In her Viewpoint "Good luck Ariel Sharon," (2/8) Florice Engler tries to explain to the reader why Ariel Sharon won't be a bad Israeli prime minister, and also tends to enlighten the reader with some of her comments on the situation in the Middle East. This article explores some of the problematic issues that Engler stressed, while taking a glance at Ariel Sharon.
There are just some points that I would like to clarify. It has been endlessly said that Ehud Barak made very generous compromises and concessions, and that the Palestinian authority always rejected them. Where was sovereignty over Arab Jerusalem in these concessions? Where was the right of return in these concessions? How could such a generous and peace-loving man expand settlement building on occupied lands? How could such a peace-loving man be responsible for the death of 350 people while still acting in "restraint"? Does anybody know that this peace-lover led one of the biggest terrorist operations himself, when he disguised himself as a woman and went into Beirut, Lebanon (thus infringing on the sovereignty of a country) and personally assassinated three leaders of the PLO (the names of these leaders were Kamal Nasser, Kamal Adwan and Abu-Yousif Al-Najjar) in 1973? It is obvious that this man not only has blood on his hands from recent incidents, but also has a long history of terrorism.
Furthermore, Engler mentions that "even if a deal had been made between Barak and Arafat, it is doubtful that it would have been honored" implying that the Palestinian side would fall short on their implementation. News flash to Ms. Engler - it is Israel that has not honored UN Security Council Resolutions, International Human Rights conventions, and even the peace deals themselves by refusing to dismantle its troops from occupied territories.
Engler also mentions that it is "unfeasible" and "insulting" for the Palestinians to ask for a right of return. She also doesn't seem to have accurate figures, as the number of Palestinian refugees is six million, not four million. Whether it is feasible or not, I wouldn't know, but I would like to raise a question here - how is it feasible that Israel has the ability to absorb any number of Jewish immigrants, but would find it hard to absorb these people? Only recently Israel has absorbed a huge number of Russian Jewish immigrants. Doesn't this raise doubts about this "unfeasibility" statement?
As for the insulting part, let me tell Engler a little about "insulting". It is insulting to be held at gunpoint and asked to leave your house. It is insulting to be made a refugee in a country where you have never lived before. It is insulting to live in tents where you don't have electricity, water, a sewage removal system, or telephones. It is insulting to lose your identity and it is insulting not to be allowed into any country in the world. It is insulting to be occupied, to be uprooted, to be deported, to be tortured, and to be subjugated. It is insulting to ask someone who has taken your land by force if you can have your land back. You do not know the extent of "insult" that the Palestinian refugees have lived with, so before calling them insulting for refusing the "generous" offer, try to view the word "insulting" in the way they see it.
As for Sharon, a brief history of the man is worth examining: El-Burj, 1953, 15 dead. Qibiya 1953, 73 dead, "pacification" in Gaza, 1972, unknown number of dead. Finally, Sabra and Chatila, 1982, hundreds dead. These massacres are all on Sharon's resume, and if they do not depict him as a murderer and an inhuman butcher then I don't know what does. I wonder if this is the "strength" Engler refers to in her article when she says "we need a strong leader who can restore the calm."
While Engler "prays for peace," she wants Ariel Sharon to deal with the Arabs at the moment, simply because peace cannot be attained for the time being. Saying I want peace and I support Ariel Sharon is like saying I am a liberal and I am a fan of Stalin. Obviously, the two don't fit together in the same sentence.
Finally, I do not believe it is bad that Ariel Sharon is the prime minister of Israel; I am convinced that the situation is at the nadir of its downfall and nothing can get worse. However, the mere concept of having a bloodstained murderer like Sharon becoming a head of a state reflects a lot about what that particular state has come to. I ask the members of the Tufts community and all who are reading this - is this a man fit to lead a country with such a sensitive position at this pivotal time in history?
Abdul-Wahab Kayyali is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
