Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization - Research Paper Example

Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization Abstract The origins of the PLO under the direction of Yasser Arafat have been explored, followed by its increasing role as a terrorist organization dedicated to the overthrow of Israel. The activities of Yasser Arafat on the world stage have also been studied as well as his participation in such peace initiatives as the “Oslo Agreement”. The creation of the Palestine Authority has also been covered as well as the foundation of Hamas, an organization whose fortunes were, for many years, entwined with those of the PLO. The second part of the work has been concerned with the efforts of the United States to act as a peacemaker between the warring factions in the Middle East. Inevitably these were tainted – and largely unsuccessful – because of the inherent bias of the US towards Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, whom they did not really understand. Finally, some thought are offered on a possible initiative which, if advanced by the US, could offer some hope of peace. Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization versus the Israeli Leadership and how it is seen by the US government Some form of terrorism has existed for thousands of years and the ways in which it has operated are dependant on such factors as: religion, the parameters of the conflict and the circumstances in which the opponents find themselves. In this particular case the area is the Middle East, the opponents are the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis, religion is a powerful influence and the dispute involves the right to occupy certain tracts of land. Before proceeding further, however, it is necessary to be clear about the meaning of terrorism, and although a simple definition would be convenient Jonathan R White suggests that “terrorism means different things to different people” and also that ”the nature of terrorism has changed over the course of history. Violent activity called terrorism at one point in time is called war, liberation, or crime in another period of history.” (2008). Having established that the meaning of terrorism is impossible to define with accuracy, it is now appropriate to consider how the standpoints of both protagonists appear to have become established, how they are perceived by the United States and what, if anything, can be done about them. It should be mentioned, however, that many discrepancies in the different accounts of events; in both dates and the consistency of reporting were discovered, and what follows has been compiled from the data which seemed to be most authentic and reliable. Yasser Arafat and the PLO Yasser Arafat was born in 1929 in Cairo and at the age of four was sent to live with his uncle in Jerusalem and, as a young man, witnessed the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. This event was the decision of a number of nations resulting from the atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jewish people during the second World War. The new Jewish homeland was established from lands which belonged to a variety of nations and peoples. Among those whose lands were sacrificed in this venture were the Palestinians, and this of course enraged Arafat – by then already a political activist – and in 1959 together with some twenty like-minded Palestinians - he formed a guerrilla organization, known as “Fatah”, the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine which operated subversively with the intention of recovering Palestinian land from Israel by force. The founding of the PLO In 1965 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed as means of gathering together a number of existing Arab terrorists but also as the military branch of the PLO, a role which it still enjoys today. In 1968 Yasser Arafat was appointed leader of the PLO, becoming its Chairman in 1969, a post which he retained until 2004. The activities of the PLO were developed from the Palestinian National Covenant (PNC) which was implemented in 1968. Lest there be any doubt that the PLO was a terrorist organization devoted to the destruction of Israel it is worth looking at some of the clauses in the PNC: “…to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine” and again “Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world.” (Palestine Facts 2010). It also “….calls for ‘commando action’ as the ‘nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war’” (Palestine Facts 2010). The formation of the PLO was one of the results of the recognition by the Arab States of the existence of “Palestine” as a cohesive entity (Tzahal 2010), and this led to the increasing use of small groups of terrorists - operating from bases in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria – to carry out attacks on villages and areas in the demilitarized zones created after the War of Independence [1947-1949]. The Six-Day War Events soon escalated and the Syrians – who