The Sharon effect

[bemildred]

Mostly hagiography, but a few bits I found interesting:

---

First, the idea of a "greater Israel," which Sharon once championed, is dead, paradoxically by his own hand. And just as dead is the idea of a conflict-ending agreement with Palestinians on refugees, borders and Jerusalem, an idea Sharon has done his utmost to subvert. It is within these parameters that the next chapter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be written. And Sharon, with one eye on history and the other on his own mortality, plans to be its principal author.

---

Nowhere has Sharon's pragmatism been better demonstrated than in Israel's disengagement from Gaza: 1.5 million Palestinians are no longer a demographic threat to the Jewish population of Israel; its army has been relieved of the corrosive effects of the Gaza occupation; its strategic ties with the United States are intact; and the onus for responsible behavior in Gaza has been shifted to the Palestinians. Moreover, for the first time in Israel's history, an Israeli prime minister succeeded in establishing a permanent western border for Israel, with the approval of the international community.

Should the prime minister be reelected in March (and only death or incapacitation is likely to prevent this), he will turn to setting a permanent border on the east as well — most likely unilaterally but possibly through negotiations with the Palestinians.

---

But Sharon's public, buoyed by Gaza disengagement, is ready to be led by a tough, pragmatic and historic figure whom they trust. He will surely not end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but he believes he can produce an outcome that makes Israel more secure, with fewer Palestinians within its borders, and still leave the nation in control of key settlement blocks: the strategically important high ground along the ridge lines in the east and most of Jerusalem.

LA Times

[tatertop]

1. This is far far too kind

[bemildred]

2. Well, of course.

But also a useful indicator of future intentions and rhetorical stance. The argument presented here, if you ignore the sycophantic praise of Sharon, is:

a.) There is nobody to negotiate with, and therefore

b.) The government of Israel is justified in unilateral
pursuit of it's own interests.

Implicit is the intent to continue to ignore the requirements of law as they apply to the human rights of the refugees and to the obligations of an occupying power in the remaining occupied territories.

Of course, the piece also suggests some notion of what those interests are thought to be at present, which is useful to compare with past rhetoric so as to form some idea of where things are going in reality. That appears to be to continue building a "Fortress Israel", or that sort of idea, which has been going on for some time now, at least since the "Peace Wall" was initiated. You can speculate farther afield than that, but I think I won't. It's mostly interesting to me because it indicates a shift from an expansionist point of view to one of establishing firm control of current territory, a more defensive stance.

[pelsar]

3. reality....

i know its a tough one:

its been known for a long time, that the military option is limited.

abbas who has declared that he wont stop kassams from killing israelis, has in the same breath declared himself a "non partner" (would you negotiate with a person who says he wont stop his people from killing your sons and daughters?)

palestenian society is in flux...whether it becomes a iranian style facist theorcratic state, a dictatorship or democracy is up in the air....nobody knows, nor can they know, hence any "negotiation" is equally up in the air. A failed palestenain state, wont have much to do with any agreement (gaza today as per the example of what may be expected in the immediate future....)

[bemildred]

4. Almost makes one want Arafat back, eh? nt

[tatertop]

5. Please, tell us a little about your experiences in Palestine

I reserve an answer to your last post

[eyl]

7. Not really, no

since the said could be said of him (and worse - Abbas might be ignoring terrorism against Israel, but I don't see any indications he's encouraging it).

[bemildred]

8. Sure, I know.

I'm just making a point. If you want order among the Palestinians
then you have to encourage leaders that have that ability and will
to do that, and the police and military organizations that have the
capacity to enforce it. Unfortunately at this point that would
be Hamas and perhaps Barghouti, one can only speculate a bit. I'm
not sure how much work is to be done on police and military structure,
although it doesn't look good from out here. Israeli state policy
has been for decades to discourage strong leaders because of the
political threat they pose, because they are likely to have "blood
on their hands", and because organized and disciplined Palestinian
political parties pose an existential threat to the state of Israel.
But that too has it's consequences, as we see in the situation now,
there is nobody with the capacity and the interest to keep order, to
make peace with, to serve as a proxy government of the Arab non-citizens
living under Israeli rule.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Ariel's da man, doin' the best he can...to make the world a better place.

:beer: