Sharon is the PM of Israel, not of the Palestinians

Michael Anbar Ph.D.

I was disappointed to read Mr. Henry Siegman’s essay “Sharon’s Phony War” (NY Review of Books 50 [20] December 18, 2003) -- a scathing attack on Israel’s PM. This seems to be a sequel to Prof. Tony Judt’s controversial essay “Israel: The Alternative” (NY Review of Books 50, [16] October 23, 2003), in which the author denied the very existence of the Jewish state. Mr. Siegman is currently a Senior Fellow and Director, U.S./Middle East Project at the Council on Foreign Relations, however, for 16 years, he was the Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress. I am, therefore, surprised that Mr. Siegman joined the choir of a few extreme leftist politicians who have been attacking the policy of Ariel Sharon, the indisputable, democratically elected PM of the State of Israel.

I do understand the political positions of Yossi Beilin, Amram Mitzna and Abram Burg, but I do not understand that of Henry Siegman. The former individuals and their supporters, some of whom were appointed to prominent state positions by socialist Labor controlled Israeli governments, were raised from childhood with the ideology of international Communism. Admiring the international solidarity of workers, they learned to hate nationalism (associated with patriotism) and clericalism (associated with religion).

It should not be a surprise, therefore, that these extreme leftists were easily ready to give up the Temple Mount to the Arabs, getting rid of this prime symbol of Jewish nationalism and religion.  They have also no difficulty to surrender Israel’s long-term survival as an independent Jewish state because of their vision of “international solidarity of all people” in a “new Middle East,” devoid of political boundaries.  In their blind hatred to all that is traditionally Jewish, those avowed leftists do not realize that their enemy is not Jewish nationalism or faith, nor Western capitalism, but Islamic supremacist clericalism, barely cloaked in Western phraseology, aimed at ridding the Middle East form the very last vestige of Jewish presence.

But what about Mr. Siegman’s convictions? As a veteran Jewish political expert, Mr. Siegman must realize that the United States, and especially the State of Israel and the Jewish people worldwide, are now engaged in an existential struggle with brutally violent supremacist Islamism. Hence the “New Middle East” is a very dangerous illusion. So why is Mr. Siegman so viciously unjustifiably attacking PM Sharon’s defensive policies?

Ariel Sharon has been elected to be PM of Israel and not of the Arabs in the “disputed territories.” These Arabs have their own political leadership. Sharon has an obligation to promote and protect the national interests of the State of Israel and not of its Arab neighbors. So why is Mr. Siegman bemoaning that Sharon does not back up this or that Arab politician, if these Arabs do not meet Israel’s expectations for a peaceful coexistence with the Arabs. It is up to the Arabs, and not to Sharon, to find a political leadership that will promote the best interests of their citizens and look for ways to live in harmony with the Jewish state. Instead, they support a corrupt, despotic leadership that has vested all its resources, including massive international aid, in the mass production of terrorists, using terrorism as its main instrument to achieve illusionary political goals.  To achieve peace, the Arabs and not the Israelis must make concessions. This is what Beilin and his friends have failed to realize.

The “Palestinian” Arabs are in a true bind because the UN and EU are controlled by despotic Muslim politicians who promote antagonistic tactics toward Israel and the USA while heartily supporting, for their own personal gains, the corrupt rule of Yasser Arafat over the wretched “Palestinians.”  If not for the Arab controlled UN, the Arab refugee problem would have been solved half a century ago. If not for the EU, which is trying to undermine Israeli democracy by supporting renegade leftist Israeli politicians, we could have avoided the Geneva fiasco. If not for the rejectionist Arab governments, the Arab-Israeli conflict could have been resolved after the Six Days War, 36 years ago, i.e., 35 years before Sharon was reelected as PM by a landslide, prompted by the intransigency of the Arabs. Why should PM Sharon worry about the misery of those Arabs rather than take care of his own constituency?  If the security fence significantly reduces the indiscriminate murder of Israelis, why should PM Sharon care about the inconvenience it causes to Arabs who tolerate or even support a regime that promotes terrorism, making the construction of this fence necessary? 

I am sure that Mr. Siegman is aware of all these facts. So why are they not reflected in his essay? Why is he blaming PM Sharon and not the Arabs?  Actually, Since the Arabs have declared a war of eradication against the Jewish people, Ariel Sharon, the PM of the only independent Jewish state, should have been less restrained in his reaction to Arab violence against Jews; violence that has lately spilled over to Asia Minor and Europe.

Mr. Siegman seems to accuse Sharon for not becoming another De Gaulle. Let us remember history. General Charles De Gaulle deceived his electorate and shamefully conceded to the Algerian Arabs, encouraging the French to leave Algeria, a step that hatched Arafat’s Fatah terrorist organization. After 45 years Algeria is still a slaughterhouse and France has been invaded by millions of Arab refugees of that carnage. So now those Arab refugees control France’s politics and manifest their power by murdering Jews. If De Gaulle would have kept his promises to his constituents and would have been decisive in his treatment of the Arabs, Arafat and Bin laden would have found few followers. Israel could have been spared the thousand of Jewish victims and the USA could have been spared the 9/11 atrocity. De Gaulle was the one who showed the Arabs that terrorism can pay off. My question to Mr. Siegman is why should PM Sharon follow in the footsteps of De Gaulle?

As the past Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress and an experienced political guru, I would have expected a very different position paper form Mr. Henry Siegman.