A July 21 article by Editor-in-Chief Jalal Duwaydar in the state-run Al-Akhbar daily entitled ‘Arafat is Responsible’ [translated by the U.S. government’s Foreign Broadcast Information Service] accuses Arafat of undermining the ‘Palestinian cause’ and failing to make true decisions at any point in his career.
”Israeli aggressiveness must be very happy!” writes Duwaydar, “The cutthroat Sharon and his bloody group must be very happy! They should bask in this fabulous present
President Arafat gave them by his stubbornness and insistence on opposing the current that demands PA reforms.”
The Egyptian Editor believes that Arafat is responsible for the descent into chaos of Gaza’s various terror groups and lambastes the aging terror chief’s “narrow-mindedness” for contributing to developments he says are greatly beneficial for Israel.
“Unifying security bodies was one of the most important demands presented to President Arafat in order to bring about discipline, improve the Palestinian image on the international sphere and cut off Israel and its supporters by denying them the
opportunity of using this as a pretext for Washington's declared postponement of the creation of a Palestinian State that had been slated for 2005,” writes Duwaydar.
“Arafat believed - out of vanity and his indisputable leadership - he could refuse to carry out this step,” Duwaydar continues. “Once again we say that President Arafat who, despite everything that happened, still has the capability to take the reins of events, is responsible for what happened and that he is required to respond to the will of the Palestinian people…”
It has been a long road, but even the New York Times, today (Thursday) joined the ranks of those calling for Yassir Arafat’s removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority.
In a December 14, 2001 editorial following Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s declaration that Arafat was “irrelevant” and would no longer be dealt with, the editors of the Times wrote: “In the absence of a credible successor, dealing with Mr. Arafat for the time being is better than dealing with unbridled anarchy or the hijacking of the Palestinian movement by Hamas…Trying to work with Mr. Arafat a while longer is better for Israel than a full-scale war with the Palestinians.
Thursday, the Times editorial staff takes a harder line toward Arafat, saying that the situation calls for his ‘immediate retirement.’
“It has been the misfortune of the Palestinian people to be stuck with Yassir Arafat as their founding father, a leader who has failed to make the transition from romantic revolutionary to statesman,” read the editorial. “All he seems capable of offering Palestinians now is a communal form of the martyrdom he seems to covet. Mr. Arafat should accept his limitations and retire as president of the Palestinian Authority.”
Even taking a stab at Europeans still backing the arch-terrorist, the Times writes: “Mr. Arafat's longstanding international benefactors [can’t] pretend any longer that he is capable of responsibly governing a sovereign state if he ever got the chance.”
“But there is, of course, no sign that Mr. Arafat is interested in much beyond his own myth,” the editorial continued. “Pinned down for the last two years in his battered Ramallah bunker, Mr. Arafat has abused his control over the authority's treasury and militias…The dire situation calls for Mr. Arafat's immediate retirement.”
At the same time, the Times editorial reaches for ‘balance,’ referring to “Mr. Arafat's equally stubborn nemesis, Ariel Sharon.”
“Saying that it's time for Mr. Arafat to go is not the same as saying it is time for Mr. Arafat to be removed by force,” warns the Times editorial. “He is, after all, a democratically elected leader, though the term he won in 1996 was never meant to be this long.”
”Israeli aggressiveness must be very happy!” writes Duwaydar, “The cutthroat Sharon and his bloody group must be very happy! They should bask in this fabulous present
President Arafat gave them by his stubbornness and insistence on opposing the current that demands PA reforms.”
The Egyptian Editor believes that Arafat is responsible for the descent into chaos of Gaza’s various terror groups and lambastes the aging terror chief’s “narrow-mindedness” for contributing to developments he says are greatly beneficial for Israel.
“Unifying security bodies was one of the most important demands presented to President Arafat in order to bring about discipline, improve the Palestinian image on the international sphere and cut off Israel and its supporters by denying them the
opportunity of using this as a pretext for Washington's declared postponement of the creation of a Palestinian State that had been slated for 2005,” writes Duwaydar.
“Arafat believed - out of vanity and his indisputable leadership - he could refuse to carry out this step,” Duwaydar continues. “Once again we say that President Arafat who, despite everything that happened, still has the capability to take the reins of events, is responsible for what happened and that he is required to respond to the will of the Palestinian people…”
It has been a long road, but even the New York Times, today (Thursday) joined the ranks of those calling for Yassir Arafat’s removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority.
In a December 14, 2001 editorial following Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s declaration that Arafat was “irrelevant” and would no longer be dealt with, the editors of the Times wrote: “In the absence of a credible successor, dealing with Mr. Arafat for the time being is better than dealing with unbridled anarchy or the hijacking of the Palestinian movement by Hamas…Trying to work with Mr. Arafat a while longer is better for Israel than a full-scale war with the Palestinians.
Thursday, the Times editorial staff takes a harder line toward Arafat, saying that the situation calls for his ‘immediate retirement.’
“It has been the misfortune of the Palestinian people to be stuck with Yassir Arafat as their founding father, a leader who has failed to make the transition from romantic revolutionary to statesman,” read the editorial. “All he seems capable of offering Palestinians now is a communal form of the martyrdom he seems to covet. Mr. Arafat should accept his limitations and retire as president of the Palestinian Authority.”
Even taking a stab at Europeans still backing the arch-terrorist, the Times writes: “Mr. Arafat's longstanding international benefactors [can’t] pretend any longer that he is capable of responsibly governing a sovereign state if he ever got the chance.”
“But there is, of course, no sign that Mr. Arafat is interested in much beyond his own myth,” the editorial continued. “Pinned down for the last two years in his battered Ramallah bunker, Mr. Arafat has abused his control over the authority's treasury and militias…The dire situation calls for Mr. Arafat's immediate retirement.”
At the same time, the Times editorial reaches for ‘balance,’ referring to “Mr. Arafat's equally stubborn nemesis, Ariel Sharon.”
“Saying that it's time for Mr. Arafat to go is not the same as saying it is time for Mr. Arafat to be removed by force,” warns the Times editorial. “He is, after all, a democratically elected leader, though the term he won in 1996 was never meant to be this long.”