Many Israelis just stayed home. Others cast a blank vote. But a considerable minority thrust Ariel Sharon into the greatest electoral landslide in that country's history -- obviously as well an overwhelming majority of those who did vote. And the "Israel Arabs" turned their backs on both of the Zionist parties and managed a near complete "boycott" of the election, also for the first time and interestingly the exact opposite of what Arafat and the "Authority" advocated.

Now the soothing songs and tailored campaign slogans give way to ideological, political, and military realities. The major media primarily trumpet the politicians and spin-masters from hither and yon. But behind the scenes preparations for a spasm of intensified low-level conflict and stepped-up repression are in motion; and any spark could now bring about a cataclysmic eruption. From "Tehran to Aswan", as Sharon's own henchmen warned even during the campaign, those in charge of military plans and preparations are indeed sharpening their knives, not their pencils and television persona.

"I WANT AN AGGRESSIVE ISRAELI TO GET THE REINS OF POWER AND GO TO WAR"
By Robert Fisk in Beirut

[The Independent, UK, 7 February 2001]: "I hope Sharon gets elected." It seemed extraordinary, to hear these words from a survivor of the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre. But Amin Taha wasn't joking. His logic was as cold as the wind that blasted down the filthy alleyway outside his home.

"I want an aggressive Israeli to get the reins of power and initiate a war, because then there will be a reaction," he said. "There should be either peace or war. And there's no peace."

Among the tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, those who would not be allowed the "right to return" to their original home villages in northern Galilee by Ehud Barak - and certainly not by Ariel Sharon - the feeling is much the same: if the Palestinians could be demonised when resisting the army of that darling of the West, Ehud Barak, let the world see how the Israelis behave under Sharon.

It was put in more intellectual fashion by a leftist Palestinian intellectual who still works in the camps each day. "You people support the Israelis and the Americans support the Israelis," he said. "All right, you made Barak out to be a nice guy, even though he wouldn't give us back Arab Jerusalem, built more settlements than his Likud predecessor and refused our 'right of return'. So we were blamed for destroying peace.

"You were embarrassed when you had to deal with Netanyahu [Israel's previous prime minister].

"Now see if you can manage to support Sharon. See if you can approve his behaviour and claim we are the ones who destroy peace."

It's an argument - as dangerous and shrewd as it is perverse - that has spread through the West Bank and Gaza and even through the Israeli Arab community inside Israel, who were urged by their leaders to boycott yesterday's vote.

If the world gives such uncritical support for Israel, goes the theory, let it give the same unquestioning support to Sharon; then see how the world copes when its friend commits another Sabra and Chatila massacre.

The Arab regimes, meanwhile, watch Israel's internal politics with something akin to fascination. If they denied the democracy of Israeli elections, they would not be able to say - as they will say - that Sharon represents the Israelis. But the older Arab leaders, and a few who have died these past two years, have certain associations with Ariel Sharon.

Did not President Hafez al-Assad of Syria send his army to kill up to 20,000 in the Syrian city of Hama in 1982, scarcely seven months before Sabra and Chatila? Did not King Hussein of Jordan kill many more Palestinians in 1970 than Sharon's militia allies? Hasn't Saddam Hussein wiped out far more Iraqis than the mere 2,000 who were slaughtered at Sabra and Chatila?

It's a grim calculus, but by no means irrelevant. For once, the nation that so often points to the bloodstained hands of its Arab enemies will have its very own home-grown blood-spattered leader.