in 1966 had signed a “mutual defense pact”- with Egypt (Tzahal 2010) called upon their ally for assistance in what they believed would be an assault from Israeli forces. As a result Egypt sent a military force into Sinai, the Egyptian President ordered the blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and declared that their [the Arab States] intention was the final destruction of Israel. The forces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq moved to threaten Israel’s border, and later Jordan opened fire on a number of targets including West Jerusalem. Israel’s response was swift and deadly: the Arab air-forces and their airfields were destroyed by bombing, Israeli forces moved into Sinai and, by the fourth day the war was over leaving Israel in possession of The Gaza strip, the Golan Heights, the whole of the West Bank, the Sinai peninsular and the whole of Jerusalem (Tzahal 2010). After the Six Day War the PLO was obliged to carry out its terrorist strikes from a number of different bases: in Jordan until 1970; from southern Lebanon until the US-sponsored peace plan caused them in the early 1980s to locate in a number of “friendly” Arab countries, including Tunis in 1982. These events are also treated in Chapter 10 of White’s book (2008). Attempts at Peace and governance In 1988 Yasser Arafat publicly repudiated the use of terrorist activities by members of the PLO (FAS 1998). However, this was merely window dressing and the attacks continued covertly until 1990 when Arafat did not feel able to condemn the attack by the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) on the Israeli seashore. This neglect caused the United States to terminate its dialogue with the PLO in the same year (FAS 1998). In 1993 The “Declaration of Principles” [also known as ”The Oslo Agreement” or Oslo Accord] was signed by the PLO and Israel at the White House in Washington (James 1993) a hopeful gesture towards peace in the Middle East. In the 1990s much of the disputed territories were administered jointly by the Palestine Authority (PA) and Israel, and in 1995 the PA took over the administration of parts of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. In 1996 the first democratically elected government of Palestine took office with a cabinet of 20 ministers, most of whom were members of the PLO and sympathetic to the Fatah movement created by Arafat many years ago. Yasser Arafat, needless to say, continued for many years to dominate the actions of the government as well as taking all the most important decisions. What of the present and pointers to the future? There is so much confusion about “roles and influences” in the last years of the previous century and the first decade of this that it is only possible to make a brief statement of the stance of the PLO in this period. The decline, rise and decline of the PLO After the signing of the Oslo agreement the influence of the PLO in Palestinian national affairs began to diminish and was largely supplanted by the PA which controlled the territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Rubinstein 2001). However, the Agreement did not survive and the effectiveness of the rule of the PA began to diminish, to be replaced by a resurgent PLO – a very different animal from that which had previously operated from strength. Fatah once again emerged as the top dog in the organization aided and abetted by such other bodies as the Muslim fundamentalists (Rubinstein 2001). The most significant differences however were in the fact that Yasser Arafat no longer visited the PLO headquarters in Ramallah; other senior officials were also noticeably absent – often prevented from attending by the Israelis (Rubinstein 2001). At the present time there are many views on the role and effectiveness of the PLO, and it will be sufficient to offer just one by the Secretary-general of the Islamic Jihad Movement (Shallah 2010) who maintained that while the Palestinian people had risen to their challenges and “emerged victorious out of the war on Gaza after they foiled all the Israeli goals of the war” (Shallah 2010), the PLO had given up on the Palestinian people and was no longer a force to be reckoned with. Before leaving the subject of the rise and fall of the PLO it is revealing to consider how the PLO sought to justify its existence and its aims (Rubin 1993). The line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism had to be carefully drawn so as not to antagonize either the rest of the Western world or a fair proportion of the Jewish population. The rather obscure solution was to separate Jews and Judaism from Zionism and Israel and to find that Zionism was the principal cause of anti-Semitism. In fact, at one stage Arafat in 1992 even asserted that “the Jews are our cousins” (Rubin 1993). This contrasts strongly with Abu Iyad’s – second in seniority only to Yarafat – assertion in 1989 that “It is an uncontrovertible fact that Palestine is Arab-Islamic and that the Jews are the scum of humanity that gathered