The Left attacks Prime Minister Ariel Sharon saying he doesn?t mean what he says or that he hasn?t brought security, as he promised. The Right attacks him for being a lackey of George Bush or for not defeating terrorism once and for all or for abandoning some settlements, which he himself was instrumental in creating. The Right goes so far as to suggest that his policies are based on an attempt to get the Left to lay off him on the matter of his conduct in the past, which is currently under police investigation. The Left goes so far as to brand him a war criminal.
As for the use of force, the Left attacks him for being too aggressive and the Right attacks him for not being forceful enough.
They both don?t trust him, but for different reasons. The Left is leery of him because it believes he hasn?t changed, and the Right because it believes he is not his former self.
In the meantime, Sharon has managed to retain a positive approval rating from the majority of Israelis, who reject both the Left and the Right.
To my mind, Ariel Sharon has always been a leader and a fighter. He is a man of bold action. He is his own man. He decides what he thinks is the best course of action and pursues it, with or without approval. He proved this in crossing the Suez in 1973 and in advancing on Beirut in the Lebanese War. He is a general first and a politician second. More like a dictator than a democrat.
The BBC put it this way, ?Ariel Sharon has a thick skin and is proud of it. He does not care who loves or hates him - be they Israelis or Arabs. The one aim in life for the 74-year old former soldier and veteran politician is to ensure total security for Israel on his terms.?
Ariel Sharon himself wrote in November 2000 (http://www.freeman.org/m_online/dec00/sharon.htm):
?To those that have the view that we are facing a situation that dictates either a peace now, at any price, or war, let me assure you: This is not the case. It might serve some people's agenda to portray it in this light, but it's simply not so, because there is wide enough grey area between an immediate peace, at any price, and war.
?[?]We need peace, we want peace - but we are always asked this question: What are you ready to give for peace? The time has arrived that the Palestinians - or any other Arab country - should be asked this question: What, gentlemen, because peace is important for you not less than for us, what are you willing to do for peace??
It is this middle course that he is following, and that is why he has the support of the Israeli centre.
In December 2002, at the Herzliya Conference, after a year of bloody terrorism and of numerous consultations between Washington and Israel and a seminal speech by Bush in June, Prime Minister Sharon had this to say:
?From the first days of the establishment of the State of Israel, our bond with the United States has been a supreme strategic asset. My Government has further consolidated our relations with the United States and formed a special closeness with the U.S. Administration and Congress. These special relations, the understanding of Israel's needs, and the cooperation with President Bush and his administration are unprecedented. Israel has in the United States true friends who genuinely and honestly care for our security.
?[?]Our political understandings with the United States and the Administration's understanding of our security needs have provided us with the required leeway in our ongoing war on terrorism.
?[?]On June 24th this year, President Bush presented his plan for a true solution to our conflict with the Palestinians. The peace plan outlined in the President's speech is a reasonable, pragmatic and practicable one, which offers a real opportunity to achieve an agreement. We have accepted in principle the President's plan and the sequence presented therein.
?[?]After concerted efforts, the U.S. Administration has understood and agreed that the only way to achieve a true peace agreement with the Palestinians is progress in phases, with the first phase being a complete cessation of terror.?
This doesn?t sound like the words of a man who is afraid of President Bush, but of a man who is in full agreement with him and who had a large share in working out the best approach.
Major events followed in 2003, which necessitated adjustments to these plans. Firstly, the need for the US to form a coalition for the war against Iraq resulted in the launch of the Roadmap, which Israel accepted subject to the fourteen red lines. As you recall, Sharon didn?t resist the plan, but was its advocate in getting the conditional approval from his Cabinet. Sharon also advised that it was time to divide the land and accepted a Palestinian State as being inevitable. He also advised that certain settlements would have to be abandoned. Neither Israel nor the US wants Israel to expel all the Palestinians or to absorb them. This is the only practical solution. As to whether this State should be joined to Jordan later is a mere detail.
The US and Israel attempted to marginalize Arafat, to get a transformation of the PA, and to bring about a cessation of terror, as Bush's June speech envisioned. Not meeting with success, they, Sharon and Bush, decided to alter their plans and to favour a Palestinian State in any event. This new approach necessitated unilateral disengagement. This appeared preferable than waiting for the Palestinians to fulfill the original conditions. The only thing that hasn?t been made clear is whether the IDF would withdraw from the abandoned territories. I think not. Also, there appears to be some differences in the route of the fence. I submit that these differences are more apparent than real. The US must appear to be restraining Israel in order to appear more even-handed.
Meanwhile, we see much evidence that the US and Israel are working hand-in-hand in their efforts to transform the Middle East.
Israel bombed Syria and is not pursuing peace talks with Syria - both with the US approval. They are working together to get Syria to cross over, which includes withdrawing support for terrorism, whether in Israel or Iraq, and turning over to the US the money and WMD they received from Iraq.
The US has managed to get Libya moving in the right direction. I wouldn?t be surprised if Libya met with Israel and announced that it was considering compensating Jewish refugees at the urging of the US.
Similarly, both Israel and the US are putting pressure on Iran in a coordinated manner. Remember all the leaks suggesting that neither Israel nor the US would permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons? To this end, Israel also leaked that they had military plans to destroy the Iranian facilities.
And finally, the military cooperation between Israel and the US is unprecedented and extensive, though not publicly discussed.
As for fighting terrorism, Israel continues to do what it has to do without any criticism from the US.
I rest my case.
As for the use of force, the Left attacks him for being too aggressive and the Right attacks him for not being forceful enough.
They both don?t trust him, but for different reasons. The Left is leery of him because it believes he hasn?t changed, and the Right because it believes he is not his former self.
In the meantime, Sharon has managed to retain a positive approval rating from the majority of Israelis, who reject both the Left and the Right.
To my mind, Ariel Sharon has always been a leader and a fighter. He is a man of bold action. He is his own man. He decides what he thinks is the best course of action and pursues it, with or without approval. He proved this in crossing the Suez in 1973 and in advancing on Beirut in the Lebanese War. He is a general first and a politician second. More like a dictator than a democrat.
The BBC put it this way, ?Ariel Sharon has a thick skin and is proud of it. He does not care who loves or hates him - be they Israelis or Arabs. The one aim in life for the 74-year old former soldier and veteran politician is to ensure total security for Israel on his terms.?
Ariel Sharon himself wrote in November 2000 (http://www.freeman.org/m_online/dec00/sharon.htm):
?To those that have the view that we are facing a situation that dictates either a peace now, at any price, or war, let me assure you: This is not the case. It might serve some people's agenda to portray it in this light, but it's simply not so, because there is wide enough grey area between an immediate peace, at any price, and war.
?[?]We need peace, we want peace - but we are always asked this question: What are you ready to give for peace? The time has arrived that the Palestinians - or any other Arab country - should be asked this question: What, gentlemen, because peace is important for you not less than for us, what are you willing to do for peace??
It is this middle course that he is following, and that is why he has the support of the Israeli centre.
In December 2002, at the Herzliya Conference, after a year of bloody terrorism and of numerous consultations between Washington and Israel and a seminal speech by Bush in June, Prime Minister Sharon had this to say:
?From the first days of the establishment of the State of Israel, our bond with the United States has been a supreme strategic asset. My Government has further consolidated our relations with the United States and formed a special closeness with the U.S. Administration and Congress. These special relations, the understanding of Israel's needs, and the cooperation with President Bush and his administration are unprecedented. Israel has in the United States true friends who genuinely and honestly care for our security.
?[?]Our political understandings with the United States and the Administration's understanding of our security needs have provided us with the required leeway in our ongoing war on terrorism.
?[?]On June 24th this year, President Bush presented his plan for a true solution to our conflict with the Palestinians. The peace plan outlined in the President's speech is a reasonable, pragmatic and practicable one, which offers a real opportunity to achieve an agreement. We have accepted in principle the President's plan and the sequence presented therein.
?[?]After concerted efforts, the U.S. Administration has understood and agreed that the only way to achieve a true peace agreement with the Palestinians is progress in phases, with the first phase being a complete cessation of terror.?
This doesn?t sound like the words of a man who is afraid of President Bush, but of a man who is in full agreement with him and who had a large share in working out the best approach.
Major events followed in 2003, which necessitated adjustments to these plans. Firstly, the need for the US to form a coalition for the war against Iraq resulted in the launch of the Roadmap, which Israel accepted subject to the fourteen red lines. As you recall, Sharon didn?t resist the plan, but was its advocate in getting the conditional approval from his Cabinet. Sharon also advised that it was time to divide the land and accepted a Palestinian State as being inevitable. He also advised that certain settlements would have to be abandoned. Neither Israel nor the US wants Israel to expel all the Palestinians or to absorb them. This is the only practical solution. As to whether this State should be joined to Jordan later is a mere detail.
The US and Israel attempted to marginalize Arafat, to get a transformation of the PA, and to bring about a cessation of terror, as Bush's June speech envisioned. Not meeting with success, they, Sharon and Bush, decided to alter their plans and to favour a Palestinian State in any event. This new approach necessitated unilateral disengagement. This appeared preferable than waiting for the Palestinians to fulfill the original conditions. The only thing that hasn?t been made clear is whether the IDF would withdraw from the abandoned territories. I think not. Also, there appears to be some differences in the route of the fence. I submit that these differences are more apparent than real. The US must appear to be restraining Israel in order to appear more even-handed.
Meanwhile, we see much evidence that the US and Israel are working hand-in-hand in their efforts to transform the Middle East.
Israel bombed Syria and is not pursuing peace talks with Syria - both with the US approval. They are working together to get Syria to cross over, which includes withdrawing support for terrorism, whether in Israel or Iraq, and turning over to the US the money and WMD they received from Iraq.
The US has managed to get Libya moving in the right direction. I wouldn?t be surprised if Libya met with Israel and announced that it was considering compensating Jewish refugees at the urging of the US.
Similarly, both Israel and the US are putting pressure on Iran in a coordinated manner. Remember all the leaks suggesting that neither Israel nor the US would permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons? To this end, Israel also leaked that they had military plans to destroy the Iranian facilities.
And finally, the military cooperation between Israel and the US is unprecedented and extensive, though not publicly discussed.
As for fighting terrorism, Israel continues to do what it has to do without any criticism from the US.
I rest my case.