Russian version
Footprints in the Sand
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times, Published: November 7, 2004
It is a sad but fitting coda to Yasir Arafat's career that the prospect
of his death seemed to unlock more hope and possibilities than the reality
of his life.
His corrupt, self-interested rule had created a situation whereby Palestinian
aspirations seemed to have gotten locked away with him, under house arrest
in Ramallah, well beyond the reach of creative diplomacy. Only human biology
could liberate them again - and so it has.
In the early 1990's, I sided with those Israelis who, though no fans
of Arafat, were ready to deal with him at Oslo in the name of normalcy
for both Israelis and Palestinians. But once it became clear, after the
collapse of the Camp David talks, that no deal was possible with Arafat,
I wished for his speedy disappearance. He was a bad man, not simply for
the way he introduced a whole new level of terrorism to world politics,
but because of the crimes he committed against his own people. There, history
will judge him very harshly.
Google is a wonderful tool. I spent time the other day Googling every
variation I could of the words: "Yasir Arafat and Palestine and education."
I couldn't come up with a single speech, or even full paragraph, in which
Arafat laid out his vision for how Palestinians would educate their youth
and nurture their talents. Maybe all his speeches on that subject were
never translated from Arabic. Or maybe they just don't exist - because
this was never his priority. His obsession was with Palestinian "land,"
not Palestinian "life." Google the words "Yasir Arafat and martyrdom and
jihad," and the matches go on for pages.
After every defeat, Arafat stood on the ruins and flashed a victory
sign. While his wife lived in Paris and his cronies lined their pockets,
two generations of Palestinians remained in their poverty and displacement,
because he never had the courage to tell them the truth: "Palestine will
have to be divided with the Jews forever. We must make the best final deal
we can over the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem - without double talk
about getting the rest later - and then build the finest society that we
can." Had he ever given that speech - in Arabic - had he ever adopted the
nonviolence of Gandhi, Arafat would have had three Palestinian states by
now - Israel's reckless settlements notwithstanding.
The fact that he didn't was not a mistake in judgment but an expression
of character. For him, it was better to die in Paris, and have two generations
of Palestinians die in exile, than be the Arab leader who officially and
unambiguously agreed to share Jerusalem with the Jews. I can understand
why stateless Palestinians would revere Arafat for the way he put their
cause on the world map - but that became an end for him rather than a means,
which is why his historical impact will be as lasting as a footprint in
the desert.
Arafat's exit from the stage, combined with the downfall of Saddam
Hussein, is a real moment of opportunity for the Arab world: Under Saddam
and Arafat, Iraqi and Palestinian nationalisms were devoid of any positive
agenda for developing all the men and women in those two societies. They
were focused on the negative agendas of resisting outsiders and buying
more weapons than computers - because that is what served their one-man
rulers. This negative nationalism kept their people mobilized, externally
focused and never able to ask about education budgets, let alone democracy.
As the Arabic saying went, "No voice should be louder than the battle."
And no voices were louder in insisting on that than Arafat's and Saddam's.
But if you have societies held together by a voluntary social contract
among its constituent populations, and by institutions, you don't need
one-man rule. You don't need to mobilize the whole society around resistance
to outsiders. And you don't need the suppression of every group in the
society, other than the tribe of the one-man ruler - with all the violence
and extremism that such suppression brings.
And that's why so much is riding on how Palestinians and Iraqis replace
the one-man rulers who so distorted their societies. Will they each use
this moment to hold elections and build a bridge to a society of institutions
and laws, or will they simply build a bridge to another one-man ruler?
If it is the latter, then the U.N. is going to continue putting out reports
about the lack of human development in the Arab world. If it is the former,
I am certain that within a decade when you Google the words "Iraq, Palestine,
educational innovation and scientific breakthroughs," you will actually
come up with some matches.
Russian version
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a