Destructive Legacy
When Joseph Stalin died, millions of Russians mourned the man who had murdered millions of their countrymen. Even today, there are those who mourn Stalin, though history regards his reign as his nation's darkest hour.
Such is the legacy of Yasser Arafat. He is responsible for the deaths of countless more Palestinians than Israelis, many on the long, brutal road to becoming the "sole legitimate representative" of the Palestinian people, not to mention the many who died in the current unnecessary war. Yet he will be mourned, sincerely, by millions of Palestinians as not just a charismatic leader but a nation-builder, the man who created Palestinian nationalism out of whole cloth and put that nation's statelessness on the agenda of the world.
This same "nation-builder," however, was anything but. By defining Palestinian nationalism in terms of one goal – Israel's destruction – he, more than any leader, denied his people a state.
Arafat was a destroyer, not a builder, because in addition to being the father of Palestinian nationalism, he was the father of something broader: modern terrorism. Arafat proved that terrorism could be used to gain legitimacy rather than lose it. If he had not been a terrorist, he would not have made it to the UN podium, pistol on his belt, in 1973, or to the White House lawn in 1993, or to Gaza from Tunis 10 years ago.
The last two stops, of course, were achieved by a promise to end and combat terrorism, a promise Arafat never kept. Even during Oslo's heyday, Palestinian officials would from time to time state frankly that terror had simply been put on hold until they could no longer squeeze anything more from Israel at the negotiating table. That time came at the 2000 Camp David summit when Arafat had a simple choice: start building the state he claimed he was fighting for, or return to terror and the struggle for the whole pie, for Israel itself.
Now Arafat's successors may ask that he be buried in Jerusalem. The irony is, if Arafat had accepted Ehud Barak's offer, he would likely have been buried in the Palestinian half of a divided Jerusalem, the capital of Palestine. Now he will not, symbolizing the statelessness that he perpetuated.
Arafat leaves another legacy: the first society in history to have glorified suicide-murders on a national scale, starting from grade-school children. It remains to be seen how that society – brought up on the fantasy of "return," on the notion that every Israeli city is a "settlement," and on the idea that Israel exists entirely on "stolen Palestinian land" – will inculcate a nationalism that is not based on Israel's destruction.
It is difficult to imagine that Arafat's immediate successors will be able to do anything more than begin to set their people on such a path. In this context, it is already being widely alleged that Israel missed an opportunity with Arafat, since he was the only leader who could have permanently shut down the Palestinian war against Israel. The opposite is the case: it was only Arafat's charisma, status, and Herculean efforts that were able to keep the war with Israel alive.
Still, if Arafat was increasingly failing to preside over a coalition of terror and, simultaneously, saddle Israel with the charge of blocking peace, then his successors will be even less able to pull the trigger of terror and point the finger of blame at the same time.
Nor will Arafat's successors be able to sustain another of his tragic legacies: one-man rule. Only Arafat was able to take a people that, in principle, was one of the best educated, worldly, and democracy-oriented in the Arab world and, with the approval of Israel and the international community, impose upon it a ruthless police state.
The temptation of the moment will be to judge the new Palestinian leadership solely by its degree of control. If such control is to be used in the service of peace, however, it must be grounded in a foundation of democratic legitimacy. In the long-term, truly representative government is more important than one that is superficially quiescent to the international community, because corrupt dictatorships inevitably rely upon external conflict to sustain themselves
jpost.com |
