My granddaughter Sara who follows my work, especially my writing on Palestinian issues, and I only write about other matters every so often, asked me: “Why does Yasser Arafat occupy a central role in every book you have written? Even when you wrote about Mahmoud Darwish, Moscow, and the station.”
I replied… It is because Yasser Arafat played a central role in our lives, and any writer or politician remains strongly influenced by this fact, especially since our generation began its political life with him, and that same generation continues to live with the impact of his departure.
Sixteen years after his passing, the man seems impossible to forget. There is a simple and logical explanation for this, as the Palestinians were used to his strong presence, which lasted more than four decades. Moreover, his name was linked to every political and military battle, be it successful or not, as was his uncanny ability, recognized by the enemy, to evade death and reinvigorate his position and project after defeats that had seemed fatal.
In addition, he had an extraordinary knack for persuading the Palestinian people of a position and its opposite, leading, for example, both the fight against Israel and the endeavor to make peace with it. He did so first by shaking hands with the Palestinian bone-crusher Rabin and then sharing the Noble peace prize with him- all without the bare minimum of that peace having materialized.
The credibility of Yasser Arafat’s patriotism and ends were the secret to his ability to do all of that and the overwhelming popularity he enjoyed throughout. Whenever any people are confident that their leader is genuine, it remembers the virtues and disregards the errors of his ways, hoping that the combination of these traits would lead it to the attainment of its end goal.
All of that transpired while he was alive, though what were seen as his game-changing accomplishments, as well as significant let-downs, were products of his actions alone. At every turn, he had a large army wherever Palestinians could be found, and this massive army of masses living in every nook and cranny of the world was of crucial significance for him and his project. His real strength expands and grows with the increase in the number of those who believe in freedom and justice for a people who had been deprived of it and had been striving to obtain it.
This remarkable phenomenon, the fact that the strength of his presence during life has generated a strength of presence in death, one that could perhaps be greater, is not a coincidence, nor is it an ipso facto outcome. Rather, there is a logical and practical reason for this; it is because the Palestinians love evaluating through comparison. The question that has perhaps left Arafat’s presence after his death stronger than it was while he had been alive is a question that is still being asked every day and every hour: what would Arafat have done if he were alive? This question emerges and is posed with every setback that hits the Palestinians, every political hurdle that obstructs their national path and every instance that exacerbates Fatah’s decline. The first of those instances following his death was their horrific general election results, which left their competitors winning by a margin they themselves couldn’t believe.
Thus, the same question arises as we continue to grapple with the implications of the devastating earthquake that hit national unity, the ongoing, deepening division that looks increasingly difficult to resolve. It has been accompanied by divisions within Fatah, the national project’s architect, which has carried that project across all the minefields placed in its path. It took that project to the outer gates of statehood and led the national movement with all its groups and their interpretations and divergences. Arafat’s approach was what he called the democracy of a jungle of guns.
Fatah almost competed in the 2021 elections, which were supposed to allow it to regain what it had lost in 2006, with several lists, turning the historically first-tier faction into a second-tier faction in reality, and for the second time as well. Thus, with all of their regression and setbacks, today’s state of affairs leave Yasser Arafat’s presence powerful. The question continues to be asked: what would he have done if he were still alive?
The conclusion… Yasser Arafat was not a godsend who could do miracles, and I do not agree with those who describe him as a phenomenon that will never recur. Its recurrence is not necessary in the first place, and it is not objective or just to attribute everything that has been accomplished to it. The Arafat phenomenon emerged from the phenomenon of great people. A people who, despite all the disasters that were imposed on it, came to be the best educated among the people of the world, a people who hold the record for the highest number of martyrs, wounded, prisoners, displaced people and wars. There are Palestinian people living in every corner of the universe, rich and poor, workers who make minimum wage and businessmen who are part of the club of billionaires and compete for megaprojects. They are doctors, engineers and academics, who, if they do not surpass their Israeli rivals, at least stand shoulder to shoulder with them. They are a people whose actual, not merely proclaimed, virtues make the argument that they had been orphaned and left unable to confront future challenges by Arafat’s absence untenable.
In a world where no one person controls the lives and existence of a people, any people, the Palestinians will not compensate for Arafat with an exact copy of the man. Every era and climate has its leaders and men, indeed its own production of the elements of strength and effectiveness, i.e., institutions, without which no state, big or small, can exist without.
Many had been luminary figures during their lives before history turned the page on them the way the pages of a book are turned. History did not turn the page on only a few of them, their journey and their presence. Yasser Arafat is one of them.
