Yasir Arafat, a True Peacemaker

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Memo
To: Website Fans, Browsers, Clients
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Sorry, I like the guy

You have to understand that Yasir Arafat has been demonized by the
American political establishment almost to the degree they have
done a number on Saddam Hussein. Both men were considered good guys
in Washington as long as they were acting on behalf of perceived
U.S. interests, but as the world turned in another direction they
were thrown to the U.S. media wolves. Now apparently on his death
bed, Arafat has even less opportunity to defend himself. The New
York Times yesterday devoted a lead editorial to blasting him
for refusing to agree to the peace plan offered him at Camp David
by President Clinton in 2000. Boo on the Times! Here
is a memo on the margin I wrote about the alleged “peace plan,”

which the Times can not dispute, but which it prefers to
ignore.

With Arafat now in a Paris hospital on life support, it is fairly
obvious that his time as the Palestinian leader is over. The Islamic
news network, Al Jazeera asked me for my thoughts. Here is
what I wrote, which appeared on the network’s English website yesterday:

Before
Arafat’s Eternal Rest
by Jude Wanniski
Friday 05 November

On hearing of the reported death of Yasir Arafat during his first
post-election press conference, President Bush said his first thought
was “God bless his soul."

It was a terse, proper response for the president. As a private
American citizen, I would have added: “He was a good man, greatly
unappreciated in my country, especially in the last years of his
life.”

Here are my first thoughts.

Ever since he shook hands with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
on 13 September 1993, I have been an admirer of Yasir Arafat. It
was Rabin’s decision to secretly negotiate with Arafat, the leader
of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which led to the Oslo
Accords of that year, giving hope to the prospect of at long last
reaching a settlement between Arabs and Israelis.

It was no surprise to me that a year later he and Rabin were awarded
the Prize for Peace by the Nobel Committee “to honour a political
act which called for great courage on both sides” and to “serve
as an encouragement to all the Israelis and Palestinians who are
endeavouring to establish lasting peace in the region."

What remains a surprise to me is that Arafat seemed to have lost
his standing as a peacemaker even though there was nothing tangible
to warrant that decline.

From my standpoint, he had been admirable in doing the best he could
with the cards stacked against him in Washington and Tel Aviv, yet
was treated like a pariah among the leaders of the Arab world.

We all know that Arafat had been a “terrorist” foot soldier in his
early PLO days, but from 1974 when he became head of its political
department, the record is clear that he did direct his energies
to political persuasion and diplomacy instead of confrontation and
terror.

Now, 30 years later and a decade after winning the Nobel Peace prize,
he seems closer to his eternal rest than ever, having practically
been a prisoner of the Israel government in his compound at Ram
Allah during these last years.

Obviously, the ascension of Ariel Sharon as prime minister in the
spring of 2001 was the reason the American people had been told
repeatedly that Arafat had no “credibility” as a negotiator.

This is because the Jewish political establishment in the United
States has made it a practice to back the wishes of whichever party
is in power in Israel, Labour or Likud.

When Labour was in power, with Rabin or Shimon Peres or with Ehud
Barak, there was not only gentlemanly discourse with Arafat that
advanced the peace process in the region.

The practice of unity among American Jews saw to it that Arafat
was then treated with respect in the two major political parties
in America and in the major news media.

All that ended because of Sharon’s personal animosity towards Arafat,
a burning hatred I’ve rarely observed of one political leader of
another.

When Sharon said he would not negotiate with Arafat under any circumstance,
it did not matter to the American political community that Arafat
was the chosen, elected leader of the Palestinian Authority.

It did not matter that he was still beloved by the Arab masses,
if not the Arab heads of state. It is the nature of the American
political process at this point in time that because Sharon wanted
Arafat discredited, even demonised, that’s the way it would be.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations
spoke with one voice to both President Bush and the Republicans
and Senator Kerry and the Democrats.

The Jewish leaders may be divided on every other political issue
before the American people, but when it comes to Israel’s wishes,
they get their way because they have enormous power.

It may seem strange to supporters of the Palestinian cause that
President Bush would receive Ariel Sharon in the Oval Office every
few months during the last three years and not once even contact
Yasir Arafat. It is even more amazing to me that practically every
American I know believes Arafat has been the stumbling block to
the peace process.

The reason is that President Clinton, who in 1993 helped nudge Yitzhak
Rabin towards Oslo and the peace process, in his last months in
office was so eager to nail down a settlement that he tried to get
Arafat to swallow a half-baked plan. Out of pique, Clinton spread
the word that Arafat walked away from Camp David even though Ehud
Barak had offered him 95% of what he wanted.

Most Americans are still unaware that Arafat did not “walk away,"
but instead arranged to continue negotiations with the Israelis
away from Camp David, at Taba in Egypt, away from the spotlight.

In six days, the plan was almost fully baked, so much so that after
suspending for the Israeli elections, the two sides issued a joint
statement that read in part: “The Israeli and Palestinian delegations
conducted during the last six days serious, deep and practical talks
with the aim of reaching a permanent and stable agreement between
the two parties.

“The
Taba talks were unprecedented in their positive atmosphere and expression
of mutual willingness to meet the national, security and existential
needs of each side. Given the circumstances and time constraints,
it proved impossible to reach understandings on all issues, despite
the substantial progress that was achieved in each of the issues
discussed. The sides declare that they have never been closer to
reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the
remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations
following the Israeli elections …

“[I]n
light of the significant progress in narrowing the differences between
the sides, the two sides are convinced that in a short period of
time and given an intensive effort and the acknowledgment of the
essential and urgent nature of reaching an agreement, it will be
possible to bridge the differences remaining and attain a permanent
settlement of peace between them. In this respect, the two sides
are confident that they can begin and move forward in this process
at the earliest practical opportunity.” As it happened, of course,
the election turned Barak out, in favour of Sharon. Not only did
the Likud prime minister not resume the Taba talks, he scrapped
the whole idea of talks, reflecting the fact that Likud officially
opposes the very idea of a Palestinian state.

I personally can at least imagine that if Taba had resumed and concluded
under Labour’s auspices, a primary motive for the suicide bombing
on 9-11 later that year would have been removed and perhaps the
Twin Towers would still be standing.

These are thoughts that come naturally to anyone who knew how serious
Yasir Arafat had been in a search for peace. The thoughts do not
come to most Americans for the reasons I mentioned above, but still
I wonder why they did not occur to the leaders of the Arab League.

An Arab-American I know tells me it is because unlike the Arab masses,
who loved Arafat and now worry over his grave illness, the leaders
all have their own fish to fry with Washington and Arafat’s faithfulness
to his goals often became a hindrance to theirs.

If so, perhaps if Arafat passes away at this crucial moment he will
have handed his last gift to the Palestinian people. He can no longer
be an excuse in Tel Aviv or Washington or in the Arab League to
delay yet again the realisation of his lifelong dream of a Palestinian
state.

November
8, 2004

Jude
Wanniski [send him mail]
runs the financial/political advisory service Wanniski.com.
(If you subscribe,
and check LewRockwell.com
in the referring website pull-down,
LRC gets 10%.)

Jude
Wanniski Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts