Contact the author: popcultureslut@hotmail.com

When Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat died in a Paris hospital on November 11th, the dynamic of the Middle East conflict between Israelis and Palestinians changed dramatically.

Arafat, who was always famously described as holding a machine gun in one hand and an olive branch in the other, represented many things to many people: a terrorist, a freedom fighter, an obstacle to peace, a martyr. But what his passing represents now is symbol and a signal for real change and a chance for genuine talks which might one day lead to conditions allowing Arabs and Jews to co-exist peacefully.

For every Israeli citizen that says Arafat was a terrorist and an obstacle to peace, there is an Arab who will counter that the U.S. and Israel have no interest in peace and have pursued a policy of "rejectionism" over the years.

In Noam Chomsky's excellent book, "Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & The Palestinians", the term rejectionism is described as "the position of those who deny the rights of existence of the State of Israel, or who deny that Jews have the right of national self-determination within the former Palestine". But, as Chomsky points out:

"The consistent rejectionism of both major politcal groupings in Israel is disguised in the United States...it is observed - quite accurately - that Israel has always been more willing to negotiate with the Arab STATES, while they have not reciprocated this willingness. It requires barely a moment's thought to perceive that Israel's willingness in this regard is strictly rejectionist, since the Palestinians are excluded. When a framework for negotiations has been proposed that includes the Palestinians, Israel has always refused to participate. Thus Israel's apparently forthcoming position with regards to negotiations, much heralded in the U.S., is simply part and parcel of its commitment to the rejection of Palestinian rights, an elementary point that is regularly suppressed in discussion of the issue in the U.S. " (p.52)

Of course, there are elements of the Palestinian movement that refuse to accept the State of Israel, or to acknowledge that Israeli Jews are human beings with rights. But while the Western media labels Palestinians as "militant terrorists", Israelis as "innocent victims" and the Israeli Army's encroachment of Palestinian territory as a "benign occupation", history will show that the United States and Israel have consistently rejected the Arab States and the PLO's push for a two-state setlement (for a detailed account of the historical and political aspects of the Middle East crisis, I urge one to read Chomsky's book, mentioned above).

Israel PM Ariel Sharon, perhaps an even bigger terrorist than Arafat ever was, rejected any notion that his arch-rival be buried in Jerusalem, but for the most part the Israeli government has laid low (at least, in the international spotlight) while Palestinians mourn the loss of the only leader they've ever known, while trying to quickly assemble a cast of characters who, through elections, can best represent the voice of Palestinians, should the peace negotiations start up again.

While former U.S. President Bill Clinton will be remembered for bringing together Arafat and Yitzhak Rubin of Israel's Labour Party to sign the Oslo Accord in 1995, current president George W. Bush has been indifferent to the Middle East conflict, calling Arafat an "obstacle to peace" and stating that as long as Arafat was the conduit through which the Palestinan voice was represented, the U.S. would not engage in any talks.

The death of Arafat, coming just days after Bush's re-election, puts the United States and Israel in a compromising position. As long as Palestinian suicide bombings and terrorist attacks continue, it will remain an easy justification for stalling and avoiding talks of a two-state settlement. But should the Palestinians unite in solidarity and show that they are ready for a post-Arafat chapter in the Middle East, Israel and the U.S. will have to make an effort to show that they are serious about negotiating peace, while trying to maintain the status quo of controlling Middle East petroleum resources and oil profits (see the war in Iraq and Bob Woodward's revealing book, "Plan of Attack").

While Bush may be scheming to define his presidency in this, his second term, don't expect securing peace in the Middle East to be high on his list of priorities, as already evidenced by his gentle rebuffing of England's PM Tony Blair's call for action. While the death of Arafat presents an urgent chapter in the Israeli-Arab saga, it is likely that Bush and Sharon (whose planned pull-out of the Gaza Strip is more of a strategic ploy than anything else) will endorse the vision of a "Greater Israel" advocated by ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, where Israel refuses any accomodations of the Palestinians and maintains control of the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.

And you can take THAT to the bank.

© 2004 Aaron Bayley