WASHINGTON, 12 November 2004 — The world woke up yesterday to the news of Yasser Arafat’s death. Arafat, who forced his people’s plight into the world spotlight but failed to achieve his lifelong quest for a Palestinian nation, was pronounced dead this morning at the French military hospital where he had been under intensive care since Oct. 29. He was to the end a man of many mysteries and paradoxes — freedom fighter to some, terrorist to others; he remained the Palestinians’ statesman, autocrat and peacemaker.
As the scramble now begins to decipher his legacy and the future of the Palestinian people and its leadership, the United States made clear that Arafat’s death creates an opportunity for negotiations to resume between the US and Palestinian leadership.
The US “remains ready to engage with the Palestinian leadership, as the Palestinian leaders define that leadership, toward the [US] president’s vision of two states living side-by-side in peace: Israel and the state of Palestine,” Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters while in Mexico City earlier this week.
Yesterday, President Bush reiterated this commitment: “The death of Yasser Arafat is a significant moment in Palestinian history. We express our condolences to the Palestinian people. For the Palestinian people, we hope that the future will bring peace and the fulfillment of their aspirations for an independent, democratic Palestine that is at peace with its neighbors. During the period of transition that is ahead, we urge all in the region and throughout the world to join in helping make progress toward these goals and toward the ultimate goal of peace.”
With commendable timing, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy called together three Jewish Mideast experts who spoke yesterday on the implications of Arafat’s departure from the political stage for Palestinians, and what this could mean for the US and Israel — and Mideast Peace.
Aaron David Miller, former deputy special Middle East coordinator in the Clinton administration, met with Arafat in Ramallah two weeks ago. Miller said what made the peace process difficult was that the last four years of the Bush administration had offered “no third party mediator, no framework, and no road map.”
Looking at the near future, Miller said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “wants to trade Gaza for a consolidation of Israel’s control of the West Bank. The irony is that Israel’s two actions — the security fence and Gaza withdrawal hold the possibility of a 2-state solution, which could essentially present an opportunity for negotiations.”
Examining the after-Arafat possibilities, he said: “The current Israeli government has refused to negotiate with Arafat, but his successors could offer a solution. The ‘Oslo-Tunis elites,’ Abu Mayan and Abu Alaa will try to put together a transitional authority.”
What’s at issue, he said, is not the success of the process, but who will emerge that can competently represent the Palestinians.
Arafat dominated Palestinian politics for 50 years; said Miller, currently president of Seeds of Peace, and warned that his death could create a vacuum in the occupied territories that might lead to a civil war.
“The challenge is what the warlords in Jenin, Gaza, and Nablus, and the criminal activity there will do.” Would the new leadership be able to reassert its control and present itself as a credible alternative to Hamas for the Palestinian people? he asked, and would this new Palestinian Authority have the power to negotiate while under Israeli occupation?
Miller urged Bush to find a balance between “the over-engagement of the Clinton administration and the disengagement of the first Bush administration.
“Finding the right balance of American leadership is crucial,” he said, because no-one knew what would happen in Israel and Palestine during the next few years.
To prevent chaos in the occupied territories, Miller said the US needs to work with the Palestinians now.
“If the Palestinians want to empower a successor through elections, the US should try to work with them to make it happen. The US should then open a serious dialogue with Arab’s successor and the government of Israel.”
The US can do, this, Miller said, because of its good relations with the Israeli government. “The Bush administration can get serious with Israel, because Bush has more money in the bank with Israel than any other US president.”
As for regional peace, Miller cautioned that stability amongst the Palestinians was essential “as the US will eventually withdraw from Iraq and it needs security on the ground, including in Palestine.”
“We are in a region that has not yet made up its mind, which is why we must succeed,” said Miller. “The Mideast peace process really affects the way we are perceived in the region.”
David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process, flew in from Israel to speak at the conference, and basically agreed with Miller.
Arafat’s legacy “is a mixed one, at best,” said Makovsky.
“To his credit, he put the Palestinian cause on the world map. He extricated this nationalism from the vagaries of Arab politics. When faced with marginalization after the Cold War and Gulf War, he went to Oslo, which was his lifeline to political survival. Oslo also brought him to the gates of Jerusalem. But, he did not achieve Palestinian statehood, so occupation and settlements are his legacy,” said Makovsky, who was in Ramallah on Wednesday, which he said gave him a clear perspective of events on the ground.
Nor did Arafat prepare his people for peace; “it was a decolonization process, not a peace process,” he said.
“Arafat never delegitimatized suicide bombing and called them martyrs to the very end,” which made it “unclear whether Arafat used violence as a legitimate weapon or just used went with the flow,” he said.
Because of this, 79% of Israeli Jews consider Arafat a terrorist, only 5% a statesman, he said, criticizing Arafat for his inability to make the transaction from revolutionary to nation builder,
As for realistic expectations for the future, Makovsky said: “It is clear that this is an emergency — and the Palestinian factions realize they have to swim together or sink together.”
Peace factions have to act fast, he said: “For four years there has been an utter lack of trust, a shattering of the partnership. Today we learned that the religious parties pulled out of Sharon’s coalition. I fear that without the presences of a US broker, then each side will misread the intentions of the other side’s confidence building measures. This could enhance the bitterness rather than eliminate it.”
“The US must revive a partnership between two people who have suffered so much,” said Makovsky.
Former IDF Brigadier General Michael Herzog, the institute’s visiting military fellow and former senior adviser to Israel’s minister of defense, who participated in virtually all Palestinian-Israeli negotiations since Oslo, also spoke of the “unique opportunity to change the course of the Arab-Israeli relationship” due to Arafat’s departure and also Israel’s decision to disengage from Gaza.
And he warned of the dangers following Arafat’s death: “Internally, Arafat left a huge leadership void. He was the glue inside and outside the territories — the glue that held everything together. He controlled all the decision-making policies from politics, to security, to the economy. Without him there will be a huge leadership void,” said Gen. Herzog.
But, he said, some progress was being made: “Based on information available to us, we see negotiations being prepared for a ceasefire for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.” He then asked the million-dollar question: “What should be done to strengthen Palestinian leadership?”
He called on both the US and Israel to help the Palestinian leadership stabilize security, he said a bilateral cease-fire should be formed. “But we should not repeat the mistakes of the past, when Hamas used the ceasefire to reorganize,” he said.
It is just as important for “the Israeli government to be open to new horizons,” he said.
