I think this sumarizes Sharons views towards the Arabs better than anything else. The view he has held throughout his career. The view that led to the disaster in Lebanon, and the view that has sustained the war for the last 2 years.
"In his autobiography, "Warrior," Mr. Sharon wrote that while he was leading Israel's crack paratroopers in the 1950's, he decided that a policy of mere retaliation or deterrence was not enough to secure a haven for Jews in a region dominated by Arabs.
His goal, he said, "was to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction that they would never win."
In March of last year, Mr. Sharon said of Israel's response to Palestinian terrorism: "The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered will we be able to conduct talks."
That was before Israel began what has proved to be its biggest military offensive since, as defense minister, Mr. Sharon led the invasion of Lebanon in 1982."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30, 2003
Puzzle for Israel: What Does Sharon Want?
By JAMES BENNET
EL AVIV, Jan. 29 ? As Prime Minister Ariel Sharon set about wooing potential coalition partners today, a familiar question recurred in Israeli political circles: what does Mr. Sharon want?
With his smashing victory over the left-of-center Labor Party, he is now in position to do precisely what his rightist Likud Party officially demands: to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Mr. Sharon would now easily have majority support in Parliament to expel Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader ? a step he has said he wants to take ? and to accelerate the already rapid growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. He is free to tighten the already harsh restrictions on the more than three million Palestinians who live there.
Yet today Mr. Sharon urgently appealed for the seemingly crippled Labor Party, whose votes he does not need for a majority, to join a new governing coalition. Likud soared from 19 seats in the 120-seat Parliament to 37, while Labor fell from 25 to 19, its poorest showing ever.
The appeal awakened a long-running debate over what, precisely, Mr. Sharon is after. He has repeatedly said he would make "painful concessions" for peace, but he has not spelled out what the concessions would be.
One theory, held by Palestinians and leftist Israelis, is that Mr. Sharon, master strategist, is seeking the political camouflage that Labor's participation would give his rightist policies.
Amram Mitzna, Labor's leader, believes that Labor played that role for Mr. Sharon in his last coalition government ? and paid the price for its compromised identity in the voting on Tuesday.
The other theory, held by many settlers, is that Mr. Sharon, master strategist, wants to confound the hawks by reaching a historic peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Labor Party would serve as political leverage, not camouflage.
According to that theory, Mr. Sharon, at 74, wants to vault into the ranks of Israeli peacemakers like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, and to erase the blots on his own record. Meir Sheetrit, a moderate Likud politician, likes to say that with a second term Mr. Sharon has the chance to "make history" or "be history."
"I think he wants to make history," said Mr. Sheetrit, who favors the resumption of a peace effort.
There is, of course, another possibility: that Mr. Sharon is a master tactician, not a master strategist, and that he is trying to survive in office and retain the backing of the United States while advancing in a general direction, rather than toward a specific goal.
Mr. Sharon opposed the Oslo peace agreement as a threat to Israeli security, and as Palestinian violence has continued, Israel has taken back almost all of the autonomy that was granted to the Palestinian Authority under Oslo.
Mr. Sharon always feared and distrusted Yasir Arafat, and under Mr. Sharon Israel has in effect imprisoned the Palestinian leader in Ramallah. Mr. Sharon always supported the settlements, and under him the settlements have grown.
The prime minister supports what he calls a long-term interim arrangement with the Palestinians. That is effectively what he has now, with no talks toward a final settlement of the dispute under way. All this has happened with the Bush administration's acquiescence if not outright support.
"My guess is, without the deaths and the loss of life, the situation now is probably as close to what he would want as he could imagine," said Asher Arian, a political scientist at Haifa University. "He's not really negotiating. He's not moving. He's building the settlements."
According to that theory, Mr. Sharon actually means what he says ? as, it might be noted, he himself claims. "What I say, I mean, and what I mean, I say," Mr. Sharon recently told foreign reporters.
In his autobiography, "Warrior," Mr. Sharon wrote that while he was leading Israel's crack paratroopers in the 1950's, he decided that a policy of mere retaliation or deterrence was not enough to secure a haven for Jews in a region dominated by Arabs.
His goal, he said, "was to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction that they would never win."
In March of last year, Mr. Sharon said of Israel's response to Palestinian terrorism: "The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered will we be able to conduct talks."
That was before Israel began what has proved to be its biggest military offensive since, as defense minister, Mr. Sharon led the invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Mr. Sharon's repeated answer to the Americans' various forays into peacemaking here has been a quick yes, followed more quietly by modifications. He has taken that approach to the "road map" to peace and a Palestinian state that the Bush administration is drafting with diplomatic allies. Mr. Sharon says he "accepts" the road map, but that he also wants numerous changes made.
Over the last two years he has added conditions to a resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians, and the Bush administration has agreed to each one.
First Mr. Sharon demanded that the Palestinians halt all violence and dismantle all terrorist organizations. Then he demanded that Mr. Arafat be replaced, and that the Palestinians reform their security forces, economic system and governance.
Today Mr. Arafat offered to meet Mr. Sharon immediately, but the prime minister dismissed the proposal, declaring in a statement that Mr. Arafat was tied to terrorism and "will not be a partner for negotiations."
President Bush effectively endorsed Mr. Sharon's conditions in a speech in June. The draft road map, by contrast, demands that Israel also speedily make concessions, including stopping settlement construction. In saying he accepts the plan, Mr. Sharon means that he accepts what Mr. Bush said in June.
