It now appears that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has only two supporters left: Peace Now and US President George W. Bush.
Even as the Right ? inside and outside Likud ? is preparing a serious campaign against Sharon's "disengagement" plan, the far-left Israeli organization Peace Now has announced their support for Sharon's efforts to relinquish Gaza to the PLO. At the same time, the American President, as well, is scheduled to voice support for "disengagement" at a mid-April meeting with Prime Minister Sharon. Such support, however, will only be detrimental to President Bush's administration and to his presidential campaign. Recent events point to a sea-change in Sharon's approach to his own plan; he wants it killed.
Why has Prime Minister Sharon decided to offer the membership list of his Likud party an opportunity to approve or reject his unilateral "disengagement" plan? Such a vote will take months, will likely be challenged in court, and has a better-than-even chance of failing. Even avowed "disengagement" fan Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is now saying that implementation ? even if approved by all ? will not take place until Passover next year. Why has Sharon not taken the plan to the government, finagled agreement from a majority of ministers ? arm-twisting a few of the wavering "rebels" ? and bulldozed ahead with the bulldozers in Gaza?
The reason is that ever since the press leak that State Prosecutor Edna Arbel recommended charges against Sharon for corruption, the Prime Minister is no longer interested in the "disengagement" plan. The Arbel leak reshuffled the deck for all political players, and the withdrawal plan is now more likely to "disengage" Sharon from the Prime Minister's Office than it is to disengage Israel from Gaza.
Until the Arbel leak, Sharon could count on the opposition Labor party to join his coalition the moment the right-wing National Union and National Religious parties quit it over government approval of unilateral withdrawal. However, that is no longer the case. Labor will be very wary of joining a coalition led by a lame duck Prime Minister, most likely on the verge of indictment. The Labor party wants to rule, not be part of a collapsing regime. And without Labor, there is no "disengagement" plan.
Similarly, until the Arbel leak, Prime Minister Sharon made Herculean, and successful, efforts to arrange a meeting between himself and President Bush. In recent months, there were repeated meetings between Sharon emissaries ? including Labor party head Shimon Peres, who may have intimated that his party would give Sharon a safety net for withdrawal ? and US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Sharon hoped that public support by Bush would create momentum and pressure for his "disengagement" plan in the domestic arena.
As for President Bush, the considerations mediating against expressing his support for the unilateral withdrawal during a meeting with Ariel Sharon were, and remain, the opposition of his core constituency ? conservative Christians ? to Israeli territorial concessions. In addition, religious and conservative Jews ? also opposed to Israeli land concessions ? carry not-insignificant weight for Bush in important swing states. However, apparently, after Israeli assurances that the "disengagement" plan was politically practical, as well as possible, Bush advisers were convinced that a positive meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister could earn the President more votes from the moderate-left than it would lose him from among his traditional voters.
Now that the only practical option for carrying out the "disengagement" plan ? the incorporation of Labor when the Right withdraws ? is no longer realistic, a Bush-Sharon meeting endorsing the plan will only anger traditional Bush voters and not accrue any new votes. In essence, such a meeting would constitute Bush support for the agenda of Peace Now, which is planning a victory rally for the day Sharon returns from Washington.
In addition, a meeting endorsing a plan that the Arab world ? particularly its anti-American element ? considers a victory for terrorism, US President Bush would be acting in direct contradiction to his own positive policies against Islamist terror. A mitigating factor for such a meeting, however, would have been a dramatic positive development in the region as a result of the US endorsement of "disengagement". Now that, politically, there is no chance of a dramatic development in Israel in the near future, there remains no upside to holding the Bush-Sharon summit at this time.
In light of all of the foregoing, our modest advice to US President George Bush is to postpone the scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Sharon. There is no rush; Sharon himself cannot proceed with his plans at this time, anyway. Finally, if indirectly, Sharon has been made accountable to us ? the Israeli people. Let him face us alone, as any democratic leader should.
Even as the Right ? inside and outside Likud ? is preparing a serious campaign against Sharon's "disengagement" plan, the far-left Israeli organization Peace Now has announced their support for Sharon's efforts to relinquish Gaza to the PLO. At the same time, the American President, as well, is scheduled to voice support for "disengagement" at a mid-April meeting with Prime Minister Sharon. Such support, however, will only be detrimental to President Bush's administration and to his presidential campaign. Recent events point to a sea-change in Sharon's approach to his own plan; he wants it killed.
Why has Prime Minister Sharon decided to offer the membership list of his Likud party an opportunity to approve or reject his unilateral "disengagement" plan? Such a vote will take months, will likely be challenged in court, and has a better-than-even chance of failing. Even avowed "disengagement" fan Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is now saying that implementation ? even if approved by all ? will not take place until Passover next year. Why has Sharon not taken the plan to the government, finagled agreement from a majority of ministers ? arm-twisting a few of the wavering "rebels" ? and bulldozed ahead with the bulldozers in Gaza?
The reason is that ever since the press leak that State Prosecutor Edna Arbel recommended charges against Sharon for corruption, the Prime Minister is no longer interested in the "disengagement" plan. The Arbel leak reshuffled the deck for all political players, and the withdrawal plan is now more likely to "disengage" Sharon from the Prime Minister's Office than it is to disengage Israel from Gaza.
Until the Arbel leak, Sharon could count on the opposition Labor party to join his coalition the moment the right-wing National Union and National Religious parties quit it over government approval of unilateral withdrawal. However, that is no longer the case. Labor will be very wary of joining a coalition led by a lame duck Prime Minister, most likely on the verge of indictment. The Labor party wants to rule, not be part of a collapsing regime. And without Labor, there is no "disengagement" plan.
Similarly, until the Arbel leak, Prime Minister Sharon made Herculean, and successful, efforts to arrange a meeting between himself and President Bush. In recent months, there were repeated meetings between Sharon emissaries ? including Labor party head Shimon Peres, who may have intimated that his party would give Sharon a safety net for withdrawal ? and US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Sharon hoped that public support by Bush would create momentum and pressure for his "disengagement" plan in the domestic arena.
As for President Bush, the considerations mediating against expressing his support for the unilateral withdrawal during a meeting with Ariel Sharon were, and remain, the opposition of his core constituency ? conservative Christians ? to Israeli territorial concessions. In addition, religious and conservative Jews ? also opposed to Israeli land concessions ? carry not-insignificant weight for Bush in important swing states. However, apparently, after Israeli assurances that the "disengagement" plan was politically practical, as well as possible, Bush advisers were convinced that a positive meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister could earn the President more votes from the moderate-left than it would lose him from among his traditional voters.
Now that the only practical option for carrying out the "disengagement" plan ? the incorporation of Labor when the Right withdraws ? is no longer realistic, a Bush-Sharon meeting endorsing the plan will only anger traditional Bush voters and not accrue any new votes. In essence, such a meeting would constitute Bush support for the agenda of Peace Now, which is planning a victory rally for the day Sharon returns from Washington.
In addition, a meeting endorsing a plan that the Arab world ? particularly its anti-American element ? considers a victory for terrorism, US President Bush would be acting in direct contradiction to his own positive policies against Islamist terror. A mitigating factor for such a meeting, however, would have been a dramatic positive development in the region as a result of the US endorsement of "disengagement". Now that, politically, there is no chance of a dramatic development in Israel in the near future, there remains no upside to holding the Bush-Sharon summit at this time.
In light of all of the foregoing, our modest advice to US President George Bush is to postpone the scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Sharon. There is no rush; Sharon himself cannot proceed with his plans at this time, anyway. Finally, if indirectly, Sharon has been made accountable to us ? the Israeli people. Let him face us alone, as any democratic leader should.