|
« HOME
BY EDWARD SA'ID:
-------------------------------------------------------
An Arab Voice
Edward Sa'id, an eminent Arabist at Columbia University and one of the outstanding spokesmen for the Palestinian cause, expresses his views.
"The by now notorious peace process has finally come
down to the one issue that has been at the core of
Palestinian depredations since 1948: the fate of the
refugees. That the Palestinians have endured decades of
dispossession and raw agonies rarely endured by other
peoples - particularly because these agonies have either
been ignored or denied, and even more poignantly, because
the perpetrators of this tragedy are celebrated for social
and political achievements that make no mention at all of
where those achievements actually began - is of course the
locus of "the Palestinian problem," but it has been pushed
very far down the agenda of negotiations until finally now,
it has popped up to the surface.
"Along with [the original displacement of the 1948
war] went the scandalously poor treatment of the refugees
themselves. It is still the case, for example, that the
40,000-50,000 Palestinian refugees resident in Egypt must
report to a local police station every month; vocational,
educational, and social opportunities are curtailed; and a
general sense of not belonging adheres to them, despite
their Arab nationality and language.
"In Lebanon the situation is even more dire. Almost
400,000 Palestinian refugees have had to endure not only
the massacres of Sabra, Shatila, Tel al-Za'atar, Dbayyeh,
and elsewhere, but have remained confined in hideous
quarantine for almost two generations. They have no legal
right to work in at least 60 occupations; they are not
adequately covered by medical insurance; they cannot travel
and return; they are the objects of suspicion and dislike.
In part, they have inherited the mantle of opprobrium
draped round them by the PLO's presence (and since 1982 its
unlamented absence) there, and thus they remain in the eyes
of many ordinary Lebanese a sort of house enemy to be
warded off and/or punished from time to time.
"A similar situation exists in kind, if not in degree,
in Syria. As for Jordan, although it was - to its credit -
the only country where Palestinians were given naturalized
status, a visible fault line exists between the
disadvantaged majority of that very large community and the
Jordanian establishment for reasons that scarcely need to
be spelled out. I might add, however, that for most of
these situations where Palestinian refugees exist in large
groups within one or another Arab country - all of them the
direct consequence of 1948 - no simple, much less elegant
or just, solution exists in the forseeable future. It is
also worth mentioning, or rather asking, why it is that a
destiny of confinement and isolation has been imposed on a
people who quite naturally fled to neighboring countries
when driven from their own, countries that everyone
believed would welcome and sustain them. More or less the
opposite occurred: except in Jordan, no welcome was given
them - another unpleasant consequence of the original
dispossession.
What of Yasser Arafat's leadership?
"Arafat survives inside the Palestinian territories
today for two main reasons: one, he is needed by the
international supporters of the peace process, Israel, the
US and the EU chief among them. He is needed to sign, and
that, after all, is what he is good for. The second reason
is that because he is a master at corrupting even the best
of his people, he has bought off or threatened all
organized opposition (there are always individuals who
cannot be co-opted) and therefore removed them as a threat.
The rest of the population is too uncertain and discouraged
to do much. The Authority employs about 140,000 people;
multiply that by five or six (the number of dependents of
each employee) and you get close to a million people whose
livelihood hangs by the string offered by Yasser Arafat.
Much as he is disliked, disrespected, and feared, he will
remain so long as he has this leverage over an enormous
number of people, who will not jeopardize their future just
because they are ruled by a corrupt, inefficient, and
stupid dictatorship which cannot even deliver the essential
services for daily civil life like water, health,
electricity, food, etc.
"That leaves the Palestinian diaspora, which produced
Arafat in the first place: It was from Kuwait and Cairo
that he emerged to challenge Shukairy and Haj Amin. A new
leadership will almost certainly appear from the
Palestinians who live elsewhere: they are a majority, none
of them feels that Arafat represents them, all of them
regard the Authority as without real legitimacy, and they
are the ones with the most to gain from the right of
return, on which Arafat and his men are going to be forced
to back down.
"Palestinian leadership has selfishly put its own
self-interest, over-inflated squadrons of security guards,
commercial monopolies, unseemly persistence in power,
lawless despotism, anti-democratic greed and cruelty,
before the collective Palestinian good. Until now, it has
connived with Israel to let the refugee issue slither down
the pole; but now that the final status era is upon us all,
there's no more room down there. And so, as I said above,
we're back to the basic, the irreconcilable, the
irremediably interlocked contradiction between Palestinian
and Israeli nationalism."
(From the introduction to Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return, Pluto Press, London, 2001) Award-winning Columbia University professor Edward Sa'id has published several books on the Palestinians and the Middle East.
|
The Difference Between Yasser Arafat Now and Anwar Sadat Then
After losing three wars, President Anwar Sadat of
Egypt came to the painful conclusion that Israel could not
be beaten on the battlefield. He therefore made the
courageous and historic trip to Jerusalem. Sadat and
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, after intensive
negotiations, reached the first peace agreement between
Israel and an Arab state, known as the Camp David Accord.
This was brokered by US President Jimmy Carter in 1979.
Another US President, Bill Clinton, made even greater
efforts to bring about peace between Israel and the
Palestinians, but to no avail. Arafat spurned the far-
reaching concessions offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Barak, choosing instead the path of terrorism and
initiating the latest intifada in August 2000.
Had Arafat inherited only a part of Sadat's wisdom and
vision, there would probably have been a viable and
flourishing Palestinian state today. Instead, there are
thousands of bereaved families and no end in sight for a
solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.
|
|
 |
 |
|
Discuss this topic on our forum. Let your opinion count.
CLICK HERE
|
|




|
|