REMEMBERING ARAFAT
Yassir Arafat, frequently cited as the father of modern-day terror, died one year ago. One would think that in describing this man and his dark legacy, the mainstream media would reflect the reality that marked his rule. Instead, the media ignore the real impact this man and his disastrous choices have had on the region.
Reuters states that Arafat failed "to realize his dream of a Palestinian state." Yet Arafat was offered his "dream" and rejected it. The article, heavy on the official commemorations of Arafat, does not even mention the historic Camp David Summit in which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat Gaza, a Jerusalem capital, and a sizeable percentage of the West Bank. As former American President Bill Clinton said this week, Arafat made a "colossal, historical blunder" in not accepting Israel's offer. Former U.S. envoy Dennis Ross offered this explanation at the time, "Arafat could not accept Camp David... because when the conflict ends, the cause that defines Arafat also ends."
Not only did Arafat reject Barak's offer, he launched a war of terror that has since claimed the lives of thousands of Israelis and even more of his own people. Typical of Reuters' assessment:
Arafat, a former guerrilla leader who won a Nobel Peace Prize and the deep admiration of his people only to sink into renewed conflict with Israel, left a complicated legacy.
But Arafat did not passively "sink" into violence. He consciously rejected the offer of a state and chose violence. His legacy, as documented by HonestReporting here, is far from complicated. Under his "leadership" the PLO pioneered the hallmarks of modern terrorism:
- hostage taking -- The Munich Olympics set a deadly modern precedent
- airplane high-jacking -- Long before September 11, the PLO had hijacked dozens of passenger jets;
- school massacres -- The horrific massacre in Chechenya had its precedent in Israel
- suicide bombing -- Bombings in Iraq, Spain, London, Africa, Jordan and many places around the world today were first utilized by the PLO.
Meanwhile, Arafat stole hundreds of millions of dollars that were supposed to help the people he claimed to champion. The Palestinian Authority today is trying unsuccessfully to deal with the rampant corruption that he institutionalized. According to Issam Abu Issa, the former chairman of the Palestine International Bank:
Rather than use donor funds for their intended purposes, Arafat regularly diverted money to his own accounts. It is amazing that some U.S. officials still see the Palestinian Authority as a partner even after U.S. congressional records revealed authenticated PLO papers signed by Arafat in which he instructed his staff to divert donors' money to projects benefiting himself, his family, and his associates. (Middle East Quarterly)
What's so complicated about that legacy?
Comments to Reuters: editor@reuters.com
The New York Times referred to the official Palestinian commemorations in the Muqata, Arafat's headquarters, in this manner:
Israel confined Mr. Arafat to the compound for most of the last three years of his life, though he was treated at a French military hospital for two weeks before his death on Nov. 11, 2004. His funeral the next day at the Muqata was a chaotic affair attended by tens of thousands of anguished mourners.
After the Oslo Accords, Arafat was free to travel both within the disputed territories and abroad. It was only after repeated terrorist attacks, which were shown to be supported directly by Arafat, that Israel confined him to a large cluster of buildings in central Ramallah.
Comments to The New York Times: letters@nytimes.com
The Washington Post also removes personal responsibility from Arafat by noting that "Israel stopped regarding Arafat as a partner after Israeli-Palestinian peace talks broke down in late 2000 and a second Palestinian uprising erupted."
Both the breakdown in talks and the spontaneous "eruption" of violence were direct choices of Arafat. It is astonishing that the media have chosen not to point out these basic facts. As former American envoy Dennis Ross concluded, 'Arafat could not accept Camp David... because when the conflict ends, the cause that defines Arafat also ends.'
Comments to The Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
Perhaps The Arab Times, hardly an unbiased source, said it best several years ago when they wrote:
He (Arafat) has destroyed Palestine. He has led it to terrorism, death and a hopeless situation... All Arab leaders know this fact. It won't be possible for us to gain from the Middle East road map for peace if this man remains in power.
No comments:
Post a Comment