Remora

Sharon

The Financial Times commences its portrait of Ariel Sharon with an unlikely comparison to Charles De Gaulle.

"A few weeks ago, an Israeli newspaper columnist revealed that Ariel Sharon's latest bedside reading was a history of France's Algerian war. It may turn out to be useful study for a leader who, despite his warrior history, was billed by some as Israel's Charles de Gaulle, a strongman who would ultimately understand his adversary's yearning for statehood and deliver peace."

Luckily, the portrait doesn't pursue that fantasy very far, because as we say in Texas (and as is infinitely repeated in the press, which can never let go of a faux folksy phrase), that dog don't hunt. You can't go through Sharon's life and find glorious moments of defiance in the face of implacable odds. You can't find a sense of nationhood in the modern sense (vague yearnings for the return of King David don't count). You can't find a coherent vision of the economy. And you certainly can't find the non-gambler's instinct for cutting your losses (the gambler's instinct, unfortunately, is to compulsively renew his stake. Usually the cliche is that a professional gambler has that sixth sense of imminent loss, that magic ability to fold em at just the critical instant, but nothing in the history of gambling, or the various biographies of gamblers, leads us to think this is true). No, you simply find a man who has one strategy. That strategy is to kill Arabs. And to kill Arabs. Until Arabs surrender.

There cannot be a worse strategy, even from the point of view of Israel's interests. Of course, in the American press, the heat is always on Arafat. That Arafat walked from peace talks two years ago is repeated over and over as a mark of his insincerity. As the mark of the beast, really, on his forehead. That Sharon opposed the Oslo accords is, on the other hand, simply not mentioned. That he has done all he could do to disrupt the peace process doesn't figure in the op-ed huffing and puffing of the right. The FT ends its portrait with a glimpse into the great man's prophetic dream:


"He now officially acknowledges the possibility of Palestinian statehood, having shelved his past thesis that Jordan is Palestine. Over the past year, he has spoken repeatedly of his willingness to make painful concessions to achieve peace on the basis of two states. What he has not done, in 12 months during which the conflict has escalated, is to present a peace plan of his own that might stand a chance of meeting Palestinian aspirations.

"From the interviews he has given, a vision has nevertheless emerged of a demilitarised state on some of the occupied territories. The Jordan valley would remain in Israeli hands and an expanded Jerusalem would remain Israel's undivided capital. Many of the Jewish settlements, built on Arab land, would remain; and there would be no right of return for more than 3m Palestinian refugees.

"It is a formula that the Palestinians would be certain to reject, even as a starting-point for negotiations. But Mr Sharon believes that he understands the Arabs among whom he grew up. He believes that military power can force them back to the negotiating table and to a settlement on Israel's terms. "

So, let's get this straight. The Palestinians would have no army whatsoever. Israel would retain its army, which happens to be one of the biggest in the region. The Palestinians would receive no compensation for land that was seized from them, although Israel has been (quite rightly) adamant about, say, accounts in Switzerland seized during the Holocaust. The Jordan would be an Israeli river. I suppose the Palestinians could pay for some use of it, although not too much. A quota has to be set up for the lesser races. An "expanded" Jerusalem would remain Israel's capital. The Palestinian capital could, perhaps, be located in an outhouse in Bethlehem.

Take away place names, and this is South Africa's homeland policy. It didn't work then, it won't work now. Of course, the American press is mulling the funny idea that they can find some Palestinian figurehead to replace Arafat. On the principle, I suppose, that it worked with the Indians. Starve em enough, drive em from their homelands, and attack em fiercely, and eventually they sign on to the cultural death of the reservation.

In 1890, that was fine with your average Caucasian American male. And it probably still is, but sufferage and time has eroded that male's influence. I don't think the majority of Americans will stand for that for very long. I think that the right wing is about to spring another suprise on the Republicans with this issue. Like the Clinton impeachment, it will become one of those hardliner mantras that the party goes down with. Meanwhile, Israel is plunged into an unsustainable, permanent war, and the Palestinian situation -- the slum state -- gets worse. Because everything can get worse.
Limited Inc's motto for the day: Everything can get worse. Watch.