Buchanan is such a jerk:

"Sharon promised peace and security. He has delivered war and hatred."

Roll the video tape. The war started 5 months before he was elected and the Arafat gang started it.

Sharon is winning the war. The only question is what the paece terms will be.

Next time someone from the Left starts pleading the Palestinian case, remind them that they're on the same side as Pitchfork Pat Buchanan (alias "Mr. Reform Party Landslide") and watch 'em squirm.

Is this man really "Deep-Throat?"

Ugh, makes a lot of sense now.

May Allah praise Pat B, humble defender of the Palestinian olive grove.

Well-crafted polemic, whose wholesale selectivity is almost as impressive as its interpretive distortions.

But even Buchanan should realize that Israel is not going to go for a walk in the woods and shoot itself in the head.

Sharon is the ultimate paleconservative national leader: and yet the palecons over here despise him. Meanwhile, the neocons like him but despise our palecons. Hmmm.

Buchanan is not a conservative. He is a dingbat.

Not exactly.

I would nominate Slobo (Milosevic) as the quintessential paleoconservative (gotta give the Palestinians credit, as they sure know how to choose their enemies). Sharon's merely a political opportunist, a pathological liar (though he does occasionally tell the truth) whose specialty is spreading the rhetoric quite thick and getting his underlings at each other's backs so that they have no time or inclination to pay attention to what he is doing (which usually is consolidating his own power and freezing out dissenting voices).

Nonetheless, Sharon's own back is getting closer and closer to the wall, and he may not survive this very personal battle with Arafat (even if, in fact, getting Sharon elected Israeli PM may have been Arafat's greatest achievement).

When Sharon leaves the political scene, Arafat (assuming he hasn't left prior) and the Palestinian minions (assuming they too are still around), along with their supporters, will consider this a huge victory, and further proof that their ultimate goal is in sight (the promised land, as it were).

What they, and many others, don't seem to realize is that Palestinian designs of eradicating Israel leave neither Sharon nor any other potential Israeli leader, no matter what kind of peace plan they "come up with," much leeway. In my view, it thus matters not a whit who the Israeli PM is, given the deal that the Palestinians have essentially offered Israel at Taba (e.g., that Israel either agree to disappear, or be destroyed.)

And it is this understanding of Israel's predicament rather than any great love for Sharon (do you really think Wolfowitz, who came out in favor of the Geneva Accords, has any affinity for the man?) that has earned Sharon, as Israel's leader, the support that he has.

This, together with such details as the Arafat-Saddam nexus, the Arafat-Iran nexus, the Arafat-Hizbullah nexus and the fact that Arafat is an even more accomplished liar than Sharon.

And even though Sharon's toughness has been viewed by this administration admirably at times, at other times, it has been a royal pain for Bush; nonetheless, I believe the administration has, if grudgingly, begun to realize that any other Israel leader would have been forced to act with no less toughness (or will be forced to so act, after the new leader's initial attempts at conciliation with the Palestinian leadership will have been convincingly rebuffed).

As for American peleocons, anything that can be used to smite Israel is fair game, keeping in mind that the party line regarding Gulf War One was that that war was fought solely for Israel's sake--not for Kuwait, not for Saudi Arabia, not to keep Saudi oil out of Saddam's hands. Ditto for Gulf War Two.

Such a view, to be sure, does make Middle East policy issues one heck of a lot less complicated.

Barry:

Your characterization of Sharon may be right on the money; I don't know.

However, even if he is worthy of personal contempt, he's also doing EXACTLY the right things to ensure Israel's survival, and in the teeth of his own party's opposition, at that.

Thus, he's the right person at the right time, and reminds us once again that heroes aren't necessarily nice people.
(Another, lesser example would be Ted Williams).

Indeed, he may be the right person at the right time. Possibly, I'll grant you that. But I don't think so.

(Though as I said above, I don't think that anyone could have, ultimately, done anything any differently.)

But he's maneuvered himself into a position where he's trying to make himself unexpendable, in what clearly seems to be a "l'etat c'est moi" situation. Nor should the financial scandals come as any surprise....

On the other hand, only the right wing, as they say, can make any kind of peace in this country.

Assuming that peace can be "made"....