"[The] formula for the parameters of unilateral solution are: To maximise the number of Jews; minimise the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem," then-Israel Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Israel's Haaretz newspaper in December 2003.

By Sherri Muzher

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a severe stroke resulting in a cerebral hemorrhage on January 4, 2004. While those in the West and Israel naively labeled Sharon a new "man of peace" and fresh corruption charges surfaced, his political career was strong as ever. Sharon was running a one man show going into the March elections with his new Kadima (forward) party. Major polls showed the premier was a shoe-in, but now the question becomes which direction Israel will be headed politically.

by Remi Kanazi

by Ghassan Khatib

There is no doubt that the absence of Ariel Sharon from the political scene is a very dramatic development for Israelis, especially the vast majority of the Israeli people who elected Sharon and believed he was on course to fulfill some of their hopes and aspirations. There is also no doubt that this is a tragic moment for his family and those who worked closely with him.

Sharon was in many ways a unique Israeli leader. At a time of serious crisis, he managed to govern Israel with almost no serious political opposition while also almost completely neutralizing international criticism and even influence. Yet, such an unparalleled achievement should not hide the fact that as far as the basic, legitimate Israeli objectives of peace and security are concerned, he achieved little.

It is time for the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships and people to open a process of imagining peace. This is not to be confused with designing the "New Middle East" fantasy world, but rather beginning to paint realistic pictures of scenarios of how each side envisions Israeli-Palestinian peace.

by Gershon Baskin

Sharon has continues to receive political pressure from all sides over his Gaza disengagement plan. But ultimately he has succeeded in his main objective: a unilateral political solution on Israel's terms.

by James J. Zogby

By Mohammed Omer

THE ISRAELIS called it "Operation Rainbow"-and insisted the name was generated at random by a computer. To the men, women, and children of Rafah who endured the slaughter, however, it was a bitter footnote to a week of horror. In Greek mythology, the rainbow was a bridge between earth and Olympus, between men and gods. In the Old Testament, after sending a flood that destroyed the world, God set a rainbow in the sky as a sign of peace and renewal. But in May of 2004, the shells and bombs in the night sky over Rafah brought only death. "Operation Rainbow" is an appropriate name in only one way: a year later, the images are still vivid, their evidence of Israeli terrorism against a civilian population undimmed.

After nearly three years of intifada, the residents of Rafah were familiar enough with Israeli incursions-the American-made Apaches overhead, the tanks and the shelling, followed by the bulldozers that would destroy homes, infrastructure, lives. Like Israel's previous invasions, Operation Rainbow was undertaken "for security reasons," ostensibly to find and destroy alleged smuggling tunnels running from Rafah under the border into Egypt. In May 2004, however, the Israeli army began its onslaught in the northern part of Rafah-far from the border in Tal Al Sultan and El Barazil-tearing up streets completely, destroying electric, water, and sewer lines, flattening whole blocks of houses, even bulldozing Rafah's small zoo.

Israeli snipers commandeered taller houses and took up positions on rooftops, shooting anything and anyone who moved, even killing two teenagers whose "hostile activity" consisted of taking laundry off a clothesline and feeding pet doves. All the while, the shells from the Apache helicopters turned its victims into scattered body parts. As the week wore on, people ran out of food, water and medicine. Ambulances were pinned down by Israeli fire and could not reach the injured. The morgue in Al Najjar hospital was overflowing and, when no one could venture outdoors to bury their dead, a commercial refrigerator that usually stored vegetables was pressed into service to hold corpses.

by Hisham Ahmed

One of the reasons Benjamin Netanyahu cited when he tendered his resignation on August 7 was that he did not want to be a party to what he called "concessions" to the Palestinian side without Israel getting anything in return.

Indeed, on the surface it might seem strange that an Israeli prime minister should evacuate settlements unilaterally without securing anything from the Palestinian Authority in negotiations.

But that would certainly be a superficial interpretation of why Ariel Sharon chose to withdraw from settlements unilaterally. On the contrary, Sharon, it seems, is intent on going down in history as the only modern-day Israeli prime minister, a list that includes Netanyahu, who has consistently and utterly refused to negotiate with the Palestinian side--whether the Palestinian Authority or the PLO. In this way, he is unique among Israeli leaders since the Oslo Accords were signed.