Sharon as Jailer: Cole at Salon.com
My article on Ariel Sharon's "gated community" approach to Israeli-Palestinian relations is out at Salon.com. Excerpt:
"Even as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stirs fitfully from his coma, in the aftermath of a massive stroke and several operations, Gazan militants with a bad aim have fired several Qassam rockets into Israel. Israel is now, and is likely to remain for some time, a dark postmodern terrain of wealthy fortress communities besieged by hopeless unemployed militants from isolated ghettos. This archipelago of anxiety, reminiscent of the noir science fiction film "Blade Runner," is in some significant respects the creation and legacy of Sharon.
The conflict between Sharon and the Likud Party, with which he recently broke, was over two distinct far-right-wing visions of Israel. The somewhat messianic Likud is committed to completing the creeping dispossession of the Palestinians by relentlessly colonizing the West Bank and Gaza (at least), and refusing to accept any clear demarcation between Israeli territory and that of its neighbors. This 19th-century-style settler colonialism, reminiscent of the French in Algeria or the Italians in Eritrea, is so blatantly aggressive that it continually threatens to disrupt vital economic and diplomatic relations between Israel and Europe. Sharon saw that, but his rival Benjamin Netanyahu never could."
Journalist Ian Williams has his own take on Ariel Sharon: "A hole where the heart should be."
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/12/2006 12:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
7 Comments:
Cole's The Jailer
This is an excellent account of I/P situation after the Gaza withdrawal, ultimate read both for newbies and for those who follow the region systematically. A few remarks.
Yes, it is true that ideological positions of both Sharon and Netanyahu are far-rightist. From the other side, situation on the left-right scale is not static, political figures and forces keep moving on this scale depending on the current developments. From this prospective, it is clear that, by pursuing the Gaza withdrawal, Sharon made a negligibly small shift to the left, but, at the same time, he masterfully dragged the Israeli, American and British left - far to the right. Also, in the course of withdrawal debate, Likud and right-from-Likud forces moved even further to the right. In fact, this general shift to the ideological right is at least as important as facts on the ground. From the other side, make no mistake, the best effort will be taken to obfuscate this critical shift, to present Sharon and classical neocons as centrists and even lefties! This is exactly what Sharon fought for.
Next, it is worth reminding that, unlike the Arabs and the EU, Clinton did not formally accept the two-state solution; it was done for the first time by the Bush administration as a part of their currently defunct “road map to peace”. Needless to say, Barak, not to mention the Likud, could not be more positive on it than Clinton. So, now it becomes clear that, as a result of Sharon’s ingenious maneuvering, this chimera is not just “frozen”, but pretty much put in the same realm as Iraqi WMD. However, commitment to two-state solution is a cornerstone of the Arab, European and UN diplomacy! This in itself means huge and unpredictable negative consequences for the world community.
Now, in the Kafkian metamorhosis, Sharon is awakening in the worst form one can imagine - that of a victim of a massive stroke. The problem is, unlike Gregor Samsa, he did quite a lot to turn the ME and beyond into a huge penal colony.
Salon. Juan Cole. The Jailer
I think you made a minor error: It is "Chloroform". formaldehyde is a preservative, chloroform is the anasthetic.
At 5:17 PM, Nicholas Weaver said... I think you made a minor error: It is "Chloroform". Formaldehyde is a preservative, chloroform is the anasthetic.
Formaldehyde is the original term from the Israeli media, Cole follows them with surgical precision. The meaning of this analogy is that two-state solution is like an exhibit from some gruesome museum a la Edgar Poe.
Olmert's Plans for Israel's Final Borders
Henry Waxman was interviewed on Israeli TV this week. He unequivocally stated that Hamas should not be allowed to participate in elections as it is a terrorist organization that is actively killing civilians.
He also stated that East Jerusalem should not be allowed to vote in the upcoming PA election. He said that Israel had the right to control its citizens so the inhabitants of East Jerusalem should be barred from voting.
Did I hear this correctly? If so, what is Waxman doing?
While I agree that Sharon is hardly a "man of peace", and his proposals would not resolve the dispute with the PA on the grounds that are really needed, the reality is that the Israeli left seems void of credibility with the electorate. Indeed, putting the head of the biggest labor union in as party leader of Labor seems to be handing the inmates the keys to the asylym. While unions certainly perform laudable services as private actors, placing the head of a union in at the head of a party destroys the credibility of that party.
Further, what lunacy is it to put in a person with no security credentials at a time when security is the preeminent concern of the electorate? It is as though the Israeli left doesn't want to win.
As bad as Sharon is, Bibi is worse, combining venality, criminality, extremism, bad judgment, and incompetence. His election would be a victory for the most execreble segment of the execreble neocons.
Pragmatism is ultimately the order of the day. A pragmatic Sharon or Olmert is preferable to Netanyahu. The left cannot form a government. Labor will only be a junior partner. And with the combined effect of chaos in the PA, the prospects of a bad outcome seem high. A Kadima win under Olmert (assuming no miracle for Sharon) seems like the "least bad" of the likely outcomes.
The perefect storm
I/P, Iraq, Iran, Syria, post-Soviet space, not to mention N.Korea. Which crisis is hotter, where diplomacy is less relevant?
Post a Comment
<< Home