Differing Perspectives And Accords

1316 Words6 Pages

Differing perspectives and interpretations are crucial in gaining an understanding of a personality’s significance in history. This statement is accurate to a substantial extent, forming the foundation of critical study on Yasser Arafat. Historians have debated the indelible integrity of Yasser Arafat for years, evaluating his involvement in Al Fatah and the signing of the Oslo I Accords. Many Middle Eastern politicians interpret Yasser Arafat’s significance as revolutionary and dynamic, whereas other historians stress his tactics of terrorism and criticise his personal deficiencies. Accordingly, assorted perspectives and interpretations are essential in justifying the significance of a personality and gathering a balanced account of a personality’s …show more content…

The Oslo I Accords was a stride towards the mending of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and emulated the peace process between the Government of Israel and the PLO. The peace talks sought to create the Palestinian National Authority and the withdrawal of the Israel Defence Forces from the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Although both members received the Nobel Peace Prize a year later, mixed interpretations regarding both the perceived success versus the futility of the Oslo Accords are commonly discussed and provides a wide scope for understanding Yasser Arafat’s significance. A distinct perspective is offered by Muammar al-Gaddafi, ‘I do not support peace in the Middle East. And I do not support Arafat. He is a stupid, incompetent fool!’ Muammar utilises provocative terms such as “stupid” and “incompetent fool” to enhance his subjective opinion that Yasser Arafat was not fit, both intellectually and practically, to be a major Palestinian revolutionary leader. Al-Gaddafi’s perspective bluntly opposes Arafat’s initiation of peace in Israeli-Palestinian relations, and clearly asserts his inimical interpretation of Arafat as a fellow Libyan revolutionary. This is exceptionally useful in drawing out the significance of the personality by correlating perspectives that have corresponding values and motives. Al Gaddafi’s perspective clashes with that of other political leaders, such as that of Kofi Annan. ‘By signing the Oslo Accords in 1933 he took a giant step towards the realisation of this vision. It is tragic that he did not live to see it fulfilled,’ illustrates Annan’s reverence for Arafat in his pursuit of peace. The Oslo Accords, in Annan’s case, are considered progressive and healing, and vital to Arafat’s