Ariel Sharon’s daring decision to uproot 25 Gaza and West Bank settlements — civilian and military alike — hasn’t been “welcomed and appreciated by those near and far,” as he had exuberantly and naively hoped. For his courage, the Israeli Prime Minister has been pilloried rather than praised both in Israel and abroad. Ominously, the rancorous, divisive atmosphere in that country in anticipation of the imminent evacuation is reminiscent of that which prevailed just before Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated.
Of special concern is the mutiny Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leading against Sharon. The controversial and subversive “Bibi” threatens that if the PM doesn’t hold a national referendum on the evacuations, he and a few other rebel cabinet ministers will quit. If the National Religious Party joins the renegades, the government’s coalition will be forced into a parliamentary minority, and early elections will be required. This is a curious threat considering Sharon’s plan has been approved by the Knesset and polls reveal at least 60 percent of Israelis support it.
Sharon is no stranger to the unpleasant task that lies ahead. He was instrumental in removing the settlers of Gush Emunim from the Sinai desert in 1978, in preparation for peace with Egypt. Still, while Sharon’s statesmanship has won him no friends, much less earned him recognition from the international community, his resolve proves once again that “Arik” puts the people before both politics and the Likud party.
In a speech to the Knesset last Tuesday before the vote on disengagement, Sharon warned that he had learned “from experience that the sword alone cannot decide this bitter dispute in this land.” As a fierce proponent of the settlements enterprise, Sharon’s anguish is palpable. “For me,” he told Israelis, “this decision is unbearably difficult. During my years as a fighter and commander, as a politician, Member of Knesset, as a minister in Israel’s governments and as Prime Minister, I have never faced so difficult a decision.” But, he argued, his disengagement plan would “present the possibility of opening a gate to a different reality.”
It is not without political significance that Ariel Sharon has fought in all his country’s defensive wars. Were it not for this Jewish Stonewall Jackson, Israel would have been annihilated in 1973. But whether Sharon’s life of service will translate into political victory on evacuation depends to a large degree on the loyalty of his constituency, the demographics of which are ignored by too many American pundits.
Most Israelis are descended from the Sephardi Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1497. From their exile in the Arab countries of North Africa and the Middle East, they fled to Israel as refugees after 1948. Fierce Zionists, Sephardis are as indigenous to the region as the sand dunes and the Sabra cacti. Their loyalty to the Likud Party derives, in part, from a loathing of what the Labor Party stands for, not least, a racist condescension for dark-skinned Jews.
Fed up with being looked down upon and mistreated by the leftist rank-and-file European Ashkenazis that populate Labor, Sephardis, as scholar Meyrav Wurmser has pointed out, used the 2003 election to deal a political death blow to Labor. They were also sick and tired of the liberal domination of the media and judiciary and their politically correct assault on faith, tradition, and Zionism. More important than any of this, these Israelis were tired of being blown up on the streets by suicide bombers, while the WASPs — “White Ashkenazis who Sympathize with Palestinians” — hobnobbed with Yasser Arafat.
THE QUESTION THAT WILL decide Sharon’s fate is this: Will Sephardi voters join him in rejecting the interpretation of the disengagement “as a shameful withdrawal under pressure” that “will increase the terror campaign, present Israel as weak, and will show our people as a nation unwilling to fight and to stand up for itself”? (As Sharon characterized the objections of the rejectionists.)
The objections made by the Palestinian Authority (and its cheerleaders in Europe and America) seem, at first glance, baffling. But as Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, RIP, that most perceptive Palestinian intellectual, said of his people: “We’re mediocre, and in the end maybe that very mediocrity is what’s going to beat the Israelis, for all their brilliance.”
Wily adversaries that they are, the Palestinians immediately resorted to a “mediocre,” yet devastatingly effective, argument to discredit a decision that could cost Sharon more than his party’s loyalty. Deconstructed à la Derrida, disengagement has been framed as an Israeli plot not to disengage, or worse, to “disengage unilaterally,” whatever that means. Evidence that contradicts their theory Palestinians invoke as evidence for their theory.
Of course the PA and its allies have long insisted that the bustling towns erected by West Bank and Gaza settlers are in direct violation of Palestinian rights and international law. So in evacuating them, isn’t Sharon simply doing the right thing? Isn’t he fulfilling his negative duty — his obligation to return what the Palestinians claim is theirs?
How bizarre then for the supposedly aggrieved Palestinians to complain about the manner in which their rights are being restored. Imagine a husband who decides one day to stop abusing his wife. Imagine further that his wife complains she wasn’t consulted before the hitting stopped. Would we not be justified in thinking she was somehow invested in her own mistreatment?
Nevertheless, Sharon took pains to dispel the accusation the evacuation is actually a “plot” to stall the “peace process,” reminding the world that “everything remains open for a future agreement, which will hopefully be achieved when this murderous terror ends, and our neighbors will realize that they cannot triumph over us in this land.” He was emphatic that the plans for disengagement do not “replace negotiations,” and are not “meant to permanently freeze the situation which will be created.”p>Perhaps once the convalescing Arafat is replaced with a Palestinian leader not in the habit of promising that “a million shaheeds [martyrs] will break through to Jerusalem,” as the Chairman recently avowed, Sharon’s gesture will indeed serve to, as he put it, “reduce animosity, break through boycotts and sieges and advance us along the path of peace with the Palestinians and our other neighbors.” br> †
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?