Israeli Siege of PLO Headquarters A Big Win For Arafat

by N. Janardhan

For Arafat, who has been facing the most serious challenge to his leadership for the slow pace of reforms or even lack of it, Israel's siege has temporarily hushed his critics and put him back in the limelight.

But the limited mass protests against the siege and the muted response from the Arab countries at Arafat's plight has been showcased by Sharon as a clear indication of waning popularity of and respect for the Arab leader.

According to Elias Zananiri, director of Netvision, a media company in Jerusalem, most of those who demonstrated in support of Arafat over the past few days are the same Fatah activists who a few days earlier were prepared to press their leader into introducing genuine reforms.

"However, the minute the Israeli bulldozers started their destructive work, all of them rushed to rescue their historical leader. Someone in Ramallah said: 'Ironically, Sharon was the one who mobilized his army to save Arafat from Fatah pressure'," Zananiri said in an interview.

Following back-to-back suicide attacks on Sept. 18 and 19 in which seven Israelis died, Israel blamed Arafat for the attacks.

Its forces rolled into his Ramallah compound in the West Bank, destroying everything around his offices and leaving the 73-year-old leader squeezed with his aides in a few rooms, surrounded by tanks and bulldozers.

Sharon followed it up by storming the Gaza Strip, which has so far resulted in the death of at least 25 Palestinians, in order to force Arafat to give up 20 "wanted" Palestinian fighters to Israeli custody.

These offensives turned the tide in Arafat's favor. In the last few months until the current siege, attacks on the corruption, incompetence and inefficiency of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) have been making the headlines in Palestinian newspapers and debated in parliament.

The revolt had swelled to such an extent that on Sept. 11, Arafat had to ask the amended Cabinet he appointed in May to resign in order to avoid a vote of no-confidence from the Fatah-controlled parliament.

But after the Israeli army threatened to set off a huge explosion in the compound housing the PNA headquarters, thousands of Palestinians took to the streets to express their support for Arafat.

"The latest trend is to criticise Arafat's handling of the reforms process on the domestic front. But when they face Israel and the Americans on the external front, the Palestinians stand behind Arafat and he becomes a symbol of our fight for independence," said UAE-based Palestinian businessman Mohmoud Mansour in an interview.

For Sharon, the siege is another step towards his ultimate plan to expel Arafat from the Palestinian territories, with the aim of getting rid of the man he sees as the prime mover behind the Palestinian resistance.

"Sharon sees the siege as the final phase in Arafat's political career. Events that will unfold from here will be aimed at exiling him, leaving the door open for the Israeli premier to try and find an alternative leader who might agree to the Jewish state's terms more easily," says P.V. Vivekanand, editor of an English-language daily in the United Arab Emirates.

Sharon knows very well that Arafat is in no position to comply with his demand of giving up the Palestinian fighters to Israeli custody, since doing this to save himself would undermine the Palestinian leader's credibility.

The PNA has rejected handing over the people Israel wants because it fears a "second Bethlehem," when the Palestinians sent some fighters into exile to end the siege on Arafat, and drew criticism for it.

Arafat was let out after the end of a similar standoff in May, but his popularity plummeted after that five-week siege at the Church of the Nativity ended with 13 Palestinian fighters exiled to Europe as part of a deal with Israel.

"It would serve Sharon if Arafat is pressured into doing so. If he doesn't," says Vivekanand, "then that, too, suits Sharon since it would strengthen the Israeli argument that Arafat had always been behind -- directly and indirectly -- all the armed attacks and suicide bombings against Israelis."

Sharon has also been successful in sending a message to the U.S. administration that he will not be forced to compromise on his hardline stance even if its means upsetting Washington's delicate process of building an international agreement for military action against Iraq, said Dr Khaliq Abdulla, professor of political science at the Emirates University.

In an interview, Abdulla said: "In signalling that Israeli concerns are more important than the U.S. stakes in the war against terror, Sharon has sought to win popular support for his re-election in the 2003 national election."

A 'Jerusalem Post' interview published on Thursday quoted Sharon as saying "a great deal of thought went into the operation in Ramallah. It is part and parcel of our strategy to prevent the escalation of terrorism and reduce the Palestinians' ability to conduct operations".

But there has been immense criticism of Sharon's strategy in the Israeli media. Roni Shaked of 'Yediot Ahronot' Hebrew daily questioned Sharon's decision to target Arafat's compound, leaving at large all Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip.

"Hamas leaders," argued Shaked, "had enough time and freedom to go from one Arab satellite station to the other praising the suicide bombings and promising that more were to come".

"Yet, instead of punishing them, Sharon decided to go after Arafat, who cannot curtail the activities of the militant groups because his security infrastructure has been largely destroyed by Israel," he added.