Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06PARIS91
2006-01-06 13:32:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Paris
Cable title:  

MEDIA REACTION REPORT - Mideast: Sharon's Health and

Tags:  OPRC KMDR FR 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

061332Z Jan 06
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000091

SIPDIS


DEPT FOR INR/R/MR; IIP/RW; IIP/RNY; BBG/VOA; IIP/WEU; AF/PA;
EUR/WE /P/SP; D/C (MCCOO); EUR/PA; INR/P; INR/EUC; PM; OSC ISA
FOR ILN; NEA; WHITE HOUSE FOR NSC/WEUROPE; DOC FOR ITA/EUR/FR
AND PASS USTR/PA; USINCEUR FOR PAO; NATO/PA; MOSCOW/PA;
ROME/PA; USVIENNA FOR USDEL OSCE.

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR FR
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION REPORT - Mideast: Sharon's Health and
Political Implications
PARIS - Friday, January 06, 2006


(A) SUBJECTS COVERED IN TODAY'S REPORT:

Mideast: Sharon's Health and Political Implications

B) SUMMARY OF COVERAGE:

Practically every single front page and editorial is devoted
to Sharon, his state of health, his legacy and the political
fallout for Israel, the region and beyond. Among the many
points of views, Le Figaro gives a succinct wrap up with the
following titles: "Washington Loses an Ally;" "The Arab World
Without Regrets" and "The Peace Process in Danger." While
"Israel Holds its Breath" (Liberation) the questions
surrounding "Peace or War" (France Soir) and the future of the
peace process are raised by most commentators. For Patrick
Saint Paul in Le Figaro, "the political uncertainty could play
into the hands of the radicals," while Washington
correspondent Philippe Gelie emphasizes that "Sharon knew how
to play up to the White House." Le Figaro's editorial entitled
"Israel Orphaned Without Sharon" notes: "never before had
Israel put its future so completely in the hands of such a
dominating figure." The editorial in Liberation praises Sharon
for his "Realism" and suggests: "Statesmen may well need age
before they can also become realists. But with age comes
illness and (political) weakness." Catholic La Croix widens
the scope and titles "The World Concerned for the Post-Sharon"
while editorialist Dominique Quinio says: "the Middle East did
not need this extra battle." (See Part C)

All dailies conjecture about the possible successor for Sharon
as they recount the political ascension of a man who was also
know as the `Bulldozer." This is the term retained by
communist l'Humanite which headlines: "The Bulldozer" Leaves
Everything in Ruins."

France Soir interviews Charles Enderlin, the permanent
correspondent for France 2 Television in Jerusalem, and an
expert on the region: "Sharon needed a few more years in order
to mark the history books. In his confrontation with Arafat,
he finally came out the winner, but he did not have the
opportunity to lead his victory to its confines. He was a few
years short of leading his plan to success."


Other stories include Iran, with a major report in Le Figaro
entitled "The CIA's Dangerous Missteps in Iran," which uses
the book by James Risen "State of War, the Secret of the CIA
and the Bush Administration" for background. Philippe Gelie
reports that the CIA "gave the Iranians the blueprint for
building the bomb; the Iranians later fooled the Americans:
not only did they see what was wrong with the blueprint, they
were able to fix it and use it."

Two deaths from Avian flu in Turkey are widely reported.
Commentators note that these are the first two such cases
outside Asia. Electronic media report on a third death in the
same family.

President Chirac's priorities for France, digital technology
and nuclear energy, are front paged in centrist La Tribune,
which entitles its editorial: "Vision or Myopia?" Pascal
Aubert comments: "Chirac is hardly at death's door. He is all
of a sudden playing at being a visionary, something he has
never been. But as always he is using the stage for himself
rather than for coherent ideas. His problem is more a matter
of myopia than vision. He alone manages not to see the
incoherence of his plans, such as taxing industry at the risk
of penalizing innovation, or keeping sectors alive though
intravenous artificial support, all the while talking about
technological leaps. France's industry could well end up
having to fight for survival with its hands tied behind its
back."

