Press Room

AAI in the News

Peace After Arafat?

CNN Transcript
Posted on Thursday November 11, 2004

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Egypt and Jordan have declared three days of official mourning for Yasser Arafat, as countries across the Arab and Muslim world pay tribute to the Palestinian leader.

Joining us now to talk a little bit more about Arafat’s legacy, the future of the peace process? Is there a future of the peace process? James Zogby, the president and the founder of the Arab- American Institute here in Washington.

Jim, thank you very much for joining us.

You knew Yasser Arafat for many years. First of all, reflect a little bit on his legacy, what he leaves behind.

JAMES ZOGBY, PRESIDENT, ARAB-AMERICAN INST.: Well, he leaves behind a much beleaguered people. And in many way his history, both his triumphs and his failures, track that history. He’s—there’s an internal Palestinian criticism, but more than that, there’s a reverence for the legacy. They look at him and saw a metaphor for their lives, and I think unique among world leaders, in that he was that closely identified with his people, and for some years, that even those who criticized him feel a pang of hurt and regret right now for losing him.

BLITZER: They say he deliberately avoided having an heir apparent for whatever reason? What happens now…

ZOGBY: You know, one of the things I think is so interesting about him to understand is the degree to which he was a traditional, almost tribal consensus builder. And much of the fault that is laid on him was based on not making a decision, but in trying to reconcile so many diverse components. Remember, this is a unique people—dispersed, dispossessed, refugees, successful businessmen, people in the West Bank and Gaza, different tribes, different families of great importance.

BLITZER: Religions, too.

ZOGBY: The need to reconcile all of those at times almost paralyzed, but nevertheless, incrementally, over the years, he took them toward great—in great—making great strides in an important direction. He got them to accept what they never thought was possible to accept, and that is the existence of Israel in ‘88, the partition, and then later on the existence of Israel with Oslo, a huge—what he never understood is why that was never enough. Once he accepted Israel and once he recognized them, he simply wanted the 22 percent, and Americans would sort of scratch their head and say, what’s he talking about, 22 percent. He just wanted the West Bank and Gaza back. Don’t draw new lines. Don’t do these little fingers of settlements out into the middle. Don’t promise me bridges and tunnels. Just give me back the 22 percent and sovereignty. And he was tremendously disappointed when it didn’t come.

BLITZER: So what happens now?

ZOGBY: Well, what happens now is that the power of the next Palestinian leadership will be dependent not only on the history, because there is no one with that history. He had a charisma that transcended almost everybody else. But the others who had that kind of history were assassinated by the Israelis back in the ‘80s, Abu Shahad (ph), et cetera. Abu Mazen doesn’t have it. Abu Ala doesn’t have it the same way. They will be dependent on either the United States, someone to be a patron, to give them credibility, because they stand behind them full square, and say to Israel, do this, you need to give this guy more. We embraced Abu Mazen a few years back, and then dropped him. And he was hurt by that, embarrassed more than he was helped.

But the next Palestinian leadership will be dependent on how much Israel will give and how much the U.S. will stand behind them.

BLITZER: But there is an opportunity right now, you would agree, an opportunity with the new Palestinian leadership, elections scheduled for 60 days. You’re shaking your head…

ZOGBY: Well, there’s an opportunity that is a function of the fact that our president made an ideological determination, I’m not going to talk to the guy.

BLITZER: So he’s willing to talk to these other Palestinian leaders.

ZOGBY: Right, but that’s where the opportunity is. Frankly speaking, had we engaged Arafat over the last four years, I think we could have made much greater progress than we did. Dropping the ball as we did, I think was a mistake and cost too many Israeli lives, too many Palestinian lives, and brought the situation to where it is today, where Sharon himself is facing the prospect of a civil war, and I think that the Palestinian street may be out of control unless something very dramatic occurs. I think he was too often a convenient scapegoat for the failures of others, including ourselves.

BLITZER: Jim Zogby, thanks very much for joining us.

ZOGBY: Thank you, Wolf.