In response to the Israeli cabinet resolution to “remove” PLO leader Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Authority cabinet affairs adviser, Yasser Abd Rabbo, stated, “The government of (Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon has bestowed upon itself a moral, legal and political right to assassinate a legitimate president, who was elected by his people under (the Israeli) occupation. Nazism, which represents the climax of moral, cultural and political degradation, did not dare to take a similar decision.” His comments were conveyed in a press release on Sunday. Abd Rabbo called the Israeli decision “shameful” and unprecedented, as well as “racist”. The majority support for the decision among Israelis, Abd Rabbo said, is “a serious indicator that the culture of arrogance and oppressive force has taken roots” in the society of the Jewish state.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said on September 13, 2003 that the Kingdom was extremely distressed by Israel’s threat to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, according to local Saudi Arabian press reports. “If it happens, it will be the height of impudence and interference in the affairs of the Palestinians. It will be the final nail in the coffin of the peace process,” Prince Saud was quoted as telling reporters in Jedda, “What they are trying to do is to ring the death knell of the road map and prevent peace from being established in the Middle East...”
The Saudi Arabian Arab News editorial of September 13 asked, “Has the Israeli government lost all grip on reality? That question is being asked all over the world. The decision to oust Yasser Arafat seems crazy. It is going to make peace impossible.”
Assuming that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not crazy, however, the Saudi newspaper claimed that the decision regarding Arafat “is yet another of Sharon’s stunts to dupe Israelis into thinking that he has answers to the suicide bombers. He has persistently peddled the lie... that hammering the Palestinians is going to produce peace. ...The tragedy is that the Israeli public... will once again swallow the deception because it is desperate to believe... it can have both security and land. ...Their belief in the impossible is Sharon's salvation.”
And, according to the Arab News, Sharon has a national objective in threatening to expel Arafat, in addition to his own political survival: “Exiling him is not going to remove him from the political process, it is going to put him firmly at the center of it. ...An expulsion would throw the peace process into total confusion. Getting Arafat back home would become the prime objective of international mediators, not getting a Palestinian state up and running. That is precisely what Sharon wants. He has no intention of giving up an inch of the occupied territories, no intention of dismantling a single Jewish settlement....” Hence, “So do not say that the decision to exile Arafat does not make sense. From Sharon’s devious standpoint, it makes perfect sense,” the editorial concluded.
Al-Raya, of Doha, Qatar, saw the Israeli decision regarding Arafat as a harbinger of deterioration, which will “usher in a new juncture that will take the region back to the previous state of ‘no war, no peace’ which preceded the Madrid Conference.” Furthermore, the newspaper said, “The Palestinian people will rise up in resistance to any act of aggression against their historic leader and plunge the region into an unstable chaotic state.” But such an event - the expulsion of Arafat - would also reveal “the unfortunate helplessness of Arabs in the face of the Israeli machine, which is confiscating land, killing children and assassinating Palestinian political leaders. Arab countries are incapable of exerting any pressure to prevent adding another ‘catastrophe’[nakba - the reference is to the Arabic term for the anniversary of Israel’s independence day - ed.] to the decades of... defeats,” the paper concluded.
The London-based al-Hayat of September 13, 2003, carried an article by Abdulwahab Badrakhan that places the onus on Washington to “clearly voice its refusal [of] the Israeli decision”, for if not, “then the international community will consider it from this moment on as the direct party responsible for the massacre, equal to Sharon and Mofaz, and to the 'elected' murderers.” But Badrakhan expressed his opinion that the “gang of war criminals in Israel most probably received a sign from Washington to convene as a ‘government’ and issue a decision to eliminate Arafat. Whenever there is confusion in the American position, the decision is referred to the Pentagon. The fierce hawks are those who encouraged Sharon and his gang to proceed with the destruction - the destruction of everything, from Oslo to the Roadmap. There are no more illusions; this is not about 'terrorism.' Israel wants to get rid of Arafat, because it wants to dispose of all the commitments and be able to impose its solutions for the Palestinian cause and subsequently rule through puppets... [and a] permanent veiled occupation.....”
However, al-Hayat noted, “For the past three decades, the Palestinian [banner] has been: Arafat... Now, at this moment, he is both the headline and the cause. Israel could kill him, with America's consent, but in the next moment it will realize that the only thing it gained is nothing but a new crime in his dark history, and it will have to confront the reality which it created through its murders. The world will know then that terrorism has one [banner], and that is: Israel.”
