Riddles in Israeli Politics
Michael Anbar Ph.D.
A few days ago I watched MK Shimon Peres, Chairman of the Israeli Labor Party, interviewed on Fox News. I heard Peres praising Ahmed Qureia, the PLO PM as a sensible and intelligent person, while not refuting the interviewer’s comment Israel’s defense fence is a “land grab.” Peres seemed to have completely forgotten that Qureia has been one of the founders of the Fatah (“conquest”) terrorist organization whose prime goal has been genocide from its inception, i.e., to vanquish and destroy the State of Israel. Peres also gave the impression that he expects Israel to unilaterally retreat to the 1949 armistice line, evacuating the Jewish towns and villages in the disputed territories. This echo of the current Arab statements and demands coming from an Israeli ex-PM, sounded strange indeed, especially from Peres who was repeatedly deceived and embarrassed by the Arabs.
Today I hear that last week in Brussels Avraham Burg, the Labor Party ex-Speaker of the Knesset, urged European Jews who are now threatened by a wave of violent anti-Semitism, to stay in Europe (possibly migrate to more tolerant European countries) and not immigrate to Israel. This position is again in line with the Arab demands that Israel, the ancient Jewish homeland, should stop being a refuge for persecuted Jews. What is amazing is to hear this from the ex-chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel that has the mandate to encourage Jewish emigration to Israel. A few months ago Burg published an editorial besmirching Israel and the Israelis, which read as if it was dictated by the PLO.
All this made little sense to me at first sight: These two political figures are not members of the anti-Zionist Israeli Communist Party, who objected for ideological reasons the establishment of a Jewish sovereign state. They are members of Ben-Gurion’s Zionist party (in fact, Peres was David Ben-Gurion’s personal assistant for many years). There must be a reason when seasoned, shrewd politicians make seemingly out of character, inexplicable statements.
When a man behaves strangely, the French tell you: “Cherche la famme,” when a politician behaves strangely then the saying can be: “ Cherche les electeurs,” i.e., look at the constituents. In other words, the key to this mystery is most probably the political agenda of the constituents of the Israeli Labor party. An analysis of the constituency of that party shows that Arabs constitute a substantial portion of Labor’s electorate. These voters vote for Labor under the influence of the PLO, which sees Labor as a soft, manipulatible target (remember Oslo, Camp David and Taba). Peres and Burg are not worried about the party loyalty of Labor’s hard-core Jewish anti-religious, knee-jerk socialists, so they pander to the less reliable Arab voters, manifesting flagrant pro-Arab rhetoric. The same politicians have been trying to undermine Israeli democracy in the manipulative Geneva accords, where they accepted millions of Dollars from European sources to help the Arab cause and risk the very existence of the Jewish state. We often witness similar behavior of unprincipled American politicians. Israel, which has been exposed to American style election practices when President Clinton sent his election team to defeat PM Netanyahu, unfortunately learned from the US one of its less desirable features.
A much more difficult riddle is the behavior of Ariel Sharon. Before becoming a politician Sharon has been a brilliant field commander who in 1973 saved Israel from a disastrous military defeat. As a politician he established the Likud party and eventually made it the leading political party in Israel. For very good reasons, he was the major driving force in establishing Jewish villages and towns in the disputed territories. In 1993 he demonstrated farsightedness or healthy instincts by opposing the Oslo agreements with the PLO and vehemently objecting to the establishment of a new Arab state west of the River Jordan. He justifiably criticized Israeli retreat from South Lebanon in May 2000 foreseeing its dire consequences.
Lately, however, Sharon seems to have reversed most of his political positions. He agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the River Jordan, he states intentions to eliminate Jewish communities that he, himself helped to establish, he expresses intent to unilaterally withdraw Jewish presence from disputed territories, contrary to his own position regarding South Lebanon, the sovereignty of which was never claimed by Israel. Lastly, Sharon seems to have given up on Israeli precondition to eliminate Islamic Arab terrorism, substituting the traditional Israeli policy of reactive deterrence to a far less effective passive policy of resistance (building the controversial protective fence). In brief, Sharon seems to stir Israel into yielding to many of the demands and aggressive policies of the genocidal PLO. Even more than the behavior of Peres and Burg, Sharon’s recent behavior is utterly out of character.
Unlike the leadership of the Labor party that depends on Arab votes, Sharon’s constituency is opposed to his recent policies, feeling a sense of betrayal. His recent political moves are very unpopular among the overwhelming majority of his supporters. Many of the Likud Mks and even cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Defense, openly oppose most of Sharon recent moves or intents. Contrary to “common wisdom,” Sharon is also not under American pressure to implement his proposed new policies. In fact, according to the Israeli press, the Bush Administration seems to be baffled by Sharon’s proposed moves. The explanation that the recent accusations of corruption have clouded Sharon’s rational judgment is also not plausible.
Trying to explain Sharon’s cardinal change of ideology and strategic thinking let us look again at the French in the 20th Century. Marshall Henri-Philippe Petain, who was an acclaimed national war hero in WWI, surrendered France to the Germans in WWII (the infamous handshake with Hitler at Montoire) and ended his life in jail as a convicted traitor. General Charles de Gaulle, the leader and symbol of French armed resistance to the German occupation in WWII, deceived his right wing constituents and shamefully conceded to the Algerian Arabs. After he was elected president in 1958 he withdrew the French army from Algeria and encouraged the French to leave that country. This defeatist step 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 start to control France’s politics and manifest their growing political power by murdering French 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 thousand of Jewish victims and the USA could have been spared the 9/11 atrocities. De Gaulle was the one who showed the Arabs that terrorism can pay off.
Neither Petain nor de Gaulle was accused of corruption, but both brilliant military commanders made historical political blunders. Both Frenchmen did what they did because they thought it was in the best interest of France under the circumstance. It was the best expedient thing to do at the time. Their problem was that as outstanding field commanders they were used to carry out their decisions autocratically, and their minds were trained to think tactically and not strategically. Thus neither of them realized the long-term implications of their expedient actions.
As another example let us consider another prominent war hero turned politician -- the commander who vanquished Nazi Germany – General Dwight Eisenhower. President Eisenhower became incensed with his war comrades, France and Great Britain, for trying, in alliance with Israel, to regain control of the Suez Canal that was nationalized by Egypt. Eisenhower forced his former European allies to retreat from the Canal and Israel was forced to give up the Gaza Strip, which served for years a base for Egyptian anti-Israeli terrorists. Eisenhower’s generous pro-Egyptian gesture was “rewarded” by Egypt’s alliance with Russia, leading to the 1967 and 1973 assaults on Israel. Thus this American president emboldened the anti-Western Arab nationalistic-religious movement that eventually led to the 9/11 attacks on the US. Moreover, Eisenhower’s harsh treatment of France in 1956 led to its departure form NATO and eventually to the current animosity of France and its European allies toward the US. President Eisenhower’s policy was certainly motivated by good faith – trying to show that the US does not tolerate colonialism in any shape or form. However, his well-intentioned shortsighted policy did backfire.
I worry that Ariel Sharon suffers from a similar shortcoming. He seems not to realize that as the leader of the State of Israel he must be able to assess the long-term implications of his actions. Unlike in battlefield situations where the commander decides resolutely on advance or retreat, a political leader must make the citizenry understand where he is going and why. Unfortunately, Sharon seems to be too old to change his mindset and mode of operation. As much as I personally admire the man, Israel and the Jewish people need now a statesman to lead the nation; a statesman who realizes the current precarious state of the Jewish people and acts decisively but not arbitrarily, taking into account the tremendous historical responsibility the leader of this nation must have at this critical moment.
I only hope that Sharon realizes soon his present shortcoming and helps the nation to find the right leader for this moment in history. In 1973 he was the military commander who saved Israel from eradication. In 2004 he can save this nation by stepping down, helping to find a Jewish statesman, not a petty politician, with historical perspective who will lead this nation out of its current despondency. If Sharon did this, he would become one of the outstanding figures in Jewish history.
March 10, 2004