Arafat In Critical Condition

HaAretz:

"Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat was fighting for his life as of Wednesday night, after his condition deteriorated sharply on Wednesday evening, officials in Arafat's office told Israeli security officials.

Arafat, 75, lost consciousness Wednesday evening, and a team of Jordanian doctors, headed by his personal neurologist, Ashraf Kurdi, was urgently summoned to join the Tunisian and Jordanian doctors already treating him. At Egypt's request, a team of Egyptian doctors is also en route. (...)

According to a bodyguard who was in the compound at the time, Arafat had been eating soup during a meeting with Qureia, Abbas and senior Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo between 8 P.M. and 9 P.M. when he vomited. He was brought to the clinic inside the compound, where he collapsed and was unconscious for about 10 minutes, the guard said.

Some Palestinian officials said Arafat has been unconscious virtually ever since; others said he has been slipping in and out of consciousness; and still others said he was conscious, but delirious. (...)

In response to Arafat's illness, the PA put its security services on high alert. Palestinian officials are particularly worried about the possibility of a battle for the succession once Arafat dies, as he has never appointed a successor. Rumors were flying through the PA on Wednesday night that he had managed to do so shortly before losing consciousness, but there does not appear to be any basis to these rumors. Since losing consciousness, he has not seen anyone.

The Israel Defense Forces also began preparing for the possibility of Arafat's death on Wednesday night. Over the past year, the army prepared a plan for "the day after," which stresses the importance of preventing a deterioration in the situation in the territories immediately following Arafat's death."

There seems to be a uncertainty and disagreement about what exactly Arafat's illness is. -- I posted such a long excerpt since I wasn't sure how many of you read HaAretz (or any other Israeli paper) on a regular basis; as one might expect, the coverage is more detailed than, say, the AP story that both the NY Times and the Washington Post are currently running.

Comments

[sidereal]

Did the soup smell like almonds?

Or maybe the tinfoil crew has enough enthusiasm without me egging them on.

[cleek]

just FYI: CNN's reporting not 'critical'. whatever his condition, it's being spun.

[praktike]

Hmmm ... this is a very interesting feeling. I don't like Arafat at all, I think he's a disaster for his people ... but I still feel a modicum of pity. Strange.

Anyone else?

[CaseyL]

Not. One. Single. Shred. Of pity.

If it weren't for Arafat, the Palestinians would soon be celebrating the 4th anniversary of their own sovereign state.

[cleek]

Anyone else?

yup. as a political figure, whatever. but as a human being, you gotta see your own mortality in anyone who's coming up against their own.

[Iron Lungfish]

I've no love for Arafat, CaseyL, but the deal he walked away from was a lousy deal. It may have been the only deal he was ever going to get, and it might have been his decision to walk away from it, but it was a bona fide crap deal for the Palestinians, and it's one of the few decisions that man's ever made I can sympathize with.

[Iron Lungfish]

And yeah, I can sympathize with a sick old man who may or may not be dying, even if it's Arafat.

[hilzoy]

I think Arafat has been a more or less unmitigated disaster for his people, but of course I pity him. Then again, when Saddam Hussein was still in power, a man I totally loathed back when my government was still sending him satellite imagery, I could only bring myself to wish that a benevolent deity might remove him and his sons to a distant universe causally isolated from our own, where the three of them could fight for power all by themselves.

[felixrayman]

If it weren't for Arafat, the Palestinians would soon be celebrating the 4th anniversary of their own sovereign state.

Only if you use a very, very strange definition of the term "sovereign state".

[liberal japonicus]

Doesn't anyone think that if Arafat had supported GW1 rather than siding with Sadaam then, things would have been different?

[praktike]

Doesn't anyone think that if Arafat had supported GW1 rather than siding with Sadaam then, things would have been different?

Isn't the standard history that it was the humiliation of Saddam plus the demise of the Soviet Union that made a settlement theoretically possible?

[liberal japonicus]

Yes, you're right Praktike, I was thinking that GW1 was after Oslo, which is pretty dumb because it was Bush then Clinton, but i guess because I view the efforts of American presidents to be only slightly significant, I pushed that out of my mind.

