I refer to your report below where Israeli PM Sharon was said to be a "legendary hawk" transformed to a "born-again dove". Anyone with some knowledge of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian problem and the old saying "old dogs cannot learn new tricks" would find it hard to believe that this man is making any step"towards lasting peace" in the land he played a large part in producing exactly the opposite - his being "indirectly responsible" for the massacres in Palestinian camps in Lebanon in the 80s, events considered crimes against humanity by some analysts, is just one of his real lasting acts. In all likelihood, this man had merely changed from that of a dangerous warrior to a scheming international politician.
Crediting Sharon with pulling down Israeli settlements, first the Sinai settlement of Yamit in1981 and then this summer in Gaza, your report had either conveniently or ignorantly not mentioned that the former was part of a peace deal with Egypt, and other Israeli settlements created elsewhere in occupied territories since 1981.
By quoting certain unnamed analysts your report created an unreal impression that Sharon had taken bold and significant steps toward lasting peace. Your readers may perhaps like to read what observers like Edward Said had to say about the negotiating positions successive Israeli governments take in finding peace (Edward Said was a Palestinian Christian intellectual who lived in exile in the US).
For example, the Olso negotiations in the 90s (and it gives us all a sense of Israeli behavior) had among others the following Israeli offers:
- Palestinian self-rule for only 50% of land occupied by Israel since 1967 (and they are not even talking about lands occupied before that), that consisted of many small land-locked slices without the ability to make independent contact within and with the outside world (see attached map http://www.mideastweb.org/palestineisraeloslo.htm). Lasting insult and subservience intended perhaps?,
- as reward for Palestinian leaders if they agreed, a share of certain monopolies whose profits must be deposited and managed by Israeli banks (this is reminiscent of similar though less insulting offers that were made to Singaporean leaders by Malaysia during its formative years that a former leader of Singapore wrote disparagingly about in his auto-biography).
Occupying lands beyond its internationally recognized borders, Israel is one country that analysts noted has no self-announced borders. That is an ominous indication of long-term Israeli intent.
Another indication of this intent is an analogy given decades ago by a Palestinian Christian writer: "I gave him a ride out of the desert. When he hopped on he said 'what a nice camel you have'. A few miles on he said 'what a nice camel we have'. Before the journey's end he would say 'what a nice camel I have'".
In 2004 the US under President Bush 'allowed' Israel under the same Sharon to keep forever certain territories occupied in 1967. Besides associating the Palestinians (and only them) with terror, Bush also said that Palestinian refugees should not be allowed to return to land lost to Israel in 1948.
This "negating the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel" was a "historic first" according to a senior Israeli official. From this you can see how accurate the camel analogy above proved to be.
More than a mere issue of the US & Israel taking liberty at Palestinian expense, arrogant disregard of international laws (many analysts have noted that under international laws lands occupied after 1947 and beyond the borders defined in UN Resolution 141 with the help of the British are considered as such, and the Palestinians are entitled under the same laws to resist such occupations with all means available to them), and an indication of possible concerted mal-intent by more than one party, it foretells why any present offer by Sharon under the auspices of the same US government will not produce a lasting peace.
Since the UN and other international agreements are there for good reasons and not to be taken lightly, we had better take Sharon's "shocking" change of heart in perspective.
Sharon's political volcano
Israeli PM's shock move seen as step towards lasting peace
Clement Mesenas, Foreign editor clement@newstoday.com.sg
With an extraordinary agility reminiscent of his swashbuckling paratrooper days, former General Ariel Sharon departed the rightist Likud Party he helped found to swing to the centre ground of Israeli politics, where he hopes to regain the nation's top post come general elections in March.
To all intents and purposes, Mr Sharon wants to leave behind a legacy of lasting peace and security for Israel, say analysts. And the Likud had become an obstacle to his plans, as he said on Monday when he made the explosive move to became the first-ever Prime Minister of Israel to quit his party while in office and in the process, decimate the power of the right.
"Remaining in the Likud means a waste of time in political fighting," he said. Hardliners in his party had not taken kindly to his peace overtures.
