Ariel Sharon's victory in Israel is not seen as a danger from the Arab point of view, as represented in the Arab- language press. Rather they see Sharon as a figure intent on rehabilitating his reputation -- and therefore likely to seek peace. PNS associate editor Franz Schurmann, who has studied and traveled widely in the Muslim world, is a professor emeritus of history and sociology at UC-Berkeley.

The moment it become evident that Ariel Sharon was winning a landslide victory in Israel, Yaser Arafat congratulated him warmly on his victory and offered to resume peace talks with him.

The following day, Beshar Assad, who only a few months ago replaced his dead father Hafiz as Syria's leader, swiftly offered to resume peace talks with Sharon who in the West is commonly called the "Butcher of Beirut."

In a piece that appeared on Israel election day, Ibn Ali Ibrahim, a regular commentator in the Saudi-based As-Sharq al-Ausat, offered convincing explanations of why these two leaders see Sharon as a window of opportunity.

First the writer dismissed as election propaganda all the talk coming from Barak that Sharon would ignite wars all over the region. Then he added that Sharon's main reason for running was to get the "Butcher of Beirut" monkey off his back. In Europe, Sharon is compared to Serbia's Milosevic, the Butcher of Srebrenica, who soon could stand trial in Belgrade for butchering Muslims.

According to Ibn Ali Ibrahim, if Sharon starts wars they will soon backfire against him and Israelis. If he does nothing but try to ingratiate himself with Arabs and Westerners he will be out of office in a year at most. His only option if he wants to rehabilitate his "bloody history" is making serious moves for peace.

Ibn Ali Ibrahim writes that a real peace between Israelis and Palestinians can only come about if Israel bites the bullet and pays the price. Barak, he says, always talked about peace but did little to promote it. He was good at "sugar-coating" but little else. Unlike Sharon, Barak was touted as a hero in the West. But Sharon has both the motivation and ability to deliver on any agreement made.

Clearly Beshar Assad had similar thoughts in mind. His interview with the As-Sharq an-Ausat lasted six hours and ran over two full pages. It covered a lot of issues, especially Lebanon, but the first issue considered was the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Beshar Assad said he expected from President Bush American neutrality toward all negotiating parties and a commitment to carrying out agreements, especially the UN resolutions that call for Israel to return to its borders before June 1967.

What is happening on the ground would not seem to support either Ibn Ali Ibrahim's analysis or Beshar Assad's offer. Violence has been growing and spreading throughout the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli Arabs boycotted the election on the grounds there was no substantial policy difference between Barak and Sharon. And whatever control Arafat still had over events is fast slipping out of his hands.

The day the Beshar Assad interview was published another editorial warned of a possible "catastrophe" under a Sharon government.

The day before the Israeli election, Sharon prayed at the Wailing Wall and then inserted a slip of paper in the wall's cracks vowing that a united Jerusalem would forever be the capital of Israel. That certainly got him a few more votes but makes peace seem even farther away.

In 1982, when General Sharon gave the go signal to Israel's Christian Phalangist allies to slaughter Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, that bloody event marked the beginning of the end of Israel's invasion of Lebanon. President Reagan fired U.S. Secretary of State former General Alexander Haig, NATO commander, who supported the invasion. And the U.S. came under enormous pressure from the Arabs, especially oil-rich Saudi Arabia, to extend protection to the beleaguered Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) headed by Yaser Arafat. The PLO was saved and moved to Tunis.

Arafat's Palestinian Authority rules over a fast growing people who are furious at the organization's corruption and their impoverishment. Arafat was once saved from Sharon by America. This time he is, in effect, telling Sharon that both of them will go down if a viable peace agreement isn't reached