This week, Likud party members will be electing the movement?s chairman, who will also be the party candidate for prime minister. The Likud primaries are more fateful than ever this time, as the leader elected will, it appears, have the honor of serving as the next prime minister of the State of Israel. Likud voters need to answer two questions for themselves before they cast their ballots: 1) Which candidate is faithful and committed to the movement?s ideology?; and 2) Which candidate will better handle the country?s foreign relations, security and financial policies?
Today, every sensible person realizes that there is an ideological distinction between the two leading candidates. It will be remembered that the current party chairman, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, accepted upon himself the idea of creating a Palestinian state and even publicly declared that such a state already exists. The opposing candidate, Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, consistently and forcefully rejects the creation of an Arab state west of the Jordan river. The creation of such a state would be in absolute contradiction of the Likud party position, and would be, of its very essence and due to its sovereign status, an ongoing threat to the existence of the state of Israel. The utter disregard with which the current chairman treated the principles, platform and constitution of the party (at the Likud central committee conference, May 12, 2002), along with the political bait-and-switch that he carried out, should incense every Likud voter for whom the ideology represented by the movement?s flag matters, and who is guided by the principles of democracy. Not only has the current chairman pushed the Likud far to the left of its own ideology, he explicitly promises that if he is elected he will again form a national unity government. Shall Likud voters give a renewed mandate to the current chairman only in order to receive, ultimately, Amram Mitzna as defense minister and/or Shimon Peres as foreign minister in the next government?
Anyone with eyes in his head has to reach the conclusion today that Mr. Sharon has been a dismal failure in foreign relations, security, economic and social policies. For more than a full year, he operated under the ridiculous slogan ?restraint is power? and carried out a passive policy, which cost us hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded. Even when the IDF was finally sent into action, it became clear that the problem of terrorism was not being treated consistently nor efficiently enough. Instead of moving towards a decisive war to completely destroy the terrorist infrastructure, as called for by the foreign minister, Mr. Sharon continues to wear down the army and the home front in a pointless war of attrition, while terrorism continues to strike us in the most horrendous way almost every day. In contrast, the consistent policy of deterrence that was carried out against the Palestinian Authority in the years 1996 - 1999 brought about a period of almost absolute calm (one could count the number of terrorist attacks during that period on the fingers of one hand, as opposed to the hundreds of attacks during Prime Minister Sharon?s short incumbency).
Mr. Sharon excuses his inconsistent policy and the limitations placed on the army in its war against Arab terrorism by pointing out the need to take into consideration global American interests. Despite the great importance of our close relationship with the United States, the readiness of Mr. Sharon to automatically fall in line with any American initiatives and demands, which do not always coincide with the basic interests of Israel, is extremely inexplicable. As a result of American pressure, the IDF withdrew, time after time, from Palestinian population centers and centers of terrorism, and even transferred hundreds of millions of shekels to the enemy Palestinian Authority. As is known, those steps only contributed to the continuation of terrorist attacks. More than that, if it had been solely dependent on the ?special understanding? between Mr. Sharon and President Bush, Israeli counter-terrorist operations would have remained greatly limited in their scope. As will be recalled, President Bush and the National Security Advisor called upon Israel in a most forthright manner - a mere seven days into the IDF operation - to immediately withdraw from territories she had conquered during Operation Defensive Shield. Binyamin Netanyahu?s shining appearances in those days before Congress, at the massive demonstration in support of Israel and in the American media, in addition to his meetings with top leaders in Washington, played a critical role in easing the American pressure and effectively allowed the IDF to act with a free hand for a long period of time.
Had Mr. Sharon known, all along, how to take maximum advantage of the massive support for Israel in the American public and in Congress - particularly after the events of September 11, 2001 - Israel would not have found itself, again and again, unnecessarily on the defensive politically. It had been claimed, until a short time ago, that the ?Bush vision? for the Middle East (which was a direct result of Sharon?s unfortunate Latrun statement in favor of a Palestinian state) is irrelevant, but then along came the current item on the agenda - the American ?road map?, which is meant to be implemented under the supervision of an international body called the ?Quartet?. In its current incarnation, the ?vision? is no longer merely a theoretical topic, but a concrete plan, fraught with dangers and including real, irreversible concessions on the part of Israel, in exchange for recycled, out-dated Palestinian promises. Among other things, Israel is expected to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in ?temporary borders? already during the course of 2003, something not even demanded under the terms of the Oslo Accords. Mr. Sharon surely has an explanation as to how Israel has arrived almost at the point of fulfilling Yasser Arafat?s greatest wish, the internationalization of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite the prime minister?s ?special relationship? with President Bush.