Analysts say Mr Sharon - transformed from legendary "hawk" to born-again "dove"-- personifies the fundamental change in the structure of Israeli politics, a move toward pragmatism and away from ideology.
This middle majority is willing to trade the dream of reclaiming all of biblical Israel to make way for a Palestinian state, if it means Israel can once and for all rest behind hard borders with a solid Jewish majority.
Mr Sharon didn't spell out his grand plan in so many words when announcing the launch of a new party, National Responsibility. But not for a second did Israelis miss the message.
"What is clear is Sharon has much further disengagements in mind. He may even deny it for electoral purposes, but everyone knows this is about a dream to finish what he started in the pullout from Gaza," said Mr Gerald Steinberg, senior research fellow at Israel's Besa Centre for Strategic Studies.
Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat acknowledged the significance of the developments, calling it the"eruption of a political volcano in Israel".
"I believe it is a restructuring of politics in Israel... It is happening because of us, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict," he said. "I have not seen anything more significant in Israel since 1967 (the Six-Day War which led to the Israeli occupationof the West Bank and Gaza).".
Can Mr Sharon pull it off?. Early Israeli reaction suggests he can, according to initial reactions published in Haaretz on Monday. Opinion polls by the Israeli daily indicated 37 percent of respondents prefer Mr Sharon as prime minister, compared with 22 per cent for upstart Labour party leader Amir Peretz. The Haaretz survey showed a collapse in Likud support to just 15 per cent, while 26 per cent remainundecided.
Though the right-wing Likud will wait until December to select a new leader from a slate of at least seven candidates, including former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it now appears to be a spoiled prize.
No Israeli analyst appears able to envision a scenario where the right will share in power after theelection. Hebrew University political scientist Yaron Ezrahisaid the muted reaction of most Israelis to last summer's historic Gaza withdrawal proves there is a new Israeli consensus that is pragmatically resigned to further withdrawals from the West Bank, and the inevitable creation of a Palestinian state.
Analysts say that if Mr Sharon wins in March, the march toward peace will happen his way, unencumbered by the need for a partner. Or, if a partner there must be, most likely that partner will be Washington.
Just as Mr Sharon brokered the withdrawal from Gaza in the corridors of the White House, without consulting Palestinians, it is likely he ultimately will seek a similar arrangement before initiating further moves in the West Bank, say the analysts.
Although a legendary military leader, Mr Sharon's political career has soared and dived with dizzy regularity. As Defence Minister in 1982, Mr Sharon plotted the invasion of neighbouring Lebanon and the expulsion of Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organisation fighters. The operation led to the massacre of Palestinian refugees. An inquiry found Mr Sharon "indirectly responsible"and he was forced to resign and consigned to a back seat in politics for much of the next two decades.
When he did resurface, it was again in controversial circumstances. His visit to Jerusalem's Dome of theRock, Islam's third-holiest site, in 2000 triggered the second Palestinian intifada (uprising) and the deaths of thousands of Arabs and Jews.
It was Mr Sharon who was entrusted with building Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and GazaStrip. But it was also Mr Sharon who pulled them down, first the Sinai settlement of Yamit in 1981 and then this summer in Gaza.
Now it looks as if Mr Sharon, 77, has one last chance to bring peace to the region before he retires to his beloved ranch in southern Israel.."Like every spectacular Israeli general, he understood profoundly the limits of using military power against a civilian Palestinian population without becoming a pariah state," said Hebrew University's Ezrahi.
Analysts say the results of Palestinian legislative elections slated for January - a likely show down between the moderate Fatah party and radical Islamist movement Hamas - will influence the later election inIsrael. A Fatah win will strengthen the peace camp in Israel, while a Hamas victory could draw together the different right-wing extremist groups in Israel.
Then what of Mr Sharon? He will continue in office, Prof Gerald Steinberg, professor of political scienceat Bar-Ilan University, told AFP. "There is no single Israeli figure who can compete with him in terms of experience or stature.
