Sharon, Arafat and Mao

February 8, 2001
NY Times - Foreign Affairs
By Thomas L. Friedman

So I'm at the Davos World Economic Forum two weeks ago, and 
Shimon Peres walks by. One of the reporters with him asks me 
if I'm going to hear Mr. Peres and Yasir Arafat address the 
1,000 global investors and ministers attending Davos. No, 
I tell him, I have a strict rule, I'm only interested in what 
Mr. Arafat says to his own people in Arabic. Too bad, says the 
reporter, because the fix is in. Mr. Peres is going to extend 
an olive branch to Mr. Arafat, Mr. Arafat is going to do the 
same back and the whole love fest will get beamed back to 
Israel to boost the peace process and Ehud Barak's re-election. 
Good, I'll catch it on TV, I said.

 Well, Mr. Peres did extend the olive branch, as planned, but 
Mr. Arafat torched it. Reading in Arabic from a prepared text, 
Mr. Arafat denounced Israel for its "fascist military aggression" 
and "colonialist armed expansionism," and its policies of "murder,
persecution, assassination, destruction and devastation." 

 Mr. Arafat's performance at Davos was a seminal event, and is
critical for understanding Ariel Sharon's landslide election. 
What was Mr. Arafat saying by this speech, with Mr. Peres 
sitting by his side? First, he was saying that there is no 
difference between Mr. Barak and Mr. Sharon. Because giving 
such a speech on the eve of the Israeli election, in the wake 
of an 11th-hour Barak bid to conclude a final deal with the 
Palestinians in Taba, made Mr. Barak's far-reaching offer to 
Mr. Arafat look silly. Moreover, Mr. Arafat was saying that 
there is no difference between Mr. Peres and Mr. Sharon, 
because giving such a speech just after the warm words of 
Mr. Peres made Mr. Peres look like a dupe, as all the Israeli
papers reported. Finally, at a time when Palestinians are 
starving for work, Mr. Arafat's subliminal message to the 
global investors was: Stay away.

 That's why the press is asking exactly the wrong question 
about the Sharon election. They're asking, who is Ariel Sharon? 
The real question is, who is Yasir Arafat? The press keeps 
asking: Will Mr. Sharon become another Charles de Gaulle, the 
hard-line general who pulled the French Army out of Algeria? 
Or will he be Richard Nixon, the anti-Communist who made peace 
with Communist China? Such questions totally miss the point.

 Why? Because Israel just had its de Gaulle. His name was Ehud
Barak. Mr. Barak was Israel's most decorated soldier. He 
abstained in the cabinet vote over the Oslo II peace accords. 
But once in office he changed 180 degrees. He offered Mr. Arafat 
94 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state, plus 
territorial compensation for most of the other 6 percent, plus 
half of Jerusalem, plus restitution and resettlement in 
Palestine for Palestinian refugees. And Mr. Arafat not only 
said no to all this, but described Israel as "fascist" as 
Mr. Barak struggled for re-election. It would be as though 
de Gaulle had offered to withdraw from Algeria and the Algerians 
said: "Thank you. You're a fascist. Of course we'll take all of 
Algeria, but we won't stop this conflict until we get Bordeaux, 
Marseilles and Nice as well."

 If the Palestinians don't care who Ariel Sharon is, why should 
we?

If Mr. Arafat wanted an Israeli leader who would not force him 
to make big decisions, which he is incapable of making, why 
should we ask whether Mr. Sharon is going to be de Gaulle and 
make him a big offer? What good is it for Israel to have a 
Nixon if the Palestinians have no Mao?

 The Olso peace process was about a test. It was about testing
whether Israel had a Palestinian partner for a secure and final
peace. It was a test that Israel could afford, it was a test 
that the vast majority of Israelis wanted and it was a test 
Mr. Barak courageously took to the limits of the Israeli 
political consensus — and beyond. Mr. Arafat squandered that 
opportunity. Eventually, Palestinians will ask for a makeup 
exam. And eventually Israelis may want to give it to them, 
if they again see a chance to get this conflict over with. 
But who knows what violence and pain will be inflicted in the 
meantime? 

 All we know is that for now, the Oslo test is over. That is 
what a vast majority of Israelis said in this election. So 
stop asking whether Mr. Sharon will become de Gaulle. That 
is not why Israelis elected him. They elected him to be Patton. 
They elected Mr. Sharon because they know exactly who he is, 
and because seven years of Oslo have taught them exactly who 
Yasir Arafat is.  
        
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company