|
The death of Arafat raises some of the most pressing questions ever to be faced in the Middle East. Karl Schembri looks at the possible scenarios after President Arafat and asks analysts and diplomats for their views
Now that the world has bid farewell to Yasser Arafat – the leader of the Palestinian people and the embodiment of their cause – the questions which until a couple of weeks ago were only theoretical are now clearly emerging and will inevitably have to be faced.
Observers and world leaders view Arafat’s demise as the end of a chapter in the history of the Middle East and the opening of a new one filled with uncertainties. Hopes for new opportunities are met with pessimistic outlooks, particularly fuelled by the fear that darker days lie ahead if the Palestinians fail to quickly develop a popular, united leadership.
So far, a triumvirate is leading the Palestinians. Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei is effectively in charge of the Palestinian Authority, which has control over much of Gaza and the areas in the West Bank; although on paper the caretaker president for the next 60 days is the virtually unknown Parliament Speaker Rauhi Fattouh, who will remain in office until elections are held.
Mahmoud Abbas, the former Prime Minister, has taken over the leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, which unites together a spectrum of factions.
Both Qurei and Abbas are considered moderates by the US and Israel although they do not enjoy enough popularity among the Palestinians.
The third leader to emerge is Foreign Minister Farouk Kaddoumi, a hardliner who aspires to head the PLO and who will now be heading the largest Palestinian faction under the banner of Fatah.
Whether or not this unprecedented sharing of power between these three leaders will work is a big question, and will be followed by other worrying issues that the region and the world community will have to face. Will there be a frenzied power struggle? Will Arafat’s death open new opportunities or bring more chaos? How will the new leadership continue its struggle to regain the Palestinians’ homeland? Will there be a chance for the peace process?
Apart from the Palestinians, much will depend on Israel and the US. The latter’s record so far has been abysmal and there has been no indication that things will change for the better, although George Bush’s desire to make his mark in history may lead him to push harder for a return to the peace process. Also, Sharon’s disengagement plan from Gaza is being viewed by some as a positive development in this regard.
Credited for bringing the Palestinian cause to world attention for the last 40 years, dismissed by others as a corrupt terrorist, Arafat will remain the symbol of resistance in the face of Israeli oppression of his people.
“Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun,” he had told the UN General Assembly in 1974 in his famous speech which marked his debut as a world revolutionary icon, 20 years after he received the Nobel Peace Prize together with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. “Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: do not let the olive branch fall from my hands.”
It is now up to his followers, and to Israel, to grasp the olive branch and dare let go of the gun.
A life of trials, errors and achievements – Guido de Marco, President Emeritus, former Foreign Minister and UN General Assembly President
“I’ve known President Arafat for these last 14 years. He was a natural born leader. He managed to direct the Palestinian people, who were defeated and had lost faith in having their own country, their own territory, into a people directed towards a goal: the State of Palestine. It was a difficult life for President Arafat; a life of trials, errors and achievements. The main achievement was to ensure, in spite of all the sufferings they had been going through, that Palestinians could believe in their State – something which is incredibly strong.
“President Arafat was a man who passed through very difficult times, both for him and his people. But I think the Arafat that emerged as a result of the Oslo process was an Arafat committed to the peace process. “Peace is the only alternative for the future. I think the future will show that the leadership of Arafat was essential to bring Isreal and Palestine closer together. At the moment there are differing opinions, especially in Israel and in certain areas in the West, but I think time will show the true nature of the leadership of Yasser Arafat. He was basically a man committed to peace. He was a man desiring to see Palestinians at peace with their neighbours; living in peace in their own land. That was the aim of Arafat.
“From now on we have to expect a new leadership to emerge, to carry on with Arafat’s teachings and at the same time keep the Palestinians together. The latter is more difficult than the first, because Arafat - through his personality - managed to keep all together, whether they were extremists, Hamas, fundamentalists, and his own followers under the PLO. The new leadership will have some more difficulty in doing so, lacking the prestige he had. But I’m sure they will emerge with a new leadership, and new strategies to reach solutions, which Arafat, because of his past, could not possibly always reach.”
Successes and failures – Ambassador George Saliba, formerly posted in Saudi Arabia, Tripoli, Moscow, the US and the UN
“Yasser Arafat, or Mr Palestine, as he was sometimes referred to, is synonymous with the Palestinian cause. A cause that he resurrected and kept alive. In 1967, after the Arab defeat in the Six Day War, the situation was such that then Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir was asked about the Palestinians and her answer was, ‘Who are the Palestinians?’
