Yasser Arafat was not infallible, yet he was a great man -
undeniably one of the greatest of the second half of the 20th
century. Throughout his political career, he was the object of
relentless campaigns of character assassination, not because of who
he was, but because of what he represented. He was the embodiment
of the Palestinian people whose mere existence was a monumental
nuisance to those who coveted Palestine - a people threatened with
historical oblivion, geographically occupied and demographically
dispersed.
Arafat was the architect of the resurrection of the Palestinian
national movement in the mid-1960s and was its prime mover for
almost 40 years. He was our own Palestinian De Gaulle; like De
Gaulle, he had to struggle against foes and friends alike to
maintain the status of Palestine and of the Palestinians
undiminished. Throughout those decades, the tragedy was the absence
of an Arab Churchill and an Arab Roosevelt. But that is another
story.
A 'Generous' Offer?
Making history is extremely important. So is interpreting history
and disseminating one's own version of it. We Palestinians are
still suffering an uphill struggle because of the travesty history
made of Ehud Barak's pseudo-generous offer. We should never again
lose the battle of the diversity of versions.
Today we are being told that, because Arafat is out of the way,
there is a window of opportunity to revitalize the peace process
and that, because Arafat is out of the picture, the Palestinian
people will finally familiarize themselves with democracy and
elections. History will record that it was Arafat who led, and
preserved, the multiparty system that is the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO). History will also record that, de spite the
tremendous pressures both regional and international, Arafat always
stood firm against the elimination of the pluralistic nature of the
national movement. And in 1996, in addition to his revolutionary
and historical credentials, Arafat also acquired democratic
legitimacy in an internationally monitored and competitive
presidential election in which he ran against Mrs. Samiha Khalil,
the director of the biggest NGO in Palestine.
A Convergence of Factors
As for the reactivation of the peace process, here in London we
still remember Tony Blair's speech at the end of September [2004]
to the annual conference of the British Labor Party: "Come
November," he said, "I will make it my personal priority..." Arafat
was not even sick then. There was then in the air, in the offing,
the idea of a joint visit to Ramallah by the three major foreign
ministers of the European Union: Jack Straw, Joschka Fischer and
Jacques Barnier, in order to help restore President Arafat's
freedom of movement, out of his captivity in the Muqata'a.
The reactivation of the peace process today is not due to the death
of Arafat, but is the result of the convergence of three
factors:
* Now that President George W. Bush has secured his place in the
White House for a second mandate, he might also want to secure his
place in history;
* There is immense European and international exasperation with the
self-inflicted impotence of the American administration for the
past four years, which has resulted in the irresponsible
deterioration of the situation in Palestine and Israel;
* There is a growing awareness around the world that what is
poisoning international relations and creating a rift with the Arab
and Muslim worlds is the unresolved Palestinian tragedy, and the
perceived American complacency and complicity with the Israeli
territorial appetite.
Reforms, Leadership and Maturity
Palestinians are told they will have to reform. Indeed, reforms are
a Palestinian expectation, a Palestinian aspiration, a Palestinian
right, and even a Palestinian duty. But reforms are not going to be
a precondition imposed on us by the outside world. The American
political system, for example, far from being an enticing
democracy, is increasingly turning into a "mediocracy" where
lobbies can hijack American foreign policy, and where interest
groups have totally domesticated and tamed an undignified political
establishment.
These past weeks, most commentators [on Arafat's passing],
knowingly or unknowingly, repeatedly referred to or quoted Max
Weber who wrote more than a century ago about the three phases of
leadership and legitimacy:
* The traditional leadership;
* The charismatic leadership;
* The institutional leadership.
We have had a traditional leadership - prior to 1948. We have just
witnessed the end of the charismatic era. Now begins the
institutional phase. With the world as our witness, we have had a
very smooth transition and the Palestinian people have demonstrated
enormous maturity and a great sense of responsibility.
'Happiest Day'
I once asked Arafat (Abu Ammar), "What was your happiest day?" to
which he answered, almost poetically, "My happiest day? I haven't
lived it yet." Abu Ammar was an individual, an idea and an
institution, all at the same time. The individual is perishable.
The idea will prove to be immortal, and through the institutions he
helped create, his people will soon live that happiest day, which
eluded him but to which he dedicated his whole life.