Arafat era has come to a close

WASHINGTON -- Readers of a certain age will remember essays with provocative titles such as "After Tito, what?" or "After Nehru, what?" Statesmen of varying distinction, such as Pandit Nehru and Marshal Tito, had been around for so long that it was nearly impossible to imagine a geopolitical world without them.
India, as we know, survived Nehru's demise. There have been some bumps along the road, to be sure; but India is, strictly speaking, as Nehru left it. Yugoslavia was not so lucky. The confederation of Balkan nations managed to stick together, more or less, for a decade after Tito's death. But the disintegration of the Soviet empire spelled the end of Yugoslavia, whose constituent states flew apart with stunning violence. We're still reeling from the consequences.
No matter what ultimately happens to the 75-year-old Yasser Arafat, it is fair to say that, four decades on, the Arafat era has come to a close. The blood disease that sent him from his Ramallah compound to a Paris clinic may end his life, or leave him incapacitated, or weaken his already feeble constitution. But the medical diagnosis is, on the whole, irrelevant. His active political life is over. Two of the three main players in the Israeli-Palestinian drama -- Israel and the United States -- have already dispatched him to the margins of influence. Nature now seems to be piling on.
This is both an interesting coincidence and disquieting omen. Just as the Palestinian Authority seems poised to undergo some sort of political upheaval -- the jockeying for position has already begun -- the Israeli government has passed a watershed of sorts. Who would have thought that Ariel Sharon, of all Israeli politicians, would defy the nationalist wing of his Likud party, as well as the settler movement he helped create and nurture, to force a withdrawal of Israeli settlers and forces from Gaza? The Gaza withdrawal may well be what many Palestinians believe it is -- a feint designed to mollify America, prolong the occupation of the West Bank, and thwart Palestinian statehood -- but it is certainly a revolutionary action by Sharon.
The problem
In the past, the problem for every Israeli leader seeking accommodation with the Palestinians has been Yasser Arafat and Israel's militant right wing. Almost 10 years ago, an Israeli nationalist assassinated one general/politician, Yitzhak Rabin, who had decided that a two-state solution was inevitable. Four years ago, another general/politician, Ehud Barak, offered Arafat a basis for a historic settlement, which he rejected.
Now Sharon has effectively defied the Israeli right, and will uproot the settlers and troops from Gaza. He seems, finally, to have come to the realization that Israel's ultimate survival has less to do with temporary security and more to do with long-term compromise. The construction of a wall, and the routine mistreatment of Palestinians, has reduced the capacity of radicals to commit atrocities. But Israel cannot subsist as a democracy while relegating Arab subjects to second-class citizenship, especially subjects whose ranks will soon outnumber Israeli Jews. The price of "Greater Israel" is perpetual terror. Even Sharon has come to realize that Israel's future is in jeopardy because its politics are held hostage by settler-fanatics.
Which leaves Arafat. Like more than a few revolutionary nationalists, Arafat is much more adept at fanning the flames of resentment, and maintaining himself in power, than dealing with the practical problems of statesmanship. For most Palestinians, he remains the symbol of their cause against insurmountable odds. But symbols are not necessarily blessed with vision, or even good sense.
Radical fringe
Now the Palestinians need a leader who can control his radical fringe, is willing to do business with Israel and can persuade the United States to bridge the gap between Arab and Jew.
It is probably a little premature to suggest that the winds of change are blowing through the Middle East, but it's hard to deny that a breeze can be discerned. The Bush administration decided to shake the status quo by rousting the Taliban from Afghanistan, and sponsoring free elections, and taking on Saddam Hussein and a ravaged Iraq.
It has always been obvious that anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, and Muslim extremism, have been fed by the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. If Sharon can get the message, and Palestinians can see beyond Arafat, then George W. Bush's big gamble might actually pay off.
X Philip Terzian, The Journal's associate editor, writes a column from Washington. Scripps Howard News Service.