away from trying to reach an agreement; he feared
loss of control and an assassin’s bullet if he com-
promised. Instead, he veered in the opposite direc-
tion. The provocative tour of Ariel Sharon of
Haram-al-Sharif, underlining Israeli sovereignty,
provided Arafat with the opportunity in September
2000 to launch a violent attack on Israeli soldiers
organised by his Fatah militia who are easily able to
inflame youngsters in the streets facing Israeli
troops and tanks. The Palestinian youths threw
rocks and home-made bombs, the militia attacked
with guns and mortars. The Israeli army fired back.
Every day the funeral corteges of young men,
heroes to the cause, inflamed passions further.
That is how the second intifadabegan. It was
a gamble that sacrificed many innocent lives and
misguided freedom fighters. The Israeli army hit
back hard; they did not target civilians who were
not involved, but the young nervous conscripts
did not always exercise all necessary care, the heli-
copters firing into Palestinian offices and houses
where Hamas leaders were believed to be,
accepted that there would be civilian casualties,
‘collateral damage’.
The first political casualty of the failure to reach
agreement was Barak. For Israelis their security was
the electoral issue that overshadowed all others.
On 6 February 2001, Ariel Sharon, the hard man
of Israel with an unsavoury past in the Lebanon,
leader of the Likud party, was elected prime
minister. Sharon had identified in the past with the
policy of expanding the settlements as a way of
controlling the West Bank and denying Palestinian
statehood. Defying UN resolutions the settle-
ments continued to expand, indeed they never
stopped doing so. By the Palestinians this was
interpreted as showing that the Israelis were never
serious about fulfilling the Oslo Agreement of
1993 which was supposed to have led to a Pales-
tinian state by 1999. The Israelis blamed the
Palestinians for not ending the murderous attacks
by Hamas and other terrorist organisations which
sent suicide bombers to Israeli cities killing civilians
indiscriminately. Nor was a stop put to the open
incitement to what was called martyrdom. Suicide
bombings were followed by Israeli reprisals which,
in turn, led to the despatch of more bombers to
cafés, bus stations, markets, wherever Israelis were
to be found in large numbers. Living under terror,
the majority of Israelis were more concerned about
their own safety than historic justice for the
Palestinians, or that casualties and the suffering in
the Palestinian territories far exceeded that of the
Israelis numerically. If the Palestinians could not
put their own house in order, then were the Israelis
left with any alternatives? Some Israelis deplored
excessive use of force, all were weary after decades
of conflict but doubted that peace was within
reach. A measure of the weariness has been support
for the idea of total separation and the building of
a protective wall and fence. Construction began. It
is not just one wall but several dividing Palestinian
territories, where it will run depending on the final
decisions. Clearly, large slices of the West Bank will
be placed on the Israeli side to protect settlers and
what is left won’t constitute a viable Palestinian
state. Most of the fence and wall remains to be
built so there is room for flexibility. But Sharon’s
wall has strong Israeli support as the best way to
stop the bombers getting through. Though the
US counselled restraint, from a broader point of
view the overriding US policy has been one of sup-
porting Israel first, the Palestinians coming second.
After the second Iraq war the US, the European
Union, the UN and Russia have sponsored yet
another initiative, the ‘Road Map’ to a peaceful
resolution with a vision of two nations, Palestine
and Israel cooperating and living side by side.
Setting out a blueprint without enforcement or
sanctions will not be enough in the absence of a
readiness to make difficult compromises, the car-
rots of aid not sufficient to ensure success when the
future security and prosperity of both peoples are
at stake. Presented at the end of April 2003 it sets
out strict goals and a tight timetable. The first
phase was the most crucial. Within just one month,
the Palestinians were to take immediate action to
end violence, accompanied by Israeli supportive
measures and security cooperation, and stop all
incitement. Palestinians were to take steps to build
up institutions leading to free elections. A condi-
tion of the Road Map was that Arafat appoint a
prime minister and by implication reduce his
powers. The Palestinian authority was to undergo
fundamental reform. A more hopeful start was
made when Mahmoud Abbas and his Cabinet
were sworn in. The new prime minister made an
unequivocal declaration that he was willing to end936 GLOBAL CHANGE: FROM THE 20th TO THE 21st CENTURY