Opinionated? Be Heard! Write an e-mail to the editors of The Hill and get published.
TheHillPR@unc.edu

 
We want you to write and edit for The Hill Complete the application and then submit it via e-mail and we'll consider you as a writer for our next issue.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

Is Replacing Arafat the Answer?
Achieving Peace in the Middle East

by Jeremy Borden


Covered in the native cloth of his people, his eyes twinkling over a white-patched scraggly beard, he looks as though he could be your grandfather. One would never think that this man is the center of international turmoil that has spanned decades.

If the Bush administration had its way, he'd be dead. Bush has made clear what he believes is the biggest hindrance in the Middle East peace process: Yasir Arafat.

Arafat is one of the most stubborn and uncompromising individuals in modern politics. He is a heartless leader who perpetuates terror and crime, whose calls for peace appear to be a smokescreen for ruthless violence, and who appears to have every differentiating faction (notably, the police whom he supposedly sends to investigate crimes of terror) in his back pocket. Is this the man with whom we must reason with for peace? Do we really have to deal with this monster?

George W. Bush would say no. No, we'd rather deal with someone else, someone rational who is willing to make the concessions necessary to stimulate peace in the most volatile region in the world. Bush most likely sees himself at the reigns of the western horse of freedom, liberating the Palestinians from Arafat's iron fist. As the last beacon of hope on Earth, we must unclench that fist and bring peace and stability to a region that has gone so long without it.

One has to give Bush credit for one thing: he paints a lovely picture.

As always, the situation is not so simple. With the exception of the Bush administration, no one has questioned Arafat's authority. The primary players in the region clearly answer to Arafat, such as Haj Ismail Jabr, head of the national security force. According to Time, Arafat blocked several attempts by his Interior Minister to "clean house," i.e. fire Jabr, who has been accused time and time again of corruption. Despite Arafat's public condemnation of the terrorist group known as Hamas, rumors persist that Hamas itself has an unofficial seat on Arafat's council. Arafat has allowed Hamas to grow at the expense of his own Fatah movement, and recently he has had trouble controlling this extremely capricious faction. Nonetheless, it is clear that no one else could possibly deal with such a radical and fickle group. Arafat knows that he is the premier dealer in the region, and it is clear that he has stacked the deck.

Bush's plan to replace Arafat would include elections in January, followed by the institution of a Prime Minister and a Parliament. According to Time, the likelihood of a fair election come January is highly unlikely, being that for proper elections to take place, Israeli troops would have to pull out of all Palestinian towns. This will not happen for some time. Even with the progress made in the recent "Gaza First" settlement, where Israeli troops have ended their occupation of Gaza and parts of Bethlehem, it is unlikely that anything resembling a free election could occur.

Arafat has also said that in the case of an election, he would simply run for Prime Minister himself, and give up the then ceremonial presidency. Many say he would win the office.

Were there Palestinian elections, some in the administration would like a measure of say in the new government. What, then, would we have accomplished? It is no secret that America has been responsible for puppet governments before. Most fail in preserving democracy, and they credit the claim that Americans are more interested in serving American democracy than democracy itself.

Bush may not want to admit it, but in spite of his words we are still dealing with Arafat, thereby legitimizing him and the Palestinian Authority. He recently sent National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell to meet Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat and Interior Minister Abdel Razaq al-Yihya, who represent Arafat. Bush told CNN: "People keep telling me we have to work with the one person who made this happen for the Palestinians. I don't believe that…" Really? If Bush is so convinced that negotiations with Arafat are pointless, why does he continue to deal with him, albeit indirectly? Bush may want to send the American people a clear message, but he cannot sacrifice legitimacy for politics.

Even the most anti-Bush person would admit that he is not without reason for wanting a regime change. At times, it seems Arafat is unwilling to work toward any peaceful settlement. With the recent passage of "Gaza First," however, it seems that Arafat is facilitating healthy negotiations. The precariousness of the situation has shown us time and time again that this cease-fire could end just as quickly as it was agreed upon. That aside, Arafat has shown us through this initiative that he believes in the peace process and is going to control the Islamic Resistance Movements that continue to threaten any remote chance of peace and stability. He says he can do it, and I believe him—not because I think that this time is different, but because for any hope in this bleak situation, I have to.

I cringe every time I see a picture of Arafat on the front page of a newspaper. Sometimes he is smiling, shaking hands on a new treaty or initiative, but more often he is scowling, vowing revenge on the Zionists that have harmed his people and denied his "right" to a homeland.

Arafat may be incapable of making the kinds of concessions that are necessary for a lasting settlement. He may be relentless and cruel in his actions and his politics. But for the moment, he holds the key to any hope of peace in a region where bloodshed has become common and retaliation a byproduct of any and all actions.

Arafat must see an end, not only of the conflict, but of his own years. At 73 years of age, I must believe he wants to go out as the victor of his people. I must believe that even in his last hours, he will want to find a way to free his people from the shackles of a war that may never end unless he unites his people against bloodshed.

He's the only one that can do it.

Jeremy Borden is a freshman Journalism major. He can be contacted at jborden@email.unc.edu.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

E-mail
 .:: Webmaster :: Editor-in-chief

Copyright © 2002 - 2003 The Hill: Chapel Hill Political Review