Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Jonathan Lear and Andrew Sullivan

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Andrew Sullivan

Deconstructing Arafat

Posted Monday, Aug. 20, 2001, at 2:04 PM ET

Dear Jonathan,

You want me to psychoanalyze Yasser Arafat? I only just got up!

Sometimes a thug is just a thug. The reason Arafat couldn't even duplicitously accept the Camp David deal is not, I think, because he has resistance issues to success, or because he had transference between Barak and his father. I think he said no because if he'd said yes, he'd have been shot. That's a pretty good incentive to say no.

The dynamic Arafat is in is the same dynamic the rest of the Arab world is in. The legitimacy of Arafat, and the legitimacy of most of the murdering hoodlums who pass for political leaders in the Arab world, is based in part upon demonizing the Jews and Israel. When you've built your career on egging on the most extreme elements in your base, it gets somewhat tricky to turn around and tell them that the Great Satan has just made you an offer you can't refuse. That's likely to make your followers a little confused. And as soon as they are confused, there's always another demagogue to cure their confusion and oust you from power. So Arafat did what he always does: He acts perfectly sanely in his own self-interest. I imagine part of him said to himself as he came back from Camp David, "Phew, that was a close one. Better get a few Jews killed quick to make sure that doesn't happen again."

It's also a Western liberal fantasy that somehow the PLO really wants its own state. This is part of the same Western fantasy that believes the IRA really wants a united Ireland. At some point in the distant past, that may have been the case. But after decades of war, both organizations develop their institutional self-interest. They are murder machines, criminal entities that need some shred of political justification for external purposes, but underneath are built around the rationale of never-ending war. The only victory they want is a pile of Jewish or Protestant corpses--and the lack of a political settlement is the best rationale for keeping the murders coming. The last thing on earth these criminals want is the challenge of actually running a country. As the Palestinian rule in its own territories shows, and as the history of every other Arab country shows, the only way they know how to run a country is through one form of tyranny or another. So why not keep the war going? You think the Palestinians actually have a political culture that wants to see peace and free markets? Only someone as daffy as Shimon Peres or George Mitchell would buy that.

Talking of psychoanalysis, did you see Mike Isikoff's terrific little piece about President Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich? I remember when the news broke how the last remaining apologists for the Wizard of Is went scurrying about the news shows arguing that while they couldn't actually justify this bizarre action, we had to understand the context. Clinton was exhausted in his final days; he couldn't have anticipated the furor; he wanted to help out a "friend"; how about them surpluses? and on and on. Isikoff's unearthing of the Clinton-Barak phone calls show that Clinton clearly knew what he was up to; he knew how "unprecedented" his pardon was; he knew it violated most norms of judicial propriety--but, what the heck?--he had the power to do it. So he did. Like bombing Sudan or brazenly toughing out his sexual harassment suit to the bitter end, Clinton just wanted to see how far he could push his luck. It was the equivalent of him giving the finger not just to his old foes but to all his pathetic, enabling allies.

And guess what? He got away with it. Just a few months later, Chris Matthews is singing Clinton's praises, urging a repeal of the 22nd Amendment. The New York Times plasters the guy on its front page; Knopf gives its imprimatur to the old crook to the tune of $10 million; and Clinton himself is raking it in across the planet. Clinton must be rolling in the aisles with pleasure. I don't know about you, but, despite longtime misgivings about the 22nd Amendment, I'm very grateful it's still around. Can you imagine if he'd been re-elected a third time? What further risks would he have taken with our democracy and legal system just to see whether he could get away with it?

Psychoanalyze Arafat? Isn't there a more likely object of psychological inquiry closer to home?

Andrew

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Andrew Sullivan

Deconstructing Arafat

Posted Monday, Aug. 20, 2001, at 2:04 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Jonathan Lear is a member of the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. His most recent book is Happiness, Death, and the Remainder of Life. Andrew Sullivan writes daily for andrewsullivan.com, writes the "TRB" column for the New Republic, and is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
| Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta and others weigh in.
Colbert King: She's No HillaryEditorial: Is She Ready for This?
PLUS » PostPartisan: Quick Takes from Opinions