The legacy of Ariel Sharon is of a man responding to a series of terrorist attacks against Israel, writes Seán Gannon
Dr Hikmat Ajurri's analysis of the legacy of Ariel Sharon, published recently in these pages, is full of the same misinformation and misrepresentation which characterised his predecessor's presentation of the Middle East conflict.
To say that the Israeli prime minister sparked the "second intifada" is entirely false. It is well documented that the events of September 2000 were plotted by the Palestinian leadership which used Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (which while being, as Dr Ajurri points out, the third holiest site in Islam is also, as he fails to point out, the holiest site in Judaism) as a mere pretext for the violence. The claim that "many Palestinians died that day at the hands of the Israeli security apparatus" is also untrue. In fact, no Palestinians were killed that day, the only casualties being the 28 Israeli policemen wounded by the 1,500-strong Palestinian mob bused into Jerusalem by the PLO with the express purpose of creating a disturbance.
Responsibility for the Palestinian deaths which occurred in subsequent days ultimately lies with the PA leadership that orchestrated the rioting during which they were killed. Marwan Barghouti, today championed by the West as a future Palestinian leader, detailed what happened in an interview with the London-based daily, Al-Hayat, one year after the events: "I knew that the end of September was the last period [ of time] before the explosion, but when Sharon reached the al-Aqsa Mosque, this was the most appropriate moment for the outbreak of the intifada. The night prior to Sharon's visit, I participated in a panel on a local television station and I seized the opportunity to call on the public to go to the al-Aqsa Mosque in the morning, for it was not possible that Sharon would reach al-Haram al-Sharif just so, and walk away peacefully.
"I finished and went to al-Aqsa in the morning. We tried to create clashes without success because of the differences of opinion that emerged with others in the al-Aqsa compound at the time. After Sharon left, I remained for two hours in the presence of other people; we discussed the manner of response and how it was possible to react in all the cities and not just in Jerusalem. We contacted all factions . . . I prepared a leaflet in the name of the Higher Committee of Fatah, co-ordinated with the brothers [ Hamas] in which we called for a reaction to what happened in Jerusalem."
Thus did the PLO turn its back on negotiations and let slip the dogs of war.
The Palestinian delegate general also dredges up the chestnut of Sharon's "indirect responsibility" (or "guilt" as he more emotively describes it) for Sabra and Shatilla. The facts are these. In September 1982, the Lebanese Christian Phalange murdered hundreds of Palestinians in revenge for the assassination of their leader, Bashir Gemayel.
An Israeli commission of inquiry found that the IDF, which allowed the Phalange into the camps to root out PLO terrorist cells known to have been located there, should have anticipated the possibility of what happened with the result that Sharon, then minister of defence, was forced to resign under the principle of "buck stops here". This is responsibility of the most indirect sort and, as is evidenced by the quotation above, a lot more indirect than that of Barghouti and his masters for the massacre of 1,000 Israelis since September 2000.
And on the subject of Lebanon, Dr Ajurri's criticism of what he calls Sharon's "murderous campaign against Palestinians" there is completely devoid of context. He ignores the fact that Israel invaded its northern neighbour in 1982 to put a final stop to the murderous campaign against Israelis which the PLO was conducting from Beirut.
Also unmentioned is Arafat's murderous campaign against the indigenous Lebanese population, ongoing since the PLO arrived in the country after being expelled by King Hussein because of its murderous campaign against Jordanians.
Similarly devoid of context are Dr Ajurri's remarks on the consequences of Operation Defensive Shield. While he discusses its consequences for the Palestinian civil institutions, he fails to mention the reason why it was launched in the first place - two months of relentless terrorist attacks culminating in the March 27th suicide bombing in the Park Hotel, Netanya, in which 30 people were butchered while celebrating Passover.
It is in the context of such Israeli deaths that the security fence must be considered. Ignoring its manifest success in thwarting terrorist attacks, Dr Ajurri presents it as a Sharonian land-grabbing device, claiming that it will, on completion, incorporate some 25 per cent of the West Bank into Israel. In fact the project was a Barak-era idea of the Israeli left, which Sharon very reluctantly undertook as an essential defensive measure and the cabinet-approved route will at most place 5-8 per cent on the Israeli side.
This is in and around the same percentage of land which the Clinton plan recommended be annexed by Jerusalem in December 2000 as part of a final agreement, a plan Dr Ajurri himself appears to regard as the basis for peace.
It was Arafat's effective refusal to accept this same plan in January 2001, and not Sharon's election the following month, which doomed the Camp David-Taba peace process.
Finally, Dr Ajurri's statement that Israel "allows" its soldiers to shoot children in the head is nothing short of incitement. Israel does not deliberately target non-combatants of any age, unlike the Palestinian militias which spent four years seeking to maximise civilian slaughter.
The 11-year-old girl to whom Dr Ajurri refers was accidentally killed when a stray IDF bullet entered her classroom in September 2004; in contrast, the previous May Hila Hatuel was, with her mother and three sisters, shot dead in their car at point blank range by Palestinian terrorists. Therein lies the difference.
Seán Gannon is chairman of the Irish Friends of Israel