Analysis: Arafat's American dilemma

Yasser Arafat has no obvious successor

By Gerald Butt

For Yasser Arafat, the United States represents a conundrum. It holds the key of the door to Palestinian statehood. But Washington also has the power to keep that door locked as long as it wants.

For many decades, the Palestinian leader has shown ambivalence towards the US, the close ally and strong supporter of Israel.

Yasser Arafat and the US administration probably have no option but to keep some kind of communication channel open.

In the 1970s, when PLO groups were carrying out airline hijackings and other acts of terror, the Palestinian leader began subtly revising his attitude toward the US.

It was then that he concluded the Palestinians had no hope of achieving statehood unless they opened a dialogue with Washington and ultimately obtained American support.

By the late 1980s, Mr Arafat was so anxious for the PLO to receive recognition from the US that he renounced terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist.

From then on, the Palestinian leader's aim was to secure a two-state solution to the long struggle with Israel.

Concessions

As talks with Israel got under way after the 1991 Gulf war, Mr Arafat was repeatedly confronted with the fact that Washington alone had the power to influence Israel.

His critics say that, in his eagerness to secure American approval for a deal that would see the creation of a Palestinian state, he made too many concessions to Israel.

But he must have felt that all those concessions had been justified when, on a historic day in 1993, Mr Arafat and Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn. Statehood seemed to be in sight.

Clinton brokered a historic deal between Israel and the Palestinians

The setting up, with Washington's support, of the Palestinian Authority to administer wide areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip appeared to lay the cornerstone of the new state.

But subsequent negotiations with Israel dragged on inconclusively. Palestinian frustration with the peace process grew, leading to the emergence of Islamic militant groups opposed to any contact with Israel.

America-brokered talks between Mr Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000 failed, and relations between the Palestinian leader and the US Government began to deteriorate.

President Clinton placed blame for the failure squarely on Mr Arafat's shoulders.

Deterioration

Since then, relations have gone from bad to worse. The Bush administration blames Yasser Arafat for failing to reign in the militant groups carrying out suicide attacks against Israel.

The US has also allowed the Sharon government to keep the Palestinian leader under virtual house arrest, and is threatening to withdraw recognition from the Palestinian Authority.

To do so would be risky in the extreme. There is no obvious successor to Mr Arafat and, given the current climate, it is unlikely that any prominent Palestinian would want to put himself forward as a candidate.

Bush blames Arafat for militants' attacks on Israel

A power vacuum could leave the field open to militant groups out to gain political control - while stepping up attacks against Israel.

So as much as each finds the other an irritant, Yasser Arafat and the US administration probably have no option but to keep some kind of communication channel open - even at a time when their relationship seems closer than ever to the point of collapse.

For the Palestinian leader, severing that relationship would mean the end of his dream of statehood - and quite possibly the end of his political life.

Gerald Butt is Middle East Economic Survey's Gulf Editor