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