Arafat brought the cause of Palestine back to the fore. In his long span as the undisputed leader of the Palestinian people he had successes and failures. He moved towards official recognition of the State of Israel, not without opposition from within his own movement. He was one of the main architects of the Oslo accords. The fact that he died without having achieved his dream could be considered a failure, though success did not totally depend on him.
In my opinion more progress could have been achieved post-Oslo if settlement activity had come to a halt. This is still the main problem for a just solution to the Middle East problem.
“As we look into a post-Arafat scenario, I hope to see a more robust US involvement in the peace process and a more even handed approach in this issue.”
Time for reason to prevail – Joseph Cassar, Maltese Ambassador in Russia, formerly ambassador to the UN
I had the opportunity to meet Arafat when Professor De Marco visited Ramallah after the first elections ever. It was a moment of hope and optimism. I met him again some two years later when he was isolated by the Israelis in his compound, and even in those difficult times he still showed a great sense of determination and faith in the dream of establishing Palestinian state.
“Malta has always been close to the Palestinians, both political Parties have strong ties, which had led us to the formation the Committee for Solidarity with the People of Palestine. The unity between the two Maltese Parties about this cause, even during the most agitated political periods in Malta, is a great signal of the legitimacy of the Palestinian people and of their right to live in their own land.
“Arafat’s death has shocked everyone, even though we all knew he was seriously ill. Now, his absence may open the door of force instead of reason, and there is also concern there will not be another leader as charismatic as Arafat to control all the different factions. This should strengthen the will of those who believe in reason to come forward. I believe there are enough sensible people in the Middle East to realise this. Now is the time for people who believe in reason to stand up and be counted.”
No more excuses – Mohammed El Sadi, Palestinian refugee and Imam of the Muslim community in Malta
President Yasser Arafat was a great man. He dedicated his life to the Palestinian cause; he was and still is a symbol of the Palestinian people’s struggle for freedom and independence. He was always present and involved in all diplomatic, political and military battles for Palestine. Through his efforts and sacrifices he brought in the Palestinian question and the sufferings of the Palestinians to every home in the world. It is true that he could not fulfil his dream of establishing the Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, but he succeeded in making the Palestinian state a legitimate right recognised by the world. Certainly the Palestinian people will continue their struggle by all legitimate means till the establishment of the Palestinian state and the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homeland.
The Israeli government considered leader Arafat as an obstacle to peace. Now Arafat is gone and Israel has no excuse. The solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is obvious; Israel has to comply with the resolutions of the UN Security Council by withdrawing from the Palestinian occupied territories and leave the Palestinians free to establish their democratic state. The US administration, with its great influence has the moral obligation to practice all possible means of pressure on Israel to act according to the world’s legitimate will and put an end to the tragedy of the Palestinian people.”
Questions and choices – Ranier Fsadni, anthropologist and
political commentator
Yasser Arafat dominated Palestinian politics not only by dint of sheer personal qualities, but also because he occupied all the key roles and controlled the levers of patronage. Now these roles and instruments – leadership of Fatah (the leading movement within the PLO), chairmanship of the PLO, and presidency of the Palestinian Authority (PA) – have just been or are about to be separated and distributed between different politicians. A stable outcome requires skilled improvisation and constructive engagement from many sides.
One real question is whether Fatah, under Mr Arafat’s successor, Farouk Kaddoumi, can maintain its unity. Mr Kaddoumi has refused to return to the PA since he remains opposed to the Oslo agreement. But this means he does not have effective control over Fatah in Gaza and the West Bank. If Fatah fragments, this might benefit the Islamist organisation, Hamas.
Nor is there a clear successor to the PA presidency. This is partly because Mr Arafat ensured he had no serious rival in popularity, and partly because the candidates considered most acceptable by Israel (Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmed Qurei, the former and current PA prime ministers) have little popular credibility in the Palestinian ‘street,’ while the most popular Palestinian politicians (a younger generation raised in the post-1967 West Bank and Gaza) would probably not be recognised by Israel.
One cannot completely separate Palestinian choices from Israeli choices. A proper plebiscite in the Palestinian Authority requires facilitation by Israel – lifting of roadblocks to enable campaigning, etc.
And the (real) choice of candidates partly depends on Israel. One very popular potential candidate is Marwan Barghouti, 45, who is in an Israeli gaol. He might well stand for election even if he is not released. However, the Israeli government has already indicated that it will take the election of Mr Barghouti as a sign that the Palestinian people are not yet ready for peace.
Finally, it should be said that a peace agreement might also depend on the negotiating method. The step-by-step method associated with Oslo has not worked. A different method – agreeing on a mutually acceptable outcome first, and only then working out, in backward fashion, how to arrive at it – has the support of some Palestinians and Israelis. Whether they will persuade their respective sides, however, remains to be seen.
karl@newsworksltd.com
|
