Issue 15
Sina Rahmani
Political Science Student at McMaster University
Hardly able to hold back their glee, North American Zionists almost right away began speculating on not only the effects of Chairman Arafat’s passing, but the causes as well. In a particularly riveting example of homophobia and racism, David Frum, former speech writer for the Bush administration, suggested that Arafat died of AIDS. This incredibly insulting—to both those afflicted with HIV/AIDS as well as to Palestinians—and ignorant claim circulated in the American popular media (Jay Leno raised the issue mockingly while interviewing NBC news anchor Brian Williams, who cowardly evaded the question).
Zionist affectations have dominated obituaries for Arafat. Many utilized an almost cookie-cutter format: place of birth (this fact is disputed--both Cairo and Jerusalem have been alleged ); his takeover of the Palestine Liberation Organization (which happened in 1969); his exile from Jordan in 1970s (at the hands of Jordan’s King Hussein); his failures in Lebanon (many Lebanese blame Arafat for Israel’s destructive invasion); his disastrous decision to support Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait (which lead to the cutoff of funds from the Gulf States); his participation in the Oslo Accords and his return to Palestine (Arafat arrived in Gaza in 1994 to a ticker-tape parade); the various “peace initiatives” lead by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton (which culminated in the massive failure at Camp David in 2000); the rise of the Second Intifada (which Arafat was purportedly said—although incorrectly—to be “leading”); and finally, his imprisonment in his Ramallah compound at the hands of Ariel Sharon's hard-right government (which lasted until his death in 2004). Most of the obituaries lament Arafat’s failure to evolve from a “terrorist to statesman” (as if “statesmen” never terrorized!).
But to those interested in a more nuanced analysis, one pervasive question underwrites any obituary for Chairman Arafat, namely, how does one look upon the life of a man whose life has been the inspiration of so much admiration and vitriol? The decisions that he and his party have made over the past 40 years touched the lives of countless populations, Arab and non-Arab alike. Consider for a moment Arafat’s decision to support Sadaam Hussein during the first Gulf War. The Gulf States, true to form, reacted by expelling thousands of Palestinian workers and their families. In addition to this, many of the PLO’s financial underwriters withdrew their dollars, which many in both Palestine/Israel and the larger diaspora depended upon. As a result, scholarships and job training programs that provided opportunities for refugees fell to tatters (especially in Lebanon, where Palestinians are seen as subhuman and are denied career opportunities). With the PLO in financial ruin and threats to his leadership emerging, Arafat, from his bombed out headquarters in Tunisia, began signaling to Israeli and American powers of his willingness to cooperate. This single act of desperation snowballed into a decade-long affair with Israel—which eventually failed. Not only did Oslo overwhelmingly fail, but it is arguable that the Palestinians are worse off now than before it began. Oslo was, and its progeny continue to be, a fig leaf helping to obfuscate the expansionist policies of successive Israeli governments. For instance, the “dove” Labor party under the leadership of Ehud Barak established more settlements (illegal under both international law and the Oslo Accords) than any other government, including the hard-right party of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Unfortunately for Arafat, his face will forever be associated with the handshake on the White House lawn, which was, for all intents and purpose, the beginning of the end for Arafat’s career as leader of the Palestinians. Not to suggest that any dealings with Israel are doomed from the beginning—but only to say that Oslo was so ridiculously biased against the Palestinians that anybody who would agree to such a deal could never win back the trust and support of a population. Inept leadership and increasing corruption marred the Palestinian Authority, and by the end of his life, Arafat ended up as yet another Arab strongman—surrounded by sycophants and yes-men. Like other (though not all) thugs in the Arab world, the U.S. initially supported his regime—because it was said to be making “security reforms.” Euphemistically legitimating the authoritarian policies of the P.A. (with its kangaroo courts and media censorship), the U.S. and Israel hoped an Egypt or Jordan-type regime would emerge under Arafat’s control: lead by a pliable, ill-informed leader who would not make too many waves and could be bribed with development dollars. Unfortunately for Israel and the U.S., Arafat had a penchant for inconsistency. Suddenly finding his rebellious streak, Arafat refused the “generous offer” (although generous within the Zionist economy) that Ehud Barak made him at Camp David in 2000, setting the stage for the election of Ariel Sharon and the rise of the second Intifada.
And yet, Arafat, for all his failings, forced the world to confront its Palestinian problem. As much of a nuisance for Arab leaders as they are for Zionists, Arafat came to embody Palestine. His trademark kuffiyeh (which was always molded into the shape of historic Palestine), his “freedom-fighter” pistol, and his beaming smile—his was one of the world’s most well-known faces. Even when he was sidelined, Palestinians still respected his achievements. He would entertain children at his compound as well as various foreign dignitaries. Even with Israeli soldiers surrounding his compound, Arafat still attempted to keep a semblance of normalcy for his leadership. But Arafat was never one for normalcy. Even his death, marred by questions of poisoning and suspicions of Israeli, American, and even Palestinian involvement, was shrouded in ambiguity, charges and counter-charges, and chaos. Yasir Arafat died the way he lived, with an ambiguous bang.
