|
|
January 7, 2005
Arafat failed to lead his people
Tragically, he was not able to move beyond the armed uprising
against Israel to building a Palestinian nation.
YOSSI DARR
History will probably be very critical of Yasser Arafat. When historians
come to judge his role and contribution to the Palestinian people,
in the perspective of years and decades, they might well come to
the conclusion that Arafat was the worst calamity to happen to the
Palestinians.
In 1969, Arafat, then an unknown individual, succeeded Ahmed Shoukeiri
as the feddayoun (terrorist) leader. Arafat considered as
his first objective to bring the Palestinian "cause" to
the headlines, to shock international opinion and implement "strategic
actions" to achieve his goals. It is hardly thinkable that
the term "Palestinian state" was even in his mind at that
time, or a long-term plan.
During the next 13 years, Arafat dragged the world into a chaotic,
insecure situation, where terrorism became synonymous with the Palestinian
struggle.
No one was spared.
Jordan's King Hussein almost lost his throne and his life, Europe
(Germany, France and the United Kingdom) and the United States (Achilla
Lauro) were targeted, Lebanon was chosen as the operational base
for terrorist activities against Israel and, of course, Israel took
the force of most of this "modern" terrorism.
In 1982, a major turning point occurred for the Palestinians: following
the Galilee Operation (often called the Lebanon War, although no
Lebanese entity was ever targeted by Israel), Arafat, heading the
Fatah forces, went into exile in Tunis, North Africa. This was a
major turning point because, at that moment, Arafat should have
started to understand what Egypt had already understood: Israel
would not be defeated by force. However, Arafat and his loyalists
kept on using terrorism against Israel for another decade.
By 1992, Shimon Peres (second to Yitzhak Rabin) started to build
the coming Oslo Agreements, namely peace talks, with Arafat. In
1993, Rabin signed a first-ever agreement with Arafat, announcing
that Israel would recognize the PLO as the legitimate representative
of the Palestinian people (implying a de facto recognition of the
existence of such an entity) and the Palestinians would recognize
Israel as a legitimate state with a right to exist. Twenty different
mutual committees were established to deal with all possible issues
(communications, finance, water resources, security, laws, taxes,
customs, etc.).
The Labor, Meretz and Shas parties were leading Israel at this time
and no better coalition (so Israel thought) could have been expected
to reach a permanent agreement with the Palestinians. In 1994, Israel
withdrew from most of Gaza, Judea and Samaria, leaving the Palestinians
to start building their own future. The way to an independent Palestinian
state was almost paved.
But, contrary to all expectations, Arafat basically turned his back
on the peace process. From 1993 to 1996, Israel suffered terrorist
actions, led or allowed by the PLO, which killed almost 200 Israelis
– and all during the same period that the mutual committees
were talking peace. By 1996, the peace process was destroyed. Frustrated,
Israel elected Bin-yamin Netanyahu as prime minister, chartering
him to go for a tougher approach toward Arafat and the PLO. Arafat
missed the opportunity.
Yet the year 2000 brought another chance to Arafat. Ehud Barak,
having been elected prime minister a year earlier, proposed at Camp
David an unbelievable deal to Arafat: Israel would give up 97 per
cent of the disputed territories, including the upper level of Temple
Mount, which would encompass an independent Palestinian state beside
Israel – all under the auspices of the United States. Arafat
answered by launching a well- and early-prepared intifada: Intifada
El-Aktza.
The question for history is why, for 35 years, Arafat disregarded
a supposed main goal, i.e. establishing an independent Palestinian
state? Did he have another hidden agenda? Did he still have the
dream to "throw all Jews to the sea"? Was Israel so inflexible
that he couldn't proceed to form a Palestinian state? Was the Oslo
Agreement not amenable to his main goal? Were Barak and President
Clinton trying to manipulate Arafat at Camp David?
I believe that Arafat simply was not built to "make the move."
His personality was not that of a nation leader, but essentially
that of a gang leader. Arafat failed in the most basic role of a
leader: he failed to bring the Palestinian people nationhood. The
Palestinian people have yet to reach the status of a nation.
Israel has gone through the process of changing from a people to
a nation twice. The first time was going out of Egypt (Yetziat
Mitzraym): Moses led the people of Israel to the Promised Land
and brought them to agree upon a common cause and the way to achieve
it. The second time was in 1948, not on May 15 when independence
was proclaimed, but rather on the Sunday afternoon of June 20, 1948,
when David Ben-Gurion ordered the sinking of the Altalena Irgun
armament ship (since an agreement had been signed for the absorption
of the Irgun into the Israel Defence Forces and one of the clauses
stated that the Irgun had to cease all independent arms acquisition
activities). On this traumatic day, the Israeli people turned into
an Israeli nation.
Arafat was not able to see beyond the "operational armed uprising"
against Israel. Not that he didn't want to – he tragically
could not. Arafat was a manipulator ruling by corruption
and conspiracy. He had a narrow concept of how to achieve his goals
and those goals were led by tactical moves rather than by a strategic
plan. He exploited the naiveté of the Palestinian people,
dragging them into misery, and he never had really any compassion
toward his own brothers and sisters.
Arafat is dead now and, hopefully, "chaotic Palestinianism"
has died with him. It is now up to the Palestinians to raise a new,
real leader to bring them to become a nation. The future
might not permit another failure.
Yossi Darr is the Jewish National Fund shaliach in Vancouver.
^TOP
|
|
