When he was elected Israeli prime minister almost two years ago, Ariel Sharon promised his people “peace and security”. He has so far failed to deliver either; yet he remains popular, both in the eyes of the Likud rank-and-file and the Israeli electorate generally. He handily defeated Benjamin Netanyahu in the Likud primaries last week and stands poised to win re-election in January.
The policies of Sharon’s government have brought the personal safety of Israeli citizens to one of the lowest points for many years. The Israeli economy is in recession and there is an unemployment rate of over 10 percent. In the midst of such gloom, Netanyahu had every reason to believe that he would have posed a credible threat. His political strategy was obvious: He wanted to win party support by being even more hard-line than Sharon. In the run-up to Thursday’s primary vote, Netanyahu said his first task if elected prime minister would be to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from the West Bank. And he demanded that Sharon oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.
Across Israel, the electorate has moved to the right in response to Palestinian attacks and thus Netanyahu’s platform should have been highly attractive. However, most Israelis can also foresee that sending Arafat into exile would have repercussions too frightening to consider.
As for a Palestinian state, Sharon speaks of one arising at the vague and distant end of a phased peace process that could start only when the present violence ends. He is vague on what he wants it to look like but he is on record as saying that it will be totally demilitarized and unarmed and that Israel will control its borders and airspace. No wonder polls show a majority of Israeli voters, even those who said they supported Netanyahu, support the creation of such a state. Most Israelis could live with such a state; most Palestinians could not.
In contrast, few Israelis are in the mood to accept a dove like Amram Mitzna, the Labour Party standard-bearer who will challenge Sharon for the premiership on Jan. 28. Surveys say Sharon could dispose of Mitzna as easily as he did Netanyahu but for an entirely different reason.
Mitzna favors a unilateral pullout from the West Bank and is promising to withdraw Israeli settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip should he become prime minister. He is also promising to resume peace negotiations with the Palestinians in spite of continuing violence — even with Arafat.
If negotiations fail, Mitzna says, he will unilaterally disengage Israel from the Palestinians, although he dodges questions on just how he would do so. There is little indication so far that Mitzna’s approach will win broad support among Israelis. They would rather stick with Sharon than go for Mitzna, who is perceived to be ready to compromise too much, or Netanyahu, seen as an opportunist ready to raise the level of violence to unprecedented heights.
They prefer Sharon who talks of “painful concessions” but has never said explicitly what the term means. He is their man because he has shown an ability to keep on promising peace while destroying every possibility of achieving it.
