IF ARAFAT were alive…" one hears this phrase increasingly often in conversations
with Palestinians, and also with Israelis and foreigners.


"If Arafat were alive, what's happening now in Gaza wouldn't be
happening…" - "If Arafat were alive, we would have somebody to talk
with…" - "If Arafat were alive, Islamic fundamentalism would not have
won among the Palestinians and would have lost some force in the neighboring
countries!"

In the meantime, the unanswered questions come up again: How did Yasser Arafat
die? Was he murdered? If so, who murdered him?

On the way back
from Arafat's funeral in 2004, I ran into Jamal Zahalka, a member of the
Knesset. I asked him if he believed that Arafat was murdered. Zahalka, a doctor
of pharmacology, answered "Yes!" without hesitation. That was my
feeling, too. But a hunch is not proof. It is only a product of intuition,
common sense and experience.

Recently we got a
kind of confirmation. Just before he died, Uri Dan, who had been Ariel Sharon's
loyal mouthpiece for almost 50 years, published a book in France. It
includes a report of a conversation Sharon
told him about, with President (George W.) Bush. Sharon asked for permission to kill Arafat
and Bush gave it to him, with the proviso that it must be done undetectably.
When Dan asked Sharon whether it had been
carried out, Sharon
answered: "It's better not to talk about that." Dan took this as
confirmation.

The secret
services of many countries have poisons that are all but undetectable. The
Mossad tried to kill Khaled Mashal, the Hamas leader, in broad daylight on a
main Amman
thoroughfare. He was saved only when the Israeli government was compelled to
provide the antidote to the poison it had used. Viktor Yushchenko, the
president of the Ukraine,
was poisoned and saved only when the specific suspicious symptoms were
identified by experts in time. Recently, a former Russian spy, Aleksander
Litvinenko, was murdered by lethal polonium-210. And how many cases have gone
undetected?

Is there proof
that Arafat was murdered by Israeli or other agents? No, there is none. This
week I again ran into MK Zahalka, and both of us concluded that the suspicion
is growing stronger, together with the conviction that Arafat's absence is felt
now more than ever.

IF ARAFAT were
alive, there would be a clear address for negotiations with the Palestinian
people.

The claimed
absence of such an address serves the Israeli government as the official
pretext for its refusal to start peace negotiations. Every time Condoleezza
Rice or another of Bush's parrots talks about the need to "restart the
dialog" (don't mention "negotiations") for "the final
status" or "the permanent settlement" (don't mention
"peace"), that is the response of Tsipi Livni, Ehud Olmert & Co.

Dialog? With whom?
No use to talk with Mahmoud Abbas, because he is unable to impose his will on
the Palestinian people. He is no second Arafat. He has no power. And we
couldn't possibly talk with the Hamas government, because it belongs to Bush's
"axis of evil". So what do you want, Condi dear?

Tsipi Livni,
Condi's new buddy, goes further: at the convocation of the billionaires' cabal
in Davos she warned Abbas publicly not to strike a "compromise with
terrorists". A timely warning. Desperate to create a credible Palestinian
address, Abbas had just flown to Damascus
to meet Mashal. Thus, by the way, he has admitted publicly that nothing can be
done without the Hamas leader, who has become a kind of Palestinian
super-president.

Livni recognized
the danger at once and rushed to torpedo the mission. No dialog with a
Palestinian unity government, much as there is no dialog with Abbas or Hamas.
That Ok, Condi honey?

IF ONE wants to
see real joy, one has only to look at the faces of Israeli correspondents who
appear every evening on television to report on events in Lebanon.

What delight! The
"Christians and Sunnis" attack Shiite students at the Arab University
in Beirut and
kill them! Any moment, a new civil war may break out! Look, a female Sunni
student interviewed on television says that "Nasrallah is worse than
Olmert!" Look at her again! And again! And again!

"When two
quarrel, the third laughs," as the proverb goes. When an Arab hits an Arab
- whether in Baghdad, Gaza
or Beirut - the government of Israel and its
commentators in the media are glowing. That has been a dominant theme in
Israeli thought since the founding of the state, and even before: when Arabs
are fighting each other, that is good for us.

In war, that makes
sense. A split between your enemies is a gift to you. In World War I, the
German general staff sent Lenin back to Russia
in the famous sealed wagon, hoping to create a split between Russia and her
British and French allies. In the 1948 war, we were saved because the armies of
Egypt and Jordan were more
interested in competing with each other than in fighting us. In the 80s, the
Israeli army sent officers to North Iraq in
order to help Mustafa Barzani to tear the Kurdish region away from Saddam's
country.

That is a good
strategy in war, which states have followed since the beginning of history. In
this respect, Israel
is no exception. The question is: is this also a good strategy when one wants
to achieve peace?

IF -
"IF" in capital letters - the government of Israel desired
peace, it would adopt the opposite strategy.

In the 50s, when
David Ben-Gurion did his utmost to promote splits between Egypt, Syria
and Iraq,
Nahum Goldman, the senior Zionist diplomat, opposed this. He argued that the
many conflicts between Arab leaders were a danger to Israel,
because every Arab leader tries to outdo his rivals in his hostility to Israel.

Nowadays that is
more evident than ever. Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen are trying to set
up a pro-American bloc consisting of Israel,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Abbas and Siniora. On the
opposite side there is the "axis of evil" consisting of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas.

The leaders of Egypt, Jordan
and Saudi Arabia
are paying lip service to the Palestinian cause, but are quite ready to sell it
out in return for suitably lavish American aid. The Israeli government is
honored to find itself in the company of the three eminent democrats -
President Husni Mubarak and the two Kings Abdallah.

But is this good
for Israel?
It is good for the continuation of the war against the Palestinians, for
annexation and the building of settlements. It is not good for the termination
of the historic conflict with the Palestinians, the ending of the occupation
and the laying down of arms.

There is no chance
of making peace with Mahmoud Abbas, nor would it have any value, without the
full support of Hamas. But even a Fatah-Hamas partnership would not be broad
enough to ensure a peaceful future for Israel. It would need the support
of the whole Arab world.

There lies the
immense importance of the "Arab Peace Initiative", the Arab League
proposal that was adopted by the 2002 Beirut
summit conference. Only a united Palestinian leadership, which enjoys the
backing of the entire Arab world, can carry out such a revolutionary historic
undertaking. Not only should we not object to it, but we should in fact demand
it.

The terms of the
Arab initiative are the same as those already set out by Yasser Arafat in the
70s: a Palestinian state side by side with Israel,
whose border is the Green Line and whose capital is East
Jerusalem; the dismantling of the settlements; an "agreed
upon" solution of the refugee problem. Unofficially Arafat agreed to swaps
of territory that would enable some of the settlements located near the Green
Line to remain in place. There is practically no Palestinian, and indeed no
Arab, who would agree to less. It would leave the Palestinians a mere 22% of
historic Palestine.

This can be
achieved, provided the Palestinian people are united and the Arab world is
united. That means the agreement of Syria,
Hizbullah, Hamas and also Iran,
which is of course not Arab.

Therefore, if one
wants peace, one will not rejoice in face of the bloodshed in Gaza
and the Lebanon.
We have nothing to laugh about when Arab hits Arab. Woe to such laughter.

And, of course, if
Arafat were alive, everything would be much, much easier.

Source:  www.avnery-news.co.il