BEIRUT: Sharon has taken one step back. did he do so according to the Leninist tactic of “two steps forward, one step backward?” according to political observers here.

Definitely not. This could have been said of anyone but Sharon, who is far removed from this dialectic. He is a man who breaks but does not bend. With him, it is win or lose. It is ”unseemly” for him to be associated with qualities usually reserved for such Israeli politicians as Shimon Peres.

Sharon added the “seven days rule” to the Tenet peace plan. He demanded that the Palestinians (and not the Israeli as well) undertake confidence-building measures. Only then, he said, would he agree to talks. In other words Sharon recognized Yasser Arafat and asked him for a lot, without promising him anything in return.

As the confrontation in the Israeli occupied territories increased in ferocity, Sharon adopted a tougher line. He began demanding that Arafat exert “100 per cent” effort, while declaring the Palestinian leader to be “irrelevant”. He started systematically weakening Arafat’s grip on power, and undermining his authority. this ultimately led to Arafat being bottled up in his Ramallah headquarters by the Israeli army.

But these measures failed, and so Sharon continued on the only path he knew: more escalation. His policy could be summarized in a few words - we destroy, we win, they surrender, and then we will see. It was at this point that Sharon’s scheme appeared to be falling apart. Why? There are several factors.

The most important fact was Palestinian steadfastness, especially over the last months. Israel’s blockades, assassination, arrests, demolitions, incursions and isolation all failed to break the will of the Palestinian people. The Palestinians were battered but unbowed.

Moreover, and in the last few weeks,a confrontation between the Arab states and Israel became more likely. The Israeli public began asking questions: What good are Sharon’s policies? The prime minister’s popularity nose-dived, reserve officers and soldiers refused to serve in the Israeli occupied territories, the Israeli press turned on Sharon with vengeance and the Labour Party was encouraged to propose alternatives.

At the same time, Sharon also came under attack from the Right, which accused him of defeatism, and of not taking the logic of power to its logical conclusion.

Sharon opposes the Saudi plan but unable to shoot it down because the success of his military solution not guaranteed. The US which concurred with Sharon “seven days of calm” rule gave him the prerogative to define what calm means. It can be said that the White House gave Sharon ample opportunity to try and settle the issue his way. He failed.

Sharon will try to employ tactical retreat in order to protect the core of his political programme- that is he will try to exploit the step backwards in order to move two steps forwards.