Most of what has been written about Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s departure from the Likud party has compared the move to an “earthquake”, the “eruption of a volcano” and has, without a doubt, turned the Israeli political map “topsy-turvy” to borrow Ha’aretz’s Gideon Samet’s phrase.
Like an earthquake it was unforeseeable — except to the prudent few, mostly in Israeli political circles who predicted a dead-end in Sharon’s dealings with the Likud, the same political party he helped create 30 years ago.
But acknowledging the significance of the undeniably important event is one thing. Succumbing to a flawed analysis that it is a real opportunity to resuscitate the so-called peace process — is entirely a different matter.
Similar to his unilateral move to “disengage” from the Gaza Strip earlier this year, Sharon’s decision on Nov. 21 to jump the Likud ship in favor of a new center-based ‘liberal movement’ — a political party tentatively known as the National Responsibility — the right-wing prime minister managed to, once again, control the media discourse surrounding his newest quest.
Careful exploration of the US media’s coverage of Sharon’s announcement that he — a 77-year-old leader with extensive history of political extremism and longer history of war crimes — has become a “centrist” would reveal a bizarre finding: The media, almost immediately accepted, with little scrutiny to speak of, Sharon’s new self-designated credentials.
Associated Press writer Ramit Plushnick-Masti perceived the event as part of Sharon’s “slow metamorphosis from hawk to moderate.”
Bloomberg rushed to examine the opinion of mostly pro-Israeli apologists. “Israel’s political upheaval may advance Mideast peace prospects,” it hastily concluded.
Alison Caldwell, of Australia’s ABC Radio, referred to Sharon and other Likud defectors as “the more progressive members” of the right-wing party.
The depiction of Sharon as a moderate, risking it all to salvage the peace process, along with his more progressive colleagues is a misguided, if not an embarrassing inference to say the least.
While one can easily decipher the source of the upsurge in Sharon’s reputation in the media as rising ‘liberal’ politician — his decision to disengage from Gaza being the most obvious — one cannot help but wonder whether Sharon’s enthusiasts who hurryingly registered his renewed ‘commitment’ to the Road Map were even aware of his concurrent decision to further expand three major illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories — Maale Adumim, Adam and Ariel. If they were aware of his future designs, wouldn’t responsible journalism compel reporting that the Road Map calls for the halting of settlement expansion?
However, the ongoing portrayal of the process of split-up and formation in Israeli politics as one with the potential of determining the future of the peace process, omits every other fact that may negate such an assertion.
True, the upheaval and subsequent reshuffling that recently took place among the ranks of the Labor Party had more to do with redefining Israel’s priorities than achieving peace with the Palestinians. The deposing of the elitist Deputy Prime Minister and former Labor Party leader Shimon Peres, in favor of the more socialist-like Amir Peretz is in essence an attempt to reroute the government’s focus and resources to poorer Israeli communities, whose plight has deteriorated as a result of the government’s endless spending on its ongoing illegal settlements projects in the West Bank.
Nonetheless, the Likud Party mayhem is essentially ideological. Though the outcome of the Israeli debacle will implausibly yield full recognition of long denied Palestinian rights and the acceptance, without further spins, of international law as the basis of resolving the conflict, one must not unwisely write off scenarios that will possibly emerge following the March 2006 elections.
The Likud and Sharon’s emerging political party have not changed, nor have they substantially altered their ideological interpretation of their conflict with the Palestinians. Even in the midst of the disengagement hype, Sharon never ceased to assure Israelis that the move is tactical, that his commitment to the country’s expansionist project is as ever strong. The prevailing understanding among Israeli officials was that the “painful” and indeed marginal withdrawal from Gaza was merely aimed at altering demographics in favor of Israel, converge the country’s resources to expand West Bank settlements and indefinitely postponing the peace process with the Palestinians.
Thus, if one must accept that Sharon has indeed metamorphosed from one character to another, it was his move from being a right-wing ideologue to a right-wing strategist. Alas, for Palestinians, the end result is the same.
