It would seem like an unlikely prospect – a military man who fought some of the most bitter wars in Israel’s history, a leader of the Jewish people who went from a hawk to an unlikely dove and who presided over an Israeli withdrawl from occupied territory in order to make Israel more safe.
I’m not talking about Ariel Sharon, but Yitzhak Rabin.
Yet strangely enough, it appears that Prime Minister Sharon is following the footsteps of Rabin in many ways with his historic pullout from Gaza. Arik Sharon, the great warrior with a reputation for toughness has even pubicly apologized for his treatment of Rabin before his assassination and has granted Yasser Arafat safe passage to Jordan as he dies of a blood illness.
At the same time, Sharon’s bold initiative in Gaza has drawn the ire of his own Finance Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu who is also one of Sharon’s strongest opponents for leadership of the Likud Party.
Sharon understands that there can be no peace if Israel is defending the undefendable. The settlements in Gaza and the West Bank are preventing Israel from being truly secure. Sharon is doing what Israel needs to do, running out the clock for the Palestinians. By preventing the rampant terrorism of the _intifada_ from reaching Israel, Sharon is waiting that the imminent death of Yasser Arafat ends with saner heads prevailing and a chance to truly work on some kind of lasting peace. The only way that can happen is if the Palestinians choose it. No amount of force or negotiation can solve the situation until the viciously anti-Semitic culture that has permeated Palestinian society ends. By walling off Gaza and the West Bank, Sharon essentially is giving the Palestinians a time out – they can’t attack Israel and they have to solve their own problems. Pragmatically, it is the only way to keep Israel safe without reoccupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
I have much respect for Netanyahu, and regard him as a brilliant mind and an eloquent speaker, but he is foolishly tearing the Likud Party apart. Even within the party his calls for a referendum are not well supported, and if he engages in a struggle for dominance within Likud it will likely tear the party apart. Then again, the big winners in this would the secularist Shinui Party – a party that is strong on defending Israel but stands for a more pluralistic Israeli society. Shinui is rapidly approaching Labour as the #2 party in Israel, and if Likud ended up splitting due to a Netanyahu/Sharon split it is quite possible that they would be able to obtain additional seats in the Knesset.
What Sharon is doing is a courageous gambit that puts him at odds with the far-right in Israel, and already Israeli radicals have threatened that he will follow Rabin to the grave. At the same time, Sharon is doing what is right for Israel. The West Bank and Gaza cannot be secured without sacrificing the security of the rest of Israel. The only way to end this war and give peace a chance is to wait for the larger social conditions in the Middle East to change and for the Palestinians to come back with sensible leadership. Sharon’s disengagement plan is right for Israel’s security and safety, and he has show a level of personal courage and sacrifice that is laudable. I’ve never been a big fan of Arik Sharon, but he has proven to be someone who is willing to do what is right despite great risk, and he deserves credit for it.
I agree with your analysis, Sharon has taken a great risk for the greater good of the region. Netanyahu is just plain acting like a demagogue. He seems to be pandering to the likes of the National Religious Party, a party that I see as very dangerous to a pluralist future for Israel. At the same time Shinui’s gains are not necessarily positive. Their leader Tommy Lapid, has said some awful things about sephardic Jews that border on racism. His hardline anti-haredi stance borders on discrimination against ultra orthodox. I am not a supporter of the Shas Party and Rabbi Yossef, but they were born out of a sense of exclusion brought on by arrogant secular ashkenazim supremacists like Lappid. I personally hope Labour could gain the most out of this. Amram Mitzna is a man who has a good track record of dealing with Israeli Arabs as mayor of Haifa and also has a strong record of defense. This might fracture Likkud, and a strong Labour Party led by a moderate zionist like Mitzna could be more stable in leading a government should the results change in the next knesset.
I agree with your analysis, Sharon has taken a great risk for the greater good of the region. Netanyahu is just plain acting like a demagogue. He seems to be pandering to the likes of the National Religious Party, a party that I see as very dangerous to a pluralist future for Israel. At the same time Shinui’s gains are not necessarily positive. Their leader Tommy Lapid, has said some awful things about sephardic Jews that border on racism. His hardline anti-haredi stance borders on discrimination against ultra orthodox. I am not a supporter of the Shas Party and Rabbi Yossef, but they were born out of a sense of exclusion brought on by arrogant secular ashkenazim supremacists like Lappid. I personally hope Labour could gain the most out of this. Amram Mitzna is a man who has a good track record of dealing with Israeli Arabs as mayor of Haifa and also has a strong record of defense. This might fracture Likkud, and a strong Labour Party led by a moderate zionist like Mitzna could be more stable in leading a government should the results change in the next knesset.
“no peace if Israel is defending the undefendable”
WOW JAY!!! What happened in your life?? You’ve got laid or what?
More seriously, I think this is a good first step. My main concern being the words of Dov Weissglass from two weeksa go where he clearly stated that this “unilateral move” was in fact freezing the creation of a palestinian state for years and an excuse to keep all colonies in Cis-Jordania…
Hardly a move toward peace.
Vincent-
So long as the Palestinian leadership is dominated by latter day fascists, such as Arafat, there will be no Palestinian state. Listening to Palestinian Ambassador to Ireland the other day on BBC Northern Ireland’s “Hearts and Minds” was shameful. He tried to claim that Arafat had a popular and fair electoral mandate. That sort of claim illustrates just how dillusional Palestinian leadership really is. The good thing here is that Israel is leaving Gaza, this is showing that Sharon can stand up to the settler movement. They are not the kingmakers they once were. This is a move that can do some good in showing Israeli pragmatism and will hopefully lead towards further withdrawals.
The removal of colonies in palestinian territories is probably the best news from the ME in years but Dov Weissglass’s theories on this unilateral retreat did cast a shadow on Sharon’s real intentions. You can try to remove this idea from my mind(and my government, and all palestinians), but the building of the illegitimate barrier in palestinian territories is still an ongoing business today. If they want to seal the west bank and let them starve in their dust, I’m not sure I apporve this plan. Do you?
If Arafat is not the legitimate leader of palestinians, then who is? Who would you rather talk with: The Hamas or some israeli-approved leader? Neither solution would be acceptable. One cannot expect democratic decisions to come from a non-democratic country. Not sharing views with someone should never lead to the end of dialog.
In Algeria, a few years ago, the vote decided to give the power to islamist fundamentalists. Bouteflika decided to cancel this election (after the results were known…). This was possibly a tragedy for democracy but would you rather have the beared guys ruling Algeria today? I don’t.
Just like in Irak: if you wanna have a democratic election, it’s not about giving a voting card to everyone and make sure everybody votes only once! There are some prerequisites such as making sure that everybody can choose for himself (unfortunately, education of masses cannot be delivered by missile), that all candidates are actually represented, etc.