Contrary to what Republicans might think of me, I am not one to gain pleasure from someone else's suffering. That said, I decided to make an exception for Yasser Arafat. When President Bush was asked about reports -- now discredited -- regarding the Palestinian leader's death, my heart let out an "at last!"
Don't get me wrong -- I am not Sharon's butt-boy: The man is as subtle as a sledgehammer. However, my problems with Arafat are part of the larger problem I have with self-appointed Islamic rulers. These so-called leaders have more to do with terrorism than all the suicide bombers in the world combined.
In Arafat's case, he has described the gift of an independent Palestinian state as the mission of his life. The only policy agreement between Clinton and Bush involves accepting this demand as legitimate. I am completely convinced that Arafat's policies over the years indicate he does not really want the Palestinians to get their due.
In several Islamic societies today, religious fervor runs high, women have little in the way of rights and practitioners see themselves as being oppressed by Zionists.
Leaders like Arafat seize this opportunity to create a beautiful dream for their followers. They are not dedicated to achieving the dream for the people -- phonies like Arafat thrive by pitting their people against the world.
This negative nationalism helps mobilize the people in blind worship of the "savior." The people become sacrificial lambs in a fruitless war that pits a derelict society against the civilized world.
In my 23 years, I have not come across a single Arafat speech or any other Islamic ruler addressing education, poverty or fundamentalism in Islamic society. These are the very societal problems that help these leaders thrive.
Taking advantage of the peoples' ignorance, the Arafats of our times convert means into an end. Securing global attention to the Palestinian cause would have been an honorable goal for any leader, but for Arafat it became a means to remain relevant and not talk about reforming Islamic society.
Too much has been said about why most of the terrorism in the world is traced to an Islamic source. As someone who has several Muslim friends, I think people tend to believe one of two extreme untruths: If you happen to live in places directly affected by terrorism, then in your eyes all Muslims are terrorists, and if you live in some of the disconnected societies of the Middle East, you see the capitalist West as an oppressor.
The Arafats and Saddam Hussein's would love to keep these beliefs alive. These make them heroes in their land and leave the rest of the world with little choice other than negotiating or invading.
The pattern is the same with the rulers of Iran, Libya, the now defunct Taliban and several other societies across the Middle East. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman makes a terrific point in quoting the Arabic credo: "No voice should be louder than the battle." If people like Arafat and Hussein have anything to do with it, no voices will be more long lasting than those of battle, and no voices will be more misinterpreted than those seeking legitimacy, but fed the wrong words.
Say what you will about the Iraq war, Friedman is correct when he says the removal of Hussein and the irrelevance of Arafat present a wonderful opportunity to the people of Iraq as well as the Middle East. Moreover, who replaces these misleaders will determine what the Middle East and the Islamic world will look like in 10 years.
One possibility is that the insular societies of the Middle East may continue to churn out misguided zealots who burn American flags, blow up buildings, kill innocent women and children in the name of jihad and expect virgins when they head to heaven. They may never know what it feels like to see the stock market rise, to cast a vote or to have equal rights for women.
The more tantalizing possibility is where one of these countries elects a progressive and visionary leader, one who can tell his or her (!) people truths about the need for reform and the way to achieve it. This must be a leader who will not protract the suffering of the people to consolidate power.
Hopefully then the Middle East can start having "peace of land" rather than going up in smoke over a piece of land.
Nishant Bhajaria is a computer science graduate student. Reach him at Nishant.bhajaria@asu.edu.
