This Jonathan Freedland column is just great, pushing as it does the suggestion that barring his stroke and subsequent coma, Ariel Sharon might just have been the man to bring about peace with the Palestinians.
The title - "Ariel Sharon's final mission might well have been peace" - is fantastic, whether Freedland chose it or not. And indeed, if I'm hit by a bus tomorrow, then people could say that my final mission "might well have been teetotalism", without sounding any more ridiculous.
Back in reality, Sharon's "final mission" was pretty obvious to everyone who cared to look - basically, unapologetically ripping off as much land as possible, then building a giant fuck-off fence around it and lobbing missiles at anything that looks vaguely threatening on the other side.
Admittedly this could result in "peace" of a kind, although perhaps not in the way that Freedland means. JF's effort is fun, in a kind of we-all-know-this-is-bollocks-but-let's-say-it-anyway manner, but perhaps a tad misleading.
Bonus points are also due for the implication that Sharon's war record is a matter of highly-partisan debate, rather than long-established and well-documented fact. It's also worth noting that if anything, Sharon seems like less of a violent headbanger these days because those who came after him were a good sight crazier.
I do quite like Jonathan Freedland, who seems to be a nice guy in that wet, terribly earnest Guardian way, but seriously - if the Israelis ever need to hide a few settlements in a hurry, they could do worse than shoving them up Freedland's backside, since it appears that you could actually stick several hundred large houses, retail outlets, sentry towers and heavily-armed soldiers up the man's arse without him noticing.