In response to the letter, "Sharon's election foreshadows war," the writer's conclusion may be right, but for the wrong reasons. First, his version of Ariel Sharon's history ranges from out of context, to partially true to outright false.
Furthermore, his understanding of 50 years of U.N. resolutions is flawed. To correct the flaws in the letter misses the point he is trying to make: Sharon is evil, therefore, war is inevitable. Why doesn't that concept apply to Yasser Arafat?
Where was the writer's indignation when Ehud Barak offered absolutely unprecedented concessions, and Arafat refused? Why were there no predictions of war in the past seven years of the Oslo "peace" process? After all, Arafat is an admitted terrorist who always targeted civilians. He promised to forego violence in return for recognition and negotiations. Arafat has signed agreement after agreement, while conversely encouraging anti-Semitism, historical revisionism and holocaust denial.
Is there a double standard here, or is the writer merely ignorant of the facts? His conclusion may prove to be correct. Sharon was democratically elected not to accept any more of Arafat's duplicity, and halt negotiations until the Palestinians begin acting as peace partners.
If the Palestinians continue their current course as violent rejectionists, then there will be an escalation to war, if in fact it does not already exist.