 |  |
Click for Contents
|
P.O. Box 1805,Jerusalem 91017 Tel. 972-2-531-5440, Fax: 972-2-537-9489 Advertising Fax: 972-2-531-5425, Email Editorial: [email protected] Subscriptions: [email protected] Web site: http://www.jrep.com |
Same Sharon, Same Dangers
Gershom Gorenberg
The leader who responded to the assassination with invasion acted just like the old Sharon
We don't know exactly when Ariel Sharon came up with the idea of invading West Bank cities. Neither do we know precisely when he settled into the thought that getting rid of Yasser Arafat wouldn�t be a bad idea, when he began swatting the idea back and forth in his mind that eliminating the chairman didn�t really mean that the Hamas or Islamic Jihad would take his place as the power in Palestinian politics � the assertions Sharon has reportedly been making in private conversations in recent days. Let�s imagine the words began falling into clear sentences in his mind very late at night, in the quiet of his living room after another endless day of work, perhaps a cup of tea in his hand, only a Shin Bet bodyguard in the shadows to keep him company. You have to ask whether, in his contemplation, he had an itching of d�j� vu, whether he remembered that two decades ago in a similar mood he�d pictured tanks moving into another piece of territory and establishing a government that would make peace on his terms.
We do know that Sharon heard of the murder of Tourism Minister Rechavam Zeevy on the morning of October 17. But when the thought hit him that now he had the reason he required to send the troops into Bethlehem and Ramallah and Tul Karm � did he remember then that he�d responded the same way 19 years before to a terror hit against an Israeli official, arguing that now was the time to move in and clear out the terrorists?
Whether or not Sharon felt d�j� vu, we must. As candidate for prime minister, Sharon promised to end terror, a promise that rested on his wildcat military past. But he also promised peace, and more than anything he said nothing. The obvious reason was that the candidate that the public truly wanted was �None of the Above� and Sharon sought to be that candidate. The generation of leaders meant to replace Sharon�s generation had risen quickly and fallen more quickly, and his spinmeisters told Sharon that the old could inherit the young if only he could be silent. Meanwhile, confidants speaking on and off the record told us Sharon had changed, mellowed, learned not to use words as blunt instruments, learned to think thrice before acting.
Zeevy�s death testifies that we have not reached peace or security. And a new Sharon? The prime minister who carefully decided to suggest that the American president was behaving like Neville Chamberlain spoke like the old Sharon, the man ready to shout perfidy in place of making reasoned criticism. The leader who responded to the assassination with invasion acted like the old Sharon, even if Washington put some brakes on his plans.
Let�s pause for a moment�s thought about Palestinians gunning down Zeevy. Not only was the act murder, it was an attack of a new kind on the state, a frightening escalation of the conflict. It was also a direct product of the policy of assassinating Palestinians, which reached its extreme in the August killing of a major political figure, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP�s response was to target a political figure. Rather than realize that assassinations were not improving Israeli security, Sharon ordered more � and sent the troops in.
The murder of an Israeli minister required a reaction, but that fact does not make every reaction justifiable, or beneficial to Israel. The deaths of bystanders, the razing of houses, the renewal of occupation are more likely to feed terror than end it.
The American response to the invasion apparently deepened Sharon�s feeling that he hadn�t done enough to legitimize a full-scale attack. That�s the context for renewed leaks that he has a diplomatic initiative ready. Now if Sharon had an offer that a piece of the Palestinian public could consider as a way to get out of the failed uprising, he might reduce support for the terrorists. Even proposals that were rejected a year ago might create domestic and international pressure on Arafat to end the pain, bloodshed and exhaustion, and let life begin again. According to the leaks, though, the offer Sharon intends to make is one that Arafat has to refuse. At that point, Sharon apparently hopes, Arafat will have proved he�s no partner for peace.
The old Sharon believed he could replace Arab leaders with people who�d do Israel�s bidding. As defense minister in the early 80s, he tried to build the so-called Village Leagues in the West Bank as an alternative to the PLO. The effort flopped. He dreamed of turning Jordan into a Palestinian state � presumably, one ready to settle for the East Bank. The grandest effort was the bid to put Christian puppets in power in Beirut. The result: Instead of the PLO in South Lebanon, we got Hizballah, a war in Lebanon that lasted years, and a deepening of Palestinian frustration that led to the first intifada.
Now Sharon apparently dreams of replacing Arafat. Arafat, granted, is no Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela. But what we are likely to get in his place, particularly if he falls as a result of Israeli military action, is a Palestinian version of Taliban.
Ladies and gentleman, the new Sharon, who is the old Sharon, is not leading Israel to security. The fact that he is Israel�s elected leader should not blind anyone who cares about this country. There are times when the deepest expression of loyalty to a country � by its citizens or those who support it from afar � is to criticize its leaders, not defend them. This is such a time.
(November 19, 2001)
Columnists
|
 |
|
© The Jerusalem Report 1999-2001 |  |