Ariel Sharon's Motivations
What is motivating Ariel Sharon,the Prime Minister of Israel, to unilaterally and forcefully withdraw Jewish settlers from Gaza? Frankly, I don't understand it.
When Sharon was campaigning during the last election he specifically promised that he wouldn't take unilateral action, in contrast to his Labour Party opponent's position at that time. So, this was not a strategy that for Sharon was a long-held philosophical and strategic belief. As well, in the process, he has undermined the political base of his own Likud party which is now split over his determined withdrawal policy. I know that politics makes strange bed-fellows, especially in Israel, but his alliance with Shimon Peres that ultimately bolsters the Labour party at the expense of his own party is more that strange, it is political suicide.
And there is no doubt in my mind that when Hamas and Palestinian Authority spokemen assert that the pullout from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank is an Israeli surrender due to unrelenting terrorism that they are absolutely right. Why else is this terrible rift in Israeli society taking place, if it were not the case that terrorism has made the cost of maintaining Jews in Gaza too high?
I know some pundits argue that Sharon is doing this to curry favour with George Bush, but although that may be true now after Sharon came up with this proposal, Bush was not instrumental in devising this policy and had no part in its initiation. Others say Sharon used this program as a diversionary tactic to distract from questionable financial dealings that were under consideration for his indictment. Maybe. But that means that the judiciary in Israel is readily compromised. On the contrary, the Israeli judiciary is respected as the least corruptible institution of any.
I'm saying that Sharon's present passion for withdrawal doesn't make sense in the context of who Sharon is, his record as a conservative, his earlier view of the defensive value of settlements, and his political affiliation. Therefore, I ask myself the question I asked about the late Yitzhak Rabin. Is he a traitor, a hero, or a dupe? (In a later blog I will tell you the answer to this question in relation to Rabin.) With regard to Sharon, he's not a traitor. He can and has been reckless, undermined Begin's authority, was unrestrainable in some other military undertakings, but he was decidedly loyal to the country. Not necessarily smart, not necessarily scrupulously honest, but loyal. Is he a dupe, that is, has he been taken in by Palestinian promises that they never meant to honour, offering peace and security in exchange for Israeli concessions? I don't think so! At no time has he shirked from the recognition that the Palestinian war is a terrorist war, and that they can be converted from enemy into partner by the signature on a paper. So is he a hero? No. But I think he'd like to leave a legacy that in the end he did heroic deeds, difficult but worthwhile deeds, making him a potential recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I wish it will turn out to be true and that Sharon can realize this heroic posture because that would mean that the withdrawal was a successful strategy and that Israel was safer as a result. Only I don't believe that will be the outcome.
On the contrary, I think the withdrawal strenthens the possibilities and determination of the Palestinian terrorist organizations. It makes it less necessary for Mahmoud Abbas to actually do what he has promised but has failed to do, which is to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. And it will give the Europeans more justification for supporting Palestinian terrorism and condemning Israel, which they are wont to do the more that Israel makes concessions. (It doesn't make sense but that's what the Europeans do). All in all, the withdrawal I'm afraid is another instance, like Oslo, of Israeli self-delusion. I would expect this of the left-- and indeed the left is ecstatic -- but where does the Ariel Sharon we used to know come to be the author of such a misdirected policy?
When Sharon was campaigning during the last election he specifically promised that he wouldn't take unilateral action, in contrast to his Labour Party opponent's position at that time. So, this was not a strategy that for Sharon was a long-held philosophical and strategic belief. As well, in the process, he has undermined the political base of his own Likud party which is now split over his determined withdrawal policy. I know that politics makes strange bed-fellows, especially in Israel, but his alliance with Shimon Peres that ultimately bolsters the Labour party at the expense of his own party is more that strange, it is political suicide.
And there is no doubt in my mind that when Hamas and Palestinian Authority spokemen assert that the pullout from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank is an Israeli surrender due to unrelenting terrorism that they are absolutely right. Why else is this terrible rift in Israeli society taking place, if it were not the case that terrorism has made the cost of maintaining Jews in Gaza too high?
I know some pundits argue that Sharon is doing this to curry favour with George Bush, but although that may be true now after Sharon came up with this proposal, Bush was not instrumental in devising this policy and had no part in its initiation. Others say Sharon used this program as a diversionary tactic to distract from questionable financial dealings that were under consideration for his indictment. Maybe. But that means that the judiciary in Israel is readily compromised. On the contrary, the Israeli judiciary is respected as the least corruptible institution of any.
