[BRIEF NOTE] Arafat

[rfmcdonald]

What Jonathan said.

Much has been written about the "tragedy" of Arafat, who could have been a statesman but instead turned into a corrupt, kleptocratic thug. In fact, this is among the least surprising and most predictable things about his career. Post-colonial history is littered with idealistic liberation-movement leaders who became corrupt and dictatorial after taking power: Mugabe, Kwame Nkrumah, Ne Win, Houphouet-Boigny, Kamuzu Banda, Sukarno. Seizure of the spoils, both political and financial, is common among such leaders, and all too often their people ultimately have to be liberated from them.

Arafat's case is unique, however, in that he made his transition before his people's liberation struggle was complete. At Oslo, Arafat inherited a political entity that was not a state, governing a territory with boundaries yet to be decided. No matter how the goals of the Palestinian people are framed, they had not been achieved, nor would they be at any time during the Oslo era. But this quasi-state was enough for Arafat's purposes: it gave him a platform to enrich himself and consolidate his power over rival nationalist factions.

What Danny said also.