The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Why Palestinians still back Arafat

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Nov 03, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Why Palestinians still back Arafat

By Karma Nabulsi

Palestinians value their democracy and will not accept a pliant successor.

WHY HAS Yasser Arafat not "groomed" a successor (like some petty oriental despot), commentators have demanded to know in recent days, and why he is leaving a chaotic power vacuum? What has been striking about these questions is not so much their wilful ignorance of the Palestinian reality but the underlying assumptions they reflect.

The first is that the ailing Palestinian leader is now either marginal or worse, the obstacle to peace. And the new hero of peace, as championed by the liberal press on the back of the Gaza disengagement plan, is now Ariel Sharon. How closely the debate in the United Kingdom has come to embracing the Israeli Likud view of the Palestinians.

Most discussion of the Middle East conflict in the West now appears to be based on three premises: Mr. Arafat is not a partner for peace, but promotes terror; Mr. Arafat will not let go of the "reins of power," especially the security services; and Mr. Arafat is undemocratic and is blocking necessary reform of Palestinian institutions.

But it is not the Palestinians who are refusing democracy and representation. They are struggling to hold on to it by any means they can. Instead, it is the United States and Israeli Governments that are seeking to create institutions that would be undemocratic, and to find Palestinian leaders who will be unrepresentative. We have no vacuum of power. We have the PLO and the Palestine National Council, we have a legislative council in the West Bank and Gaza.

Yet since 2000, the Israeli, U.S. and British Governments have been working hard to impose a warlord to run Gaza after the "disengagement" (even though Israel will remain firmly in control there), as well as the remaining enclaves in the West Bank. They have been training him for this task in Britain — the very man who was responsible for what is widely regarded as having been the most corrupt of the Gaza security apparatuses. They want Mr. Arafat to cede control of the PLO, of which he is elected chairman, and the Palestinian Authority, of which he is the elected president, because they have found someone they believe they can control.

When Mr. Arafat represents all Palestinians, as he has by refusing exile (he would never have left without an assurance he could return), as he did by refusing to sign away basic rights as demanded of him at Camp David, Palestinians support him. Palestinians know what they lose by continuing to fight for their freedom: their livelihood, their lives. But they support Mr. Arafat because he represents them. And because of that basic trust, he is the one leader who has been able to make the most compromises and exact the most difficult concessions from his own people. Mr. Arafat is, after all, the architect of the Oslo peace accords, in contrast to Ehud Barak and Mr. Sharon, who both voted against the accords in the Knesset.

At the Camp David meetings in 2000, the then Israeli Prime Minister Barak insisted the Palestinians cede on central issues, such as Jerusalem and refugee rights. Since Mr. Arafat refused, Mr. Barak has never ceased to brand him a terrorist who wants the destruction of Israel and blamed Mr. Arafat's refusal for the continuing conflict — rather than Israel's failure to address any core issue, such as its increased settlement building during the Oslo years.

Bill Clinton and Mr. Barak's post-Camp David spin that the Palestinians were offered everything and gave nothing in return has been comprehensively refuted, yet these myths are continually repeated in the U.K. and U.S. press.

Worse, these claims helped ignite the existential Israeli fears in the aftermath of that meeting, which Mr. Sharon fanned into a wall of fire, destruction, expansion and conquest in pursuit of a Greater Israel and the denial of any possibility of an independent Palestinian state.

As Dov Weisglass, Mr. Sharon's senior adviser, spelt out last month: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state ... the disengagement is actually formaldehyde." Yet political leaders and journalists continue to praise the disengagement as "a first step towards a peace process."

What these defenders of Likud strategy do not grasp is well understood by the Palestinians, who continue to support Mr. Arafat. In order to be a leader you must first represent your people, and not abandon them to their conquerors in times of foreign occupation or colonial rule. Mr. Arafat seeks peace, but not at any price.

You can be a great leader in prison, in a broken-down compound, in hospital, even once you have given your life. That is why the Palestinians overwhelmingly voted for Mr. Arafat, and would do so again today. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

(Karma Nabulsi is a Research Fellow at Nuffield College/Oxford University and a former PLO representative in Britain.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

PREJUDICED AND POLITICALLY SUSPECT

BELLIGERENT POSTURING

Change in Myanmar

Why Palestinians still back Arafat