After desperate efforts by the Clinton administration to resolve the conflict that has embroiled Israel and the Palestinian territories, President Bush largely withdrew the United States from aggressive diplomatic efforts to find a workable, two-state solution.
Now, fresh from his re-election, there is an invitation to re-engage.
Arafat was a figure of great contradictions. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, but – at least implicitly and probably directly – sanctioned the use of terrorism in the fight against Israel. It is fair to say that the blood of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis stained Arafat’s hands.
He was a de facto head of state and an international criminal. His greatest success was to unite factions within the Palestinian cause, but his greatest failure was his inability to lead them to peace and stability in a state free from corruption.
The opportunity for renewed efforts in the Middle East is precious and precarious. The United States should do whatever is necessary to allow Palestinians to peacefully select new leadership, including placing pressure on Israel to ease restrictions on travel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip so political aspirants can campaign. But direct involvement could undermine the process.
Above all else, Arafat’s successor must have credibility with the Palestinians. Any effort by the United States or Israel to marginalize or endorse a particular candidate could doom his tenure. On this task, the European Union and the United Nations are better suited for aid in running fair elections.
When new leadership emerges, a profound and good-faith effort should be made by the world community, led by the United States, to find a two-state solution to the conflict.
While the United States may recognize the passing of a killer, Palestinians have lost a founding father, revolutionary hero and a statesman on the world stage. That dichotomy is Arafat’s legacy. With his death, there is hope for a new beginning.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
