Post by Moses on Dec 7, 2004 9:39:57 GMT -5
Peace May Be More Elusive, Post-Arafat
By Lee Michael Katz
National Journal
November 13, 2004
<br>James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, is well positioned to comment on the post-Arafat era for the Palestinian people. He's been involved in Palestinian issues since the 1970s.
Yasir Arafat's legacy is controversial. The Bush administration long ago termed Arafat an obstacle to peace, and Israel regards him as a terrorist. But Zogby provides a different perspective, laying much of the blame on Israel and the United States for Arafat's failure to reach peace.
In a November 7 interview with veteran diplomatic correspondent Lee Michael Katz just days before Arafat's death, Zogby suggests finding a future path to peace by combining traits from three recent U.S. administrations. In the edited excerpts below, he also offers views on such issues as post-Arafat leadership, Israel's plan to withdraw from Gaza, and the possibility of additional violence.
NJ: With Yasir Arafat now out of the governing picture, what does this mean for Palestinians and Middle East peace?
Zogby: Contrary to some conventional wisdom, Arafat's incapacitation removes probably the one figure who has shown himself to be capable of moving the Palestinian people toward historic compromises. The demonized portrait of Arafat as the person who could never say yes was not just an unfair characterization, but done with a political purpose to, in effect, absolve those who never offered the Palestinians what they needed.
He embodied Palestinian nationhood. It's difficult for Americans to understand, but there was a charismatic role he played, and his passing will leave a traumatized nation. I don't think it's going to be easy to find a replacement. Those who say that this opens the door are sorely mistaken. It may make peace more difficult.
NJ: Where do we go from here?
Zogby: The burden falls not on the Palestinians to come up with a leader who can accept conditions no one else could accept, but it is incumbent now on Israel -- or the United States to press Israel -- to make an offer that someone can say yes to.
Palestinians are a dependent people: They live either dispersed or under occupation. I was asked in a Senate hearing, Why can't Arafat be more like [South Africa's Nelson] Mandela and [Russia's Boris] Yeltsin? I said, Yeltsin and Mandela took control of a state that was sovereign, had complete control over its land mass, had control over its economy, and inherited an infrastructure of governance. Arafat got none of the above. You had freedom, but the freedom of a prisoner inside the prison yard.
The Israeli reaction to Arafat -- he is their bogeyman, sort of a demon they created, to absolve themselves of the guilt they had with the occupation. The mythic narrative they created -- that the Bush administration inherited and has run with -- is, it was all Arafat. Arafat couldn't say yes. Arafat wanted violence, because he couldn't accept Israel.
That wasn't true. He accepted the existence of Israel, which for two generations of Palestinians, was a historic compromise.
NJ: But Arafat didn't offer any plan after Israeli leader Ehud Barak made major concessions as he faced re-election in 2001. Why?
Zogby: [President] Clinton actually asked me to have Arafat present his own plan. And I know Arafat didn't. Arafat [ultimately] said, "Clinton has only a few weeks left, Barak can't win -- and yet they want me to agree. Agree with whom and for what?" The history is far more complex about that period than mythic narratives that exist. Because our view of Arafat is so colored by our prejudice and our politics, we've never been able to see that as it was.
There is a record of failure all the way around, and certainly some of that falls here in the United States. We understood Israeli suffering. We never understood Palestinian suffering.
NJ: Weren't there problems with the Arafat regime -- such as corruption, for example?
Zogby: There's no question there are legitimate criticisms about the decision-making and cronyism, etc. These are problems not unusual in any regime -- even here, one might add. Israel's had its share as well.
It's almost incomprehensible for Americans to understand that, in much of the world, he was seen like Mandela -- they don't get it. To be sure, the man had weaknesses. There were enormous flaws in his leadership. Our horrifically one-sided view simply didn't do justice to the man or the tragedy that has befallen his people.
NJ: Many people would say that Arafat did nothing to stop the violence against Israel.
Zogby: We took away the political capital he had, and then asked him to strike out against his own people. He knew the goal of these movements was not only to destroy peace, but also to destroy his leadership. In the 1990s when he had political capital, he did strike against them. But he did not want to be perceived as simply carrying out the occupier's will when there was no hope of transformation, so he became more reluctant to do so. And it obviously had tragic consequences.
NJ: You publicly supported John Kerry. Do you feel that President Bush has done enough for Mideast peace?
Zogby: President Bush advanced a vision, and that was important. But a vision without a plan and pressure, evenhanded and balanced on both sides, means the vision is doomed. The administration in its first term fired repeated blanks at the problem. We put the pressure on the Palestinians and none on Israel. We give compassion to the Israelis and don't give any to the Palestinians. That's a recipe for failure. It reinforces bad behavior and weakens moderates on both sides.
NJ: How should the U.S. take advantage of this opportunity to move forward beyond Arafat's leadership?
Zogby: Arafat's passing from the scene doesn't create the opportunity. The opportunity has to be created by the United States. No Palestinian leader will be able to do anything if the offer that comes is unacceptable and does not meet basic Palestinian needs. President Bush has to take his vision, which defines the end of the road as a Palestinian state, and apply pressure on the Israelis and the Palestinians to get them moving. The "road map" didn't do that. The [Israeli security] wall is a monstrosity, making daily life impossible in several parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
What can turn this toward peace is that President Bush uses the political capital he has earned and takes a leaf from his father's administration and uses balanced pressure on both sides. Taking a leaf from the last three administrations would work: Bush's vision, Clinton's plan, and passing what Bush's father called the twin tests of peace [fairness and security].
NJ: Can elections be held 60 days after the post-Arafat era begins, as Palestinian law requires? Will there be a leadership struggle?
Zogby: Palestinians would like to have elections, but you wouldn't want elections under the circumstances that exist. In the period we're in right now, lord only knows who would win.
The Israelis are everywhere in the West Bank. How would you even have free elections? When there's hope, you have elections. When there's despair, you don't. Right now, anger defines the street.
If we want moderates to win, we have to provide benefits that will strengthen [their] hand. It is dependent upon America and Israel to deliver to the Palestinians enough to convince people the path of peace is worth taking. If we don't, then elections, or any power struggle or internal dynamic, will move in a negative direction.
NJ: Can Hamas and Islamic Jihad, considered terrorist organizations by the United States, be brought into the political fold?
Zogby: They can be controlled. There is no question they have committed horrific acts of violence. They can be neutralized only if moderate forces are strengthened -- the benefits of peace become available. With 80 percent youth unemployment in Gaza, what are we offering them?
An American plan, combined with economic incentives, would help transform the debate. Palestinians would say to themselves, there is something real at the end of this nightmare. America has an enormous capability to transform the political [equation] on both sides.
NJ: Will anyone emerge close to the stature of Arafat in the near future?
Zogby: It depends on what the United States and Israel are willing to do. If Israel will withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and allow the creation of a truly independent state, and the U.S. will provide what is necessary to make that state governable and prosperous, whoever assumes leadership will be in a position of earning the political capital that accrues. If the situation continues with settlements, and the wall, and economic despair and humiliation defining daily life, whoever assumes leadership will be in a weakened position.
The only thing that sustained Arafat was the history. He could have risen above his own weaknesses, if he'd had more support. America and Israel ask the weakest party to do the heaviest lifting. That's not going to work. That was not sustainable for Arafat and won't be for anybody who comes after him.
(continued)
By Lee Michael Katz
National Journal
November 13, 2004
<br>James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, is well positioned to comment on the post-Arafat era for the Palestinian people. He's been involved in Palestinian issues since the 1970s.
Yasir Arafat's legacy is controversial. The Bush administration long ago termed Arafat an obstacle to peace, and Israel regards him as a terrorist. But Zogby provides a different perspective, laying much of the blame on Israel and the United States for Arafat's failure to reach peace.
In a November 7 interview with veteran diplomatic correspondent Lee Michael Katz just days before Arafat's death, Zogby suggests finding a future path to peace by combining traits from three recent U.S. administrations. In the edited excerpts below, he also offers views on such issues as post-Arafat leadership, Israel's plan to withdraw from Gaza, and the possibility of additional violence.
NJ: With Yasir Arafat now out of the governing picture, what does this mean for Palestinians and Middle East peace?
Zogby: Contrary to some conventional wisdom, Arafat's incapacitation removes probably the one figure who has shown himself to be capable of moving the Palestinian people toward historic compromises. The demonized portrait of Arafat as the person who could never say yes was not just an unfair characterization, but done with a political purpose to, in effect, absolve those who never offered the Palestinians what they needed.
He embodied Palestinian nationhood. It's difficult for Americans to understand, but there was a charismatic role he played, and his passing will leave a traumatized nation. I don't think it's going to be easy to find a replacement. Those who say that this opens the door are sorely mistaken. It may make peace more difficult.
NJ: Where do we go from here?
Zogby: The burden falls not on the Palestinians to come up with a leader who can accept conditions no one else could accept, but it is incumbent now on Israel -- or the United States to press Israel -- to make an offer that someone can say yes to.
Palestinians are a dependent people: They live either dispersed or under occupation. I was asked in a Senate hearing, Why can't Arafat be more like [South Africa's Nelson] Mandela and [Russia's Boris] Yeltsin? I said, Yeltsin and Mandela took control of a state that was sovereign, had complete control over its land mass, had control over its economy, and inherited an infrastructure of governance. Arafat got none of the above. You had freedom, but the freedom of a prisoner inside the prison yard.
The Israeli reaction to Arafat -- he is their bogeyman, sort of a demon they created, to absolve themselves of the guilt they had with the occupation. The mythic narrative they created -- that the Bush administration inherited and has run with -- is, it was all Arafat. Arafat couldn't say yes. Arafat wanted violence, because he couldn't accept Israel.
