One need not have attended Wednesday's program, "Remembering Arafat: Reflections on the Past, Visions for the Future," to know the event's agenda. The flier explained clearly that it was "a panel discussion in memory of Yasser Arafat," but the speakers seemed to remember only certain features of the Palestinian leader's life. In the eyes of Wednesday's panelists, Arafat was a hero; his corruption and complicity in terrorism were apparently forgotten.
Wednesday's event, sponsored by the Program in International Peace and Conflict Resolution, could have been an excellent educational opportunity. There is a serious discussion to be had about Yasser Arafat's legacy, as well as about the future of the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, as each of the panelists eulogized Arafat, it became obvious that no serious discussion was to be had. This was a platform to glorify Arafat's life and to put down the state of Israel.
I do not mean to suggest that all of the viewpoints expressed were entirely without merit. As the face of the Palestinian nationalist movement for nearly four decades, Arafat did bring the Palestinian cause to international attention. He did demonstrate great political skill and had considerable success in uniting his people.
Clearly, though, Arafat left a mixed legacy. He died having accomplished little of what he promised for his people and having funneled literally billions of dollars in international aid to his family and supporters. This is money that could have gone to hospitals, schools, food and homes in an effort to further the well-being of the Palestinian people. This, of course, is to say nothing of his involvement in terror attacks against Israel over the course of more than three decades. (While there is some debate over the degree of Arafat's participation in the terrorism of the last four years, he openly supported dozens of attacks throughout the 1970s and 1980s, including the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics.) There is a wide range of opinions about Arafat, but one wouldn't know it from attending the IPCR panel. The organizers' failure to include any pro-Israel voices was regrettable.
While I do not wish to discuss each point raised by the speakers at Wednesday's event, I do want to mention one particular issue that was also addressed in The Eagle on Thursday. During the panel, professor Mohammed Abu-Nimer challenged the conventional wisdom that Arafat was to blame for the collapse of the Camp David peace talks in 2000. In President Bill Clinton's recent autobiography, however, Clinton makes clear that Arafat did bear the primary responsibility for the failure of the talks and the violence that followed (and continues). According to Clinton, Arafat "couldn't make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman" and, in turning to violence, made "an error of historic proportions."
The strength of Wednesday's panel was in its discussion of the newly emerging Palestinian leadership. I found the speakers to be quite insightful about the internal politics of the Palestinian Authority, and I appreciated their honesty in evaluating the future of the Palestinian cause. I share in the optimism that some of the panelists expressed. The Palestinians deserve a leader who they can trust and is genuinely committed to change through diplomatic channels. Hopefully, with new leadership, the Palestinian people will achieve the peace and independence that Yasser Arafat was unwilling to deliver.
Shayna Packer is a junior in the School of International Service.
