[Marxism] (no subject)

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a very good article from the Guardian.  Arafat is still the
choice of Palestinians to lead the PLO and the authority because of his
history of struggle -- even though I do not believe this is the same
person who led the stand in Beirut in 1982 -- and because of his clear
dedication as a Palestinian nationalist. His refusal to accept exile at
the cost of living in extremely painful circumstances under Israeli
occupation is an indication of this. The problem is that there does not
seem to be anyone to replace him yet who represents this much.  I know
we've spent months discussing the evils of lesser-evilism, but I stand
with Arafat until the Palestinians have succeeded in creating a better
nationalist leadership than the one he -- and they-- forged in the
1960s.
Fred Feldman





Why we are still backing Arafat

Palestinians value their democracy and won't accept a pliant successor

Karma Nabulsi
Tuesday November 2, 2004
The Guardian

Why has Yasser Arafat not "groomed" a successor (like some petty
oriental despot), commentators have demanded to know in recent days, and
why he is leaving a chaotic power-vacuum? What has been striking about
these questions is not so much their wilful ignorance of the Palestinian
reality, but the underlying assumptions they reflect.

The first is that the ailing Palestinian leader is now either marginal -
or worse, the obstacle to peace. And the new hero of peace, as
championed by the liberal press on the back of the Gaza disengagement
plan, is now Ariel Sharon. This shows how closely the debate in this
country has come to embracing the Israeli Likud view of the
Palestinians.

Most discussion of the Middle East conflict in the west now appears to
be based on three premises: Arafat is not a partner for peace, but
promotes terror; Arafat will not let go of the "reins of power",
especially the security services; and Arafat is undemocratic and is
blocking necessary reform of Palestinian institutions.

But it is not the Palestinians who are refusing democracy and
representation. They are struggling to hold on to it by any means they
can. Instead, it is the US and Israeli governments who are seeking to
create institutions that would be undemocratic, and to find Palestinian
leaders who will be unrepresentative. We have no vacuum of power. We
have the PLO and the Palestine National Council, we have a legislative
council in the West Bank and Gaza.

Yet since 2000, the Israeli, US and British governments have been
working hard to impose a warlord to run Gaza after the "disengagement"
(even though Israel will remain firmly in control there), as well as the
remaining enclaves in the West Bank. They have been training him for
this task in Britain - the very man who was responsible for what is
widely regarded as having been the most corrupt of the Gaza security
apparatuses. They want Arafat to cede control of the PLO, of which he is
elected chairman, and the Palestinian Authority, of which he is the
elected president, because they have found someone they believe they can
control.
Advertiser links
Save Now - 21st Century Insurance

Save $300 on auto insurance and get more coverage and more...
21st.com
Drive Away with Savings

Auto insurance from the American Express Property Casualty...
americanexpress.com
#1 Motor Insurance Quotes

Free instant quotes - shop rates from over 200 top rated...
intelliquote.com

Nonetheless, this warlord's putsch for power earlier this year failed,
as it was rejected across the board by Palestinians - both critics and
backers of Arafat - all aware that it was against real reform and the
national interest. Yet Mohammed Dahlan is still described in the British
press as a "young reformer" and his paid security gangs in Gaza are
still portrayed as the "new voices for reform".

When Arafat represents all Palestinians, as he has by refusing exile (he
would never have left without an assurance he could return), as he did
by refusing to sign away basic rights as demanded of him at Camp David,
Palestinians support him. Palestinians know what they lose by continuing
to fight for their freedom: their livelihood, their lives. But they
support Arafat because he represents them. And because of that basic
trust, he is the one leader who has been able to make the most
compromises and exact the most difficult concessions from his own
people. Arafat is, after all, the architect of the Oslo peace accords,
in contrast to Ehud Barak and Sharon, who both voted against the accords
in the Knesset.

At the Camp David meetings in 2000, the then Israeli prime minister
Barak insisted the Palestinians cede on central issues, such as
Jerusalem and refugee rights. Since Arafat refused, Barak has never
ceased to brand him a terrorist who wants the destruction of Israel, and
blamed the continuing conflict on Arafat's refusal - rather than on
Israel's failure to address any core issue, such as its increased
settlement building during the Oslo years.

Bill Clinton and Barak's post-Camp David spin that the Palestinians were
offered everything and gave nothing in return has been comprehensively
refuted, yet these myths are continually repeated in the UK and US
press.

Worse, these claims helped ignite the existential Israeli fears in the
aftermath of that meeting, which Sharon fanned into a wall of fire,
destruction, expansion and conquest in pursuit of a Greater Israel and
the denial of any possibility of an independent Palestinian state.

As Dov Weisglass, Sharon's senior adviser, spelled out last month: "The
significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace
process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment
of a Palestinian state ... the disengagement is actually formaldehyde."
Yet political leaders and journalists continue to praise the
disengagement as "a first step towards a peace process".

What these defenders of Likud strategy don't grasp is well understood by
the Palestinians, who continue to support Arafat. In order to be a
leader you must first represent your people, and not abandon them to
their conquerors in times of foreign occupation or colonial rule. Arafat
seeks peace, but not at any price. You can be a great leader in prison,
in a broken-down compound, in hospital, even once you've given your
life. That's why the Palestinians overwhelmingly voted for Arafat, and
would do so again today.

. Karma Nabulsi is a research fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, and a
former PLO representative in Britain

karmanabulsi@xxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism