| After weeks of speculation, rumour and no little intrigue, Yasser Arafat finally passed away on November 11. For 35 years, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization had led the struggle to secure a state for his people, by means both fair and foul. His death clearly marks the end of a chapter in the struggle.
Or does it?
The world stood divided on Arafat’s death, as it had on his life. Praise came from presidents Jacques Chirac of France, Vladimir Putin of Russia and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. Venezuelan Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel declared that, thanks to Arafat, "Palestine today has become a point of reference for free men on Earth."
Others weren’t so sure. A terse statement from U.S. President George W. Bush noted only that Arafat’s death was "a significant moment in Palestinian history," a belief echoed by both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and our own Paul Martin. Blunter still was the official response from Kuwait, whose invasion by Saddam Hussein in 1990 had received support from the PLO boss. "We pray to God to have mercy on him," it stated, "and to forgive his sins."
There are, of course, a lot of sins to forgive. While Arafat was co-recipient of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize – shared with Israel’s Shimon Peres – for his part in the previous year’s Oslo Peace Accord, this image of a pro-peace statesman (albeit without a formal state) sat uncomfortably with his record of support for terrorism against Israel. "Greatest con man of the age," screamed the headline to Margaret Wente’s column in last Saturday’s Globe and Mail. "People are in mourning in the West Bank and Gaza Strip," she wrote. "But they should be dancing in the streets. Yasser Arafat was the worst enemy the Palestinians ever had."
Other journalists expressed similar reservations, though in more temperate tones. Jeffrey Simpson compared Arafat unfavourably to other freedom fighters of the 20th century, notably Ireland’s Michael Collins and India’s Mahatma Gandhi, concluding that in contrast Arafat "had convictions, all right, but he pursued them with disastrous tactics and an awful strategic sense, thereby leading his people to poverty and misery." Several critical pieces also ran in the National Post on the day after Arafat’s death, under headings such as "In the end, only a symbol," "A legacy of moral oblivion" and "Farewell to a terrorist."
In short, then, there was a sense that the world (definitely) and Palestinians (probably) are better off with Arafat out of the way. "With Arafat dead, peace hopes rise," declared another report in last Friday’s Post. "Grief, and a ray of hope," agreed The Globe and Mail, with an additional story appearing under the headline, "Some say his passing could aid peace process." The general theme running through these accounts is that, even as Palestinians mourn the passing of the man who led them for a Moses-like era towards the hope of the promised land, now is the opportunity for a new leadership of that cause to emerge, one less hostage to the bitter rivalries and memories of defeat (e.g. the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973).
It’s a nice thought, but in the immediate future it’s more likely that the departure of Arafat will have little or no real effect on the so-called "crisis" in the Middle East.
For one thing, the PLO chairman had been more or less isolated in his compound in the West Bank town of Ramallah since December 2001. Over the past three years, Israel forged ahead with its own plans to redraw borders in the contested region, effectively denying the Palestinian leader any role in the process. True, Israel has had to concede some of its gains in the face of ongoing terrorist violence and often critical international opinion, but nevertheless it had sent a clear signal that it was prepared to "go it alone."
Second, in the wake of 9-11 both President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reached out to Arafat as a potential Muslim ally in the Middle East, going as far as to give their support for the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet Arafat’s refusal or inability to control those who continued to practise violence in his name made him a poor choice in the newly declared global "war on terrorism." Thus while Bush remains – so it seems – wedded to the idea of an independent Palestine, it’s easy to understand his lack of tears on hearing last week’s news.
Third, and most importantly, the world clearly has shifted since September 2001. The Arab-Israeli "crisis" remains unresolved, but is now far overshadowed by the open conflict between a Christian Fundamentalist America (and its partners, willing or otherwise) and a pro-Islamist coalition of states and individuals who oppose U.S. intervention in the Middle East. Possessed of a hard-line government and, more importantly, nuclear weapons, Israel has in any case shown that it’s able to look after itself, at least in the short run, and on that basis a repeat of ’48, ’67 or ’73 is unlikely.
Instead, American – and hence, western – attention will continue to focus on the bloody occupation of Iraq, which may well prove to be interminable. Neither the rapid victory in March 2003, nor the capture of Saddam last Christmas, nor the recent taking of Fallujah have been as decisive as the U.S. administration may have wished, or would have had us believe. At the same time, the question of post-Taliban Afghanistan remains unsettled, while "Will Iran Be Next?" is the question posed on the cover of next month’s Atlantic Monthly, referring to the threat posed by the second prong of Bush’s "Axis of Evil," now about to go nuclear. And then there’s North Korea….
So, Yasser Arafat’s passing may not be the turning point suggested by some last week. Instead, it’s one more link in the region’s chain of history, a chain forged by western invasion, occupation, and promises made and broken during and after the First World War. Whether we’re approaching the end of that chain remains to be seen. |
Copyright ©2004 FFWD. All rights reserved.