Columnists are saying they know what to expect from Bush but can only guess what life without Arafat will be like, writes Rasha Saad The health of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and US President George W Bush winning re-election preoccupied several columnists who wondered aloud how the Middle East might be affected by the two events. Many writers were certain that Bushs second term will be no different than the first but were not nearly as sure about the post-Arafat era, if there is to be one in the near future. The London-based Al-Hayat newspaper offered a vast array of opinions regarding a second term for Bush. According to Walid Choucair, it will be an opportunity to adhere to previous policies concerning Arab regimes. Choucair divided these regimes into three categories: those who will justify the American presidents victory in order to offer concessions to the American ( ghoul ), and others who might want to validate that there are small democratic doses filtering into their societies despite their regimes. And others who will want to arm themselves in the face of the return of a more powerful American monster. Choucair believes that Bushs victory leaves behind uncertainty as to expectations that Bush in his second term will be different. Bushs orientation, which is supported by the stringent religious bloc in America, might not allow him to relinquish his belief in pre- emptive strikes. In the same newspaper Abdel-Wahab Badrakhan wrote that Bushs victory was bad news for the majority of the world because it simply meant that the violent reckless policies will continue with popular American support. According to Badrakhan, the Arabs are facing an arrogant revengeful spirit and nothing will prevent this arrogance from becoming excessive during the coming four years. The war plans are well known and have long been drawn up. The neo- conservative clique are returning and will control various institutions extending to the State Department and intelligence agencies; hence, their authority will become complete within the National Security Council... This gang has the right to consider itself the team that led Bush to victory because the Americans elected him to complete the agenda he has been following since 9/11, Badrakhan wrote. In Four more years of war in Al-Hayat Patrick Seale wrote, by putting Bush back in the White House for four more years the American electorate has voted for war. This is the single most important outcome of the American presidential election. A majority of Americans, Seale believes, sees Bush as the strong commander-in-chief who can lead his country to victory. They want him to kill Americas enemies, as he has promised to do. This is an alarming prospect for much of the rest of the world, which tends to see the war in Iraq as a catastrophic mistake and Bushs global war on terror as a dangerously misleading slogan. Seale anticipates that a likely outcome is that Bushs personal triumph including his large share of the popular vote will convince him that he has been chosen to implement an unashamedly ideological agenda. This will mean turning back the clock on environmental protection, health insurance and other socially progressive issues at home, while continuing to pursue a tough unilateralist foreign policy, reliant principally on military force, Seale wrote. Hazem Saghieh focussed on the role that the Arabs should play to counter US intervention in the Middle East. The faster we are, as societies, cultures and elites, in resisting terrorism and supporting the reformist path, the more limited would be the ways of intervention of the new-old administration in Washington would be. The fight against terrorism and against backwardness is what we should pursue regardless of George Bush. Many writers pointed out the coincidence of Arafats deteriorating health with Bushs victory. They wrote that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is probably celebrating both events. He will celebrate the victory of Israels closest friend since its establishment and the closing chapter of a lifelong nemesis. Belal Al-Hassan wrote in the Saudi-funded Asharq Al-Awsat that the Israelis have always criticised Abu Ammar as a man who pulls all the strings and a dictator who refuses to pass any of his powers to his aides, thus creating a stalemate for a possible peace settlement. If something happens to Arafat, Palestinian demands will remain the same. Only then will the Israelis realise that Arafat did not hold all the cards because he is a dictator but because he is a man that firmly believes in the basic rights of the Palestinian people. They will see that their problem lies with these rights and not with Arafat. In special coverage dedicated to Arafat, Asharq Al- Awsat covered Arafats life since childhood up until his transfer to France for treatment. There was a personal note from Clovis Maqsoud, former representative of the Arab League to the UN and a close friend of Arafat. According to Maqsoud, Arafat is a martyr of the Arab dilemma. He is not a victim of health problems but rather of the Arabs and their approach to the Palestinian cause. Maqsoud offered a critique of Arafats years of leadership, showing significant phases in his life and the Palestinian cause. He said Arafats sacrifices and resistance while under siege in his Ramallah headquarters, and his insistence to remain there despite illness have crowned him the father of the Palestinian people and a symbol of its unity. Maqsoud also criticised many aspects of Arafats decisions including the fact that his Palestinian Authority was unable to establish political institutions, gave false aspirations and showed several flaws in pursuing Palestinian diplomacy. Maqsoud also blamed Arafat for his distrust of Palestinian thinkers including Edward Said, Hanan Ashrawi and Haidar Abdel-Shafi believing that he understood matters on the ground better than lecturers. The last time I phoned Arafat was a couple of months ago and we had the usual kind of conversation. But as an old friend I did not feel it was right to question him. I felt ashamed and disgraced that we had to ask Sharon for permission for Arafat to leave for treatment and that Sharons agreeing sounded like he was doing us a favour. The Qatari Raya backed reports that Arafat might have been poisoned by Israel. It cited Israeli officials and Sharons statements threatening to kill Arafat. It also cited Israeli assassinations of Palestinian political leaders Abu Ali Mustafa, secretary-general of the Palestinian Front for Liberating Palestine, Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin and his successor Abdul-Aziz Al- Rantisi among dozens of others as an example that Israel is an intelligence state which exerts every effort to get rid of the Palestinian resistance and its symbols with the aim of bringing down the Palestinian revolution and silence voices that demand the restoration of legitimate Palestinian rights. The Jerusalem-based Al-Quds newspaper echoed the state of confusion among media and the public after Arafats transfer to hospital. When Israeli and American media announced Arafats death some Israelis took to Jerusalems streets gloating and celebrating the news when in fact at the time a spokesman for the hospital where Arafat is being treated said he is alive. Saudi Arabias Al-Riyadh newspaper hailed Arafat as a man who gave much. The paper wrote that he will be the object of debate for a long time to come but will always be considered the Palestinians godfather a man who will remain in the conscience of his people whether dead or alive.
