INTERNATIONAL NEWS, MIDDLE EAST, OPINION: Turmoil Will Go On
By Julia Zhu
Yasser Arafat, considered an icon and a father figure by his people, died in a Paris hospital earlier this month, throwing the whole world into a controversial reconsideration of the situation in the Middle East. There are people who hold the optimistic view that though Arafat's death will create emotional upheaval for Palestinians and the risk of a violent struggle to fill the void in the near term, in the long run it can bring hope and breathe life into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
According to the optimists, Arafat was the person to blame harshly because they think it was he who had the power and prestige to move his people to peace, failing to grasp the best opportunity for peace in the Middle East; it was he that moved the Middle East into a terrible war of terror that cost thousands of lives, Israelis and Palestinians alike. Now that such a person has passed from the stage, fresh new air will surely come around.
Is it really so? I have my doubts. Viewing the Holy Lands overall, we can not deny that the situation is still worsening: more than 3500 Palestinians and over 1000 Israel people are now involved in the circular causation of suicide bombings and armed helicopter missiles; the West Bank and the Gaza strip, where 3.5 million people live, have already become a burned land, with 60% of the population homeless. Considering this, can anyone really be so certain that peace is due?
Perhaps some people are now cherishing hope on the next Palestinian leadership. But the fact is none of the possible future leaders are able to compete with Arafat's influence and power. It is true that the Palestinian's so-called moderate leaders, especially Abbas and his successor as prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, have made great efforts in the Middle East "roadmap" peace plan and have comparatively strong support and reputation among their people, but when it comes to actual leadership things might be very different.
Admit it or not, in the Arafat Era, no matter how much of a mess some people claimed he had produced, especially in the past 10 years, he was still able to keep political balance with "a gun in one hand and olive branch in the other." Maybe to some extent he really should be criticized for: supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; for leading Palestinians through the wilderness of Jordan and Lebanon, wreaking havoc and violence in his wake, to Tunis; for not having seized the opportunity in 2000 to embrace the offer made by then Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak; or for creating the ugly phenomenon of the suicide bomber that has plagued the world. However, as a leader, he has never betrayed his own people.
Arafat knew his people's admiration of the bravery, courage and glory embodied by Palestinian factions such as Fatah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad, and he followed their will. But now can the new leaders carry on with that balance? Will they be able to settle the conflicts among the different factions? The answer is quite uncertain. Worse still, situations outside Palestine are even more complicated. According to Shibley Telhami, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, "Nothing will happen unless the Israelis and the United States make it happen." We can say his opinion may be too extreme, but it is reasonable in some part. In fact, if the U.S. or Israel tries to control the direction of Palestinian leadership, the result will be duly destructive.
So far, neither Israel nor the U.S. has put forward a clear strategy, and this no doubt makes the situation in the Middle East more bleak and mysterious. All told, though the Palestinians have been pursuing peace for decades, its possibility is still quite small now. Abu Yusef, an unemployed Palestinian driver who is loyal to Fatah said, "No matter who takes over, violence will continue."
If the violence goes on, dangerous turmoil in the whole Middle East will no doubt go along in step.
Yasser Arafat, considered an icon and a father figure by his people, died in a Paris hospital earlier this month, throwing the whole world into a controversial reconsideration of the situation in the Middle East. There are people who hold the optimistic view that though Arafat's death will create emotional upheaval for Palestinians and the risk of a violent struggle to fill the void in the near term, in the long run it can bring hope and breathe life into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
According to the optimists, Arafat was the person to blame harshly because they think it was he who had the power and prestige to move his people to peace, failing to grasp the best opportunity for peace in the Middle East; it was he that moved the Middle East into a terrible war of terror that cost thousands of lives, Israelis and Palestinians alike. Now that such a person has passed from the stage, fresh new air will surely come around.
Is it really so? I have my doubts. Viewing the Holy Lands overall, we can not deny that the situation is still worsening: more than 3500 Palestinians and over 1000 Israel people are now involved in the circular causation of suicide bombings and armed helicopter missiles; the West Bank and the Gaza strip, where 3.5 million people live, have already become a burned land, with 60% of the population homeless. Considering this, can anyone really be so certain that peace is due?
Perhaps some people are now cherishing hope on the next Palestinian leadership. But the fact is none of the possible future leaders are able to compete with Arafat's influence and power. It is true that the Palestinian's so-called moderate leaders, especially Abbas and his successor as prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, have made great efforts in the Middle East "roadmap" peace plan and have comparatively strong support and reputation among their people, but when it comes to actual leadership things might be very different.
Admit it or not, in the Arafat Era, no matter how much of a mess some people claimed he had produced, especially in the past 10 years, he was still able to keep political balance with "a gun in one hand and olive branch in the other." Maybe to some extent he really should be criticized for: supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; for leading Palestinians through the wilderness of Jordan and Lebanon, wreaking havoc and violence in his wake, to Tunis; for not having seized the opportunity in 2000 to embrace the offer made by then Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak; or for creating the ugly phenomenon of the suicide bomber that has plagued the world. However, as a leader, he has never betrayed his own people.
Arafat knew his people's admiration of the bravery, courage and glory embodied by Palestinian factions such as Fatah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad, and he followed their will. But now can the new leaders carry on with that balance? Will they be able to settle the conflicts among the different factions? The answer is quite uncertain. Worse still, situations outside Palestine are even more complicated. According to Shibley Telhami, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, "Nothing will happen unless the Israelis and the United States make it happen." We can say his opinion may be too extreme, but it is reasonable in some part. In fact, if the U.S. or Israel tries to control the direction of Palestinian leadership, the result will be duly destructive.
So far, neither Israel nor the U.S. has put forward a clear strategy, and this no doubt makes the situation in the Middle East more bleak and mysterious. All told, though the Palestinians have been pursuing peace for decades, its possibility is still quite small now. Abu Yusef, an unemployed Palestinian driver who is loyal to Fatah said, "No matter who takes over, violence will continue."
If the violence goes on, dangerous turmoil in the whole Middle East will no doubt go along in step.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home