In the same edition of al-Hayat, columnist Ghassan Charbel wrote that “Yasser Arafat has cards in his hand that make it impossible to ignore him and dangerous to eliminate him. For four decades, he has embodied the Palestinians' persistence in ending the occupation and building their state. The symbol here is more important than the president. The aura is more important than the prerogatives. Arafat's aura extends beyond the limits of the Authority he presides, the limits of the PLO executive committee he manages, and the limits of Fatah he leads, unchallenged.”
Hence, Charbel declared, “Israel is confronted by Arafat's dilemma. He does not accept a fake peace Israel tries to impose. And Israel does not accept a reasonable peace he insists on. [Israel] has the power to undermine his authority as a president, but it cannot [diminish] his asset as the leader of the revolution, nor can it destroy his aura as a symbol. In ordinary days, the factions oppose him and many people don't hesitate to criticize him. But in difficult times, the Palestinians gather around him and the factions compete with each other in his defense. As long as he is alive, he is a real problem for Israel. And if he falls as a martyr under the rubble of his headquarters, he would be a catastrophe for Israel and the region at large.”
Charbel then explored the hypothetical expulsion of Arafat: “What Palestinian Authority will remain? Who will be bold enough to assume the Authority? Expelling him would simply mean reverting to the situation to what it was before September 13, 1993. The return to full occupation, in all its meaning. ....Expelling Arafat wouldn't mean bringing about his end. No Arab country can ignore the fate of the expelled president. His jet, which never rested, will once again travel from capital to capital. He will once again knock on the doors of many capitals, which won't have any pretext for refusing to host him. It would be difficult for Jacques Chirac not to let him once again into the Elys?e. Pope Jean-Paul II will find it impossible not to sympathize with the visitor and his cause.”
As for Israel, the al-Hayat pundit wrote, “It might have wanted to issue the decision in order to implicate Arafat's destiny in a very complicated game. The game starts with diverting international attention with a new issue. Instead of the world calling the Jewish state to stop killing, building the separation wall and implement its commitments according to the Roadmap, here it is calling it not to expel Arafat. Tomorrow, Israel might even collect from the U.S., Europe and other countries the price for refraining from expelling him or postponing the decision. Moreover, it might be trying to corral Hamas, Jihad and al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade. Who will bear the responsibility for suicide attacks that could 'justify' Israel's expulsion of Arafat?”
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said on September 13, 2003 that the Kingdom was extremely distressed by Israel’s threat to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, according to local Saudi Arabian press reports. “If it happens, it will be the height of impudence and interference in the affairs of the Palestinians. It will be the final nail in the coffin of the peace process,” Prince Saud was quoted as telling reporters in Jedda, “What they are trying to do is to ring the death knell of the road map and prevent peace from being established in the Middle East...”
The Saudi Arabian Arab News editorial of September 13 asked, “Has the Israeli government lost all grip on reality? That question is being asked all over the world. The decision to oust Yasser Arafat seems crazy. It is going to make peace impossible.”
Assuming that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not crazy, however, the Saudi newspaper claimed that the decision regarding Arafat “is yet another of Sharon’s stunts to dupe Israelis into thinking that he has answers to the suicide bombers. He has persistently peddled the lie... that hammering the Palestinians is going to produce peace. ...The tragedy is that the Israeli public... will once again swallow the deception because it is desperate to believe... it can have both security and land. ...Their belief in the impossible is Sharon's salvation.”
And, according to the Arab News, Sharon has a national objective in threatening to expel Arafat, in addition to his own political survival: “Exiling him is not going to remove him from the political process, it is going to put him firmly at the center of it. ...An expulsion would throw the peace process into total confusion. Getting Arafat back home would become the prime objective of international mediators, not getting a Palestinian state up and running. That is precisely what Sharon wants. He has no intention of giving up an inch of the occupied territories, no intention of dismantling a single Jewish settlement....” Hence, “So do not say that the decision to exile Arafat does not make sense. From Sharon’s devious standpoint, it makes perfect sense,” the editorial concluded.
