THE HANDSTAND

JUNE 2003

 "Uri Avnery" <avnery@actcom.co.il>



Visit Arafat? For God's Sake, Why?
by Uri Avnery
10.5.03

      "Have you gone mad? Now? He is irrelevant! He's finished!" These were the reactions of some people when Israeli TV showed my meeting with Arafat in Ramallah this week.


      Is Arafat "finished"? If so, he has not heard about it. I found him in splendid shape. At some of my meetings with him over the last few years he frequently looked tired, even distant and self-absorbed. This time he was in good spirits. He talked energetically, reacted rapidly, poked gentle fun at his assistants and made some biting remarks.       (For example: when we spoke about Sharon's demand that Abu-Mazen conduct mass arrests, he laughed: "But the Israelis have destroyed all our prisons, except the one in Jericho. And if we want to transfer a criminal there, we must ask the Quartet for a car, so as to be able to pass the Israeli checkpoints!"
)
      One can understand his lively mood.  For the last year, his life has been hanging on a thread. Sharon could have sent his men to kill him at any moment. (Several times this danger seemed so close that my friends and I found it necessary to rush there as a human shield.)

One of the Israeli officers boasted this week that "only a thin wall separated me from him." Now this danger has been rendered more remote .even if Arafat is still confined to his small building, amid surrealistic ruins.

      During the last 45 years, his life has been in danger many times. Dozens of attempts have been made on his life. Once his airplane crash -landed, killing several of his entourage. He survived it all. This time, too. His sense of relief is understandable.

      There is also physical relief. Since he returned to Palestine, his workload has been incredible. As he insisted on attending to practically everything himself, big things and small, he worked inhuman hours, often until the early hours of the morning. Now he is free of a substantial part of the routine work, and the results are obvious.

      But the main thing is that Arafat's standing with his own people is now stronger than ever. Curiously enough, it is the appointment of a Prime Minister that has caused this. The appointment of Abu-Mazen, which was intended by Sharon and Bush to "weaken" Arafat and to "push him aside", has had the opposite effect.

      This requires an explanation. For years now, a continuous and concentrated campaign to demonize Arafat has been conducted in Israel and the West. In the ten years since Oslo, millions of words have been spoken and written about him in the Israeli media, and I dont recall one single word of praise. He has been systematically described as a terrorist, tyrant, dictator, corrupt liar, a cheat and what not. In particular he was represented as the man who said "no" to the unprecedentedly generous offers of Ehud Barak and President Clinton, which "proves" that in reality his aim is to destroy Israel.      Those who have been fed with this propaganda cannot understand why Palestinians adore him. The answer is: for the very same reasons.      In the eyes of the Palestinians ," almost all of
them ", Arafat is a fearless leader, who stands firm in the most difficult circumstances; a man with the guts to say "no" when the mighty of this world expect him to betray the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.

He has confronted the rulers of the Arab world without flinching; at Camp David he stood up to immense pressure from Clinton and Barak without yielding; he held out in the terrible conditions of the siege of his Ramallah compound without breaking.     Palestinians, like all Arabs, like all peoples, admire personal courage. Arafat has proven his courage in conditions that no other leader in the world has had to face. He has come to symbolize the steadfastness of the whole Palestinian people. That is the source of his authority, even in the eyes of his many critics on the right and on the left.

      This authority is essential for Abu-Mazen's political effectiveness. Unlike Arafat, Abu-Mazen is popular in the West. He radiates moderation and readiness for compromise. This is the face the West wants to see. The two of them are a bit like Ben-Gurion and Sharett in the early days of Israel. Ben-Gurion was the idol of the Israeli public, while Sharett was popular on the international stage.      Abu-Mazen is accepted by the Palestinian public. If another person had assumed office under such circumstances, he would have been suspected of being a collaborator. But Abu-Mazen is known as a Palestinian patriot, and is respected as one of the founders of the Fatah movement. Even in extreme demonstrations, I did not hear shouts of protest against him. However, he is not a charismatic leader and has no solid political base.