I'm saying that Sharon's present passion for withdrawal doesn't make sense in the context of who Sharon is, his record as a conservative, his earlier view of the defensive value of settlements, and his political affiliation. Therefore, I ask myself the question I asked about the late Yitzhak Rabin. Is he a traitor, a hero, or a dupe? (In a later blog I will tell you the answer to this question in relation to Rabin.) With regard to Sharon, he's not a traitor. He can and has been reckless, undermined Begin's authority, was unrestrainable in some other military undertakings, but he was decidedly loyal to the country. Not necessarily smart, not necessarily scrupulously honest, but loyal. Is he a dupe, that is, has he been taken in by Palestinian promises that they never meant to honour, offering peace and security in exchange for Israeli concessions? I don't think so! At no time has he shirked from the recognition that the Palestinian war is a terrorist war, and that they can be converted from enemy into partner by the signature on a paper. So is he a hero? No. But I think he'd like to leave a legacy that in the end he did heroic deeds, difficult but worthwhile deeds, making him a potential recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I wish it will turn out to be true and that Sharon can realize this heroic posture because that would mean that the withdrawal was a successful strategy and that Israel was safer as a result. Only I don't believe that will be the outcome.
On the contrary, I think the withdrawal strenthens the possibilities and determination of the Palestinian terrorist organizations. It makes it less necessary for Mahmoud Abbas to actually do what he has promised but has failed to do, which is to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. And it will give the Europeans more justification for supporting Palestinian terrorism and condemning Israel, which they are wont to do the more that Israel makes concessions. (It doesn't make sense but that's what the Europeans do). All in all, the withdrawal I'm afraid is another instance, like Oslo, of Israeli self-delusion. I would expect this of the left-- and indeed the left is ecstatic -- but where does the Ariel Sharon we used to know come to be the author of such a misdirected policy?
posted by Professor Sal at 11:57 AM
2 Comments:
Geoff, thanks for writing your very interesting analysis of the intended Israeli pullout from Aza. I respect your opinion a) because you know what you are talking about, and b) because you are living the situation and I'm not.
But there's always a but or buts, and here they are.
Firstly, I don't have the confidence that you seem to have in the reliability of Israeli politicians decision-making. After all, no other country past or present invited its enemy into its midst and armed it to boot. And it wasn't only Rabin who was responsible for the disaster we call Oslo, but also Peres and Beiling and 56 other Jewish Knesset members (two of whom were bribed by Rabin) who voted Oslo into law. There are too many motivations other than national interest that are evident in Israeli politicians' acts and tactics. You could say the same for Canadian politicians, but not as much is at stake here.
My second point is in response to your certainty that Palestinian intended terrorism is irrelevant because it persists. I wouldn't argue with that. But you must admit that policies make a difference to the effectiveness of terrorism. The targetting of Hamas leaders has seen some good results, according to all I've read. My problem with the Sharon program is that it seems to be weak on the strategic side. I wouldn't say that relying on Egypt to stop smuggling of armaments to the Palestinians in Aza is a good plan. Nor do I think that Abbas is a partner in stopping the terrorists either from among his own group or Hamas. He says the right words, but isn't any different than Arafat in results.
Again I say that I hope I'm wrong regarding my scepticism of Sharon's policy. After Oslo, I wrote and spoke about its dangers to Israel, always ending with the wish that I hoped I'd be proven wrong. Unfortunately, I wasn't wrong then. Maybe this time will be different. I can only hope.
Geoff;
In some respects what you've argued about the withdrawal (or disengagement as you prefer ) from Aza is encouraging to me. I want to hear a reasoned argument for this drastic undertaking because I'm so fearful of the results. Much of that deep concern is due to my lack of confidence in the political leadership in Israel. You seem to have respect for Sharon's essential loyalty to the State over and above his personal goals, a rarity for Israeli leaders, I must say. It has been my belief that the greatness of Israel has emerged through the amazing quality of "Amchah", in spite of the crassness of the politicians and the political system. If you are right about Sharon, and I hope you are, then perhaps the outcome of the withdrawal will prove as beneficial as you perceive. Although I will have to see it to believe it that it will be a strategic improvement as you suggest.
Another aspect which will be a consequence of the pullout will be the international pressures on Israel to maintain hands off once they're out. Do you think that Sharon will or could resist such international pressure? One thing I do see about Sharon is that he plays up to the Bush and now I see him making nice with Chirac in France. How will his desire to be respected, if not loved, by those foreign powers play out after the withdrawal? Not well, I suspect because I think Sharon cares about his legacy, especially after the Lebanon smear of his name.
What we haven't talked about is the timing of this undertaking. There's no doubt in my mind that the last 4 years of terrorism has been instrumental in the desire to get out of Aza. The pullout from Lebanon inspired the intifada of the last 4 years. I already read of Palestinian intentions to use this withdrawal as the evidence that Israel will succumb to more of the same in Judea and Samaria if they carry on their terrorist war. How much assurance do you have that the political leadership will not appease the next round of the Palestinian war through other more harmful withdrawals?
These are the thoughts of a concerned lover of Zion, one who nevertheless lives in the diaspora, but has no hard and rigid commitment to any ideology as such. Indeed, it is my view that any ideological bond is a danger to society. When I used to teach John Stuart Mill's works, there was a key answer that he gave to a questioner in his Autobiography, which was as follows; to the question as to which school of thought he belongs to, the answer was no school. The whole essence of liberty, and of course he was one founder of the concepts of liberalism, is a mind not bound by the rigidities of an ideology.
I like Jabotinsky's views that you summarized, and I think you would be a follower of Mill's also, from what I glean from your commentary.
Post a Comment
<< Home