But I still think that Arafat was simply not up to the task before him (though I wonder who would have been) I still feel sympathy, and I think that attempts to villify him simply miss the fact that he didn't/doesn't really have the vision necessary to carry off what needs to be done (though I don't think anyone has made it any easier on him)

[Catsy]

No sympathy. None. The idea of Arafat going out naturally and denying his supporters the boon of a high-profile martyr fills me with t3h j0y.

[Don Quijote]

Don't start the party yet, cause you have no ideal as to who is going to replace him.

Odds are, when you find out, you'll look back fondly on Arafat.

[lightning]

Hmm. The way I remember it (corrections welcome) is that the reason that Israel tolerated Arafat was that he was the only Palastinian leader to admit that, under some unspecified and possibly impossible conditions, Israel might have some kind of right to existance.

Whoever his successor is, I doubt that he'll admit even that little bit. I wonder if it will make any real difference.

The Palistinians were manufactured as weapons against Israel by the rest of the Arab world (why are there 50 year old refugee camps?) and that isn't going to change.

[rilkefan]

Arafat, having failed to ruin Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel; having fanned the flames of the second Intifada and turned away from the best deal available (a deal that might in time have led to a generally satisfactory resolution of the conflict) resulting in everybody's favorite Ariel Sharon getting elected and leading to the further impoverishment of his people; having led a signally corrupt administration that did not serve its constituents, resulting in the greater legitimization of religious fanatics; having governed in such a way as to prevent the development of natural successors to his position, meaning in all likelihood further chaos and suffering after his demise: deserves as a human being to die at a fit time in as much comfort as possible. I hope he survives this latest scare and leads his people on to peace and prosperity, though that would astonish me.

[praktike]

Well put, rilkefan.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I can't bring myself to feel sorry for Arafat. I can feel sorry for the Palestinian people whom he has deeply impoverished. And I can't even applaud his illness, because the chaos his death is likely to unleash upon the Palestinians is probably monumental.

[Anarch]

Reminds of what Churchill, I believe, said of Lenin:

"The worst thing that ever happened to the Russian people was Lenin's birth. The second-worst thing was his death."

[felixrayman]

Arafat ... turned away from the best deal available (a deal that might in time have led to a generally satisfactory resolution of the conflict) resulting in everybody's favorite Ariel Sharon getting elected and leading to the further impoverishment of his people

What is this, the alternative history of the world?

During the Taba negotiations - conducted during the runup to the election - Arafat stayed at the table. When Barak unilaterally walked away, Arafat begged, on television, for negotiations to continue. All the while Sharon officially stated that he would ignore the results of any negotiations were he to be elected. Barak and Sharon both turned away from making any sort of deal during the Taba talks - not Arafat.

Your version of events is simply false. It might make good agitprop, might make a pleasant myth. But it is false.

[rilkefan]

"Your version of events is simply false. It might make good agitprop, might make a pleasant myth. But it is false."

No, Taba was too late - no Clinton to oversee the deal; Barak's reelection hopes fatally damaged by Ararat's Intifada and refusal to engage the Clinton deal (a mistake even by Arafat's subsequent admission); and no rational people left believing Arafat had the will to make an accord work - he'd even managed to alienate the Saudis and Egyptians over the Clinton deal. So you're wrong, and nyaah-nyaah-nyaah for your tone.

[CaseyL]

"Bona fide crap deal"?

So, what they got instead was better? Really?

With all its blemishes, Barak's offer was a chance for Palestinians to plant their flag. It would have been a starting place for future negotiations, and from a much stronger negotiating position.

Instead...well, the Palestinians worse off than ever, the peace parties on both sides are thoroughly demoralized and shut out, and everyting is so poisoned now I have no idea how things are going to improve.

Nope. Sorry, but turning down Barak's offer and restarting the intifada was utterly disastrous.

[felixrayman]

No, Taba was too late

That's nonsense. Arafat was willing, nay begging, to negotiate. Barak pretended to be, then walked away. Sharon was never willing to negotiate. "The Myth of the Generous Offer", they call it.

As for my tone, I call agitprop what it is. Not that the truth is going to do a lot of good in a room full of people taking great joy in the death of a tired old man (Not. One. Single. Shred. Of pity. is how the death chant goes), but still, the truth is the truth and it needs to be said.

