Customer Reviews

Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Like many well-meaning European leftists I grew through my political adolescence with an ill-informed but (or should that be "therefore"?) resolute conviction that, while respecting Israel's right to exist, etc., there had to be a Palestinian state before peace in the Middle East could be secured and, fiurthermore, that Yasir Arafat was the key to that solution. This book - along with other extensive reading - confirms that view for the well-meaning illusion it was (and remains, not least in the halls of the European Union and its member states).

The book does not make Arafat out to be an evil ogre but a masterful and Macchiavellian schemer, managing to portray himself as a militant and martial Islamic leader to the Arab world but as a diplomatic yet frustrated nation-builder in the mould of Mandela to all-too-many "useful idiots" in the West. The Rubins convey - with convincing evidence, implacable logic and admirable constraint - the true extent to which Arafat and his authoritarian and anti-semitic clique (not Sharon or Israel or "US imperialism") remains the principal cause of the Palestinians' suffering and deprivation. Their insights into broader Middle East politics and the collective pathologies that pass for Arab nationalism also provide critical insights into the situation in Iraq.

If you read only one book on the Middle East this year, this is the one.

"A masterly study?.Many books have been published recently about Iranian politics; here is one at last that makes sense of the Shah's reign and Khomeini's revolution, and provides a full, objective assessment of the American role in both eras."--The New York Times Book Review

"An extremely readable, up-to-date, comprehensive and balanced study which is also a unique combination of scholarship and reporting?.[Rubin] is able to unravel contemporary developments and reweave them in an often rich narrative style."--Washington Post Book World

"Judicious and thoughtful?Rubin offers a prognosis for the future with the measured optimism of someone who has watched the conflict unfold from up close for some time." --Boston Book Review

I suppose I can be forgiven for being just a bit skeptical of a book about a radical Arab written by a couple American Jews. Could it ever have any claim to objectivity? Maybe in an American bookstore, I would have been inclined to pass it up. But I live in Beijing, China, where such books don't grow on trees. A Chinese friend put the book in my hands. I have been a bit puzzled and curious about the way Arafat is viewed as a revolutionary hero in China, yet China strives to maintain good relations with Israel, a nation whose very existence Arafat never accepted. So I read the book.

Actually, I was pleasantly surprised. I'm not saying that the book is totally objective in every respect. But it is a very well-written discussion of the relationship problems Arafat had, both with Israel, and with the leaders of the Arab nations, who were supposed to be his supporters. Bottom line: Arafat didn't get along with anyone.

In one sense, Arafat made this book for the writers, because he was so consistent in his complete inability to come to some kind of workable agreement with Israel. His whole life and work epitomized Abba Eban's statement about the Palestinians, who "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Personally, I don't think the statement is entirely fair when applied to the Palestinians, but it certainly is an appropriate statement about Arafat, who never gave up fighting the nation with whom he, more than any Arab before him, had the opportunity to make peace. If the peacemakers are blessed, Arafat is among the most cursed of all men. So how did such an ornery cuss gain such prominence? Part of his success is certainly due to his knack for self-promotion, and the brazenness of his contempt for Israel. But I must also admit that I fear much of his prominence came from the lack of regard for the plight of the Palestinians by Israel. Sarah didn't want Ishmael in her house, so the bondwoman had to leave. Israel seems to have the same feeling about the Palestinians. They shouldn't be part of the family. Israelis often protest when I talk about this, because (and they are right about this) Palestinians living in Israel have the same rights as Jews. The problem, though, is that many of the Palestinians do not live in Israel proper, and thus are not entitled to those rights. And the Israelis certainly have not invited them all in. That, really, is the point. I don't want to get carried away on that point, but it has to be mentioned in order to keep this in perspective. What I mean is that we should not blame Arafat for all the problems between the Palestinians and the Jews. He did not create the situation he so hopelessly mismanaged. Arafat's problem is that he just could not bring himself to accept any arrangement that allowed Israel to exist.

This is a good book. It is very negative, but I don't think unfairly so. I am assuming that this book is not your only source of information on the whole Israeli--Palestinian problem. I do feel that the Israelis have not cared enough about the plight of the Palestinians. This book does not stand alone. There needs to be much more exploration into the problem as a whole. But as far as Arafat himself is concerned, the authors did an excellent job of showing how much he stood in the way of progress on this issue, and the extent to which he was responsible for promoting violence even to the end of his life. As historians, their job is not finished. But as prosecutors, they won their case hands down.

