Last night, I had a very interesting discussion with a friend of mine who considers himself to be right-wing when it comes to Israeli politics. I would also consider him to be right-wing. What distinguishes him from many right-wingers in the country are his views on Ariel Sharon.
To put it simply, he loves the guy. He thinks that Ariel Sharon is a brilliant man. A genius, to put it in his own words. My friend shudders to think what would happen to this country when Ariel Sharon is no longer Prime Minister.
I have generally been disappointed with Ariel Sharon. I think many of us here in Israel expected the Ariel Sharon of old. The Ariel Sharon who projected a sense of confidence and security. Instead, we have seen a man who has accepted a flawed road map for peace (albeit with reservations), agreed to the release of hundreds of PLO Arab prisoners (some of whom have murdered Israelis after their release) and indicated an intention to unilaterally withdraw from territories, despite ongoing violence and terrorism. Yet, after the discussion with my friend, I am unsure as to where I stand vis-a-vis Sharon.
My friend argues that Sharon is a brilliant strategist who has promised a lot to the PLO Arabs, but has actually not given over any territories . At the same time, he has managed to accomplish a number of things that previous Israeli governments have not been able to accomplish. In the words of Uri Avnery (whose views I do not generally share):
Don’t pay attention to what Sharon says, pay attention to what Sharon does. His pronouncements can be ignored, they serve only to fulfil the tactical requirements of the moment. But his actions are very, very important.
For a start, under Sharon’s government, Israeli troops have once again been able to operate in the so-called PA-controlled areas. On Jan 21, 2001, Israeli troops seized Tulkarm, the first time since the uprising began that Israel occupied an entire town. From that point onwards, Israel started operating in the PA-controlled areas, whether it be a brief show of strength by Israeli tanks, or more extensive operations such as in Ramallah and Jenin.
As a result of the more extensive IDF operations, 2003 saw a 30% drop in the number of terror attacks and a drop of over 50% in the number of fatalities over the previous year.
Under Sharon, Israel has also begun construction on the much-needed security fence, which will not only enhance security for Israeli citizens, but will also allow the IDF to focus its operations in specific areas, increasing its effectiveness and dealing a further blow to the terrorists.
On the other hand, the Sharon government has not given the PLO Arabs one inch of territory, unlike previous Israeli governments. Sure, he has agreed to a PLO Arab state, but maybe it is part of his strategy. Maybe Sharon knows they will never crack down on terror, which he has stated as a prerequisite to the state.
Contrast this with Benjamin Netanyahu, who spoke the language of hardliners, yet once in government, shook Arafat’s hand and transferred control of Hebron and Jericho to the PLO Arabs. Ariel Sharon has seemed much more flexible than Netanyahu, but his actions have indicated otherwise.
This is the essence of my friend’s argument and, I must say, it has provided me with food for thought. I accept that Sharon has achieved much for Israel’s security, but I am not entirely sure that all of his actions are within the rubric of an ingenius game of chess on his part. I believe that he is also motivated by US pressure, which is not always in Israel’s best interests. He may also be motivated by a personal ambition to be “the peacemaker”, much like Rabin and Peres.
There is no doubt that the Sharon of the past was a brilliant strategist. I only hope that history proves my friend correct about the Sharon of now.