Mr. Sharon?s socio-economic policies have also been a complete failure. Those policies have brought the Israeli society and economy to an almost unprecedented low, in terms of growth rates, exchange rates, unemployment levels and the poverty index. In contrast, the economic policies of the years 1996 - 1999 brought about significant growth, the creation of thousands of new jobs, and foreign capital investment of an all-time high. Instead of carrying out an economic policy with vision, based, among other things, on lowering taxes, privatization, and infrastructure building - as recommended by Foreign Minister Netanyahu - Mr. Sharon prefers to depend on further economic aid from the United States, which will further deepen our dependence on that country. Moreover, Mr. Sharon - as Shimon Peres in his day - directly links improvement in the economic situation to the achievement of a diplomatic agreement with the Palestinians. The foreign minister strongly objects to that absurd condition, which essentially makes the Israeli economy a hostage to the good will of Yasser Arafat.
For all of the above reasons, the choice has to be as clear as day. Still, there are quite a few ?undecideds? considering voting for a third candidate (their number is at most 5% of the total number of potential voters). This group of Likud members may determine the outcome in the event of a close race between the two leading candidates, and bring about a final result in the first round of voting (the winner needs only 40% of the votes). There is, therefore, a heavy responsibility on the shoulders of those members, and their vote this week may have far-reaching consequences for the character of the state of Israel in the very near future. With all due respect for their inclinations, not only will the vote for their candidate be a waste, it may directly lead to the election of Sharon, with all that implies. Such a vote, in the present circumstances, may turn out to be a de facto vote in favor of the creation of a Palestinian State and evacuation of Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
It may be hoped that, despite known disappointments in the past, Likud voters will this week align themselves decisively with the candidate who is infinitely more committed to the principles of the movement and its path, and who is best able to extricate Israel from the deep security and economic crisis it is in. The bottom line is a choice between assured continuation of failed policies and the rewarding of terrorism, in the form of a Palestinian state, and between the chance and hope for an escape from the current situation. It will be a severe injustice if, after 55 years, we will once again awaken on the 29th of November to the reality of a renewed partition of the land of Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Nathan Netanyahu is a member of Professors for a Strong Israel.
Today, every sensible person realizes that there is an ideological distinction between the two leading candidates. It will be remembered that the current party chairman, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, accepted upon himself the idea of creating a Palestinian state and even publicly declared that such a state already exists. The opposing candidate, Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, consistently and forcefully rejects the creation of an Arab state west of the Jordan river. The creation of such a state would be in absolute contradiction of the Likud party position, and would be, of its very essence and due to its sovereign status, an ongoing threat to the existence of the state of Israel. The utter disregard with which the current chairman treated the principles, platform and constitution of the party (at the Likud central committee conference, May 12, 2002), along with the political bait-and-switch that he carried out, should incense every Likud voter for whom the ideology represented by the movement?s flag matters, and who is guided by the principles of democracy. Not only has the current chairman pushed the Likud far to the left of its own ideology, he explicitly promises that if he is elected he will again form a national unity government. Shall Likud voters give a renewed mandate to the current chairman only in order to receive, ultimately, Amram Mitzna as defense minister and/or Shimon Peres as foreign minister in the next government?
Anyone with eyes in his head has to reach the conclusion today that Mr. Sharon has been a dismal failure in foreign relations, security, economic and social policies. For more than a full year, he operated under the ridiculous slogan ?restraint is power? and carried out a passive policy, which cost us hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded. Even when the IDF was finally sent into action, it became clear that the problem of terrorism was not being treated consistently nor efficiently enough. Instead of moving towards a decisive war to completely destroy the terrorist infrastructure, as called for by the foreign minister, Mr. Sharon continues to wear down the army and the home front in a pointless war of attrition, while terrorism continues to strike us in the most horrendous way almost every day. In contrast, the consistent policy of deterrence that was carried out against the Palestinian Authority in the years 1996 - 1999 brought about a period of almost absolute calm (one could count the number of terrorist attacks during that period on the fingers of one hand, as opposed to the hundreds of attacks during Prime Minister Sharon?s short incumbency).
