By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

General Ion Mihai Pacepa, former head of Romanian Intelligence under he Ceaucescu regime, author of Red Horizons, offers a striking assessment of Yasser Arafat. After describing Arafat's love-making with his bodyguards, Pecepa writes: "I've never before seen so much cleverness, blood, and filth all together in one man."

How is it that this vile creature, the head of a band of murderers, can nonetheless appear at the center of the world's stage and win the accolades of mankind, to the extent of winning a Nobel Peace Prize? Is this not a commentary on the moral poverty of mankind, especially of the democratic West where Arafat back is treated as a head of state? Not even Arafat's complicity in the recent Arab suicide bombings in Jerusalem -- his exalting such bloody savages "holy martyrs" -- has rendered him loathsome and untouchable to the handshaking diplomats of the Clinton Administration.

Is this not also a reflection on "higher" education in the democratic world, on the pluralism flaunted on American colleges and universities? Pluralism, a euphemism for nihilism. Given the international prominence of Arafat -- a revolting criminal, sodomist, and charlatan -- is it any wonder that fascination with crime, perversion, and ugliness is so conspicuous in the West, along with flim-flam? Or perhaps Arafat's ugliness reveals that which lurks beneath the glitz and glamour of Western capitals. Although this brazen liar, this blatant thug, is naked to all but fools, the mandarins of the media cover his lies and crimes with moral indifference -- it's called "objectivity" -- something they learned from morally neutral, hence morally obtuse, social scientists. Arabs who slaughter innocent Jewish men, women, and children are portrayed not as evil but as "frustrated" -- frustrated by the lack of progress in the "territory for peace" (read: terrorism) process.

While the media clamors about the "people's right to know," it seems that the people's educators have taught them nothing about the good, the bad, and the ugly, or how to distinguish between what is noble and what is base. Hence Prime Ministers and Presidents can shake hands with an ugly scoundrel like Arafat without so much as a blink from the people. How is it that Arafat, after having signed an internationally conspicuous agreement that renounces terrorism, can unabashedly and with impunity make a mockery of that agreement and call for a jihad against the Jews? The answer is not pretty. Arafat knows he has the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel in his pocket. He knows they dare not throw him to the wolves, for that would be an admission that the policy of "territory for peace" is a bloody failure, hence, that he has made fools of them, indeed, of Israel and the West. Having embraced Arafat they are wedded to him. They dare not discard him like trash, for quite apart from the question of his probably non-viable successor, to trash Arafat is to make themselves and all those who deified the "Peace Process" appear as bunglers morally responsible for the murder of hundreds of Jews.

Meanwhile, the Israel-bashers or moral cretins of the media must go on "covering" the world's ugliest villain, if only to cover their own complicity in Arafat's deceit and bloodshed. He knows this. He knows that these pretty-faced, paltry Israel-bashers are nothing but whores. It may seem terrible to say, but Arafat, his ugliness aside, compares well not only with these Israel-bashers, but with Bill Clinton -- and here let me add Arafat's greatest champion, Shimon Peres. Clinton and Peres cloak their lust for power in the name of "Peace." So does Arafat. But Arafat has a goal that transcends peace, namely the creation of a Palestinian state. Clinton and Peres are merely his toadies.

Of course, Arafat's Palestinian state would be a cultural, political, and economic monstrosity. The Arabs in that projected state are nothing more than Arabs; there is no such ethnic creature as a "Palestinian." These Arabs consist of rival clans whose diverse places of origin are evident in their family names: Masri (Egyptian); Mugrabi (Moroccan); Ajami (Persian); Hourani (Syrian); Halabi (Aleppan); Kurdi (Kurdish)); Hindi (Indian), and many more. Family, tribal, and sectarian rivalry would tear a Palestinian state apart, as will happen anyway when Arafat is assassinated or drops dead. Besides, who ever heard of a state whose people demand work in another state (in this case Israel, and would perish of starvation were it not for Israel)? Talk about Gaza becoming another Singapore is nothing but flapdoodle. Gaza is a sink-hole of corruption run by Arab mafiosos. And so it would be in any "Palestinian" state. Today it's Arafat, tomorrow another Al Capone. Arafat's has deadly rivals. People seem to have forgotten that his PLO is a consortium of terrorist groups allied with, and used by, various Arab states, such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. As pointed out in my book Demophrenia: "Because these states have regional objectives, they are only tactically, not strategically committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Far from being an independent organization, the PLO shuffles with the shifting interests and rivalries of the Arab world."

King Hussein himself (who supported Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War) has said that the disparate groups of the PLO "always identified themselves with all the contradictions that exist in the Arab world, much more than they identified with the Palestinian cause itself." Former UN Secretary General (one-time Egyptian Foreign Minister) Boutros-Boutros Ghali has said: "Palestine is first of all the heart of the Arab homeland (Qalb Al-Watan Al-'Arabi) before it is the homeland of the Palestinians."

Egypt, the creator and patron of the PLO, is now supplying Arafat with arms via tunnels into Gaza. Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak serve as a mediator between Israel and the PLO to resurrect the "Peace Process." Not even Orwell would have anticipated this inversion of the moral universe.

This inversion was sanctified on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, when the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with mankind's ugliest villain, Yasser Arafat, a handshake applauded by President Bill Clinton and a host of democratic politicians. Which recalls what Gustav Flaubert said back in the 19th century, commenting on the emerging democratic era: "The things that will hold center stage during the next two or three hundred years are enough to make a man of taste vomit."

Yes, but now let us rally to transcend the nausea of this era. Let us aspire to greatness, to a New Israel!!!


Prof. Paul Eidelberg teaches at Bar Illan University and is the director of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments