Barry Rubin: Sharon and Israeli Politics

  • 0

The disabling stroke suffered by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has shaken up Israeli politics but is

unlikely to have much effect on the country’s society or political views.

Sharon was considered a certain victor in the upcoming March elections, for which he had organized his own Kadima (Forward) party which drew leading figures from both the previously leading Labour and Likud (conservative) parties. Yet everyone also understood that it was Sharon personally who was the leader the great majority preferred and the factor that made the new party so popular.

His military experience brought confidence that he would maintain the nation’s security. Sharon’s conservative and nationalist credentials attracted many from the right while his new strategy–which included the full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip–brought in supporters from the left. In short, Sharon was the ideal center candidate or, to put it simply, he was the man who made what had hitherto been a dovish approach acceptable in hawkish terms.

Everyone knew that Sharon’s political career was nearing an end, given his age. But the general expectation was that he would dominate the political landscape for about two years more, put in place a mechanism for continuing his legacy, and then retire. His physical affliction before the election that was to lay the basis for this future course has now forced a rethinking of this scenario.

Yet this event has by no means completely derailed either the political or strategic shifts he innovated. Let’s begin with the short-term political situation. While Kadima will get fewer votes without Sharon at the helm, polls show that the new party could still come in first. Sympathy for Sharon will keep some of the votes that his absence from the ballot might otherwise lose.

The party still has an impressive triumvirate at the top of its list. Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a veteran political maverick and former mayor of Jerusalem, was the inspiration for a number of Sharon’s initiatives. Shimon Peres, former prime minister and Labour party leader (as well as being the last survivor of the 1948 generation that gained Israel’s independence), appeals to many voters from the left. Former chief of staff and defense minister Shaul Mufaz provides the security expertise. Their differences will be harder to patch up without Sharon but they have closed ranks and could well lead Kadima to victory.

While things change fast in Israeli politics, the main alternative candidates on the left and right have positioned themselves too far toward the extremes to move back toward the center easily. On the left is Amir Peretz of the Labour party, a populist and trade union federation leader with little experience of national leadership and even less in security matters. Many Israelis distrust his ability to lead the country.

It has generally been expected that Peretz will come in second and form a coalition government with Sharon. Without Sharon, he might have more leverage in the partnership but this scenario still seems a likely one. If there was any difference between Sharon and Olmert, it was that Olmert was even more ready to make the kind of policy changes that would be perceived as dovish by foreign observers. A Kadima-Labour coalition would have its problems but still be a solid government.

On the right is Bibi Netanyahu, a former prime minister and leader of Sharon’s old Likud party. A year ago, Netanyahu seemed Sharon’s certain successor. But his opposition to the Gaza Strip withdrawal, coupled with strong criticism of Sharon, cost him his position as heir. To gain control of the remaining Likud party, Netanyahu had to move sharply to the right. In the longer-term, if able to regain the center–a positioning which explained his earlier successes–Netanyahu may again rise to the top in a post-Sharon era. But in the next elections he is likely to be left out in the cold.

The continuity on the political front is likely to be matched with a similar pattern regarding strategy and policy. Sharon embodied a new national consensus which may have initiated in his bold moves but which also reflects deep-seated changes in the country and its situation.

The best summary of current Israeli thinking is based on a combination of two ideas, one taken from the left and the other taken from the right, which is accepted by at least two-thirds’ of the population. From the left comes the idea that Israel is ready to withdraw from most of the territory captured in 1967 and accept a Palestinian state in return for full peace. From the right arrives the concept that nobody thinks there is at present a Palestinian partner for real peace.

There is also a general agreement that holding onto land, especially Palestinian-populated areas, is not in the national interest. Israel does not intend to claim this land in the future, never derived any economic benefit from it, and staying there is a security problem rather than an asset. Part of this change in views is inspired by the realization that with the Cold War over, the USSR gone, and the Arab world weakened, there is no likelihood of a conventional war with the armies of Arab states. A strategy based on this once-correct conception is out of date.

At the same time, though, there is no hesitation at waging a tough defensive war against Palestinian terrorism. Israel will complete its defensive security fence and strike back against terrorists and those daily firing missiles at Israeli civilian targets. No one believes that Palestinian leader Abu Mazin can or will do anything to stop attacks on Israel. Indeed, it is understood that he and his colleagues will not live up to any commitment they make. The Palestinian movement is falling apart, the radicals are gaining control, and nobody is going to make peace.

On the left, people say privately what Sharon and his allies said publicly. On the right, even in the Likud there is still a strong centrist faction–led by Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom–that basically agrees with Sharon.

Consequently, the bad news is that the conflict will go on for decades; the good news is that Israel can defend itself with relatively low casualties. The economy is improving; tourism is returning. As Palestinian extremism and anarchy becomes clearer, there are prospects for better relations with the Arab world and the West. Sharon opened this new era and it will go on even without him.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university, visiting professor at American University and member of SPME. His co-authored book, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, (Oxford University Press) is now and his latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, will be published by Wiley in September are available at SPMEMart spme.org/spmemart.html .Prof. Rubin’s columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.

Barry Rubin: Sharon and Israeli Politics

  • 0