Speaking of Arafat's death (National Post, November 17, 2004

What public officials say when bad leaders die is revealing. Their words reflect what they assume the constituencies they represent believe, or what they assume will be tolerated being said in their name. A review of the formal condolences issued on Yasser Arafat's death affords us the unusual opportunity to absorb the distilled essence of political hypocrisy in capsule form.

When a weak or bumbling state leader dies, it is usually possible to issue pro forma bromides, crediting him with some actual constructive accomplishment, however fleeting or trivial. Career-terrorist leaders, however, are trickier. And Arafat's case presents a paradox: after all, what nation was Yasser Arafat the leader of? Why, the nation that could have come into being, but didn't precisely because he was its leader.

International messages struck roughly one of three positions on Arafat: an honest few expressed unqualified satisfaction with his passing; a second, larger group damned Arafat with faint or no praise, but accompanied their cool personal remarks with formulaically expressed hopes for a better future that implied willingness to work with more positive successors; finally there were the usual suspects who declared outright admiration. In doing so, they validated Arafat's failed leadership, tacitly encouraging more of the same in his successors.

In the first category kudos to courageous Australian PM John Howard, who said, "I think history will judge him very harshly," and refused to send a high level official to his funeral.

Most leaders -- including Paul Martin, of course -- were more cautious, even those who loathed Arafat personally and despised what he stood for. George W. Bush deftly covered all bases by offering condolences to the Palestinians but withholding praise for the man, citing Arafat's death as "a significant moment in Palestinian history" and expressing hope the future would bring peace and fulfillment of Palestinian aspirations. Tony Blair was mushy -- he said "[Arafat] led his people to an historic acceptance of the need for a two-state solution" without mentioning that Arafat then sabotaged that acceptance and derailed peace talks by renewed violence. Vlaldmir Putin was circumspect, allowing that Arafat was "an influential political figure on an international scale." Germany's Gerhard Schroeder was measured -- condolences for the Palestinians, no words of praise for Arafat. This bunch at least did no harm.

Then there were those below who did do harm with their bald-faced lies, or -- with the funeral meats not yet on the table -- shameless revisionism of the historical record.

After having accorded the dying Arafat the treatment due a revered head of state, Jacques Chirac distinguished himself, even by French standards for hypocrisy, in a disgraceful display of sycophancy to the Arab world, acclaiming Arafat as "a man of courage and conviction" and exhorting Palestinians "to be faithful to Yasser Arafat's memory and ...uphold the ideal to which he devoted his life." Honi soit (Shame) to all French citizens who did not protest this pusillanimous performance in their name.

Nelson Mandela, to his great discredit, called the man who introduced organized suicide bombing to the world, "one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this generation."

Did the Pope really have to refer to Arafat as the "illustrious deceased"?

Kofi Annan pronounced himself "very moved" by Arafat's death. Annan can be counted on to spin into public relations gold any fetid pile of straw, as long as it comes from the stable of an anti-Western failed people. He said, "By signing the Oslo accords in 1993 [Arafat] took a giant step towards the realization of [peace]. It is tragic that he did not live to see it fulfilled." But of course it never could be fulfilled with Arafat alive.

It isn't often that the entire world is joined in a common perception of a truth. In this case the truth is that the world is a better place without Yasser Arafat in it. The West, Europe, the UN, the Palestinians and all Arabs know it. There was no downside to saying it, but few took the opportunity.

Above all, Israel, which suffered the most under Arafat's tenure, knows it. It is noteworthy that we didn't see dancing in the streets of Jerusalem to rival the festivities in the West Bank and Gaza on 9/11. But dancing in the streets is not what civilized people do when an enemy dies.

Instead, out of all the nations that responded, Israel issued the only remarks that did real justice to Arafat's legacy of hate, when Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid pointed out the emperor's nakedness with the words, "He was the godfather of al-Qaeda and of bin Laden." That is his cold stone monument. All the rest is verbal gravel.

© National Post 2004