      That is why Abu-Mazen needs Arafat. Without his solid backing, Abu-Mazen will neither be able to make concessions abroad nor to act forcefully at home. More than ever, Arafat is essential for progress on the road to peace.

      But does Arafat really want peace? Most Israelis are unable to imagine such a thing. How could they? Did they ever hear the true story?

      From my personal experience, I can recount this: At the end of the October 1973 war, Arafat concluded that if the armies of Egypt and Syria were defeated after their unexpected brilliant initial successes, then there is no military solution to the conflict. As usual, he decided quickly and decided alone. He instructed his trusted aide, Said Hamami to publish an article in London calling for the attainment of a peace settlement with Israel by political means. (This induced me to meet with Hamami in secret, and since then I have followed Arafats moves closely.)      For the Palestinian national movement, the proposed change was radical. A political process instead of the sole reliance on "armed struggle". A peace settlement with Israel, which had taken possession of   78% of the Palestinian land and expelled half of the Palestinian people from their homes. That necessitated a mental and political revolution, and since 1974 Arafat has promoted this revolution cautiously and with determination, step by step. (I witnessed these steps - first through Hamami and Issam Sartawi, later in personal contact with Arafat.) in 1988 the Palestinian National Council at long last adopted this line explicitly, after a series of ambivalent resolutions. Abu-Mazen was closely connected with this process right from the beginning.

      Throughout this period, Yitzhaq Rabin and Shimon Peres actively opposed this development. (On this, too, I can bear personal witness, since I conveyed several messages from Arafat to Rabin.) It must be stated clearly for history's sake: Not Rabin and Peres were the spiritual fathers of Oslo, but Arafat and Abu-Mazen. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Peres and not to Abu-Mazen was, therefore, a gross injustice.     Sharon, of course, does not want a peace that brings with it a viable Palestinian state in all the occupied territories and the evacuation of the settlements. But he is far too shrewd to openly
obstruct Abu-Mazen, the protegee of the West. Therefore he is concentrating all his efforts on " breaking Arafat " knowing that without Arafat, Abu-Mazen would be ineffective.

      That is the crux of the matter. Arafat is essential for the peace effort. That's why I went to visit him.
"Uri Avnery" <avnery@actcom.co.il>

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat resigns
The Palestinian minister responsible for overseeing negotiations with Israel, Saeb Erekat, has handed in his resignation to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), a Palestinian source said Friday,l6th May. However, Erekat would neither confirm nor deny reports of his resignation, saying that the issue was an internal Palestinian matter. Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has reportedly asked Erekat to delay his resignation and reconsider before making the move final.

Senior Palestinian officials said Friday morning that Erekat, who handed in his resignation on Thursday night, cited his dissatisfaction with the way diplomatic contacts with Israel were being handled. The officials stressed, however, that the resignation was precipitated by Abu Mazen's decision not to include Erekat in the Palestinian delegation that will travel to Jerusalem on Saturday to meet with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Erekat said that the delegation does not faithfully represent the internal Palestinian leadership. Erekat sees Abu Mazen, Dahlan and Abu Ala as "Tunis men" who are loyal to Arafat from the time of their joint exile in North Africa. He has accused them of providing luxurious housing for their own families in Jordan and elsewhere with money earmarked for humanitarian aid in the Palestinian territories. Erekat accused the Palestinian leadership that arrived in the West Bank from Tunisia after the signing of the Oslo accords in 1994 of being chiefly responsible for the current plight of the Palestinian people. In 1999, Arafat tried to fire Erekat from his position as chief negotiator, after differences between the two men over the Wye River accords.

Palestinians sources expressed pessimism Thursday about the outcome of Saturday night's planned meeting between Sharon and Abu Mazen. The meeting will probably also be attended by the Palestinian Minister of Security, Mohammad Dahlan, and the head of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala). The Palestinians insisted that the focus will be on diplomatic issues and underplayed its importance to security coordination, which has been emphasized by Israeli spokesmen in recent days. Abu Mazen was scheduled to address the PLC on Thursday, but the meeting was canceled because several Palestinian representatives were unable to get to the meeting due to Israeli restrictions, and attempts to bring them in via video conferencing failed due to "technical problems," the second such occurrence in recent days.

