Sharon’s blind rage leading Israel to hell

This column, without thousands of advisers at its disposal, gave, as one of its highlights of the year 2000, the moving moments when hundreds of Koreans crossed the boundary between South and North Korea to visit their relatives. It was the first such occasion for half a century. Tears flowed like rivers, some from neutral observers like your columnist. Writing on December 30, 2000 (seems like yesterday!) I said, “...Equally American, because of its part in the sorry Korean saga, were the very moving scenes of the partial lifting of the borders so that ordinary Koreans could visit their relatives in the other state of Korea. Some had been parted by the divide for up to 50 years. It would take a stronger brute than your columnist to remain cool and collected at the sight of a 70-year man being reunited with his mother of 90-plus, both weeping profusely for the lost years.” Through no direct wish of Koreans themselves, the Cold War had dictated that their country was torn in two like an old photograph; it was embarking on the torturous journey back. Now 13 months later, enter President George W. Bush and his Evil Axis speech. His advisers, who presumably know better, should have filled him in on these matters. Family-loving man as he is, perchance he might have refrained from calling North Korea an axis of evil, thereby effectively setting back the quick possibility of normalcy between the two Koreans, the South being well-known friends of America. The North Koreans went ballistic. As it happens, not far behind were the South Koreans, whose Sunshine Policy was aimed at bridging their differences. They were horrified by Bush’s words against their neighbour. Bush is a Middle American. Love him or hate him it must be a daunting prospect for him to even guess at the intertwining complexity of world affairs; about their cause and effect. But what about his professional advisers? It is a sobering thought that the closest to him seems to be short-fused Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who would probably view with pride his deep lack of world knowledge. Has Bush returned from the Far East a somewhat chastened, and dare one hope a wiser, man? This seems to be out of range of his Israeli protégé, Butcher of Sabra, Ariel Sharon. His knee-jerk reaction to any Palestinian problem is to spill yet more Palestinian blood. Incidentally, have you noticed in the world media (Western branch) how any Israeli outrage is merely in retaliation to Palestinian deeds, and never the other way round? In the same December 30 column I wrote, “In the Middle East the suffering continued as before, but worse. The Israelis latterly scored over 300 Palestinian deaths to less than 20 against them, but still insisted that it was Arafat and his Palestinians who were the aggressors. How sick can it get? Where is God?” It must be crystal clear that Sharon’s blind-rage policy daily leads Israel to more insecurity, not less. He is therefore part and parcel of Israel’s worsening security position. By Bush giving him carte blanche, the American president is a bad, not good, friend of Israel. Does Bush know many Israelis? Did he go to prep school with many of them? Are many, members of his clubs? Psychology (to call it that) is never far from consideration in such matters. It would not have escaped the notice of those who care for Israel that the 300 to 20 ratio of deaths mentioned above has dramatically changed, to something more ‘balanced’. This week at times the figures were around par. Could this be a pointer to the way ahead? Many Israelis clearly feel that way, and are so appalled about where Sharon is taking them that they have refused to follow him into battle. They have said Israel should get out of Gaza and at least 30 settlements. No Israeli general or colonel can ever be referred to as a coward, and yet many of those opposing Sharon on his bloodthirsty policy are from such senior ranks. Multiply them by very many ordinary Israelis who feel the same and it becomes clear that change is not impossible in Israel. Thank God. Foreign Minister Shimon Perez is a humane but often agonisingly indecisive figure. But he never hid his feelings about Sharon’s murderous brutality in Lebanon in 1982. Why does he stay in the Sharon regime now? Does he want to be judged accordingly? Let him remove his Labour Party forthwith, and start a stampede. Israel will be the finer for it, as will the region. And as for the Palestinians, they will move nearer to achieving the State which has eluded them for half a century. Besides, what is the alternative? *** *** *** ***It seems almost perverse to go from that high plateau to the matter of our mayoral elections, but after all Kampala is where this column is coming to you from! I have known Mayor Sebaana Kizito for almost as long as the Palestinians have been banished from their statehood. I am very far from cutting my throat regarding his re-election. Truth to tell I cannot take this mayorship thing with a straight face. That he stood on the same platform with the likes of murderess Night Kulabako and the equally unsalubrious A. Awori is a matter for him and his God; although totally sick-making to decent people. The best part of it all is that we have a fall-guy for Kampala’s perilous state. It is scant relief that we could be worse, like, say, Nairobi.