from the four corners of the earth and conquered our land….” (Rubin 1993).It is evident from the events in history that whatever words were uttered and treaties entered into the PLO had a deep and abiding hatred of Israel and the Jews. The origins of Hamas Although this essay is primarily concerned with the activities of the PLO, after the creation of Hamas in 1987 – just before Arafat’s denunciation of terrorism - the fortunes of the two organizations were closely entwined so it is appropriate now to consider how Hamas was born and what was its role in the political and physical fight against Israel. Shortly after the first uprising – the Intifada - in protest against the Israeli occupation of much of Palestine, a group of what would now be called dissidents - living in Gaza - and members of the “Society of Muslim Brothers”, were inspired in 1987 by an enterprising individual called Shaykh Ahmad Yasin to join him in the foundation of an organization to be called Hamas (Davidson 2009). These and other issues relating to Hamas are also discussed by White (2008). In contrast to the PLO the roots of Hamas are in religion (Tamimi 2007) and this led to ever-increasing friction between the two factions. The opportunity for which Hamas was waiting came in the late 1980s when the PLO was forced to carry out its terrorist activities from outside their Palestine homeland. It should be remembered that although the Hamas leaders took pains to present the organization as peaceful and religious, their charter clearly stated that “Jihad, or armed struggle, was the sole path to realizing its goals” (Regular 2006). The position of the United States The United States has frequently tried to undertake the role of peace maker in world affairs, sometimes successfully, on other occasions less so. In the case of the Middle East, however, successive Presidents have had to tread with caution, aware that their survival at the next election would depend largely on the votes of the American-Jewish population of the country. Before dealing with the interaction between the US and the PLO it will be helpful to try to understand what were the motives which dictated US policy towards the Middle East. The matter falls quite neatly into two phases: (1) Before the Six-Day War and (2) After the Six-Day War. In the period before the Six-Day War during the time of the Cold War the US policy towards the Middle East was a mixture of philanthropy and self-interest. This was described by the US Ambassador Philip Wilcox in an address in Washington in 2008. He pointed out that in President Eisenhower’s time the aim was “win the hearts and minds of people around the world as we faced the Soviet adversary” (Wilcox 2008). In the broader context the aim had a number of other goals as well as the prevention of Soviet intervention in the area. The others were: the safeguarding of the Middle East oil supplies, the maintenance of free trade and trade routes in the area, the encouragement of democratic governments and the protection of Israel’s safety (Bing 2009). One of the problems which colored the US view of Palestinians was that it was unable to visualize them as fully fledged participants in the negotiations for peace between the two nations, but considered them to be refugees and thus one of the problems in the equation (Bing 2009). After the War the US increasingly tended to favor the interests of Israel by tacitly accepting the implementation of Israel’s nuclear programs and providing a supply of arms. The rationale for this one-sided attitude was, according to Wilcox, “this would give Israel the confidence, the assurance and the sense of security so that it would make peace” (Wilcox 2008). As might have been expected this dream did not come about and one of the results was that it gave Israel the confidence to adopt whatever measures it thought fit against the Palestinians. Another watershed in US relations with the protagonists in the Middle East was the signing of the Oslo agreement in 1993. The fact that it was signed in the White House gave an outward and visible sign of the involvement and approval of the United States. Although the agreement was widely acclaimed by President Clinton and others as defining a process for peace between Palestine and Israel, in reality it was only “an agreement to negotiate a peace agreement” (James 1993). In addressing the Palestinian- Israeli question it also ignores the wider picture of the relationship between the Arabs and the Israelis. Despite its limitations, however, the agreement did provide the basis of a future peace initiative which would, as James says, “reduce the security threats not only to the United States, but to moderate Arab states aligned with the West such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arabian monarchies of the Persian Gulf…and remove a potential cause of instability and war in the region that could interrupt the flow of Middle Eastern oil to Western market” (James 1993). But, of course, the Oslo Agreement soon unraveled and an opportunity