Mortal man

Arafat admits that he's only human. Rasha Saad reviews the reaction

---

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat was again the focus of Arab commentators this week with his speech to members of the Palestinian Legislative Council on Wednesday widely covered. Arafat made a rare admission of fallibility when he acknowledged that his Palestinian Authority (PA) had made "unacceptable mistakes" which he promised to redress. He also admonished Palestinian officials for widespread corruption.

Most commentators believed that Arafat's admission of corruption in his administration came too late. Some, however, believed it was better late than never.

Ghassan Cherbil wrote in Al-Hayat on Thursday that Arafat's confession should have come years earlier. "Arafat should have come out with this when he was still capable of change and when the [Palestinian] Authority still maintained some of its institutions and ability to act and influence."

In Cherbil's article, "The Palestinians in an occupied world", the writer said while the Arabs still believe they have a just cause, the blows they have endured since 9/11, including the US war on Iraq, had changed their priorities, fears and concerns. Cherbil argues that as Arafat was delivering his address, the Middle East was focusing on Najaf, not Ramallah. The region, he added, was occupied with the fate of Moqtada Al-Sadr and his Mehdi army more than with the Palestinian prisoner hunger strike. "In painful frankness, Middle East countries are occupied with the fate of Iyad Allawi's government more than with the fate of [Palestinian Prime Minister] Ahmed Qurei's and the marathon debate over a unified Palestinian security system."

Tareq Al-Hamid in Friday's issue of the Saudi-funded Asharq Al-Awsat called Arafat's statement "the speech of confession." "Arafat's admission of corruption and flaws came late -- but better late than never. The confession spread awareness among a public opinion that for many decades has read and heard everything related to the Palestinian issue."

Al-Hamid tried to explain why such an admission of corruption within the Palestinian leadership was particularly significant when most Arab regimes are suffering from the same problem. Al-Hamid believes that the PA is especially accountable because it holds the responsibility of protecting a nation under occupation. "Will the Palestinians' protectors be their enemy at the same time?"

Abdel-Bari Attwan, outspoken Palestinian editor-in-chief of the London-based Al-Quds Al- Arabi , wrote in his Monday column that Arafat's speech should be followed by practical steps of reform "otherwise it will be regarded as a ploy to absorb Palestinian rage and to escape responsibility." Attwan recommended several ways of reform, the most important being that Arafat gets rid of his old guards and employs new young cadres "instead of relying on a bunch of crippled aides with limited talents who are telling him only what he wants to hear and rebuff whoever wants to say a word of truth."

According to Attwan, Arafat should begin with "a reform revolution" in Palestinian offices and embassies and change the faces that have been around for the past quarter of a century.

"Arab and foreign countries and the Palestinian people abroad are bored with Arafat's ambassadors. The only one who is not bored is Arafat himself. He does not believe in change and does not understand the meaning of retirement or aging," Attwan wrote.

Because of the heated war of words between Tehran and Tel Aviv over Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran was also the focus of commentators this week who predicted an imminent strike from either the US or Israel. In his column in Al- Hayat on Wednesday, Jihad Al-Khazen forecast that the US would strike Iranian nuclear facilities on behalf of Israel which is concerned about the Iranian programme. Al-Khazen based his assumption on the fact that "Israel is pulling the strings of the White House and Congress puppets."

Remembering Israel's destruction of Iraqi nuclear facilities in an air raid in 1981, Al-Khazen warned of a similar attack against Iran. "But Israeli influence in the US has increased during the last two decades to the point where America can attack on behalf of Israel, like it did in the war on Iraq."

Despite his support of nuclear disarmament in the region, Al-Khazen believes that if Israel is allowed to possess nuclear weapons, then other countries in the region should follow suit to defend themselves. "As citizens of the Middle East, we ask for the nuclear disarmament of the region. But if Israel remains the only country with nuclear capabilities, then we ask that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in particular, possess similar weapons in order to deter Israel against attacking Egypt, Syria and every other country the US and Israel are trying to control."

Also in Al-Hayat Mohamed Al-Ashhab warned on Sunday that the US war on Shia leader Moqtada Al-Sadr in Najaf was a precursor to waging a war on Iran. Al-Ashhab claims that Iran is well aware of this scenario. In this context came Iranian President Mohamed Khatami's call for an emergency summit of Islamic countries so as to head off [the threat] that is imminent."

Al-Ashhab added that the Iraqis once fought a war with Iran on behalf of the Americans and the West. "However, the US war on Iraq obviously whetted the American appetite. The worries of the Iranians are, in this context, justifiable."

Saudi writer Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashid reflected the concerns of some Arab commentators who still regard Iran as a traditional foe and perceive the reconciliatory tone adopted by the Iranian reformist wing headed by Khatami with suspicion. In "Is Iran serious about attacking Israel?" Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashid rejected the notion, expressing worries that Iran's weapons might be directed towards its Arab neighbours instead. Al-Rashid wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat on Thursday that Iran's history does not support the view that the weapons it is amassing are for fighting Israel. He listed confrontations Iran had had, with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Iraq. He concluded that Iran's presumed nuclear capability was aimed at targeting neighbouring countries, basing his assumption on the fact that there has never been a single clash between Israel and Iran. Iran does not share borders with Israel and has had no direct conflict with it. It supports forces that are against Israel although its weaponry cannot be sent to these parties. "Then who is at the receiving end of these [Iranian] sophisticated weapons? There is only one logical answer: [Arab] neighbouring countries."