[felixrayman]

Instead...well, the Palestinians worse off than ever

Ah, that's where you are wrong. The Palestinians have the weapon of demographics - time is on their side.

Israeli Jews have two choices in the long run, a state called Israel with an Arab majority, or genocide. Only if you assume the second choice will be made would you argue that the Palestinians should bargain as though they had the weaker position.

[Anarch]

Only if you assume the second choice will be made would you argue that the Palestinians should bargain as though they had the weaker position. [Emphasis mine.]

Both sides need to put aside whatever "strengths" they have to negotiate a mutually agreeable end to the Israel/Palestine dilemma; as long as we talk about relative strengths of bargaining positions, the conflict will never be resolved.

[felixrayman]

Both sides need to put aside whatever "strengths" they have to negotiate a mutually agreeable end to the Israel/Palestine dilemma

Oh really? Does that mean you think Israel should put the right of return on the table?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

What would be mutually agreeable about the right of return?

You can't credit Arafat for Taba when he had already walked away from the Clinton/Barak deal, when he had already destroyed Barak's party by doing so, when he already restarted the intifada and suicide bombings in order to get an even better deal. He was negotiating from the position of terrorism for something he could have gotten without terrorism. Even if you give him credit for Taba, which you should not, it was essentially the same deal as the Clinton deal--i.e. he didn't have to kill hundreds of people to get it.

[felixrayman]

What would be mutually agreeable about the right of return?

OK, that's the end of the whole "Both sides need to put aside whatever 'strengths' they have" charade. It was a nice half hour or so while it lasted.

it was essentially the same deal as the Clinton deal

Just for reference, can you point me to the exact text of the offer made to the Palestinians in the "Clinton deal"? Not the spin, not the agitprop, the exact text of the offer. Got a link?

[Don Quijote]

Maps- both sites have many more.

Projection of Final Status Map presented by Israel - December 2000

Palestinian Bantustans in the West Bank

[praktike]

Sorry, Arafat screwed Clinton, big time. That's why Arafat's begging at Taba is a red herring.

[Anarch]

felixrayman: OK, that's the end of the whole "Both sides need to put aside whatever 'strengths' they have" charade. It was a nice half hour or so while it lasted.

First and foremost, you mind actually looking at who's doing the posting, felix? Sebastian was the one to whom you were responding here, not me, so I fail to see how any "charade" was being perpetuated.

Secondly, I don't see how "right of return" constitutes a "strength" in the manner that you or I were originally speaking. To clarify my point, as long as both sides persist in viewing these negotiations through the paradigm of strength -- the typical MO for negotiations, I'll grant you, but there's nothing "typical" about this situation -- then the calculus this engenders will inevitably result in deadlock and bloody retributions. The only way peace will result is if both sides are willing to lay down their "upper hands" and alter the paradigm of the negotiations to try to eke out some kind of mutually agreeable end. In other words, both sides will have to be seriously willing to give up concessions that they could probably get under normal circumstances in order to pursue the larger goal of peace.

And no, I ain't holding my breath.

Finally, as for right of return, I don't have a problem with Israel putting it on the table, no. Why would I? The more interesting question is whether I think they are within their rights to keep it off the table. From my personal perspective -- and I make no claims to be Jewish, Arab, or in any meaningful way personally impacted by this conflict -- I'm willing to consider anything that will stop the violence and the killing. If right of return appears to be the only way to accomplish that then yes, I think it should be considered. By the same token, if pursuing right of return appears to make peace harder to attain, then it shouldn't be. I know this isn't the answer you want but that's the way it is; I'm not trying to solve IP on a blog comment thread, but rather to illuminate what I see as the central problem with the negotiations that have been pursued.

[felixrayman]

Sorry, Arafat screwed Clinton, big time

What, Arafat promised Clinton to enter into whatever deal was offered, whether he thought it was a good one or not? Please.

And come on people, if you are so sure that Arafat should have taken the deal offered, I assume you've seen the text of the actual deal? I'm still waiting on someone to provide said text. Not maps, not what one side says was in the deal, where is the actual text of the supposed offer that Arafat turned down?