where a number of US writers make just the point that you’ve made…how the apologists for Israel(people like our own Barry Cohen) damn all Israels critics as in some way Fascist,…failing to see that they eventually destroy their own ability to take part in any meaningful debate In the US ,Richard Pearle the numero uno of the Neo-Cons has set up a body called”Campus Watch” to use a kind of McCarthyist technique to silence academics who offer any critique of Sharon and his gang . With the aid of extreme right-wing politicians they now bring pressure to bear on US Universities in this matter. Professor Juan Cole is leading a counter organisation to challenge them .. Israel is a settlerist state,it really belongs in the same category as French Algeria,the former Apartheid South Africa,and British Rhodesia…and we know what happened to them !!.

  11. I know this is a topic that arouses a lot of emotion, but I’d appreciate it if commenters could avoid personal attacks on each other, as this tends to discourage everyone else from participating.

  12. Brian and Melanie. There is no problem about questioning Israel, Israeli society nor Israel’s many policy failures. The reality is that much of the criticism against Israel is, unfortunately, motivated by anti-Semitism. And it is this anti-Semitism that stifles debate. Fisk is an excellent journalist, but he is also balanced.

    If we look at the language employed we see that Israel is made out to be a fascist state:
    “massacres without shame or pity” and “the teeth of Israeli savagery”. And one which is not viable on its own “would implode without the huge US subsidies which keep it afloat”, and finally that “the Jews” should go “back to Brooklyn or Newark”.

    Melanie, does this sort of talk not make you sick? Many of Israel’s supporters make similar claims about Palestinians been savages, that they are supported financially by outsiders without whose assistance they would implode and that they should all go to Jordan, etc.

    My criticism was not meant to be a personal attack, (and I apologise unreservedly if it was seen as such), but an attack on unbalanced analysis.

  13. While I have no doubt that there is some criticism of Israel that is motivated by anti-semitism, I find it difficult to see how any one can claim that “much” of it is. Defining someone’s hidden motives by their writing must be a most challenging task.
    Even when someone’s words are on the inflammatory side, it’s possible that this is caused by their strong opposition to Israeli policy, rather than by an antipathy towards Jews.

Comments are closed.