The Palestinians have buried with a big effusion of emotion their
leader, a terrorist, a murderer of the innocent, a robber of funds,
a man who has rejected any peaceful settlement and insisted on the
destruction of Israel because of his deep hatred for the Jews. This
is one way of looking at the matter. It reflects the opinion of the
majority of Zionists and their supporters around the world who saw
in the popular funeral of Arafat a cause to acquit themselves from
Palestinian demands; and in the cold, official funeral in Cairo an
indication of the hatred the Arabs bear for each other; and in the
moving ceremony in France a proof of the deep-rooted anti-Semitism
among the French.
The Palestinians have buried their president and symbol, the leader
of their national movement. He was the man who spent decades in an
unremitting struggle with Israel, and passed the last three years
of his life under siege in two rooms. It is not unlikely that he
was poisoned. He was murdered and the Israelis are the culprits.
This is another opinion and it represents that of the majority of
the nationalists and Islamists, those who would like to put the
Arafat legacy to use in future confrontations.
Few have said the Palestinians have buried a patriotic leader, a
realist who has succeeded in placing his people on the political
map and fought hard to defend that existence. He rejected any
offers that fell far short of the historic rights of his people -
those that were not commensurate with his people's sacrifices or
his conviction of what would have been possible to achieve. In
other words, the Palestinians have buried a leader who may or may
not have made mistakes; at the end of the day, however he remains
their best representative, and that is no mean feat.
But many around the world, including the Arab world, said the
Palestinians have buried a multifaceted man. He did a lot for his
people but failed to complete his mission in the year 2000,
squandering opportunities due to his stand regarding the intifada
and the Road Map. So it has been said that "his absence opens up a
new opportunity" (Brent Scowcroft) because, during his lifetime, he
embodied a state of struggle between "half Castro and half Mandela"
(Uri Savir). For Israel, he is "the enemy, the partner, the foe"
(Haaretz), accordingly, his absence "puts an end to the excuses"
(Uzi Benziman). In short, Arafat's demise "has removed the single
biggest obstacle in the way of the achievement of Palestinian
sovereignty" (Washington Post).
The 'Obstacle' Theory
This was the widespread, even dominant, line taken by many European
commentators, and similarly by American commentators and
politicians - both Democrats and moderate Republicans - as well as
left-wing Israeli writers, and to a certain degree, King Abdullah
II of Jordan ("It is a moment of great possibilities"). To these
should be added a number of Arab writers who call themselves
liberals. The theory of "the obstacle that has to be removed"
effectively claims that conditions in the Middle East were pregnant
with a settlement, but Arafat was not ready for this birth so he
forbade it. He scuppered it from his room in the Muqata'a, where he
was languishing for the past three years (out of a total of four
years of intifada); even after the occupation forces had destroyed
Palestinian installations and institutions and carried out
incursions and assassinations and proceeded with the building of
the Wall, while rejecting the Road Map and expanding Jewish
settlements. Yes, it is Arafat who is the rejectionist, when George
W. Bush has espoused Ariel's Sharon's policy and identified to a
large degree with the Israeli right. He considered Palestinian
resistance a problem even as he invaded Baghdad and promised to
back Israel in its annexation of settlements and its rejection of
the Palestinian right of return. The Arab liberals, just like their
peers elsewhere, choose to see only the straw in Arafat's
eye.
A Naïve Logic
In a certain sense, we are witnessing a defining moment, for what
is said these days is an indication of the course that events are
expected to take. At the same time, it is difficult to turn a blind
eye to those who desire peace and bewail the passing of Arafat, but
do not hesitate to consider Arafat's departure a necessary and
sufficient condition for the achievement of this highly anticipated
peace. This brand of logic leads to the following simplistic
formula: The Palestinians choose a moderate leadership that will
reject an essential part of Arafat's legacy. This will resonate
positively with the Europeans and Arab regimes who will
subsequently pressure the U.S. Bush will find this welcome since it
fits within the framework of a more global political orientation
encompassing Iraq and Iran. The U.S. will bring pressure to bear on
Israel, Sharon will be forced to withdraw, providing the proper
conditions for the conclusion of a settlement. And, in the
aftermath, the region will wallow in democracy.
Each one of these stages is strewn with mines. To bear fruit, these
stages will have to be interconnected, and this will be blatant
proof of haste, crying out, "We have had enough, we want a
solution"! This naïve scheme springs from the refusal to see
facts as they are and from the desire to "finish at any price,"
even to the extent of preempting outcomes. This is the
quintessential case of blindness for fear that sight would lead to
undesirable conclusions which would logically induce the defense,
or even the practice, of certain political stances. It is a
well-tried example, long followed by Arab regimes, except now they
have opponents who term themselves "liberals," and who maintain the
necessity of expediting the break with these regimes in order to
reform or change them - jumping on the bandwagon now that these
leaders have come under American pressure.
Self-Delusion
It is possible to "understand" regimes that protect specific
interests, but it is difficult to comprehend the self-delusion of
some parties that presumably have the best interest of the
Palestinians and Arabs at heart. It is as if these wish to sweep
one stage of history under the rug, expecting someone out there to
come up with a positive answer to all the questions raised by that
particular stage, if only it were possible to set in motion a chain
of reaction emanating from Palestinian moderation. And thus, after
the U.S., with the assistance of Europe, contributes to the
conclusion of the national stage, the way is cleared for the onset
of a liberal stage; its protagonists are currently in a state of
dormancy waiting for someone to set off the whistle of
reforms.
These are huge illusions. For one thing, the possibility of a
"reasonable" American solution to the Palestinian crisis in the
foreseeable future is very slim indeed. Israel, for its part, is
not all that interested and the U.S. is not about to pressure it.
Arafat's absence from the scene, if it provides any opportunity at
all, it is the opportunity to pressure the Palestinians. For
another, the liberal era, when it arrives, will be in the charge of
the most inane bourgeoisie of the world, for Arab bourgeoisie wants
the maximum of openness with a minimum of freedom and does not
object to the use of conservative ideologies as a means of
coercion. And finally, is it conceivable that the Arab liberals
should avoid formulating their own vision of a solution to the
national question if Bush and Sharon were to decline to
cooperate?
An Amusing Paradox
Arafat's absence does not provide an opportunity for the
achievement of peace for the simple reason that the obstacle was
never from the Palestinian side. To fall prey to this error is
tantamount to adopting the Israeli and American narrative of the
conflict during its past stage. It is a whitewashing of "Sharonism"
and what it stands for, and of the policy of the American
administration and what it represents. Therein lies the problem,
and it is this that must be addressed. It is one thing to admit to
the possibility of a more rational policy on the part of the
Palestinians. It is quite a different matter to succumb to
schizophrenia and espouse the paradox that the Palestinians have
lost a great leader who was personally responsible for standing in
the way of his own people attaining their national aspirations.