Arafat's mixed legacy

By H.D.S. Greenway
November 12, 2004

IN THE harsh and relentless struggle between Arab and Jew over land in the Middle East, now in its second century, it is remarkable how long its actors stay on stage. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has fought in all of Israel's wars, is 76. Opposition leader Shimon Peres, who was instrumental in procuring weapons for the survival of the nascent state more than half a century ago, is 81.

Their old antagonist and interlocutor, Yasser Arafat, died at 75. For most Palestinians, he came to represent the very embodiment of their national aspirations. He stepped into limelight 46 years ago when he founded his Fatah movement -- a movement he still headed as he lay dying in a foreign land.

If Arafat represented the dream of nationhood to Palestinians, an inspiring leader who led the struggle for so many years, to Israelis he was treachery and cunning incarnate. In fact he was both.

His highest moment was sharing the Nobel Peace Prize for reaching a historic compromise to divide the land that both Israelis and Palestinians held sacred. His lowest ebb had to be his last years as the prisoner of Ramallah under virtual house arrest by Ariel Sharon in his shattered compound that had once been visited by diplomats and world leaders who hoped that a new nation was being born in Palestine.

That hope died in the blood of the second intifada, which still sputters on. In Israel and the United States, Arafat was blamed for that failure, and, in part, blame was deserved. Arafat had promised that violence to achieve political ends would end. It did not. But Israel broke its promises too, especially in the arena of Jewish settlements, and there was blame enough on both sides for the descent into violence.

The Palestinian struggle has long been laced with terror. But terror also played its role in the birth of Israel. Life Magazine, back in 1946 during the British mandate, said: "The most sinister word in Palestine today is Irgun, the name of a highly secret, supernationalist Jewish terrorist organization . . . " responsible for many acts of violence. The Irgun told Life: "We fight because we must. The British have become an occupying force in this country."

Three decades later, Irgun leader Menachem Begin became prime minister of Israel and presided over a peace with Egypt. I asked him one morning years ago in his office in Jerusalem about his terrorist past, and he said only, "It was necessary."

Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization took terror to new levels of horror. But Yasser Arafat, in his Beirut hideout, told me the same thing. And Palestinians today will tell you that they fight because the Israelis are the occupying force. Cycles of violence seem unending in what Life Magazine, almost 60 years ago, called "one of the bitterest conflicts in the world."

There is a difference. Unlike Begin, Arafat never made the transition from a guerrilla chieftain into a leader who could share and delegate power. His leadership of the Palestinian Authority was rife with corruption and graft, to the despair of many of his followers. Although he could accept a two-state solution, he could not find within himself the qualities necessary to make it a reality, and the chance for peace, imperfect though it might have been, was lost. In this he let down his countrymen as much as he did the Israelis.

In his passing there will be power struggles, because he left such an unsettled estate. But there will also be opportunities.

Sharon has been telling his countrymen that "the bitter struggle over land cannot be determined only by the sword," and, "We don't want to forever rule over millions of Palestinians who are doubling their numbers every generation." But he wraps his plan to withdraw from Gaza as a chance to strengthen Israel's hold on the West Bank -- a formula for future strife.

Israel and the United States have to resist the impulse to dictate to the Palestinians who their leader must be, as they did in their rejection of Arafat. Saeb Erekat has said for the Palestinians: "I am urging President Bush to allow us to have elections." If he "wants to bring democracy to the Middle East, he can start with us."

Whether Sharon really wants a viable Palestinian negotiating partner is, at this point, still in doubt. And President Bush usually does what Sharon wants.