Al-Raya, of Doha, Qatar, saw the Israeli decision regarding Arafat as a harbinger of deterioration, which will “usher in a new juncture that will take the region back to the previous state of ‘no war, no peace’ which preceded the Madrid Conference.” Furthermore, the newspaper said, “The Palestinian people will rise up in resistance to any act of aggression against their historic leader and plunge the region into an unstable chaotic state.” But such an event - the expulsion of Arafat - would also reveal “the unfortunate helplessness of Arabs in the face of the Israeli machine, which is confiscating land, killing children and assassinating Palestinian political leaders. Arab countries are incapable of exerting any pressure to prevent adding another ‘catastrophe’[nakba - the reference is to the Arabic term for the anniversary of Israel’s independence day - ed.] to the decades of... defeats,” the paper concluded.
The London-based al-Hayat of September 13, 2003, carried an article by Abdulwahab Badrakhan that places the onus on Washington to “clearly voice its refusal [of] the Israeli decision”, for if not, “then the international community will consider it from this moment on as the direct party responsible for the massacre, equal to Sharon and Mofaz, and to the 'elected' murderers.” But Badrakhan expressed his opinion that the “gang of war criminals in Israel most probably received a sign from Washington to convene as a ‘government’ and issue a decision to eliminate Arafat. Whenever there is confusion in the American position, the decision is referred to the Pentagon. The fierce hawks are those who encouraged Sharon and his gang to proceed with the destruction - the destruction of everything, from Oslo to the Roadmap. There are no more illusions; this is not about 'terrorism.' Israel wants to get rid of Arafat, because it wants to dispose of all the commitments and be able to impose its solutions for the Palestinian cause and subsequently rule through puppets... [and a] permanent veiled occupation.....”
However, al-Hayat noted, “For the past three decades, the Palestinian [banner] has been: Arafat... Now, at this moment, he is both the headline and the cause. Israel could kill him, with America's consent, but in the next moment it will realize that the only thing it gained is nothing but a new crime in his dark history, and it will have to confront the reality which it created through its murders. The world will know then that terrorism has one [banner], and that is: Israel.”
In the same edition of al-Hayat, columnist Ghassan Charbel wrote that “Yasser Arafat has cards in his hand that make it impossible to ignore him and dangerous to eliminate him. For four decades, he has embodied the Palestinians' persistence in ending the occupation and building their state. The symbol here is more important than the president. The aura is more important than the prerogatives. Arafat's aura extends beyond the limits of the Authority he presides, the limits of the PLO executive committee he manages, and the limits of Fatah he leads, unchallenged.”
Hence, Charbel declared, “Israel is confronted by Arafat's dilemma. He does not accept a fake peace Israel tries to impose. And Israel does not accept a reasonable peace he insists on. [Israel] has the power to undermine his authority as a president, but it cannot [diminish] his asset as the leader of the revolution, nor can it destroy his aura as a symbol. In ordinary days, the factions oppose him and many people don't hesitate to criticize him. But in difficult times, the Palestinians gather around him and the factions compete with each other in his defense. As long as he is alive, he is a real problem for Israel. And if he falls as a martyr under the rubble of his headquarters, he would be a catastrophe for Israel and the region at large.”
Charbel then explored the hypothetical expulsion of Arafat: “What Palestinian Authority will remain? Who will be bold enough to assume the Authority? Expelling him would simply mean reverting to the situation to what it was before September 13, 1993. The return to full occupation, in all its meaning. ....Expelling Arafat wouldn't mean bringing about his end. No Arab country can ignore the fate of the expelled president. His jet, which never rested, will once again travel from capital to capital. He will once again knock on the doors of many capitals, which won't have any pretext for refusing to host him. It would be difficult for Jacques Chirac not to let him once again into the Elys?e. Pope Jean-Paul II will find it impossible not to sympathize with the visitor and his cause.”
As for Israel, the al-Hayat pundit wrote, “It might have wanted to issue the decision in order to implicate Arafat's destiny in a very complicated game. The game starts with diverting international attention with a new issue. Instead of the world calling the Jewish state to stop killing, building the separation wall and implement its commitments according to the Roadmap, here it is calling it not to expel Arafat. Tomorrow, Israel might even collect from the U.S., Europe and other countries the price for refraining from expelling him or postponing the decision. Moreover, it might be trying to corral Hamas, Jihad and al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade. Who will bear the responsibility for suicide attacks that could 'justify' Israel's expulsion of Arafat?”