Arafat
I have mixed feelings about Arafat's death. On the one hand, once a terrorist... and with him out of the way it's possible that the Palestinians may be able to start to move forward without the weight of an Israeli shill[1] around their necks. On the other hand, for all his many flaws he was an internationally recognised figure, and I'm not sure there's anyone else who has the charisma to really hold things together.
It's been a strange time for Israel and Palestine. Sharon's vocal support for the plan to withdraw Settlers from the disputed territories was surprising, but in a less surprising turn of events he has said that he wants to unilaterally strip Palestinians of land they want for their state. Sharon's support for the settler withdrawal seems to have been just a political convenience - a way of showing the US that he's willing to play ball and do what it takes to appear willing to compromise. But in a speech later, Sharon said he was resolved to press ahead with a withdrawal of Jewish settlers from occupied Gaza in 2005, citing a prized U.S. promise to let Israel keep swathes of the West Bank in the process.
It's likely that Arafat's death is going to be a pivotal moment. I just fear that it's going to further distance Palestine from the state that is legally (according to the UN) and morally theirs. The death of a terrorist (even one turned statesman[2]) is not a cause for mourning... but Arafat was more than just a corrupt and nepotistic anachronism. He was a symbol, both national and international, of the Palestinian struggle. He was undoubtedly a poor excuse for a leader, but the Palestinians have lost their most recognisable standard-bearer.
[1] You may already have an inkling, but I'm not so much about the whole 'don't speak ill of the dead' thing.
[2] Terrorist turned statesman... just like Sharon. Although perhaps more correctly in Sharon's case, it is 'terrorist turned statesman (with a sideline in terrorism)'.
It's been a strange time for Israel and Palestine. Sharon's vocal support for the plan to withdraw Settlers from the disputed territories was surprising, but in a less surprising turn of events he has said that he wants to unilaterally strip Palestinians of land they want for their state. Sharon's support for the settler withdrawal seems to have been just a political convenience - a way of showing the US that he's willing to play ball and do what it takes to appear willing to compromise. But in a speech later, Sharon said he was resolved to press ahead with a withdrawal of Jewish settlers from occupied Gaza in 2005, citing a prized U.S. promise to let Israel keep swathes of the West Bank in the process.
It's likely that Arafat's death is going to be a pivotal moment. I just fear that it's going to further distance Palestine from the state that is legally (according to the UN) and morally theirs. The death of a terrorist (even one turned statesman[2]) is not a cause for mourning... but Arafat was more than just a corrupt and nepotistic anachronism. He was a symbol, both national and international, of the Palestinian struggle. He was undoubtedly a poor excuse for a leader, but the Palestinians have lost their most recognisable standard-bearer.
[1] You may already have an inkling, but I'm not so much about the whole 'don't speak ill of the dead' thing.
[2] Terrorist turned statesman... just like Sharon. Although perhaps more correctly in Sharon's case, it is 'terrorist turned statesman (with a sideline in terrorism)'.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home