By <a href="mailto:rosenblum@haaretz.co.il" class="tUbl2">Doron Rosenblum</a>
This week Israel has unexpectedly moved the finger from Arafat to Syria, blaming it for "direct responsibility" for the terror attack in Megiddo. But, a novice might wonder, if Syria is to blame, and maybe Iraq and Iran as well, what's the point in taking vengeance on Arafat's bedpan? Why did Israel bombard his bedroom in the Muqata - maybe the last "enemy target" remaining after more than a year of air, land and sea strikes against any tank, office or button belonging to Arafat?
The answer is probably more psychological than strategic, since the focus of the country, known as the strongest power in the Middle East, on a single man has by now become a fetish and an obsession. Arafat's bedroom was hit simply because it was there. Arafat is the most readily available, easy target, because we have no clue what to do except punish him and teach him a lesson. Even the desire (or rather the stated desire) to get rid of him, is part of the obsessive focus that we have with Arafat and with him alone.
Obviously the deranged situation in the region is not unrelated to Arafat's disturbed personality, but the personalization of the conflict and the way that one man is used as the single outlet for the government's vengeance and rage and the scapegoat for its limited thinking and frustrations, is just as maniacal. Again we see the pathetic display in which one elderly Arab personifies our "enemy" (granted, a hellishly good casting job). After every bloody attack, an entire nation holds its breath waiting to see whether the old goat has finally cracked and burst into tears, after a massive act of retribution trashed his car, his airplane or the flower pot in his bedroom. If at least this tactic would have generated results, but Arafat is just becoming more powerful from one attack to the next. Moreover, in a somewhat perverted relationship, it seems Israel and Arafat have established a sado-masochistic rapport: Does he not appear to be enjoying to take the blows just as much as we enjoying giving them?
Either way, without any other political or military solution in sight, the obsession with Arafat has become this government's only "policy" and raison d'etre. The government convenes every morning to discuss "Arafat's responsibility" and disperses satisfied after finding him guilty as charged. The government talks about his "arrest" (namely, yesterday's doomsday weapon) and salivates at the thought of his "deportation" and "removal" (namely, tomorrow's doomsday weapon). In the process, the government completely overlooks the contradiction between the rationale behind the siege (which is designed "to prevent Arafat from traveling the world on red carpets"), and the fact that this is precisely what will happen if he is "deported." But rationality in this case (if it were only in this one ...) has no place.
What will the coalition of generals do if and when Arafat suddenly disappears? What will they do when they are forced to really handle the question of the territories, the borders, the refugees, the economy, the security? Just like in the folk story about the man who lost a coin in a dark place and went looking under a street light, we, too, are looking both for the absent peace and the lost security only in the spotlight of Arafat's personality. Could it be that we don't really want to find them
Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, offers real-time breaking news, opinions and analysis from Israel and the Middle East. Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.