Yasser Arafat's centrality to the Middle East equation is hard to deny. An impressive survivor, he continues to command considerable power and clout despite the countless times his adversaries have declared him irrelevant. With this in mind, Rubin and Rubin have done students of the Middle East a great service with this able biography, by far the most complete of the five so far published. The authors track Arafat from his student days in Egypt, through his transition from one of the founders of modern terrorism to a leader commanding considerable respect on the world stage. The authors offer considerable analysis of his most fateful and often disastrous decisions, from attempting to overthrow the king of Jordan that led to the so called Black September Massacre, to his decision to back Saddam Hussein in the first gulf war. Through all of this a telling portrait of Arafat emerges, though not one that his acolytes would necessarily appreciate.

Arafat's ability to play world powers off each other, first the Soviets off the US and now the Europeans off the US, is justifiably legendary. The authors do an excellent job explaining how he does this, understanding the essential goals of each and inserting himself into their strategy. What emerges is a man whose greatest concern is not his people, but his role in history and that he should never be seen as "the traitor who made peace with the Jews." Indeed, he is quoted when he rejected the Camp David Accords that he did not want to be the man who was seen as accepting the Jewish States right to exist. The Rubin?s do not seek to turn Arafat into some sort of evil monster, but rather to put him in the context of his culture, his times, and his values. From this perspective, his motivations and actions become not only clear, but quite calculating and shrewd.

The most interesting of the authors' conclusions is that through out his long career, Arafat may have changed tactics, but that his strategy and goals remain virtually unchanged. Going back to the early 70's Arafat freely spoke of the idea of establishing a presence on some portion of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan by any means and then using it as a base from which to attack, demoralize, and eventually destroy the Jewish State. Given recent events it seems the world would have done well to listen to what he had to say.

This book enlightens readers on the history of Yassir Arafat and the terrorist institutions he has created and led. The reader is provided with the historic underpinnings with which to judge Arafat's inability to be an effective leader. The authors clearly chronicle how Arafat has dedicated the majority of his life eluding responsibility for terrorist activities through his duplicitous actions of calling for peace while promoting and provoking arms length terrorist organizations to kill Israelis and other Western nationals. The facts against Arafat speak for themselves. They explain why Israel cannot negotiate with Arafat and why no other Arab nation wants Arafat living in neighboring countries ? Arafat has proven to be a menace in any country in which he has lived. This book is a must read for anyone who wants to appreciate why the Palestinians require new leadership before peace can be achieved in the middle-east.

There are only about five biographys of Arafat to date. Harts 'Arafat Terrorist or peacemaker', Aburish 'Arafat from defender to dictator' a book called 'Arafat in the eye of the beholder' and then another book just released named 'Arafat'. This book seems to take most of his life into account. From his days in Kuwait and Cairo to the most recent time with Abbas as PM. Unfortuantly the conclusion is flawed. Abbas has quit and Arafat has all the riens of power. The conclusion that his many mistakes are going to eclipse him finally is wrong. Arafat is still loved by his people.

The book is unbiased, which is nice from other works on Arafat. Unforutnatly the book doesnt fault him for supporting murder of children(but I guess we forgave Begin so we can forgive Arafat). The books view that Arafat has caused much suffering for his own people because of his military mismanagement is right on the mark.

This is an important update on Arafats life, the other bios of him are dated.

The Rubins' ARAFAT: A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY isn't necessarily a bad book, but it's a lousy biography. It's more like an extended political essay attempting to document their conclusions about Arafat's personality and worldview, by drawing relationships between Arafat's political antics to demonstrate an overall pattern that explains the failures of the Middle East peace process.

There is little of it with which I disagree, in the end. The image of Arafat as a mater tactician with absolutely no strategic comprehension is a case made quite well. Yassir Arafat was and is a terrorist at heart, hasn't any political vision for Palestinian society beyond a failed militant strategy and his own grandeur, and is and has been the biggest impediment to peace in Israel. His failures and defeats are numerous, and his victories non-existent, yet he retains incredible political stature. The Rubins identify the recurring themes of Arafat's political career, and continually restate their case. There is a fairly well-argued consistency.

None the less, this book fails to be a "political biography" (whatever that is), let alone any kind of biography. The fault is in the writing. The point of this book is to make a case, and the title should have reflected that. The image of Arafat, as a man or a political figure, remains superficial after the Rubins are done. As one reads along, Arafat remains a very distant figure. Most of the sources were from contemporary news articles, far removed from the action, and the writing never strays from a two-dimensional journalism throughout. The way quotes are used, not to explore the man but to support premises, supports that. Although in the Preface the authors allude to the fact that they have interviewed many close to Arafat, that never seems to figure in the text. In fact, the Rubins claim that many they interviewed who know Arafat personally told them they hoped their book would help explain the man to them. I doubt the end result will really do so.

There isn't really an effort to chronicle Arafat's life, political life, or career (however they many want to put it). Instead, important events are used to support their central argument with little chronological coherence, as the Rubins will flit from event to event, often years apart, to support their claims. Things that would seem important are glossed over inexcusably.

