"Back in November, so many plans were around," Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told me last week, "from the Saudis, from Geneva, from the Arab League, and I saw we could not resist those pressures without a plan of our own."
"What could I do -- destroy the Palestinian Authority? No -- Israel cannot take on its shoulders the lives of three and a half million Palestinians. Sign a peace agreement? No -- terror would only begin again. Leave as is? No -- I've seen everything in Israel since the War of Independence, and it's my responsibility to deal with it now.
"I discussed this between me and myself and came up with a new initiative," he said. He calls it the Disengagement Plan; it will be hailed and denounced as the Sharon Plan.
Because Palestinian leaders have allowed terrorists to wage war against Israel, turning the "road map" into a dead letter, Sharon proposed to establish security without them. This involved not just a security fence, but for Sharon to say "yes" to calls to withdraw from Gaza and other exposed Israeli villages in the disputed West Bank.
"I had to take this dangerous step of relocating some of our people," Sharon said. "In Israel, the right does not like me to do it, and the left cannot do it. But you don't wait forever."
This week, US President George Bush stunned Arab dictators and their acolytes in the UN and EU by taking the Sharon "yes" for an answer. The US government labeled as "unrealistic" the notion that Israel would be forced to "a full and complete return to the armistice lines" (rejecting the loaded word "borders") of 1949. That realism covers "existing major Israeli population centers," which Arabs call "settlements."
The Bush document also applied realism to the device that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat used to break up the deal that former president Bill Clinton thought he had brokered: A "right to return" that would swamp Israel with Palestinians. Bush made clear that refugees would return to a Palestinian state, not to take over the Jewish state. Sharon added: "Don't create false expectations. Our answer will be no."
America's unequivocal support of what the world knows must be part of a two-state solution puts pressure for peaceful negotiation on Palestinians, who must take control of their destiny from fanatics. As Iraqis are learning, free nationhood comes to those with the courage to control extremists.
Bush prevailed on Sharon to ease the disruption of Palestinian lives along the security fence, which I think will encompass the Ariel salient, and to delay a Jordan Valley barrier. Sharon will take all 7,500 Israelis out of Gaza by 2006, and the settlers' movement is infuriated.
But having promised "painful compromises" before recent elections, Arik expects to remain in office through a Likud Party vote and possible defection.
"I'm not boasting" (he used the Russian word for boasting), "but I am not suspected of compromising our security," he said.
If the far right parties desert him, he'll bring in Labor, headed by his old rival Shimon Peres. A threatened indictment? "A terrible libel," he said. He speaks highly of US Secretary of State Colin Powell and almost reverently about Bush: "Something in his soul committed him to act with great courage against world terror. Though under constant pressure, the man has not changed his mind."
What does he think Senator John Kerry's reaction will be to the Sharon Plan?
"I hope to meet with him when I come back next month," Sharon said.
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS