A few diaries have flown around here recently speculating on Arafat's mysterious illness (is it AIDS?!?!) and prematurely suggesting his death. While I love salacious speculation as much as the next guy (or gal), these discussions have pushed a very serious crisis off to the side: once Arafat
is dead, where do we (both the U.S. and the world) go from there?
While the temptation of many in the U.S. at this point is to assume that Arafat's death is good news, for any one of a number of CW-hyped reasons (most usually devolving to the idea that Arafat "blew it" and no peace plan is possible while he is the Palestinian leader), his death, and particularly the circumstances of his death, portend a serious crisis in the world's most volatile region.
Taking the CW first, I'm not going to dispute (in this space, anyway) the suggestion that Arafat's presence made a comprehensive peace plan impossible. However, his death is not a miracle cure-all for what ails the diplomatic aspects of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Ideally, even by the CW's standards, Arafat would have stepped aside and anointed a successor. He has not done so, which means the prospect of a Palestinian power vacuum is both imminent and all-too-real.
Leaders from the Palestinian Authority have thus far done an admirable job of holding things together in Arafat's absence. But within the past two days, there have been several ominous developments.
First, the announcement of a trip to Arafat's bedside to determine the facts of his illness prompted widespread speculation in the Mideast (reported in Ha'aretz), that Palestinian Authority leaders intended to "pull the plug" on Arafat's life support today, giving Arafat's death a heightened symbolic meaning. Tonight will mark Lailat al-Kader, the night Muslims beleive God revealed the Qur'an to the Prophet Mohammed.
Whether or not that story was true, Arafat's wife, Suha, angrily publicized her take on things on al Jazeera, accusing the PA leadership of attempting to "bury Abu Ammar [Arafat] while he is still alive." Her outburst intially scuttled the leadership's plans for the trip to Arafat's bedside, but the trip was then rescheduled, and various Palestinian leaders, including Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, are scheduled to visit Arafat today.
All of that is simply background to the very real divisions that exist. Suha Arafat reportedly controls between $4.5 and $6.5 billion signed over to her by Arafat. That money is apparently on top of Arafat's own personal fortune, estimated at anywhere from $250 million to over $1 billion. Palestinian leaders have argued that the money "signed over" to Suha belongs to the Palestinan people. The antagonism between Suha and the political leaders of the Palestinian Authority is nothing new, though the vast sums of money at issue have probably stoked the divisions anew.
As Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom put it, "Arafat has enormous sums of money at his disposal, and any difficulties with respect to a leadership transition in the Palestinian camp are related to that money." Of course, Shalom's comments were in the context of some subtle warnings toward the Palestinians:
We are not interfering with preparations for the post-Arafat era. We have to wait, and we hope that the new Palestinian leadership will fight against terrorism, proceed with carrying out democratic reforms within the Palestinian Authority and be able to engage in peace talks with Israel," he said.
That sort of statement appears to be a reaction, at least in part, to recent demands from Hamas and Islamic Jihad for a seat at the post-Arafat table of PA leadership. From Ha'aretz:
On Sunday, Hamas and Islamic Jihad sources began attacking Abbas and Qureia personally and undermining their legitimacy as leaders of the Palestinian cause. Apparently the groups' real demand is for the immediate formation of a joint leadership representing all the organizations which will make immediate decisions until elections are held in the territories.
A Hamas spokesman said after Qureia's departure that "we must set up a joint national leadership to make decisions until elections are held. What was permitted to Yasser Arafat is forbidden to others and we must not let interested parties in the PA and PLO control Palestinian destiny. Arafat derived his authority from being a symbol, but others don't have that privilege."
In short, once Arafat passes away (and it seems to be a question of when, not if), we can expect a pitched battle for control of both the PA and the hearts and minds of Palestinians. How the U.S. handles the aftermath of Arafat's passing could be crucial in determining the future trajectory of the I/P conflict. With this administration in power I am not optimistic.