The
Unfinished Saga of Yasser Arafat
By Dr M. A. Muqtedar
Khan
Director of International Studies
Chair, Political Science Department
Adrian College
Non-Resident Fellow, Brookings Institution
The death of Yasser Arafat in a way brings to
an end that era of decolonization which was led
by charismatic, revolutionary leaders, fighting
for a national homeland as part of the global
struggle for equality, justice, freedom and above
all self determination.
The mid twentieth century witnessed the rise of
charismatic nativism personified in leaders such
as Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Fidel Castro in
Cuba, Nelson Mandela in South Africa, and Yasser
Arafat in Palestine. These leaders captured the
imagination of their people who yearned for freedom
and dignity and also captured the media attention
of the West which, while often aligned against
them, remained mesmerized by their politics, their
rhetoric, and their sacrifice for their cause.
Arafat was a man of inherent contradictions. He
won the highest honor that our planet bestows
on people for working towards peace [The Nobel
Prize for Peace in 1994], but he also is in many
ways the man who internationalized, even glamorized
terrorism, by using it to put the Palestinian
cause on the global agenda. Yasser Arafat spent
the better part of his life fighting for freedom
for his people, but when he had the opportunity
to govern them as the first President of the Palestinian
Authority he proved to be a dictator rather than
a democrat.
Spectacular Success and
Spectacular Failures
In his struggle for a Palestinian
homeland Arafat enjoyed spectacular success as
well as spectacular failures.
Arafat’s success lies in the fact that the
Palestinian state is not only high on the global
agenda but is now a foregone conclusion. What
remains to be determined is the boundaries of
this state. As the leader of the movement for
nearly half a century, he founded the Fatah organization
in 1958 and became the chairman of the Palestinian
Liberation Organization in 1969. Since then Arafat
has managed to keep the Arab world and to some
extent the Muslim world focused on the Palestinians'
plight and aspirations. It would not be a stretch
to claim that for the Arab world today there is
no bigger cause than the Palestinian cause.
Muslim and Christian Arabs, Islamist and secular
Muslim Arabs may disagree on the role of Islam
in their society, but there is near universal
consensus on the right of the Palestinians to
have a homeland in Palestine with Jerusalem as
its capital. Arafat’s public diplomacy in
the Arab world, assisted by the political logic
of the Arab nations, is responsible for this passion
for Palestine that rages in Arab hearts today.
Even though he started by believing that the Palestinian
state could be realized through armed struggle,
it is to Arafat’s credit that he managed
to shift to diplomacy and peace processes as the
dominant instrument in the quest for Palestinian
statehood. Those who are cynical about his Nobel
Peace Prize do not give Arafat his due credit
for this transformation. From terrorist to global
statesman is not an easy journey; Arafat accomplished
this without losing sight of his cause or the
support, love, and dedication of his followers.
Once he gave up armed struggle, his popularity
and influence extended to include Europe along
with Asia and Africa.
Arafat’s failures are as spectacular as
his successes. One of his major failures was his
inability to wrest a viable state during the last
days of the Clinton presidency. That was the closest
the world ever was to resolving the Arab-Israeli
conflict and Chairman Arafat must share with President
Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak the
responsibility for its failure and the subsequent
chaos. While many in the US have tried to blame
him alone for the failure of the peace process,
in all fairness to Arafat, the offer on the table
was not acceptable.
Arafat’s failure in my opinion was not in
rejecting whatever was offered but in his inability
to bring more multilateral pressure on the US
and Israel at that time to make more concessions.
One area where Arafat had failed to register any
success throughout his life was in the arena of
American public opinion, and this weakness translated
into a feeble bargaining position in those tripartite
talks. This failure becomes more evident when
one witnesses the support he enjoyed in Europe.
Perhaps Arafat’s biggest failure was his
inability to maintain ideological coherence and
unity within the Palestinian movement. The emergence
of the Islamic movement as an alternative to his
more or less center-left secular Fatah movement
has divided the Palestinian people and their aspirations.
This cleavage within Palestinian society continues
to undermine the resolution of the peace process
and may continue to haunt the Palestinians even
after their independence.
Arafat's Legacy
Arafat will leave behind a legacy but no competent
leadership to fill the void in his absence. His
authoritarian ways, his secretive management,
and his self-centered leadership style have precluded
the emergence of a successor who enjoys both domestic
credibility and international respect. He leaves
behind chaos and hopelessness as the peace process
is indefinitely stalled, the Palestinian Authority
is in disarray, and there is no clear line of
succession.
Until a new leader emerges to resurrect the Palestinian
Authority and restore its credibility and effectiveness,
the Islamic movements, Hamas in particular, will
remain the main proponent of the Palestinian cause.
The prospects for the immediate future of the
Palestinian people remain bleak. As they bury
their leader, these orphans of the world will
look to the rest of the world for leadership and
support in these difficult times.
Arafat was successful in advancing and popularizing
a vision of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem
at its capital. If only he had also advanced a
vision of an Israeli state coexisting peacefully
with Palestine and its other Arab nations and
made that vision just as popular, then perhaps
he would be remembered as one of the greatest
revolutionary peacemakers in history. But Arafat’s
legacy will have to be satisfied with the judgment
that he was the father of the Palestinian nationhood,
a charismatic leader who transformed himself from
a terrorist to a statesman, albeit an authoritarian
one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