was missed. One way of securing “goodwill” among the Middle East nations in the future has been suggested by Wilcox (2008). He believes that the despair of the Palestinians at the continued growth of Israeli settlements in “their” land and the fear among Israelis of the suicide bombers of the Palestinians could be alleviated by an initiative from the US stating its view of “what needs to be done to preserve Israel as a safe, democratic Jewish state, and a Palestinian state that is contiguous, that is viable, that is free of settlements and has its capital in East Jerusalem, I think would have a huge impact on the Israeli and Palestinian public…if we pointed out that this is the only way out for both peoples…I think they would rally to support the United States” (Wilcox 2008). Such a course does offer a glimmer of hope for the future. However, not all authorities are prepared to be generous in accepting the largely unsuccessful role of the United States as a Middle East peacemaker; indeed Naseer Hasan Aruri (2003) uses the term “Dishonest Broker”. He maintains that following the Six-Day War the relationships between the US and Israel strengthened into an alliance with strategic overtones which effectively froze out any peace initiatives by other agencies; thus forfeiting the right to be able to act as an “Honest Broker” (Aruri 2003). The worsening relationship between the US and Palestine deepened after 9/11 since both the US and Israel took the view that the events on that day were caused by Arab influence, particularly from Yasser Arafat, whose removal the Americans demanded. Later on American diplomacy is seen by Aruri to become less effective, thus clearing the way for Israel under Ariel Sharon to mount an offensive against Palestine (Aruri 2003). It is also the case that the idea of terrorism has for many years perplexed and scared the US; they did not understand it and, at worst believed it to be an “Arab” phenomenon, although many other nations, including Israel, practised terrorism. This view is also part of the scenario advanced by Wilcox (2008). Conclusion The continued conflict between the two warring nations of the Middle East has been largely due to the intransigence of a number of public figures – Yasser Arafat of the PLO on the one hand – and a succession of hard-line Israeli Presidents. Both have utterly failed to see the other’s point of view: the Palestinians have resorted to ever-increasing suicide bombing and shelling – by their allies – of Israeli territory, and the Israelis have imposed an ever- tightening military rule over Palestine territories coupled with the increasing encroachment by “illegal” settlements. Numerous promises have been made and broken and many peace initiatives, often brokered by the US have failed. It is not until the US can act even-handedly without favoring Israel that any real progress can be made. References Aruri, N. H. (2003) Dishonest Broker: The Role of the United States in Palestine and Israel. (2nd ed.). South End Press Bing, F. (2009). The Role of US in Israel-Palestine Peace Talk, Journal of International Relations. 23:40:38 Davidson, L. (2009). Hamas: origins and development. Blackwell Reference Online: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocncode?id=g9781405184649_chunk_g97... Accessed 02/02/2010 FAS. (1998). Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Intelligence Resource Program: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/plo.htm Accessed 04/02/2010 James, P. (1993). Beyond the Israeli-PLO Peace Agreement: The US, Role in Consolidating Peace: http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg963.cfm Accessed 04/02/2010 Palestine Facts. (2010). Israel 1991 to present Yasser Arafat and the PLO: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_plo-arafat.php Accessed 02/02/2010 Regular, A. (2006). In a bid to pull voters, Hamas approaches stance of Fatah. Haaretz – Israel News: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtm?itemNo=671565 Accessed 03/02/2010 Rubin, B. (1993). The PLO between Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism, Background and Recent Developments. Acta No. 1, SISCA The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rubinstein, D. (2001). The PLO is rising – and the PA is sinking: http://www.palestineaidsociety.org/www/plo­is­rising.htm Accessed 04/02/2010 Tammimi, A. (2007). Hamas – A History From Within. Northampton, Massachusetts. Olive Branch Press PLO vs Israeli Leadership 13 Tzahal. (2010). The State of Israel in conflict. The Jewish Agency for Israel, Department for Jewish Zionist Education: http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/d3.html Accessed 04/02/2010 White, J. R. (2008). Terrorism and Homeland Security: An Introduction. (6th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Wilcox, P. (2008). The Future American Role in the Israeli-Palestine Conflict. The Palestine Center, Washington DC: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/2680/index.php Accessed 05/02/2010 Read More