'%20stroke-width='1px'%20stroke-linecap='butt'%20stroke-linejoin='miter'%20fill='none'%20d='M9.530,20.473%20L9.530,6.948%20L14.473,6.948%20L14.473,20.473%20L9.530,20.473%20ZM12.019,6.306%20C11.363,6.306%2010.623,5.219%2010.832,3.917%20C10.904,3.469%2011.276,3.071%2012.019,1.529%20C12.041,1.482%2013.205,2.598%2013.205,3.917%20C13.205,5.237%2012.674,6.306%2012.019,6.306%20ZM1.527,6.948%20L6.470,6.948%20L6.470,20.473%20L1.527,20.473%20L1.527,6.948%20ZM3.981,6.306%20C3.326,6.306%202.586,5.219%202.795,3.917%20C2.867,3.469%203.238,3.071%203.981,1.529%20C4.004,1.482%205.168,2.598%205.168,3.917%20C5.168,5.237%204.637,6.306%203.981,6.306%20Z'/%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
What has happened to Sharon?
This isn't a new question. It was asked on the Right after Menachem Begin destroyed the Yamit settlements, and after Netanyahu handed over most of Hebron to the Arabs, and it is asked again and again every time the National Camp loses its way.
It is usual on the Right to seek the answer in personal reasons: Begin became tired, Netanyahu is unreliable, Sharon wants to enter history (or is influenced by his sons). Every leader of the Right has his own weaknesses and excuses that explain his ideological failure. If Sharon's place is taken by another currently outstanding Likud leader, it is reasonable to assume that suitable personal excuses will also be found when this person starts implementing Meretz ideology. By then, he won't have to bridge such a large gap between declarations and actions of the past and current policy.
So what is the real secret of why the Likud leaders make an abrupt left turn when they come to power? The Left's answer is simple and apparently convincing: reality. In order to achieve power, the Likud leaders make rousing speeches to satisfy their voters. But when they finally get there, the things that they see from there are not what they saw from here (as Sharon declared).
It sounds convincing, but in fact, the path chosen by the Left has been shown to be totally divorced from reality. The doctrine of the Left has, over the last ten years, undermined Israel's position until it now faces a real threat to its very existence regarding security, society, the economy and, above all, its very desire for national existence.
Israeli society is displaying increasing signs of apathy. In the recent elections, the Israelis did not vote for the Right, but simply opened their eyes to reality and fled in panic from the Left.
If so, the question returns with greater force: If the Left's path is not realistic, why do the leaders of the Right support it with such fervor?
The fundamental answer is that there currently exists no path other than that of the Left, or, to be more precise, no aim other than the national aim it has formulated.
It's not that in the Likud they've not heard any alternatives. The very constitution of the Likud indicates a political direction totally opposed to that in which Sharon is leading: "Preservation of the right of the Jewish Nation in Eretz Israel as a perpetual right that cannot be challenged, the establishment and development of settlements in all parts of Eretz Israel and the imposition of the State's sovereignty over all of them." However, in order to adopt this policy, it is necessary to first renew the declaration of the national aim - and this is the great difference between the Left and the Right.
In the case of the Left, there is correlation between the national aim and the political guidelines. In contrast, in the case of the Right, there is internal denial of the ideological aim itself, and the leaders of the Right then find themselves, when they achieve power, with irrelevant political guidelines.
The difference between supporters of the Likud and the Labor Party lies in the issue of identity. Members of the National Camp center their philosophy around national identity, while those of the Peace Camp are attempting to blur this identity and adopt a universal one. Both camps have accepted as a basic fact, which noone challenges, that the fundamental aim of the State of Israel is to achieve peace. This aim, by its very definition, expresses the universal philosophy of the Left. The National Camp has in fact abandoned its own ideology (from Beitar to religious Zionism) as a national aim. The National Camp has abandoned focusing on building the nation around its country and values as a preliminary stage to concerning itself with other nations. It has, in practice, adopted the standpoint of the Left, which focuses first and foremost on the other nations, with the intention of blurring the Jewish national identity.
If so, the leaders of the Right come to power and find themselves helpless: If all our national aspirations are related to peace, then the aims of the National Camp remain irrelevant. In their distress, the leaders of the Right leave the path of the National Camp and adopt the policy of the Left.
This isn't a new question. It was asked on the Right after Menachem Begin destroyed the Yamit settlements, and after Netanyahu handed over most of Hebron to the Arabs, and it is asked again and again every time the National Camp loses its way.
It is usual on the Right to seek the answer in personal reasons: Begin became tired, Netanyahu is unreliable, Sharon wants to enter history (or is influenced by his sons). Every leader of the Right has his own weaknesses and excuses that explain his ideological failure. If Sharon's place is taken by another currently outstanding Likud leader, it is reasonable to assume that suitable personal excuses will also be found when this person starts implementing Meretz ideology. By then, he won't have to bridge such a large gap between declarations and actions of the past and current policy.
So what is the real secret of why the Likud leaders make an abrupt left turn when they come to power? The Left's answer is simple and apparently convincing: reality. In order to achieve power, the Likud leaders make rousing speeches to satisfy their voters. But when they finally get there, the things that they see from there are not what they saw from here (as Sharon declared).
It sounds convincing, but in fact, the path chosen by the Left has been shown to be totally divorced from reality. The doctrine of the Left has, over the last ten years, undermined Israel's position until it now faces a real threat to its very existence regarding security, society, the economy and, above all, its very desire for national existence.
Israeli society is displaying increasing signs of apathy. In the recent elections, the Israelis did not vote for the Right, but simply opened their eyes to reality and fled in panic from the Left.
If so, the question returns with greater force: If the Left's path is not realistic, why do the leaders of the Right support it with such fervor?
The fundamental answer is that there currently exists no path other than that of the Left, or, to be more precise, no aim other than the national aim it has formulated.
It's not that in the Likud they've not heard any alternatives. The very constitution of the Likud indicates a political direction totally opposed to that in which Sharon is leading: "Preservation of the right of the Jewish Nation in Eretz Israel as a perpetual right that cannot be challenged, the establishment and development of settlements in all parts of Eretz Israel and the imposition of the State's sovereignty over all of them." However, in order to adopt this policy, it is necessary to first renew the declaration of the national aim - and this is the great difference between the Left and the Right.
In the case of the Left, there is correlation between the national aim and the political guidelines. In contrast, in the case of the Right, there is internal denial of the ideological aim itself, and the leaders of the Right then find themselves, when they achieve power, with irrelevant political guidelines.
The difference between supporters of the Likud and the Labor Party lies in the issue of identity. Members of the National Camp center their philosophy around national identity, while those of the Peace Camp are attempting to blur this identity and adopt a universal one. Both camps have accepted as a basic fact, which noone challenges, that the fundamental aim of the State of Israel is to achieve peace. This aim, by its very definition, expresses the universal philosophy of the Left. The National Camp has in fact abandoned its own ideology (from Beitar to religious Zionism) as a national aim. The National Camp has abandoned focusing on building the nation around its country and values as a preliminary stage to concerning itself with other nations. It has, in practice, adopted the standpoint of the Left, which focuses first and foremost on the other nations, with the intention of blurring the Jewish national identity.
If so, the leaders of the Right come to power and find themselves helpless: If all our national aspirations are related to peace, then the aims of the National Camp remain irrelevant. In their distress, the leaders of the Right leave the path of the National Camp and adopt the policy of the Left.
