By Reuven Koret
April 26, 2004
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's announcement that he told President George W. Bush that he was no longer bound by his pledge not to remove Yasser Arafat can only be seen as an act of desperation.
It puts Arafat even more on his guard, drives to him more public support, and generates more international sympathy and attention.
It sours Sharon's own relations with Washington, on which his unilateral disengagement plan depends. The White House hastened to chasten Sharon for his statement, insisting that Sharon was told in no uncertain terms that the Bush Administration continues to oppose any such an act.
A senior official says Bush considers "a pledge, a pledge" and expected Sharon to honor it. If Israel does strike Arafat, it will be accused of doing so even in the face of America's opposition, souring U.S.-Israeli relations. So why mention it?
The answer, of course, is that Sharon wants to strike a tough pose before the Likud referendum on his "disengagement" plan, distracting people from its declining support.
The same motivation no doubt prompted him, in a speech before the Knesset, to downplay the Likud referendum, calling it merely a "moral and public" advisory which had no legal or contractual status. The authority to decide and implement remained exclusively in the hands of his government.
His spokesman denied that he was backing away from a commitment to honor the results, and Sharon himself said Friday that he would honor the decision of the Likud. But even that disclaimer would not prevent him from doing what son Omri suggested he would do if the Gaza retreat plan is voted down. He would resign.
Sharon's younger son, Gilad, was also in the news this week, admitting to the court that he had destroyed tapes which prosecutors believe contained incriminating evidence regarding his ridiculously lucrative "consulting" contract with tycoon David Appel. The prosecution said that it would charge him with contempt of court, in addition to bribery.
Like son, like father. Ariel Sharon was showing similar contempt for Likud voters, in the referendum he himself created, effectively telling them that if they don't adopt the losing Labor party's demand for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and parts of Judea and Samaria, he is ready to collaborate with Shimon Peres to bring the left-wing parties into a Sharon government and impose their policies against the will of the Likud majority.
It was the Sharon promise of a referendum that, among other pledges, caused reticent Likud ministers to go along with it. Now those "whipped puppies" -- Netanyahu, Livnat, Shalom -- have opportunistically chosen to stay in the Sharon corral, apparently convinced by Sharon's promise to complete the fence before any withdrawal. But, as the saying goes, these dogs won't hunt, refusing to go out and campaign for it.
Only Sharon and his lapdog, Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, are out stumping. Olmert criticized his colleagues for paying lip service to the plan without campaigning for it: "As soon as a person makes a decision, he must stand behind the decision with all his might, since it's impossible to leave the prime minister to fight alone."
If the plan fails to secure a majority of votes, Olmert warned Friday that the country would suffer dire consequences. "I don't even want to think about what will happen if... we lose the vote," he told Israel Radio. "I have no doubt there will be extremely dire consequences for the State of Israel, from a diplomatic perspective, a security perspective and an economic perspective." In the last few days, Sharon has lately advanced the idea that rejection of his plan would be a victory for Hamas and Arafat.
Mentioning these two bogeymen of the Israeli Right may have worked once, but Sharon's resort to crying "Palestinian terrorist leaders" appears to be transparent pandering for votes. If he intends to target Arafat, it makes no sense to telegraph his actions. As one Likud official was quoted as saying: "A barking dog doesn't bite, and a biting dog doesn't bark."
Sharon is undermining the confidence of his few remaining allies in the world, his party colleagues, and the people who elected him. He is breaking his pledges to those who elected him, and then trying to scare them into following him blindly once again. If his son is accused of contempt of court, he is expressing contempt of the country.
If Sharon can "unilaterally disengage" from his solemn pledge to the President, what is to prevent him from doing so with respect to other pledges, such as the one not to leave Gaza until the security fence is completed? What is to prevent him from disengaging from his other personal pledges to the Likud puppies, such as the promise that the fence would be completed around Ariel before any withdrawal begins -- another violation of understanding with the Americans? And what is to prevent Bush, or his successor, to make a similar withdrawal from his own commitments to Sharon?
200,000 Likud voters have the ability to put an end to this unpleasant spectacle. Voting against the retreat plan -- which rewards terror, creates a terrorist state, and creates increasing diplomatic pressure for further one-way flights -- will also prevent Shimon Peres from seizing power in the only way he knows how: undemocratically, through the back door.
Israel Television Channel One reported that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, apparently stung by American criticism, has instructed the heads of the security system to prepare an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of killing Arafat. As if no one ever thought to do this before.
One of Sharon's confidants is quoted as saying that the Arafat threat was a card he had been saving up his sleeve a long time. One needs to wonder which game he is playing. In any case, his card trick proved all too transparent to Israeli voters.
Sharon, perhaps sensing impending defeat, is trying to frighten the voters with his my-way-or-the-highway bluster. He just comes across as panic-stricken and a bit pitiful. Worse, should he be defeated, he is creating conditions where these manufactured fears may become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Once upon a time, a boy was hired to guard the village sheep. For his amusement, the boy yelled "Wolf! Wolf! to get the attention of the villagers who came rushing out to help, only to find no wolf. This happened night after night. Finally, when a real wolf did appear, and the boy cried "Wolf!" nobody paid any attention. The cries soon stopped, because the boy and the sheep were no more.
Nobody can deny or take away the tremendous contribution of Ariel Sharon on the battlefield and, ironically, in the settlement of the Land of Israel. No one, that is, except Ariel Sharon. Before he undoes that legacy, he should step aside with his honor and accomplishments intact.
Sooner rather than later, Sharon should return to tend to his sheep, and his sons, in silence. Enough of this tail wagging the dog. The tales he is telling are getting too tall.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
