PeaceWatch

Produced by the PEACE Middle East Dialog Group

Yasser Arafat is no Nelson Mandela

Anita Abu-Daya

It might surprise Middle East watchers. but the Palestinians see their struggle as being about freedom, self-determination, human rights, about people who were dispossessed and forced into refugee camps, people unable to build legally on land they own, about house demolitions and land confiscations. This, however, is not the way it is presented by the Palestinian leadership. Yasser Arafat does not conduct himself as a Palestinian Ghandi, Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr. Maybe he considers it humiliating to represent a weak people whose rights are being abused. Instead he struts around the world in his army fatigues, negotiating with Israel about territory as if he was a leader of a sovereign state bargaining over some "disputed land." The problem with this is that the negotiations were started with Israel controlling all the land. This allows various commentators in the US to exclaim "but Israel has already given up so much, what has Arafat given in return?" Nothing, he had nothing to give to start with, that's the whole point, Palestinians have no land!

There are many cases in history in which "right" won over "might." The Berlin wall is no more, the Apartheid regime is dismantled, blatant segregation is no longer practiced in the US. If the Palestinian President presented the Palestinian cause in terms of the rights to self-determination of the 2.9 millions Palestinians in the West Bank and the rights of the refugees to a normal life, he would have the best chance of achieving a Palestinian state. After all nobody but the most avowed racist can deny that the Palestinians should enjoy the rights that Israelis, Europeans, Americans and others take for granted. It is true that , peaceful human rights protests do not always achieve their aims. For example, many people might feel admiration for the Dalai Lama, but I wouldn't expect an end of the Chinese occupation of Tibet any time soon. The Palestinians, however, are in a better situation than the Tibetans. Israel prides itself on being the "only democracy in the Middle East," and the US wants to be seen as a protector of freedom and human rights around the world. The Palestinian situation is hardly compatible with those lofty ideas. Instead of "calling their bluff" and gaining the sympathy of the average-Israeli/American man in the street, Arafat has always preferred statements about throwing Israel into the sea, and anti-semitic pronouncements which are carefully collected by all the opponents of a Palestinian state. Nobody's ever achieved anything by threatening a much stronger nation with destruction or terrorism. Imagine Lech Walesa in the 1980's threatening to destroy the Soviet Union!

Perhaps you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Since 1967 Arafat has been making grandiose statements about liberating Palestine with blood and soul, and giving spectacular shows of violence. This strategy has advanced the Palestinian cause not one bit, but it has generated a lot of negative publicity for it.

The Intifada, though it also included atrocious acts of violence against innocent people, did advance the Palestinian cause. This is because it was mainly a spontaneous expression of the anger of the people in the West Bank and Gaza, who had had enough of the occupation and enough of the incompetence of their supposed "sole representative," who lived the high life in Beirut and then in Tunis. The Intifada, and Israel's attempts to squelch it, for once generated some sympathy for Palestinians, even in the US, and demonstrated to the Israeli "center" that the status quo in the West Bank couldn't go on for ever.

Arafat, however, is even squandering the gains of the Intifada. Not so long ago he announced "We (what we? he didn't have anything to do with it!) made the Intifada once and we can do it again." Consequently, many commentators in the US have portrayed Palestinians as automatons who only go into the streets and riot when Arafat incites them to do so, but who, left to themselves, would happily accept whatever Netanyahu offers them This is very far from the truth. If the current situation continues there will be another Intifada, or worse, whatever Arafat does. The dissatisfaction of "the average Palestinian in the street" with the "peace" (piece?) process is huge, and this is what Bibi's security advisers are telling him, when he lets them speak on the subject that is. Because of Arafat's boastful and stupid remarks, however, if there is an explosion of violence, it will not be seen as a spontaneous expression of Palestinian anger at the lack of freedom and self-determination, but as the result of Arafat's incitements to violence. Perhaps the Palestinian President just can't face the prospect that the Palestinian people en masse will be the decisive argument in achieving some justice for themselves, rather than his "brilliant" negotiation skills.

Of-course, Yasser Arafat would sound quite strange if he suddenly started raising human rights issues. The Israeli practices of imprisonment without charge, torture during interrogations are continued by the PNA security forces. The Palestinian legislative council seems to be a symbolic institution, since most of the legislature passed by them is not ratified by Arafat and therefore has no legal weight. Journalists who don't toe the line are jailed and books that criticize Arafat or the PNA are banned. This has nothing to do with fighting terrorism and security; these are the actions of a petty dictator who cannot tolerate people disagreeing with him.

Netanyahu has committed many errors. He has no answer to the fundamental question of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, not to mention the Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria. Even the Americans are uncomfortable with his policies. It would seem that such a weak and directionless leader on the Israeli side would be a godsend to the Palestinians. But hey, with leaders like Yasser Arafat who needs enemies?

Anita Abu-Daya

Philadelpha, PA