C) SUPPORTING TEXT/BLOCK QUOTES:

Mideast: Sharon's Health and Political Implications

"The White House Loses its `Best Ally'"
Philippe Gelie in right-of-center Le Figaro (01/06): "The
Washington Post's headline intimating that Bush could be
losing his best ally gave the measure of what is at stake for
the U.S. if Sharon leaves the political scene. But the
implications are not necessarily that Washington might be
weakened. Although Sharon was a precious ally, he was not a
trump card for U.S. diplomacy: he knew like no one else how to
play up to the White House in order to keep the Bush
Administration's support while staying clear of having things
imposed on him. The balance of power between the two men was
never what it seemed on the surface. Today, as far as the U.S.
administration is concerned, all of Sharon's potential
successors have faults . But for a President who has made the
Middle East his privileged field of action, they can all shift
the balance of power."

"Israel Orphaned Without Sharon"
Pierre Rousselin in right-of-center Le Figaro (01/06): "Almost
single handed, Sharon managed to extricate Israel from the
Gaza strip. Today, Israel is in a state of shock. The man who
for most of his life embodied Israel's battles, managed
towards the end to garner unanimous support as a leader who
rallied his people. Never before had Israel put its future so
completely in the hands of such a dominating figure.
Indifferent to political and diplomatic pressures, Sharon
managed to impose his views on Israel. As the inventor of a
peace process `a la unilateral' he surprised everyone. In this
regard he operated a change and accepted the notion that
Israel's security would not be served through expansion.
Still, the man who was nicknamed the `Bulldozer" never changed
his method of `fait accompli.' Sharon needed more time: no one
is in the wings to take over. His absence form the political
scene is a harsh wakeup call for Israel's politicians. After
following one man, a dangerous return to normalcy means
divisions and ungovernable coalitions. And certainly new
violence."

"Realism"
Gerard Dupuy in left-of-center Liberation (01/06): "Sharon
waged all of Israel's wars, including before Israel existed as
a nation. He was known for his brutality and his expansionist
views. But Sharon managed to overcome his past as a hawk. His
gesture in Gaza took on a historic importance: with the
pullout, he was able to erase the fatal illusion of Greater
Israel and pulled the Israeli society away from the stigma of
nationalism and extremism. The gesture opened the door to
something resembling a `peace process,' which might some day
be launched again. Statesmen probably need age before such
realism comes to them. But age weakens those to whom it brings
wisdom. Israel's elections looked clear-cut. It is no longer
so."

"Israel's Changing of the Guard"
Dominique Quinio in Catholic La Croix (01/06): "The Middle
East did not need this added battle. Sharon's stroke upsets
not only Israel and its people; it is a major upset for the
country's political future because Israel relied so completely
on a single individual. The entire world has its eyes glued to
that region of the world. Sharon's pragmatism and his strength
gave the impression that Israel might be on its way to peace
with its neighbors, while it ensured its security. The
reaction of the Palestinian authority, not the Arab street,
shares in the world's concern. Mahmoud Abbas needs an
interlocutor who is determined and tenacious. Political
uncertainties in Israel could destabilize him even more as
both the Israelis and the Palestinians are called to vote. The
window of opportunity that opened with Arafat's death and
Sharon's surprise initiatives could be endangered. Let us hope
there is someone to take over and keep the window open."

"Ruse and Reason"
Serge Faubert in right-of-center France Soir (01/06): "A
strange paradox in politics is proven once again: more often
than not, it is a hawk rather than a dove who ends wars.
Sharon is one more proof of the axiom. The man known for Sabra
and Chatila, for triggering the Second Intifada and for
keeping Arafat sequestered in Ramallah with no regard to
international law, will also be remembered for, and maybe
exclusively for, his pullout plan from Gaza. His plan was an
illustration of his quasi-intuitive pragmatism. Sharon decided
to make peace all by himself: his method was expeditious as
always. But he was the only figure who could impose such a
policy on the settlers. We may never know whether he also
planned to pull out from the West Bank. History is at times
totally amoral. The fact that it chose a perfectly hateful
individual to achieve the first steps towards peace may please
no one. But so what: this was the price to pay to stop the
bloodshed." HOFMANN