Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s massive stroke, operations and endless medical bulletins make for an extremely confused political landscape in Israel. Contrary to much reporting in America and Europe most of his policies pointed in the wrong direction.
Sharon was a powerful figure in the region, much boosted by his remarkable influence over President George Bush, who ignored the Israeli’s shocking reputation for cruelty and extremism. While America was frequently irritated by Israel’s actions, or lack of them over the road map, at the end of the day it was Sharon who decided what was going to happen next.
The prime minister liked to keep his options open for as long as he could, and at the time of his stroke nobody knew his long-term strategy. For example, while some of the settlements, presumably the smaller ones, on the West Bank were likely to go because they are difficult to defend and have low priority, even though he had been in power for five years it was not known which ones, what number of settlers would be moved and when this was going to happen.
His strategic adviser, Eyal Arad, said in November that Sharon had reached the conclusion that trading land for peace was not the way to end the conflict with the Palestinians. What was really behind such thinking? Sharon appeared to recognize that Israel could not claim a right to all of the Palestinians’ land.
Land is a crucial issue for the Israelis; why could he not understand it is also a crucial issue for the Palestinians? Land for peace is the only way forward.
Like many Israelis, Prime Minister Sharon saw the problems of Israel-Palestine only as a security matter. That the Palestinians have rights like the Israelis did not seem to make any impression.
That the Palestinians need a strong and healthy economy if they are to have a stable society appeared to cut no ice. Sharon destroyed their airport and their harbor.
He was moving toward an autonomous region for the Palestinians, some form of national home, which would ultimately be controlled by the Israelis who, unlike the Palestinians, would have powerful defense forces. East Jerusalem was never going to be part of it. The new Wall on its planned route would reduce it by 15 percent. In return for such “generosity” Israel would at last have permanent borders. What I cannot understand is how any serious politician could possibly believe that the Palestinians would ever accept such a disgraceful and absurd unilateral plan. We can all see it is a non-starter.
Almost certainly carrying forward such unacceptable and still unclear ideas will fall on the acting Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, who was Ariel Sharon’s loyal deputy for two years. Those who remember the decade when Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem will recoil in disgust at the idea. Although it has been claimed that when mayor he spent almost 20 percent of his time abroad, particularly in America, he was responsible for treating the Palestinians in East Jerusalem harshly in word and deed. Many demolitions of their homes took place.
At least it will be healthy for the Israelis to put the era of selecting ex-generals to become prime minister, such as Ehud Barak, Yitzhak Rabin and Moshe Dayan, behind them. The Israelis like to go for a man who “understands” security issues. The trouble is that the reasons for Israel’s lack of security do not get properly addressed. Ex-generals have tended to provoke the Palestinians and encourage the growth of Hamas.
Olmert will now fight a leadership battle in the Kadima party, which is only nine weeks old and facing defections to both Likud, now under the dreadful Binyamin Netanyahu, and the Labor Party under the former trade unionist Amir Peretz. When it comes to the big fight with the two established parties Kadima will suffer badly from a lack of organization.
I think it is certain that Israel’s new government, and it will be a coalition government, will press on with the Wall that is well behind schedule. Even Peretz wants it to be finished. Yes, it has helped reduce suicide attacks within Israel. But it is not the way forward. That must be on the basis of close and constructive relations with the Palestinians, who bitterly resent this ugly Wall. It is a way of stealing even more of their land.
Two domestic issues have come to the fore in Israeli politics. Increasing poverty in Israel will require answers from those campaigning in the elections in March. As in many other countries how best to fund higher education is now a big talking point.
Israel continues to suffer acutely from the lack of wise and skilled political leadership.
