Can't buy him love
Jonathan Tobin
Arafat's millions and Bush's
principles set the stage for a post-Iraq-war collision
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/tobin.html
March 11, 2003
Arafat's millions and Bush's principles
set the stage for a post-Iraq-war collision This past week, the Palestinian
Authority's top accountant told The New York Times that the P.A.'s finances
are "a mess."
Think you have trouble sorting out your investments?
According to Salam Fayyad, the gun-toting kleptocracy that has raked in billions
in foreign aid over the last decade has invested money in at least 79 different
"enterprises."
Fayyad is the former International Monetary Fund official who has been appointed
to help the P.A. comply with demands by both the United States and Israel
that its administration be reformed. With the help of some money that the
United States has pressured Israel to give to the Palestinians, Fayyad promises
to help clean things up and start the P.A. on the road to fiscal sanity and
good government.
All this is intended to dampen cynicism about the Palestinians and remove
any impediment to the flow of American, European and Israeli cash to Arafat
Inc. Those who choose to believe this may now take their rose-colored glasses
off and adjust to the normal light of day.
By a fortunate circumstance, the very same week that the P.A.'s reform offensive
started paying off in sympathetic articles in this country, Forbes magazine
published its special annual issue detailing the richest people in the world.
As it happens, among those making the list is none other than Yasser Arafat.
MAKING THE LIST
In the list Forbes kept of the richest "Kings, Queens and Despots," the
73-year-old Arafat was noted as being in the possession of "at least" $300
million. While this tidy sum wasn't in the same class as the King of Saudi
Arabia's $20 billion and the Sultan of Brunei's $11 billion, it did put him
ahead of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands' $250 million and the Cuban dictator's
$110 million.
Fayyad told Forbes , "I'm here to tell you that it's not Arafat's money anymore."
If so, then Fayyad is a mortal threat to Arafat's power, but as the Palestinian
bean counter admitted, Arafat "is the person who appointed me." According
to Forbes, Israeli intelligence estimates that Arafat's personal wealth is
actually much higher: $1.3 billion, a figure that would put him ahead of
the likes of Oprah Winfrey, but still behind fellow dictator Saddam Hussein's
$2 billion.
In 1990, according to press reports, the CIA estimated that Arafat had between
$8 and $14 billion in assets. In 1995, the General Accounting Office compiled
a report on Arafat's money, but it was never released because the Clinton
administration deemed its results a threat to "national security interests."
How does Arafat spend his money?
It must be admitted that it isn't on clothes. A good deal is being spent
to keep his wife and daughter in their luxury bunker in Paris, but the amount
he spends keeping Suha in French groceries and haute couture is chump change
compared to the cash he distributes to his terrorist followers.
As has been previously reported elsewhere, like many other really rich guys
in the Forbes spread, Arafat is a hands-on CEO. He signs off on every expense
outlay in the P.A., including payoffs to suicide bombers and purchases of
Iranian arms for use in the Palestinian "intifada."
A DEMOCRATIC VISION
While speculation about Arafat's money has some pure entertainment value,
it does have a direct correlation with another important recent news item:
President Bush's speech last week in which he set forth this country's vision
for the Middle East after the presumably successful conclusion of a war against
Iraq.
Bush's Feb. 26 address to the American Enterprise Institute eloquently set
forth a rationale for war against Iraq. The United States, Bush said, intended
to address the "freedom gap" in the Arab Middle East. Ousting Saddam Hussein's
regime in Iraq would not only remove the threat of his aggression and pursuit
of weapons of mass destruction. It would, Bush believes, also set off a chain
reaction of democracy that would sweep the region.
More specifically, the president thinks the demise of Saddam can "begin a
new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a
truly democratic Palestinian state."
Seizing on the connection between Saddam and Palestinian terrorism, the president
predicted that "the passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist
networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers
rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a
clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated."
All this would lead, Bush says, to the creation of a Palestinian state that
would be democratic, have accountable leaders and be "a reformed and peaceful
state that abandons forever the use of terror." In exchange for this, a secure
Israel will make concessions that will allow this new Palestine to come into
existence.
This is very much in line with his June 24, 2002 speech in which he clearly
stated that any move towards a Palestinian state had to be predicated on
Arafat's ouster and the transformation of the Palestinian entity.
Bush's left-wing critics dismiss these statements as mere window dressing
intended to put a humanist face on geostrategic power politics. Some, such
as Akiva Eldar of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, claim that in articulating
these principles Bush has effectively joined hands with Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon and his "right-wing" government and doomed any chance of
accommodation with the Palestinians. The remnants of the Israeli left still
think anyone who opposes appeasement of terror and expects the Palestinians
to behave in a civilized fashion is nuts.
On the other hand, some who criticize Bush from the perspective of the right,
such as the Middle East Forum's Daniel Pipes, believe that by also saying
that the administration is still committed to the "road map" promulgated
by the diplomatic "Quartet" (the United Nations, Russia, the European Union
and the United States), he is contradicting himself. Even more to the point,
Pipes points out in a recent article in Commentary magazine that the very
i dea that a "plan" of any kind can magically bring peace is itself fanciful.
Pipes is right on both counts. Though one should not underestimate the shock
wave that the overturning of the applecart in Baghdad will have on the rest
of the Arab world, it isn't readily apparent how a new regime in Iraq will
transform Ramallah. No matter who is running Iraq, the political culture
of the Palestinians will have to be changed by the Palestinians and, despite
the spin coming from Salam Fayyad, there is no sign of that happening. Nor
is there any reason to think that any potential Palestinian successor to
Arafat would behave differently than the old terrorist.
It is hard to look past the coming conflict, and see what the postwar will
mean for Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in the future. At present, the
principles articulated by President Bush seem to be headed for a direct collision
with the Palestinian money tree that begins and ends with Arafat. Bush's
principles are admirable and, despite our justified concerns about his
assumptions about the Palestinians, deserve our applause.
America needs a moral foreign policy and democratic vision for the future.
So does the Middle East. The only problem is, we have good reason to doubt
that some of the beneficiaries of Bush's generosity are listening.
JWR contributor Jonathan
S. Tobin is executive editor of the
Philadelphia Jewish
Exponent. Let him know what you think by clicking
here.
Jonathan Tobin
Archives
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not
sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click
here.
Return to Archive | The Palestinian Authority is nothing more than a terrorist organization with fancy stationery. State Comptroller Carl McCall. Coalition for Jewish Concerns (AMCHA) Rally |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Oleg at http://www.gamla.org.il for http://www.womeningreen.org |