So Israel goes to the polls on March 28, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s extraordinary decision to leave the Likud Party, which he was partly responsible for founding in 1973, and form a new Center-Right party, will be put to the test.
Much of the British media has a benign image of this overweight former paratrooper. He is seen to be about to pick up the ball of Middle East peace and run forward vigorously with it. This is wrong. He is an opportunistic bad guy.
While Sharon was clearly a bold and able soldier, he also built up a reputation for being cruel and ruthless. He was the Colonel of Commandos, who led the retaliatory raids against the Palestinian units that infiltrated into Israel in the 1950s. He was the minister of defense who led Israel into war with the Lebanon in 1982. An Israeli inquiry found him “indirectly responsible” for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres near Beirut.
In 2000 he made a reckless visit to the wailing wall in the Al-Aqsa compound guarded by some 1,000 Israeli police and helped set off the Palestinian intifada. As prime minister he is responsible for the Israeli wall that has been condemned throughout the world. One thinks also of one assassination after another in the occupied territories, and the smashing of the Palestinian Authority and its infrastructure.
He has been a principal architect of Israel’s vast and illegal settlements. In 1998 he encouraged his supporters to: “Grab more hills. We’ll expand the area. Whatever is seized will be ours. Whatever isn’t seized will end up in their hands.” His successful withdrawal from Gaza has been well described as a “partial compliance with international law within a broader context of oppression.”
Gaza had little historic association with the Jewish people, and there was much resentment over the high number of soldiers who had to guard the 8,000 settlers. The withdrawal was carried out after minimum consultation with the Palestinians and I, for one, believe he intends to strengthen his grip on the West Bank. Apparently he told the settlers leaving Gaza that their sacrifice was not in vain for that reason.
Why has Sharon walked out of Likud? In his words it had become “insufferable” after so many of its members opposed the abandonment of Gaza. He was spending more and more of his time arguing behind the scenes with its members. It was a parting of the ways for ideological reasons.
The Israeli Labour Party is now led by Amir Peretz, aged 53, who ousted Shimon Peres a few weeks ago. Labour was determined to come out of the ruling coalition led by Sharon. Peretz is a left-wing trade union leader and he wants to concentrate more on economic and social issues. Sharon has now created a new Party. He took 13 Likud members with him, and he believes there is a center ground for him now in Israeli politics. He will hope to isolate Likud on the far right, and he considers Benjamin Netanyahu, the likely new Likud leader who is a permanent plotter, will lack popular support. In Israel, as in other democratic countries, the creation of a new political party is most difficult and takes time, money and able leadership. In Britain only a few years ago the Social Democrats under Roy Jenkins broke away from the Labour Party, and after a heady start their support fell away and they merged with the Liberal Party. Polls in Israel today suggest Sharon will gain a commanding lead in the elections. I am not so sure. He has a sporting chance of being back as prime minister after March 28; but there is also a chance he is approaching the end of his political career.
Such a realignment of the political landscape in Israel will cause great confusion among the voters. The Palestinians, who have their own elections scheduled for January, are watching Israel’s changing political scene with fascination. Their chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, was quoted as saying: “I hope that, when the dust settles, we will have a partner in Israel to go to the end of the game, toward the end of conflict, toward a final agreement.” For the next few months both the Israelis and the Palestinians will have eyes only for domestic politics.
Optimists like to claim that only a strong right-winger like Sharon has the ability and standing to make a deal with the Palestinians. They mention De Gaulle and Algeria, Nixon and China, Begin and the withdrawal from Sinai. My personal view is that Sharon, at 77, is not about to change his spots. I also doubt if the Israelis are yet ready to accept a proper Palestinian state that includes East Jerusalem.
