The September 8 edition of the Times has a terrible leading article entitled "Arafat's folly." Whatever one's opinion of Arafat, this piece criticises and denigrates the Palestinians in general and thus needs responding to.
The article is reproduced in full below, with AMW's comments in brackets followed by contact details and letter-writing tips:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-808318,00.html
The resignation of Mahmoud Abbas as the first Palestinian Prime Minister has rightly been described as a major blow to the peace process. It is an equally serious setback for the development of politics within the Palestinian Authority itself. Although Mr Abbas cast some blame upon Israel and the United States, there is little doubt that the principal obstacle he encountered was Yassir Arafat and his intransigent allies. Mr Arafat was reluctant to appoint Mr Abbas, then fought to frustrate his attempts at an independent course. The pattern may be repeated with his successor, whether or not that proves to be Mr Arafat's apparent choice for the job, the parliament Speaker, Ahmed Qureia.
(It is worth pointing out that Abbas was not elected, and had little public support. When the Palestinian Authority wanted to hold elections in January this year, it was made impossible by Israeli closures and curfews. So much for the democracy that the Times calls for further down.)
Israelis sometimes reflect on how their adversaries have "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity". The struggle between Mr Arafat and Mr Abbas reinforces that point. The aftermath of the war in Iraq offered the Palestinians a political opening. The Bush Administration had pledged to redouble its efforts in the region, partly to offset negative views of the United States in the Middle East but also out of deference to important allies. A credible Palestinian figure who could show that he had the capacity and intent to crack down on terrorism would be well placed to extract concessions from Ariel Sharon and his Cabinet. Opinion polls in Israel suggested that the public was again willing to look seriously at a comprehensive political settlement.
(It is not up to an occupied people to fulfil the needs of its occupier in order to receive humanitarian and legal rights. The Kuwaitis were not told to do this under Iraqi occupation, nor were the Afghans under Soviet occupation. An occupying power has obligations to uphold regardless of the actions of the people it oppresses.)
(To quote former US President Dwight Eisenhower in February 1957 after Israel attacked Egypt and occupied the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip: "Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal?" If so, "then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order???I do not, myself, see how this can be reconciled with the Charter of the United Nations.")
All of this, though, did and does depend on Mr Arafat moving into the background. His record since returning to his homeland has been one of tolerating, indeed at times drawing strength from, the militant activities of some in his own Fatah organisation as well as from the likes of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. There is little evidence that he has made the transition from guerrilla leader to international statesman. He is certainly not the Nelson Mandela of the Arab world. He has made life impossible for Mr Abbas by refusing to allow him real control over the Palestinian security forces and thus give him the ability to address the terrorist question. Without that authority, one especially deadly suicide bombing would be enough to make diplomacy redundant.
(Is diplomacy not redundant when Israel confiscates land, demolishes homes, builds walls and settlements, kills and injures civilians, assassinates political figures, imposes closures and curfews, and passes Parliament Bills denying the existence of the occupation and claiming that settlements are an "internal matter" which will be dealt with at Israel's discretion? All during a Palestinian ceasefire and a supposed peace process? For a chronology on how the ceasefire collapsed, click on the link below.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1027366,00.html
(To see yesterday's press release of Amnesty International's latest report on Israel's closures and restrictions on movement, which the Times did not report today.)
This is more than a tragedy for international politicians. It is a desperate situation for the Palestinians themselves. There is no chance of their building a stable society, a prosperous economy or democracy if numerous armed bodies exist with little or no loyalty to President, Prime Minister or parliament. Ironically, Israel provides the best local example for the Palestinians. When David Ben Gurion became the first Prime Minister of the modern state, he imposed himself on the various gangs that had fought for independence, disarmed them and insisted that they obeyed his office.
(The Times shoots itself in the foot here. Ben Gurion's disarmament came after independence was achieved, not before.)
The issue for those who could, if they united, stare Mr Arafat down is whether they are willing to do so. Mr Abbas's resignation letter followed an appearance before legislators in which he appealed for their support against the President. Although a majority of those present probably had some sympathy for him, far too many were willing to sit on their hands. Most intelligent and rational Palestinians appreciate that Mr Arafat is the personification of their problem, not the embodiment of a solution. They have to make it clear that they will only accept a Prime Minister who has all of the powers that Mr Abbas sought and an absolute mandate to execute them without interference. The unfortunate truth for those who would like to see the Palestinians realise many of their ambitions is that, until they have dealt with the Arafat factor, there is not the slightest prospect of them dealing effectively with Mr Bush and Mr Sharon.
Write to letters@thetimes.co.uk
If you want your letter to be considered for publication, say so and provide your full name, address and contact details. Please be polite, accurate and to the point.