The cliches about Arafat...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

A lot of false cliches have recently been uttered about Yasser Arafat, including by commentators and politicians supposedly familiar with the history of the conflict. The most striking compliment lavished on the man was that "he put the Palestinian issue at the center of the world stage." Except that the accuracy of this compliment is rather dubious: The Palestinian question received maximum international recognition in November 1947 in the form of a United Nations resolution on the establishment of a Palestinian state.

This is no accidental mistake: It seems that the compliment to Arafat was intended to spare the Palestinians a harsh reminder that they blew their major opportunity. Arafat's great success was indeed reflected in the fact that he restored the Palestinian problem to center stage, without the international community reminding Palestinians that they themselves are primarily responsible for its not having been resolved earlier. This is a moral failure on the part of the international community.

Moreover, it is clear that Arafat succeeded in placing the Palestinian issue in the limelight not through his political skills, but rather thanks to the unbridled terrorism he instigated. Grabbing attention that way is a no-brainer. Admiring his ability "to place the Palestinian problem on the world map," without expressing reservations about the methods by which he did so, is morally equivalent to admiring Osama bin Laden's ability to accomplish something similar.

...

Moreover, we must no longer put up with the notion - prevalent not only in the Third World but also, unfortunately, in European countries - that the weak and occupied are not subject to any moral restrictions. The Jewish people and the State of Israel possess the utmost moral justification for such a demand: It is doubtful whether in the course of human history there has been another people like the Jewish people in the 20th century for whom achieving sovereignty was not just a matter of national honor and identity, but an existential question.

From a moral standpoint, the Jewish people's struggle for independence could have justified more far-reaching means than those employed by any other people. Despite that, most Jews chose to focus their efforts on constructive building of a nation and its defense, and the pre-state organizations that subscribed to "armed struggle" (Etzel and Lehi) limited their terror to attacking British soldiers and institutions.

The only period in which the Etzel deviated from that rule was in the waning days of the 1930s "Arab revolt," when revenge attacks were launched against Arab civilians following attacks on Jews. Not only was that a strictly reactive policy, but those attacks were condemned by the vast majority of the Jewish public, and the Etzel itself ultimately desisted its attacks after a brief period.

...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/502508.html