For instance, the authors dispense in two or three sentences Arafat's consolidation of control over a splintering PLO in Lebanon by alluding to some assassination attempts by other Fatah elements (there isn't any discussion what kind of efect this had on Arafat) leading to some brutality from pro-Arafat elements (we aren't told what they are), and then on to the next paragraph. Thus, a potentially fascinating and insightful study of a crucial and stressful time receives only a bare mention. The entire book is like this. The discussion of his techniques for sustaining centralized control aren't really explored very well, instead we have repeated generalizations about thriving in chaos and whatnot.

Ultimately, it will leave you unsatisfied and unimpressed if you are expecting a biography.

This is a very good book about a very bad man.

Even if you are not pro-Israel, what people don't realize is that Yasir Arafat was killing American's way back in the 1960's and 1970's.

He was responsible for the killing if US Ambassador Cleo Noel Jr. in 1973.

Arafat is evil, pure evil. This book will show you why.

This was an extremely biased account of Arafat and should not be ready by anyone seeking an unbiased biography. Throughout the book, the authors repeatedly condemn Arafat's refusal to agree to a peace deal, even though every deal offered him fell short of Israel's compliance with international law and withdrawal from Palestinian territories it occupied in 1967. While Arafat had many legitimate failures and weaknesses, blaming him for Israel's occupation is laughable and that seems to be the sole objective of this book.

On p. 162, the authors explain that, "...many Palestinians did not believe Israel would ever accept reasonable terms and that the peace process was a trick to ensure their permanent subjugation. While such beliefs were reinforced by specific Israeli actions...they far exceeded the evidence. To think that [Israeli government] wanted to keep control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip permanently was a serious misconception, which continued to have enormous negative consequences for Palestinian interests." I found it incredible for this claim to be made without addressing Israeli settlements and Israel's systematic support of them. Illegal settlement construction has been funded by the Israeli government and Israeli officials indicated they have no intention of ever relinquishing all settlements on occupied territory. I therefore disagree with the authors' claim that Palestinians' beliefs far exceeded the evidence and that it was a misconception to perceive permanent settlement construction as Israel's permanent control of the West Bank and Gaza.

On p. 248, the authors state, "By signing some variation on the offers made by Barak and Clinton, Arafat could have ended the occupation, removed all settlements from Palestinian-ruled territory, freed prisoners in Israeli hands, and controlled the al-Aqsa mosque. By refusing to do so he was ensuring that all these problems continued into the indefinite future." The truth is that Arafat was never presented an offer that would have removed all settlements from Palestinian land. Notice the use of the words "Palestinian-ruled territory." Israel proposed to annex the larger settlements on occupied land, placing them into "Israeli-ruled territory" and Arafat rightfully said no. There is no mention of the fact that the occupation consists of war crimes, that the settlements violate international law, and that Israel's colonization-like behavior ensures that these problems will continue into the indefinite future. The authors' bias consistently manipulates facts to make them appear consistent with their views of Arafat and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The last two chapters of the book are dedicated to spinning an argument of why the continued occupation is solely the fault of Arafat and not Israel. According to the authors, Arafat could have ended the occupation, therefore it is his fault that the occupation continues. A ridiculous claim considering the occupation would immediately cease if Israel simply makes a commitment of adhering to international law and leaves the occupied territories. It is also an unfair level of blame cast upon Arafat, considering that all of the "generous" peace deals offered by Israel consisted of keeping some of Palestinian territory, keeping settlements on Palestinian land, and refusing the right of return to Palestinian refugees- all violations of international law. Arafat was indeed a difficult man for Israel to make a deal with, but blaming him for the occupation caused by Israel's military aggression and biblical claims to Palestinian land is ridiculous.

"Biographies" like these are made by collecting newspaper clippings about someone you have never met and paraphrasing them. The usual subjects are pop stars and Hollywood actors. No interviews, no original material of any sort, and certainly no enlightenment. A hard-line journalistic pamphlet.

Update May 6, 2006: I am amused to see that a hit-squad has been systematically giving negative points to all reviews on this page which appear to be pro-Arafat. This to miss the point -- being pro-Arafat or anti-Arafat does not make this any the less a dull and polemical pseudo-biography which tells us nothing other than what (as another reviewer has said) we already know, that right-wing Israeli journalists loathed him.

But to the main issue -- there is a far more interesting and revelatory biography of Arafat available now in paperback, "Arafat: From Defender to Dictator" by Said K. Aburish. This scathing book written by a Palestinian insider will tell you a great deal more about Arafat's early life, and why his leadership of the Palestinian cause went so badly wrong in the decade before his death. Check the Aburish book out, probably the definitive statement of the agonized, frustrated way Palestinian intellectuals view Arafat.