THE NAQBA
The speech, which was to update legislators on Abbas's meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, was also to commemorate the "Naqba," or catastrophe, as the Palestinians describe the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Since it was canceled, only PA Chairman Yasser Arafat's speech on the Naqba was eventually aired.

By Haaretz Service and agencies

THE 55TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NAQBA

Thursday, May15, 2003. Palestinians on Thursday marked the 55th anniversary of the 'naqba,'' or catastrophe, as they call their displacement during the creation of Israel.

ARE PALESTINIANS TOO RADICAL FOR WANTING TO RETURN HOME? http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/index2.html

"Is this reasonable after several decades? Well, Israel's Law of Return, passed by the Knesset in 1950, guarantees the right of all Jews to 'return' after 2,000 years .."

Sherri Muzher, For PalestineChronicle.com - May 15, 2003

'We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return!' wrote Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, in his diary on July 18, 1948, according to Michael Bar-Zohar's book, Ben-Gurion: The Armed
Prophet (1967)

.

Opposition to the Palestinian right of return clearly has a history.but Palestinians have formally accepted President Bush's plan in the hopes that the bloodshed will end. For Israel, however, the refusal of Palestinians to give up their right of return makes the plan a no-starter.
The rights of Palestinians to return to their homes and/or land are clearly entrenched in international law. U.N. Resolution 194 says 'that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property . . .’ The resolution was adopted by the General Assembly on Dec. 11, 1948, and has been endorsed annually since then.

Is this reasonable after several decades? Well, Israel's Law of Return, passed by the Knesset in 1950, guarantees the right of all Jews to 'return' after 2,000 years.

Some say that if Palestinians return, it will mark the end of Israel and its Jewish character. Those Palestinians who opt to return will undoubtedly change the landscape, but righting the wrongs of the past ought to supercede visions of grandiose nations built to cater to one particular religion. And contrary to popular Israeli propaganda that Israel affords equal opportunity to all, close friends and family members note a system of discrimination toward Christians andMuslims.

And just how does a Palestinian leader tell his/her people that while the world had fought for the right of Kosovar refugees to return to their homes only a few years ago, this same right is a matter for negotiations where they are concerned?

Others raise the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, as if it is a bartering card. 'We'll give up our claims if you give up yours.' But Jews who were forced out should be compensated or repatriated. This hardly negates Israel's responsibility in ethnically cleansing Palestinians.

Many Israelis say that the refugee problem was not of their doing. Consider this quotation which was published in the New York Times in October, 1979 from the memoirs of the late Yitzhak Rabin, 'We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, 'What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'' Further, Israeli historians like Benny Morris now acknowledge Israel's role in creating the mass exodus.

The 750,000 Palestinians who were forced out during the creation of Israel in 1948 all have chilling stories. Consider an excerpt from the Late Palestinian Evangelical priest Audeh Rantisi's memoirs, 'He refused to give up his money. Almost casually, the soldier pulled up his rifle and shot the man. He fell, bleeding and dying while his bride screamed and cried. I felt nauseated and sick. Would I ever see my home again? Would the soldiers kill my loved ones, too?'

Is there room for the refugees? Palestinian intellectual, Salman Abu Sitta did a thorough study recently: Israeli citizens currently inhabit less than 20% of Israel. There's plenty of room.

As LAW, the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment, noted, 'Palestinian demands [for the right of return], founded on international law (rather than ethno-religious exclusivity) have been relegated to the realm of the unattainable, the unrealistic and the impossible. Their voice has become so marginalized that their most fundamental and just claims are painted as radical and outdated.'

But there is nothing radical about wanting to return to one's home. Those who argue passionately for Israel's Law of Return may wish to remember this. And in an era when human rights have become a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, domestic politics and well-heeled lobbying groups should take a backseat. A true peace in the Middle East will have to provide for Palestinian dignity, which includes the implementation of their right to return to their homes.

*Sherri Muzher is the former Executive Director of the Council for Palestinian Restitution and Repatriation