For example, it seems to me that during recent months he deliberately kept stirring the pot in order to avoid any possibility of returning to Oslo-based talks, and therefore bears a certain share of the responsibility for the deterioration of the situation
I pretty much agree with you, but I also agree with Sharon's rationale. Which is that Oslo-style talks with Arafat are a mug's game; Arafat takes concessions, then breaks his word, starts up terrorism, then demands more concessions. I don't know if Sharon would want to talk under more favorable circumstances, but in light of Arafat's record I agree with his stance. As I've said before, the Israelis hired Sharon to fight the war Arafat foisted upon them.
Also, Arafat's tactics when Sharon took office were "shoot-n-whine", low grade terrorism, mixed rock-throwing and shooting at checkpoints, dead settlers by ones and twos, attempts to provoke disproportionate response, loud whining about Israeli brutality and as many pictures of dead kids as they could manage. This campaign was doing real damage to Israel and if Sharon couldn't get quiet -- I see his unilateral cease-fire after the Dophinarium bombing as an effort to get quiet -- then he needed a more overtly military campaign, which would lower world outrage. So things slowly ratcheted up and now the world just says 'tit for tat'. |
