I read with incredulity about Ariel Sharon telling his ministers (Haaretz, 31 May) that if the government would not accept his plan, this would cause a deep political crisis with the United States, with immediate and severe consequences. It is like someone who asks for pity on the grounds that he is an orphan, having killed his parents.
Indeed, the US administration was very cool to his proposed surrender to terror, in the midst of George Bush's war on terror. All the commentators talked about the contradiction of the Bush principle inherent to Sharon's surrender. The American government also said that a retreat should be a part of a mutual agreement and part of the Road Map.
Had Sharon been sincere about coping with American pressure instead of inviting and creating it, he would oppose the Road Map and remind Bush about previous American presidents who committed themselves against a Palestinian state; he would allow the official representatives of Israel to refute in public the lie that the settlements are illegal, which is the sharp end of the attack on Israel, and thus reduce international pressure on Israel to retreat; he would invoke the importance of being in the areas under discussion to fight and deter terrorism, to collect information, to defend collaborators, and to discern between the innocent and the terrorist.
He would emphasize that a military presence without a civilian presence would be technically more difficult and also would appear colonial in nature and, as such, objectionable; he would recall the report of the American Chiefs of Staff during the Johnson administration, which said that the whole of Judea, Samaria and Gaza is essential for the "secure borders" called for in United Nations resolution 242; he would emphasize the importance of the nearby Arab population as a deterrent against the usage of non-conventional weapon; he would say that a retreat would only decrease the strategic depth of a country that is anyhow minuscule; he would emphasize that countries like India, Turkey and others will have less motivation to cooperate with a country that is so small that you cannot even write its name on the map.
He would say that there is no need for contiguous Jewish territories to counteract the "demographic menace"; he would recall that the whole of the Zionist phenomenon was based on settlement of the land and was never deterred by nearby Arab presence; and that there is no precedence in the whole Jewish history of a Jewish government uprooting Jewish settlements, including a settlement like Kfar Darom, which fell in the War of Independence.
If Sharon wants to create such a precedent, in the middle of a terror campaign, he should put forward substantial arguments and allow enough time for a substantial discussion. Instead, he creates artificial urgency. All his statements are based only on his authority and, being unsubstantiated, they are irrefutable on a priori grounds.
Had Sharon been sincere about coping with American pressure, he would allow Israeli representatives to invoke in public the fundamentals of the conflict, such as the total Arab area and their natural resources, and the non-existence of a separate Palestinian nation, according to the Palestinian themselves; he would encourage official Israeli representatives to mention the existence of Jewish refugees from Arab countries and the property they left behind; he would stop pretend that a real peace - as distinct from a peace based on deterrence - is ever possible.
Unlike the period before Oslo, these things are not done, even under a Likud government. This is totally irresponsible. There is hostility based on ignorance in democratic nations, as well as a loss of the belief in the justice of our cause within the Israeli and Diaspora Jewish communities, very often again based on ignorance. Many Muslims themselves are genuinely ignorant about the historical and legal facts and therefore are more motivated in their anti-Israel activities, which costs much life and limb.
This hypocritical and self-defeating behavior is further compounded by Sharon's ignoring of basic democratic principles. Having come to power on the basis of the Likud manifesto, it was only proper to carry out a poll restricted to the Likud party. Denying now both the manifesto and the results of the referendum is a very serious blow to the principle of democracy. It is only to be hoped that Likud politicians will be able to look beyond immediate, short-range, personal interest and find in themselves the mental resources to object to this total collapse of principle, which is also good for themselves in the long range.
Indeed, the US administration was very cool to his proposed surrender to terror, in the midst of George Bush's war on terror. All the commentators talked about the contradiction of the Bush principle inherent to Sharon's surrender. The American government also said that a retreat should be a part of a mutual agreement and part of the Road Map.
Had Sharon been sincere about coping with American pressure instead of inviting and creating it, he would oppose the Road Map and remind Bush about previous American presidents who committed themselves against a Palestinian state; he would allow the official representatives of Israel to refute in public the lie that the settlements are illegal, which is the sharp end of the attack on Israel, and thus reduce international pressure on Israel to retreat; he would invoke the importance of being in the areas under discussion to fight and deter terrorism, to collect information, to defend collaborators, and to discern between the innocent and the terrorist.
He would emphasize that a military presence without a civilian presence would be technically more difficult and also would appear colonial in nature and, as such, objectionable; he would recall the report of the American Chiefs of Staff during the Johnson administration, which said that the whole of Judea, Samaria and Gaza is essential for the "secure borders" called for in United Nations resolution 242; he would emphasize the importance of the nearby Arab population as a deterrent against the usage of non-conventional weapon; he would say that a retreat would only decrease the strategic depth of a country that is anyhow minuscule; he would emphasize that countries like India, Turkey and others will have less motivation to cooperate with a country that is so small that you cannot even write its name on the map.
He would say that there is no need for contiguous Jewish territories to counteract the "demographic menace"; he would recall that the whole of the Zionist phenomenon was based on settlement of the land and was never deterred by nearby Arab presence; and that there is no precedence in the whole Jewish history of a Jewish government uprooting Jewish settlements, including a settlement like Kfar Darom, which fell in the War of Independence.
If Sharon wants to create such a precedent, in the middle of a terror campaign, he should put forward substantial arguments and allow enough time for a substantial discussion. Instead, he creates artificial urgency. All his statements are based only on his authority and, being unsubstantiated, they are irrefutable on a priori grounds.
Had Sharon been sincere about coping with American pressure, he would allow Israeli representatives to invoke in public the fundamentals of the conflict, such as the total Arab area and their natural resources, and the non-existence of a separate Palestinian nation, according to the Palestinian themselves; he would encourage official Israeli representatives to mention the existence of Jewish refugees from Arab countries and the property they left behind; he would stop pretend that a real peace - as distinct from a peace based on deterrence - is ever possible.
Unlike the period before Oslo, these things are not done, even under a Likud government. This is totally irresponsible. There is hostility based on ignorance in democratic nations, as well as a loss of the belief in the justice of our cause within the Israeli and Diaspora Jewish communities, very often again based on ignorance. Many Muslims themselves are genuinely ignorant about the historical and legal facts and therefore are more motivated in their anti-Israel activities, which costs much life and limb.
This hypocritical and self-defeating behavior is further compounded by Sharon's ignoring of basic democratic principles. Having come to power on the basis of the Likud manifesto, it was only proper to carry out a poll restricted to the Likud party. Denying now both the manifesto and the results of the referendum is a very serious blow to the principle of democracy. It is only to be hoped that Likud politicians will be able to look beyond immediate, short-range, personal interest and find in themselves the mental resources to object to this total collapse of principle, which is also good for themselves in the long range.