Ousting Arafat

This viewpoint is in response to "Reassessing the Palestinian voice," by Reem Assil (Sept 30). I thank the author for a very thoughtful articulation of the difference between the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people. I also agree that much of Sharon's response is no longer business, but personal. Can Arafat's recently terminated isolation really be called a legitimate military exercise?

In that context, I think an appropriate question is if a leader of the Palestinian people can expect to be held accountable by Israel for actions of militants who may or may not be under this leader's control, and if that accountability manifests itself in isolation, demonization, confinement, etc., who would want the job?

Regarding Arafat, I think that even most Palestinians would agree that he has supported terrorists (martyrdom operations, "defense," whatever one wishes to call them). He has done this directly and indirectly, and has supported attacks on non-combatant Israeli citizens both within Israel and within the West Bank.

In that context, and I would hope that the Palestinian people understand this, I do not see how Sharon, Shimon Peres, President Bush, Colin Powell, or Ronald McDonald would ever consent to making the peace with him. If one dreams of another historic handshake, including Arafat on the cover of Time Magazine, I recommend a week in rehab or another Tylenol PM. How on earth do we get rid of this guy? And I don't ask this because I don't like him; I ask this because I no longer think he's effective.

Who is going to do it? Behind door number one, the Israelis! Bring in the tanks! Surround the compound! Shackle the guy! Cart him off the Cyprus! Sound a little politically infeasible to you? How about the option behind door number two? No, sorry, not the Russians. That's right, you guessed it: the Palestinians are going to have to do it themselves. I suggest armed insurrection. The Palestinians seem to have enough weaponry to attack Israeli settlements and soldiers. But barring that, demonstrations demanding his ousting might be a good start.

How do we get someone to want the "job," as discussed above? Break the links to the past that haunts the Israelis. Eliminate the term "terrorist" from descriptions of the Palestinian leader. I would suggest that "ineffectual nothing" is a far superior title than "terrorist" with respect to creating an environment where negotiations might start.

This view on responsibility may be unfair. But the problem with blaming Sharon is that the Israelis can and will replace him if popular sentiment demands it. There's a mechanism there called democracy and his job is permanently temporary. The same cannot be said of Arafat. So the Palestinians are going to have to get their hands dirty, and create that mechanism, through force if necessary, in the face of incredible adversity. The world is not going to solve their leadership problems.

Get rid of Arafat; bring forward another leader, and if Sharon does not respond, the term "vote of no confidence" comes to mind. The people of Israel, and their moneyed backers in the United States, will take care of Sharon. If I were still on campus, I'd likely accept my fair share of stink eye from Palestinians for this piece. But for the love of Adonai, Allah, or by whatever name one calls God, I implore the Palestinians to get off their butts, stop complaining, and use their voice. Surely the world media will use its muscle to broadcast that voice worldwide. Use it to say, "Have a nice time in retirement."