Arafat: Not the Man of His People or Time
Watching CSpan before work yesterday morning, I listened to a call from a Palestinian sympathizer of African descent who asked the panel of two what difference there is between Mandela's struggle in South Africa and Arafat's in Palestine (his implication--both are/were places of occupation and subjugation and there is little difference between the two). John Fund, a conservative writer for the WSJ Opinion page, gave a fantastic answer: Mandela agreed to no violence and to respect private property rights, and would and did enforce these pledges among his people. While indigenous South Africans' struggle and ultimate success against the British went on for a longer period of time than the current 1967-2004 period of Palestinian boundaries (interestingly these 37 years were also Arafat's "leadership" period), it was not until Mandela's arrival in the '50s and subsequent period of jailing that any type of progress at all began to take place.
The point I'm driving toward is Arafat was not the right man at this point in Palestinian history for the progress of his people. The Palestinian struggle is nascent relative to that of South Africans, and perhaps Nelson Mandela's importance in his country's history comes from the fact that he lived entirely within the period of British occupation and knew nothing else but that. On the other hand, Arafat was born in 1929 and still held, until his death, visions of grandeur for the Palestine of a time past, pre-1948--that is, a wholly unrealistic view of the present which is likely why he rejected the Barak offer in 2000. The hope I have and conclusion I make between the two struggles is that one among the present and younger generation of Palestinians now rising to power and influence will become the Palestinians' Nelson Mandela and consolidate his people behind him.
2 Comments:
I agree with you Scott. This is the time for the true proponants of peace to step forward.
There are some other key differences between the plight of the black South Africans and Palestinians. South Africa has a significant Indian population. And it's my understanding that Ghandi spent some time living in South Africa. The point being that I think the concept of passive, non-violent resistance was an easier sell, culturally.
It is the failure to put a sincere effort into trying passive resistance that has disappointed me the most about the Palestinian cause. And the success stories go well beyond just India and South Africa. But, ultimately I think it gets down to culture.
Another part of the equation here is the Israeli's. When fighting the British, the Israeli Jews certainly didn't opt for passive resistance either. Some of Prime Minister Sharon's alleged War Crimes date back to this period where he and men under his command used tactics not unlike those of some Palestinians today. Terrorism and mass murder were tactics used by early Israeli freedom fighters. It's a culturally acceptable way of doing things in that part of the world. So, it's a bit unrealistic to hold today's Palestinians to a different level of expectations given the history of the conflict.
None of that should be construed as a defense of Arafat at all. It's not! All I'm saying is that context is important if one honestly wants to understand the conflict.
Another key difference is that Mandela had a much tighter grip on power than Arafat. Arafat was constantly challenged, particularly in the last decade.
The Barak offer in 2000 wasn't viable. That's why Arafat told Clinton that if he signed the deal that he'd be dead within a week. And you can bet that if Arafat were assasinated, the deal would have been as dead as if he never signed it... a fact which is almost always ommitted when the issue of the Barak offer is mentioned.
I agree that Arafat was not the right man at the right time. But, neither is Sharon or Netenyahu. Barak came closer than anyone. Not at Camp David, but later just before he was voted out of office. According to statements made by both sides, Barak's government and the PA almost achieved an agreement in the hours before Barak was voted out of office. Netenyahu, who succeded Barak, had no interest in peace and didn't follow thru on the negotiations. That was the golden opportunity that was missed, not the earlier Camp David negotiations with Clinton.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home