That wasn't true. He accepted the existence of Israel, which for two generations of Palestinians, was a historic compromise.
NJ: But Arafat didn't offer any plan after Israeli leader Ehud Barak made major concessions as he faced re-election in 2001. Why?
Zogby: [President] Clinton actually asked me to have Arafat present his own plan. And I know Arafat didn't. Arafat [ultimately] said, "Clinton has only a few weeks left, Barak can't win -- and yet they want me to agree. Agree with whom and for what?" The history is far more complex about that period than mythic narratives that exist. Because our view of Arafat is so colored by our prejudice and our politics, we've never been able to see that as it was.
There is a record of failure all the way around, and certainly some of that falls here in the United States. We understood Israeli suffering. We never understood Palestinian suffering.
NJ: Weren't there problems with the Arafat regime -- such as corruption, for example?
Zogby: There's no question there are legitimate criticisms about the decision-making and cronyism, etc. These are problems not unusual in any regime -- even here, one might add. Israel's had its share as well.
It's almost incomprehensible for Americans to understand that, in much of the world, he was seen like Mandela -- they don't get it. To be sure, the man had weaknesses. There were enormous flaws in his leadership. Our horrifically one-sided view simply didn't do justice to the man or the tragedy that has befallen his people.
NJ: Many people would say that Arafat did nothing to stop the violence against Israel.
Zogby: We took away the political capital he had, and then asked him to strike out against his own people. He knew the goal of these movements was not only to destroy peace, but also to destroy his leadership. In the 1990s when he had political capital, he did strike against them. But he did not want to be perceived as simply carrying out the occupier's will when there was no hope of transformation, so he became more reluctant to do so. And it obviously had tragic consequences.
NJ: You publicly supported John Kerry. Do you feel that President Bush has done enough for Mideast peace?
Zogby: President Bush advanced a vision, and that was important. But a vision without a plan and pressure, evenhanded and balanced on both sides, means the vision is doomed. The administration in its first term fired repeated blanks at the problem. We put the pressure on the Palestinians and none on Israel. We give compassion to the Israelis and don't give any to the Palestinians. That's a recipe for failure. It reinforces bad behavior and weakens moderates on both sides.
NJ: How should the U.S. take advantage of this opportunity to move forward beyond Arafat's leadership?
Zogby: Arafat's passing from the scene doesn't create the opportunity. The opportunity has to be created by the United States. No Palestinian leader will be able to do anything if the offer that comes is unacceptable and does not meet basic Palestinian needs. President Bush has to take his vision, which defines the end of the road as a Palestinian state, and apply pressure on the Israelis and the Palestinians to get them moving. The "road map" didn't do that. The [Israeli security] wall is a monstrosity, making daily life impossible in several parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
What can turn this toward peace is that President Bush uses the political capital he has earned and takes a leaf from his father's administration and uses balanced pressure on both sides. Taking a leaf from the last three administrations would work: Bush's vision, Clinton's plan, and passing what Bush's father called the twin tests of peace [fairness and security].
NJ: Can elections be held 60 days after the post-Arafat era begins, as Palestinian law requires? Will there be a leadership struggle?
Zogby: Palestinians would like to have elections, but you wouldn't want elections under the circumstances that exist. In the period we're in right now, lord only knows who would win.
The Israelis are everywhere in the West Bank. How would you even have free elections? When there's hope, you have elections. When there's despair, you don't. Right now, anger defines the street.
If we want moderates to win, we have to provide benefits that will strengthen [their] hand. It is dependent upon America and Israel to deliver to the Palestinians enough to convince people the path of peace is worth taking. If we don't, then elections, or any power struggle or internal dynamic, will move in a negative direction.
NJ: Can Hamas and Islamic Jihad, considered terrorist organizations by the United States, be brought into the political fold?
Zogby: They can be controlled. There is no question they have committed horrific acts of violence. They can be neutralized only if moderate forces are strengthened -- the benefits of peace become available. With 80 percent youth unemployment in Gaza, what are we offering them?
An American plan, combined with economic incentives, would help transform the debate. Palestinians would say to themselves, there is something real at the end of this nightmare. America has an enormous capability to transform the political [equation] on both sides.
NJ: Will anyone emerge close to the stature of Arafat in the near future?
Zogby: It depends on what the United States and Israel are willing to do. If Israel will withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and allow the creation of a truly independent state, and the U.S. will provide what is necessary to make that state governable and prosperous, whoever assumes leadership will be in a position of earning the political capital that accrues. If the situation continues with settlements, and the wall, and economic despair and humiliation defining daily life, whoever assumes leadership will be in a weakened position.
The only thing that sustained Arafat was the history. He could have risen above his own weaknesses, if he'd had more support. America and Israel ask the weakest party to do the heaviest lifting. That's not going to work. That was not sustainable for Arafat and won't be for anybody who comes after him.
(continued)