I'd come closer to accepting this:
So Close, So Far Apart[/color]
The Bonds That Tie the Mideast’s Dueling LeadersBy
Andrew Chang [/color]
source 
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have been rivals for more than half a century. (AP Photo) April 22 — Even the grandest boxing promoter couldn't have come up with a more devastating match-up than the one that is currently rocking the Middle East.
Ariel Sharon on one side, Yasser Arafat on the other: these are two men who are not only enemies by virtue of their constituencies — but by virtue of their personal histories as well.
Each man has spent nearly his entire life fighting for a cause diametrically opposed to the other. Each man has, at one time or another, through actions or words, vowed to flush the other and his people from what he concludes is sacred ground.
Their shared history is virtually a microcosm of the passions that have divided Jews and Arabs for generations. Between the 73-year-old Sharon and the 72-year-old Arafat, there is a lifetime of animosity.
Even their nicknames attest to their antagonism. Palestinians call Arafat "Abu Ammar," or "The Builder." Sharon's nickname, given to him by Israelis, is "The Bulldozer."
Down to the Roots
"Both gentlemen come with a lot of historical baggage, both for their own people and for the other side," said Kenneth Stein, a fellow at the Carter Center in Atlanta.
Since their formative years, these two septuagenarians faced off — at the negotiating table or on the battlefield.
Each got their start in the military life when, as teenagers, they joined paramilitary organizations at a point in history when both Israel and the Palestinian territories had yet to formally exist.
Shortly after Israel came into being in 1948, both men started to get their bearings as leaders. While Arafat became a student leader lobbying the Arab League for financial aid, Sharon was given the reins of commando Unit 101, whose role was to carry out retaliatory raids against the bases of suspected Arab terrorists.
It was as commander of Unit 101 that Sharon committed one of his most controversial acts: raiding the village of Qibya in Jordan in 1953. In the process, he and his troops reduced the town to rubble, and killed 69 people, many of them women and children. He said he was unaware the town had not been completely evacuated.
Just three years later, Arafat would take up arms as an Egyptian reserve officer during the Suez War of 1956, while Sharon became a paratroop commander. Three years after that, in 1959, Arafat helped found Palestinian nationalist group Fatah, meaning "armed struggle." Their first military operation against Israel took place in 1965. It was unsuccessful.
Time would only find the two at opposite ends of the spectrum. Sharon became a military man distinguished by his victories defending Israel against Arab armies. Arafat became the voice of the Palestinian people — bringing attention to their cause through politics and violence.
Their conflict took on a dramatically personal nature in 1982, when Sharon invaded Lebanon, ostensibly to wipe out Palestinian guerilla bases near Israel's northern border. But the operation expanded deep into the country, to the capital Beirut — a move some experts say was driven by Sharon's animosity towards Arafat, who was living in Lebanon.
Earlier this year, Sharon told an Israeli newspaper he regrets not killing Arafat during the invasion. "In principle, I'm sorry that we didn't liquidate him," Sharon said.
That comment should not have been a surprise to those who have observed Sharon in the intervening years.
At one of the most peaceful times in the Mideast, during U.S.-backed negotiations at Wye River, Md., in 1998, he refused to shake Arafat's hand when it was offered to him.
And in an interview with a Russian television station last year, Sharon described Arafat as a "murderer" and "pathological liar."
"He is not a head of state. There were some people who expected that he would behave like a head of state, but he behaves as the head of terrorists and murderers," Sharon said.
Bizarre Symbiosis
Some experts see this personal animosity at work in the Middle East today — one of the most violent times the region has ever seen outside of wartime.
Arafat had made deals with other Israeli leaders, even those who had military backgrounds and no affinity for Arabs — so his recalcitrance this time is noteworthy, said Denis Sullivan, chair of the political science department at Northeastern University.
"We know this guy can make a deal," Sullivan said.
Ilan Peleg, author of Human Rights in the West Bank and Gaza: Legacy and Politics suggested there was also evidence that Sharon was taking the situation personally.
He pointed to Sharon's demand this month that Arafat be excluded from a proposed U.S.-hosted Mideast peace summit. "The feud has personalized," Peleg said.
But experts also noted that the hatred between the two also creates a bizarre symbiosis. "They're useful enemies for each other," said Louis Kriesberg, professor emeritus at Syracuse University.
He said they reinforce each other's negative opinion of the other side, and make each other convenient targets for their own constituents to mobilize against.
Sharon was elected prime minister, defeating the more dovish Ehud Barak, in 2001 after negotiations with Arafat had failed, and Israelis began to worry about their security since the start of the intifada in 2000.
Experts noted that through this hateful symbiosis comes an even deeper irony: that the two sides may be closer to peace than they ever have been before.
Shafeeq Ghabra, director of the Kuwait Information Office, said "both Arafat and Sharon are empowered by their own people," and are enjoying unprecedented levels of support. If there was ever a time for them to stand out as a leader and make peace, this was it, he said.
However, he added the U.S. would have to give them the opportunity. And Stein of the Carter Center said that this was among the best times for that as well. Their rivalry "makes [U.S. peace negotiator Colin] Powell's role that much stronger because both side have to rely on Powell to bring something from the other," he said.
Others, though, deny that personal animosity has much to do with the current situation at all. Jamal Nassar, author of Intifada: Palestine at the Crossroads, said Arafat and Sharon would be at odds regardless of their personal histories.
"It's two ideological orientations," he said. "There's not room for compromise here."
And that's unfortunate, he said, because that means the only thing that unites them is their willingness to fight. "Both seem to think a military solution can solve their problems somehow," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the most part, the articles presented decrying Sharon as a "war criminal" or "terrorist" (in his own right) are from anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic sources. It's no secret that the Palestinians and sympathetic political agenda groups feel that way. Reading their slant will, of course, say that Sharon committed pre-meditated murder and that his claim to have no knowledge of the Qibyan villagers not being evacuated was an outright lie. Pro-Zionist sources will, of course, say the direct opposite. You can't expect articles presented from either source to have much impact when I've stated from the start that I require a source to contribute to the legitimacy of the article presented with intent to convince me. The above article at least attempts to present both points of view.
I'll admit my pro-Israeli leanings. I'll not be an easy sell, so forgive me if I don't sway easily and adopt your pro-Palestinian stance without some serious debate involved. In the end we may both tire of it (or perhaps just I will) but as of now, I welcome more convincing proof as it becomes available.
