THE POLITICAL SUICIDE OF ARIEL SHARON

By Mario Soares Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

LISBON, Oct 1 2003 (IPS) - The UN resolution recently approved condemning Israel\’s decision to remove Yasser Arafat is a clear demonstration of the world\’s moral and political incomprehension of Israel and of US policy towards the Middle East, writes Mario Soares, prime minister of Portugal between 1976-1978 and 1983-1985 and president between 1986-1996. In this analysis, Soares writes that the key to real stabilisation of the region is the resolution of the conflict between Palestine and Israel. For this reason the strategy of Sharon seems suicidal and a sure recipe for irreversible disaster. How is it legally possible to publicly advocate the assassination of an adversary, a man elected president of the Palestinian Authority and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate? Has there been no thought given to the repercussions this would have not only in the Middle East but the entire world? Israel\’s policy inflicts long-term and in cases irreversible damage to the moral and political prestige of Israel, whose people, persecuted throughout their history, are turning into persecutors, oppressors, and colonialists.

The resolution recently approved by the UN General Assembly condemning Israel’s decision to remove Yasser Arafat is a clear demonstration of the world’s moral and political incomprehension of Israel and of US policy towards the Middle East. Only Micronesia and the Marshall Islands joined the US and Israel in opposing the resolution, which passed with 15 abstentions.

My views on this matter cannot be discounted as anti-zionism, much less anti-semitism. As an anti-fascist I was witness to the Nazi concentration camps and the crematoria. After World War Two I watched with great satisfaction the creation of the state of Israel, which I recognised as a movement of hope and moral reparation that all judged necessary for a people persecuted as no other, victims of a holocaust that was at the time becoming known to the entire world.

With idealism, as well as surprise given the lack of understanding of the problems of the region, I watched the bloody conflicts between the Jews and Muslims that followed the end of the British mandate in Palestine. I knew at the time of the existence of an Arab League that declared war on the Jews of Palestine. Despite the grave complexity of the situation, my enthusiasm did not wane for the fledgling Jewish democracy and its wise president Chaim Weizmann, its parliament, and its visionary socialist head of state, David Ben Gurion.

It was years later at the meetings of the Socialist International that I met Golda Meir and my friends Shimon Peres and Itzak Rabin. During my first term as prime minister (1976-77) Portugal established diplomatic relations with Israel, at my initiative in response to a request by Rabin.

When in 1982 Israel invaded the south of Lebanon, Willy Brandt entrusted me with the presidency of a Socialist International commission formed to enter into dialogue with the parties to the conflict. Thus I came to know then-prime minister Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, whom I visited on his farm.

I met Arafat in a bunker as Israeli bombs rained around us. He made an extraordinary impression on me as a man of courage, lucidity, self-control, and dignity. Arafat was clearly a terrorist — as was Begin — but how many politicians in this region are free of infamous title?

The dilemma we face today is the same we faced then: is it possible for two peoples with different characteristics and religions to co-exist peacefully and share land that is claimed by both? I have always believed it was.

Many years later the Oslo accords were signed, in another moment of great hope. During the administration of Bill Clinton a peace agreement was close to being reached but this time Arafat ruined its chances.

Years passed and the attacks of 11 September brought terrorism to the forefront. Then came the war in Afghanistan and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the consequences of which now lie before us.

The entire Middle East has been profoundly destabilised and is undergoing a slow combustion, like a volcano that might erupt at any moment.

It has always seemed clear that the key to real stabilisation of the region — and to the elimination of terrorism — is the resolution of the conflict between Palestine and Israel. For this reason the strategy of Sharon seems suicidal and a sure recipe for irreversible disaster. The vice prime minister of Israel has stated that the government should expel Arafat or physically eliminate him. And President Bush, who has spoken out numerous times in favour of recognition of the Palestinian Authority, now asserts that all blame lies with Arafat, whom should be replaced by a leader who is ”credible” — according to the criteria of Bush and Sharon.

How is it legally possible to publicly advocate the assassination of an adversary, a man elected president of the Palestinian Authority and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate? Has there been no thought given to the repercussions this would have not only in the Middle East but the entire world?

Avraham Burg, ex-president of the Israeli Parliament, has stated that ”Israel today is no more than a formless combination of corruption, oppression, and injustice”. Israeli writer and philosopher Zeev Sternhell calls on all Israelis of good faith to take to the streets and protest as they did in the past the suicidal policy of Sharon, which inflicts long-term and in cases irreversible damage to the moral and political prestige of Israel, whose people, persecuted throughout their history, are turning into persecutors, oppressors, and colonialists. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)