Friday, August 20, 2004


If I was Israeli I would not have voted for Sharon but at the same time much of the criticism of him is even more hysterical, and therefore completely counter-productive, than that of Bush.

This Guardian op-ed explains it very well - Sharon will sweep away his enemies:
Abroad, Sharon is considered a hardline ideologue of Greater Israel. The reality is different. Although Sharon is the architect of settlements and of the Likud party - which he helped establish in 1973 - his background is not in the old Israeli revisionist right, as are those of a number of the key rebels.

In fact, Sharon's roots lie with the revisionists' old ideological enemies: the hawkish but pragmatic tradition of Israel's Labour movement. His commitment to settlements, as well as to Likud, was always about security: a means to achieve a thriving Israel, safe in a hostile Middle East for generations to come. His quest for secure borders certainly does not match Palestinian aspirations; but he is not driven by a dogmatic and uncompromising attachment to the land.
Bush's support of Sharon is not the irrational product of Right-wing Christians and Kerry would be no different. For good reason.


Post a Comment

<< Home