Mr. Sharon excuses his inconsistent policy and the limitations placed on the army in its war against Arab terrorism by pointing out the need to take into consideration global American interests. Despite the great importance of our close relationship with the United States, the readiness of Mr. Sharon to automatically fall in line with any American initiatives and demands, which do not always coincide with the basic interests of Israel, is extremely inexplicable. As a result of American pressure, the IDF withdrew, time after time, from Palestinian population centers and centers of terrorism, and even transferred hundreds of millions of shekels to the enemy Palestinian Authority. As is known, those steps only contributed to the continuation of terrorist attacks. More than that, if it had been solely dependent on the ?special understanding? between Mr. Sharon and President Bush, Israeli counter-terrorist operations would have remained greatly limited in their scope. As will be recalled, President Bush and the National Security Advisor called upon Israel in a most forthright manner - a mere seven days into the IDF operation - to immediately withdraw from territories she had conquered during Operation Defensive Shield. Binyamin Netanyahu?s shining appearances in those days before Congress, at the massive demonstration in support of Israel and in the American media, in addition to his meetings with top leaders in Washington, played a critical role in easing the American pressure and effectively allowed the IDF to act with a free hand for a long period of time.
Had Mr. Sharon known, all along, how to take maximum advantage of the massive support for Israel in the American public and in Congress - particularly after the events of September 11, 2001 - Israel would not have found itself, again and again, unnecessarily on the defensive politically. It had been claimed, until a short time ago, that the ?Bush vision? for the Middle East (which was a direct result of Sharon?s unfortunate Latrun statement in favor of a Palestinian state) is irrelevant, but then along came the current item on the agenda - the American ?road map?, which is meant to be implemented under the supervision of an international body called the ?Quartet?. In its current incarnation, the ?vision? is no longer merely a theoretical topic, but a concrete plan, fraught with dangers and including real, irreversible concessions on the part of Israel, in exchange for recycled, out-dated Palestinian promises. Among other things, Israel is expected to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in ?temporary borders? already during the course of 2003, something not even demanded under the terms of the Oslo Accords. Mr. Sharon surely has an explanation as to how Israel has arrived almost at the point of fulfilling Yasser Arafat?s greatest wish, the internationalization of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite the prime minister?s ?special relationship? with President Bush.
Mr. Sharon?s socio-economic policies have also been a complete failure. Those policies have brought the Israeli society and economy to an almost unprecedented low, in terms of growth rates, exchange rates, unemployment levels and the poverty index. In contrast, the economic policies of the years 1996 - 1999 brought about significant growth, the creation of thousands of new jobs, and foreign capital investment of an all-time high. Instead of carrying out an economic policy with vision, based, among other things, on lowering taxes, privatization, and infrastructure building - as recommended by Foreign Minister Netanyahu - Mr. Sharon prefers to depend on further economic aid from the United States, which will further deepen our dependence on that country. Moreover, Mr. Sharon - as Shimon Peres in his day - directly links improvement in the economic situation to the achievement of a diplomatic agreement with the Palestinians. The foreign minister strongly objects to that absurd condition, which essentially makes the Israeli economy a hostage to the good will of Yasser Arafat.
For all of the above reasons, the choice has to be as clear as day. Still, there are quite a few ?undecideds? considering voting for a third candidate (their number is at most 5% of the total number of potential voters). This group of Likud members may determine the outcome in the event of a close race between the two leading candidates, and bring about a final result in the first round of voting (the winner needs only 40% of the votes). There is, therefore, a heavy responsibility on the shoulders of those members, and their vote this week may have far-reaching consequences for the character of the state of Israel in the very near future. With all due respect for their inclinations, not only will the vote for their candidate be a waste, it may directly lead to the election of Sharon, with all that implies. Such a vote, in the present circumstances, may turn out to be a de facto vote in favor of the creation of a Palestinian State and evacuation of Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
It may be hoped that, despite known disappointments in the past, Likud voters will this week align themselves decisively with the candidate who is infinitely more committed to the principles of the movement and its path, and who is best able to extricate Israel from the deep security and economic crisis it is in. The bottom line is a choice between assured continuation of failed policies and the rewarding of terrorism, in the form of a Palestinian state, and between the chance and hope for an escape from the current situation. It will be a severe injustice if, after 55 years, we will once again awaken on the 29th of November to the reality of a renewed partition of the land of Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Nathan Netanyahu is a member of Professors for a Strong Israel.