First, he opposed that part of the Oslo peace accords that brought Yasir Arafat out of exile from Tunisia in 1994. The U.S. and Israeli belief was that the region needed a “strong man” to put down Palestinian terror organizations because it would require draconian measures that democratic Israel would find hard to implement itself.
Sharon claimed that, once back in the territories, Arafat would only create trouble. He recalled that Arafat had already been thrown out of Jordan and Lebanon for his involvement with terror. For raising these points, Sharon was condemned by much of the international community — and by the Israeli left — as a warmonger.
Sharon also opposed the idea of arming 30,000 Palestinian “police and security forces.” Israeli and American leaders at the time believed that these forces would enable the Palestinians to police themselves. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin assured his people that, if misused, the weapons given the Palestinians could easily be confiscated. Sharon, by contrast, suggested that these police would soon turn their guns on the Israeli population and army. The international community and Israeli leftists accused Sharon of being paranoid.
Then, Sharon opposed providing Arafat’s Palestinian Authority self-rule over large chunks of the West Bank and Gaza. American and Israeli policy- makers explained that granting the Palestinians autonomy would give them something like a civilized society. Sharon, citing his 50 years’ experience of dealing with Arab society, insisted that the Palestinians would only interpret such concessions as weakness. The international community and the left said Sharon was unsophisticated.
Finally and most egregiously, in 2000, Sharon paid a visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the holiest site in Judaism. Yet, because the area is also sacred to Muslims, Sharon was labeled a provocateur.
Recently Sharon engineered the most devious tactic yet to disrupt the peace process. He proposed expelling Arafat from Ramallah. As a result of the move, Sharon again was branded paranoid and an unsophisticated provocateur and warmonger. Most of the members of the UN Security Council supported a resolution condemning Sharon for his perfidy.
How cunning is Ariel Sharon? Knowing full well that no progress can be made toward peace as long as Arafat remains in the picture — and opposing peace himself — he created a situation in which the United Nations would insist on preserving Arafat as head of the Palestinian Authority. With Arafat in place, the road map is guaranteed to lead nowhere.
One question, however, remains: Why aren’t the Europeans, the Russians, the president of the United States — all those who say they care about peace in the Middle East — clamoring for Arafat’s ouster?
The act of the Israeli government should be applauded by the peace-loving people of the world — not because it is good for Arafat, but because it would be good for the Palestinians and would constitute a major step toward making peace. It is impossible to understand why this act has been so universally condemned. Even if one believed it was a bad idea, it is perplexing to us why more of the international community would not recognize the powerful pro-peace, optimistic symbol that such a move would be.
At a minimum, Israel’s supporters around the world (including the United States) ought to give Sharon — the guy who has been so right, so often — the benefit of the doubt.