<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant pro-Palestinian portrayal of an opportunist
Review: Aburish offers a look, critical at times, into the life of leader Yasser Arafat. Aburish exposes many of the myths that prevail about Arafats past, most notably the myth that he was born in Jerusalem. I agree with Kurt Jefferson when he says that this book, while often viewed as no more than a harsh critique of Arafat, is really offers backhanded praise of the Palestinian leader. Sure it offers criticism of the motivations of the PLO leader, but in discussing his earlier years, and the thoughts that drove him, Aburish develops in the reader a sympathy for Arafat that helps us see past some of his shortcomings. Even reading through this harsh critic, my opinion of Arafat has remained largely favorable. If anything, I like him more now than before I read Arafat. Some key things with which Aburish does an excellent job" -I've read quite a few books on the Arab-Israeli conflict, yet I didn't acquire a good understanding of the conflicts within the Arab community until reading this book. There are ample sources when writing about the Israeli's, but it is tough to come across good information about Arab politics. I commend Aburish in this respect. -Aburish does an excellent job in detailing the ways in which Arafat was very successful in creating a seperate Palestinian identity apart from other Arab people. -He does a good job in describing how Arafat, for better or worse, was able to consolidate his power and prevent the Palestinian cause from becoming fractured and marginalized, especially in the wake of the Israeli-Lebannon fiasco of the early 1980's. Does Aburish's book paint a rosy picture of the PLO leader? Of course not--just look at the subtitle. But it does do a good job of describing where he comes from and what makes his mind ticks. If you can see past some of the unnecessary criticism, then you will be able to really appreciatte this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Devastating exposee of a corrupt megalomaniac
Review: Aburish, a Palestinian journalist living in London, has Yasir Arafat's number. He shows how the leader of the Palestinians is in many ways an Egyptian (having been born and reared in that country, living there until the age of 28, and still speaking Arabic like an Egyptian), his deep grounding in Islam, and his abiding parochialism (describing him as someone with "an international veneer and a tribal core"). Capturing the elusive and contradictory nature of his subject, his book is an excellent place to learn about the personality and career of Arafat (but wait, there's a catch). With almost a sense of wonder, his biographer notes that Arafat is short, ugly, and disorganized; that he writes badly, talks uninspiredly, and acts too impulsively; that he is indifferent to social problems 43 146 and is "devoted to politics, but without any specific ideology." How, then, he muses, did a person with such qualities rise to become a world figure? By obsessively, energetically, imaginatively, and persistently fusing his personality with the Palestinian cause. (It takes nearly an hour to tie his Arab headdress so that it resembles the map of Palestine.) But there is a huge problem with this biography. Aburish is wildly unreliable-to the point of parody-when it comes to politics. Nearly all he writes about the United States and Israel is flawed. For example, he absurdly ascribes the 1973 Arab-Israeli war to Henry Kissinger's "selfish" rivalry with Secretary of State William Rogers-as though Middle Easterners had nothing to do with the conflict. Unless you work full time on the Middle East, steer clear of this book. Fortunately, there is an alternative, the best book ever written about Arafat (and the barely acknowledged source of many of Aburish's ideas): The Mystery of Arafat, the short 1995 study by Danny Rubinstein, an Israeli journalist. Middle East Quarterly, March 1999
Rating:
Summary: Very well researched
Review: Even though an interview with Arafat in which he could have offered some justifications to counter Aburish's accusations, the book still managed to safely sail to the shore of objectivity.
With or without Arafat, the amount of information acquired from his aides and from news reports makes the book fairly credible.
The book revolved around two main themes: First, Arafat has always put his leadership concerns over all other matters including vital Palestinian interests. Second, the Israelis never intended to recognize the Palestinian leadership as the representative of the Arabs residing in the occupied territories. Instead, it opted for trying to deal with the Jordanian leadership as the representative of these Palestinians and using a policy of an iron fist with them.
An articulate Aburish argues that the peace process was born dead for three main reasons. Arafat's tribal behavior and corruption made him impose his leadership on the Palestinians living in the territories whereas the real leadership was offered by the residents themselves such as Al-Shafi, Ashrawi and Husseini. Second, the Israeli never stopped creating new realities by constantly expanding their settlements in Palestinian territories and errecting new ones, a situation which made the Palestinians always doubtful of the Israeli true intentions toward a durable peace.
While Arafat believed that some Israeli concessions would beef up his leadership after he was ejected from Beirut in 1982 and lived since then in Tunisian exile, Israel thought that with minimum concessions it could force Arafat to police and supress the Palestinians living under occupation.
The end result (not in the book), was the collapse of the peace process and an increase in violence, which creates a bleak picture of the future of peace and makes both the Palestinians and the Israelis head into oblivion.
Rating:
Summary: A controversial biography of a controversial politician
Review: I am convinced that there simply cannot be a biography of some one like Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, which would be universally recognized as balanced and objective. The attempt in this book is by Said Aburish, a Christian Lebanese journalist based in London and who holds an American passport. Although the author feels his background qualifies him better than non-Arab writers to write such a book, I well anticipate that some, if not many, readers may see Aburish's backgound alone as enhancing or diminishing his credibility in writing a biography of a controversial personality who has been at the center of a bitterly divisive conflict in the Middle East. And much as the author strives to a journalistic book, full of information which he presents as factual, his tone is hardly non-partisan and one can hardly describe his portrait of Arafat as flattering. From the beginning, Aburish asserts QUOTE without doubt UNQUOTE that Arafat's birthplace, long shrouded in mystery, is Cairo, and that, notwithstanding the time he spent among Palestinians, Arafat still speaks Arabic like an Egyptian, to the point where QUOTE West Bankers did not like his Egyptian accent and ways and found them alien.UNQUOTE The book is full of other anecdotes of Arafat's personal life, including his uneasy relationship with a father whose funeral he did not attend. These journalistic anecdotes belie the character of the book which is fundamentally a political commentary on the Middle East conflict. Aburish gives credit to Arafat for three strategic choices: fostering a Palestinian identity to counter Israel rather than relying on Arag governments to do the bidding for the Palestinians; choosing armed struggle which earned the Palestinians world recogntiion; and, later, pursuing (or attempting to pursue, perhaps) a peaceful settlement with Israel. But Aburish is also categorical in his judgment that Araft is unfit to serve as a modern leader of Palestinians, comparing him to QUOTE an uneducated wily Arab chief UNQUOTE and holding him responsible for dictatorial ways which he says has supressed the Palestinian people and created a corrupt entity in the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Not surprisingly, Aburish volunteers a proposed replacement for Arafat in the triumvarate of three well-known Palestinians who have been know as able negotiators in Washington. With a proper filter to sort fact from opinion and a framework for contextualizing this book, a careful reader can find value in Aburish's otherwise well written biography.
Rating:
Summary: Arafat: The Survivor
Review: Palestinian journalist Said K. Aburish has written a systematic and scholarly overview on the political life of Yasser Arafat. With close attention to details and the factual precision of an historian or political scientist, Aburish paints a unique, although not surprising picture of the leader of the Palestinian Authority. Although most reviewers have noted Aburish's pungent critique of Arafat as an opportunistic, ever corrupt, and self-absorbed dictator, I find Aburish's Palestinian worldview tempers his criticism of Arafat and in some ways, backhandedly salutes and legitimates Arafat's actions over 40 years of fighting for the Palestinian cause. This humanizes Arafat and allows readers to look at him as one would Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, etc. This book is dense and contains information about Arafat's rise and his relations with his Arab brethren, the Israelis, and the USA. Interestingly, Arafat's rise to prominence, first with his Fatah (Conquest) organization and then as PLO head, occurs roughly over the period of profound tension and warfare between Israel and the Arabs over the Palestinian question (1960s-1980s). Aburish does a brilliant job portraying the character of the man and his ways (Arafat likes cornflakes with tea, "Tom and Jerry" cartoons, and can have a hot temper). Despite Arafat's penchant for opportunism and, at times, Machiavellian tendencies, Arafat appears to be more sensitive to peace than some have given him credit. Readers will learn much about recent (Cold War-era) Middle East history and politics. They will also learn much about the seemingly perpetual feud within the Arab world, and within the Palestinian political community as well. Aburish's book is dense, yet readable, and an excellent education on Arafat, the enigmatic, yet omnipresent leader of the Palestinians. Hence, this book will help one understand the current crisis(post-September 28, 2000 when the Al-Aqsa intifada started) and how it is once again encompassing Middle Eastern politics.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad book about a bad man
Review: Said Aburish downplays much of the evil of Yasir Arafat.
At his core, Arafat is a terrorists and a murderer. Arafat hates not only Israel, but the west.
Even if you are not pro-Israel, what people don't realize is that Yasir Arafat was killing American's way back in the 1960's and 1970's.
He was responsible for the killing if US Ambassador Cleo Noel Jr. in 1973.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant pro-Palestinian portrayal of an opportunist
Review: This book goes a long way to explaining why the Palestinian people have yet to find justice. Most 'biographies' of Arafat are caricatures which do not fully explain Arafat - either absurdely critical or absurdly adulatory. Aburish cuts down the middle, demonstrating time after time how Arafat's leadership persists, despite continually snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and despite surrounding himself with a coterie of corrupt hangers-on . Far from being a harsh critic, Aburish simply marshalls all the facts and then lets them (largely) speak for themselves. It is precisely Aburish's deep sympathy for the Palestinian people, yearning for freedom, which makes this biography so devastating. A brilliant portrayal of political corruption and opportunism.
Rating: 
Summary: ok
Review: While I agree with some of the things he says, such as his views on Saddam, I do not think he truely understands the situation that Arafat is in. If Arafat is as corrupt as the author claims, maybe he is, that still does not explain the actions of Sharon. If the jewish state truely wanted peace, the peace plan offered by Barak years ago would have never been taken off the table, it is obvious that isreal wants peace on its terms,which means the land. It wants peace but, also wants the land. Even if Arafat was the most honest leader that still would not have given the palastinian people a truely viable, seperate state, free of constant incurtions from isreali toops. The peace plan of Barak did not address the settlements, which would have given Isreal the excuse to keep its toops in the Palastinian state. Consider this, would americans have liked the fact that after their revolution, the British were able to keep their toops in their cities, I think not
Rating:
Summary: A Refreshingly Palestinian Perspective
Review: Written without the assistance of Arafat, Aburish's biography is an attempt to uncover the mystery of Arafat that has baffled biographers for so long. If nothing else, Aburish wants us to understand how Arafat works. This understanding is limited to a political scope; there is little attempt at delving into Arafat's personal life (e.g. only three paragraphs give consideration to his wife). Aburish concludes with much praise for the strategies of Arafat, but corresponding condemnation for his execution of these strategies (even when Arafat appears to have had success, Aburish often finds ways to attribute it to the mistakes of others, usually Israel). The verdict: Arafat has caused the Palestinians a great deal of trouble in spite of getting their hopes up. He needs to be replaced.
Aburish deserves praise for his command of the English language-further evidence of his ability to communicate with the West. Aburish knows his own fluency in English enough to be justified in poking fun at Arafat's elementary use of the language and his penchant toward outdated clichés. As if to show us how comfortable he is with Western thinking, Aburish has placed a quote from Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman just before the first page of his introduction.
Of great use to students of 20th century Middle East conflict(s) is Aburish's extensive index. This may make the book profitable for partial study and research, even if students do not read it cover-to-cover. For example, the index lists 19 pages that mention Abu Mazen, and makes reference to one page in Through Secret Channels, Mazen's memoirs. On the other hand, Mazen is only indexed by that name. You will not find him if you're just looking under Abu or Mahmoud or Abbas.
Some may be concerned with Aburish's portrayal of Israel, but others will find it "refreshingly negative." You do not expect a Palestinian to praise Israel, and Aburish rarely does. To be sure, there are times when he omits certain information that might have justified Israel's actions. On the other hand, the book is not written as a condemnation of Israel. If anything it is a condemnation of Arafat, and not because of how he hurt Israelis, but because of how he hurt the Palestinians. In the big picture, all his condemnation of Israel is not even as extensive as his condemnation of PNA corruption alone. Seeing that Aburish has no qualms about criticizing fellow Palestinians confirms his relative lack of bias against Israel. Aburish criticizes people and "nations" because of their blunders, not because of their race or creed.
A major downside of the book is that Aburish seems to assume in his readers a broad knowledge of 20th century Middle East history. In other words, this is not the book to read if you're just starting to dabble in the life of Arafat, or even Middle East affairs in general. Readers who have lived through the better part of the 20th century, and have at least made an effort to understand their world, should not have a problem filling in the "gaps" of Aburish's narrative. Younger readers should make sure they've spent some time studying the subject before tackling this book. Backgrounds in the Middle East conflicts (not just Arab-Israeli), chronology and people are prerequisites for reading this book, not results.
Perhaps the greatest problem for readers today is that the book is outdated. Aburish wrote it in 1998, which leaves readers clueless as to Arafat's role in the renewed violence of the last three years. Why then did Aburish write it in 1998? He is, after all, seven years younger than Arafat. Why not wait until Arafat dies? Aburish's stated reasons included the fact in the 5 or so years leading up to 1998 Arafat had undergone a great change in the public eye. He went from being labeled as a terrorist to being a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. The fact that Arafat suddenly became "acceptable" to the public tore down the veils of secrecy that had previously restricted biographers. The opportunity beckoned for Aburish to compose his mystery-revealing biography.
As a result, Aburish's biography will remain a thorough analysis of Arafat's behavior in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. It also does an excellent job exploring Arafat's response to Oslo. Even in 1998 Aburish was able to admit-as all agree today-that Oslo had failed. So for a study of Arafat during these 20th century periods, Aburish's book is of tremendous value.
The book is highly recommended for those-as stated earlier-who have a good grasp on the Middle East. Those who have already read a biography of Arafat are even more encouraged to read this one. They'd probably be committing some sort of sin if they don't read it. But for those who don't know much about the Middle East, or don't want to hear a word against Israel, there are more appropriate books available.
I must add one personal note to this review. Current political statements brought Arafat to the cover of every newspaper and many news magazines during the time when I was reading Aburish's book. I was, in effect, flooded with Arafat. This climaxed when one night-perhaps after staying up late reading the book-I dreamt that I actually met Yasser Arafat himself. I won't tell you any details about the meeting, save that Arafat's character was consistent with Aburish's portrayal. In other words, Said Aburish has done such a good job removing the mystery of Arafat in his biography that I felt like I knew Arafat even in my sleep.
Rating:
Summary: A Refreshingly Palestinian Perspective
Review: Written without the assistance of Arafat, Aburish's biography is an attempt to uncover the mystery of Arafat that has baffled biographers for so long. If nothing else, Aburish wants us to understand how Arafat works. This understanding is limited to a political scope; there is little attempt at delving into Arafat's personal life (e.g. only three paragraphs give consideration to his wife). Aburish concludes with much praise for the strategies of Arafat, but corresponding condemnation for his execution of these strategies (even when Arafat appears to have had success, Aburish often finds ways to attribute it to the mistakes of others, usually Israel). The verdict: Arafat has caused the Palestinians a great deal of trouble in spite of getting their hopes up. He needs to be replaced.
Aburish deserves praise for his command of the English language-further evidence of his ability to communicate with the West. Aburish knows his own fluency in English enough to be justified in poking fun at Arafat's elementary use of the language and his penchant toward outdated clichés. As if to show us how comfortable he is with Western thinking, Aburish has placed a quote from Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman just before the first page of his introduction.
Of great use to students of 20th century Middle East conflict(s) is Aburish's extensive index. This may make the book profitable for partial study and research, even if students do not read it cover-to-cover. For example, the index lists 19 pages that mention Abu Mazen, and makes reference to one page in Through Secret Channels, Mazen's memoirs. On the other hand, Mazen is only indexed by that name. You will not find him if you're just looking under Abu or Mahmoud or Abbas.
Some may be concerned with Aburish's portrayal of Israel, but others will find it "refreshingly negative." You do not expect a Palestinian to praise Israel, and Aburish rarely does. To be sure, there are times when he omits certain information that might have justified Israel's actions. On the other hand, the book is not written as a condemnation of Israel. If anything it is a condemnation of Arafat, and not because of how he hurt Israelis, but because of how he hurt the Palestinians. In the big picture, all his condemnation of Israel is not even as extensive as his condemnation of PNA corruption alone. Seeing that Aburish has no qualms about criticizing fellow Palestinians confirms his relative lack of bias against Israel. Aburish criticizes people and "nations" because of their blunders, not because of their race or creed.
A major downside of the book is that Aburish seems to assume in his readers a broad knowledge of 20th century Middle East history. In other words, this is not the book to read if you're just starting to dabble in the life of Arafat, or even Middle East affairs in general. Readers who have lived through the better part of the 20th century, and have at least made an effort to understand their world, should not have a problem filling in the "gaps" of Aburish's narrative. Younger readers should make sure they've spent some time studying the subject before tackling this book. Backgrounds in the Middle East conflicts (not just Arab-Israeli), chronology and people are prerequisites for reading this book, not results.
Perhaps the greatest problem for readers today is that the book is outdated. Aburish wrote it in 1998, which leaves readers clueless as to Arafat's role in the renewed violence of the last three years. Why then did Aburish write it in 1998? He is, after all, seven years younger than Arafat. Why not wait until Arafat dies? Aburish's stated reasons included the fact in the 5 or so years leading up to 1998 Arafat had undergone a great change in the public eye. He went from being labeled as a terrorist to being a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. The fact that Arafat suddenly became "acceptable" to the public tore down the veils of secrecy that had previously restricted biographers. The opportunity beckoned for Aburish to compose his mystery-revealing biography.
As a result, Aburish's biography will remain a thorough analysis of Arafat's behavior in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. It also does an excellent job exploring Arafat's response to Oslo. Even in 1998 Aburish was able to admit-as all agree today-that Oslo had failed. So for a study of Arafat during these 20th century periods, Aburish's book is of tremendous value.
The book is highly recommended for those-as stated earlier-who have a good grasp on the Middle East. Those who have already read a biography of Arafat are even more encouraged to read this one. They'd probably be committing some sort of sin if they don't read it. But for those who don't know much about the Middle East, or don't want to hear a word against Israel, there are more appropriate books available.
I must add one personal note to this review. Current political statements brought Arafat to the cover of every newspaper and many news magazines during the time when I was reading Aburish's book. I was, in effect, flooded with Arafat. This climaxed when one night-perhaps after staying up late reading the book-I dreamt that I actually met Yasser Arafat himself. I won't tell you any details about the meeting, save that Arafat's character was consistent with Aburish's portrayal. In other words, Said Aburish has done such a good job removing the mystery of Arafat in his biography that I felt like I knew Arafat even in my sleep.
<< 1 >>
|