Mr. Sharon has said he will accept an eventual Palestinian state that would occupy less than half of the West Bank ? and none of Jerusalem ? and be demilitarized. Israel would control its airspace. He envisions the borders of this state as being made final in perhaps 10 years.
Under Mr. Sharon's plan, Israel would retain areas of the West Bank that he regards as essential to security ? areas where, not incidentally, most of the settlements have been built.
"He thinks he can settle the problem at a lower cost, and on a longer timetable," said Shimon Peres, long a leading figure in the Labor Party, who served as Mr. Sharon's foreign minister in the unity coalition.
He said he doubted that any Palestinian leadership would agree to Mr. Sharon's terms. "The Likud doesn't understand that to make peace with the Palestinians you need the Palestinians," he said.
Another of Mr. Sharon's former ministers from Labor, Ephraim Sneh, said today that the time had come to end the guessing game over whether the prime minister wants to make peace or war.
"Instead of judging between two assumptions," Mr. Sneh said, "I suggest something different: let him act, and if he goes in the right direction we shall give him full support, even, if needed, to join him after he did the right thing."
Asked what Labor would consider a possible litmus test to demonstrate Mr. Sharon's intentions, Mr. Sneh said he should dismantle the many settlement outposts built in the last two years that Israel has considered illegal.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
"In his autobiography, "Warrior," Mr. Sharon wrote that while he was leading Israel's crack paratroopers in the 1950's, he decided that a policy of mere retaliation or deterrence was not enough to secure a haven for Jews in a region dominated by Arabs.
His goal, he said, "was to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction that they would never win."
In March of last year, Mr. Sharon said of Israel's response to Palestinian terrorism: "The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered will we be able to conduct talks."
That was before Israel began what has proved to be its biggest military offensive since, as defense minister, Mr. Sharon led the invasion of Lebanon in 1982."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30, 2003
Puzzle for Israel: What Does Sharon Want?
By JAMES BENNET
EL AVIV, Jan. 29 ? As Prime Minister Ariel Sharon set about wooing potential coalition partners today, a familiar question recurred in Israeli political circles: what does Mr. Sharon want?
With his smashing victory over the left-of-center Labor Party, he is now in position to do precisely what his rightist Likud Party officially demands: to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Mr. Sharon would now easily have majority support in Parliament to expel Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader ? a step he has said he wants to take ? and to accelerate the already rapid growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. He is free to tighten the already harsh restrictions on the more than three million Palestinians who live there.
Yet today Mr. Sharon urgently appealed for the seemingly crippled Labor Party, whose votes he does not need for a majority, to join a new governing coalition. Likud soared from 19 seats in the 120-seat Parliament to 37, while Labor fell from 25 to 19, its poorest showing ever.
The appeal awakened a long-running debate over what, precisely, Mr. Sharon is after. He has repeatedly said he would make "painful concessions" for peace, but he has not spelled out what the concessions would be.
One theory, held by Palestinians and leftist Israelis, is that Mr. Sharon, master strategist, is seeking the political camouflage that Labor's participation would give his rightist policies.
Amram Mitzna, Labor's leader, believes that Labor played that role for Mr. Sharon in his last coalition government ? and paid the price for its compromised identity in the voting on Tuesday.
The other theory, held by many settlers, is that Mr. Sharon, master strategist, wants to confound the hawks by reaching a historic peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Labor Party would serve as political leverage, not camouflage.
According to that theory, Mr. Sharon, at 74, wants to vault into the ranks of Israeli peacemakers like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, and to erase the blots on his own record. Meir Sheetrit, a moderate Likud politician, likes to say that with a second term Mr. Sharon has the chance to "make history" or "be history."
"I think he wants to make history," said Mr. Sheetrit, who favors the resumption of a peace effort.
There is, of course, another possibility: that Mr. Sharon is a master tactician, not a master strategist, and that he is trying to survive in office and retain the backing of the United States while advancing in a general direction, rather than toward a specific goal.
Mr. Sharon opposed the Oslo peace agreement as a threat to Israeli security, and as Palestinian violence has continued, Israel has taken back almost all of the autonomy that was granted to the Palestinian Authority under Oslo.
Mr. Sharon always feared and distrusted Yasir Arafat, and under Mr. Sharon Israel has in effect imprisoned the Palestinian leader in Ramallah. Mr. Sharon always supported the settlements, and under him the settlements have grown.
The prime minister supports what he calls a long-term interim arrangement with the Palestinians. That is effectively what he has now, with no talks toward a final settlement of the dispute under way. All this has happened with the Bush administration's acquiescence if not outright support.
"My guess is, without the deaths and the loss of life, the situation now is probably as close to what he would want as he could imagine," said Asher Arian, a political scientist at Haifa University. "He's not really negotiating. He's not moving. He's building the settlements."
According to that theory, Mr. Sharon actually means what he says ? as, it might be noted, he himself claims. "What I say, I mean, and what I mean, I say," Mr. Sharon recently told foreign reporters.
In his autobiography, "Warrior," Mr. Sharon wrote that while he was leading Israel's crack paratroopers in the 1950's, he decided that a policy of mere retaliation or deterrence was not enough to secure a haven for Jews in a region dominated by Arabs.
His goal, he said, "was to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction that they would never win."
In March of last year, Mr. Sharon said of Israel's response to Palestinian terrorism: "The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered will we be able to conduct talks."
That was before Israel began what has proved to be its biggest military offensive since, as defense minister, Mr. Sharon led the invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Mr. Sharon's repeated answer to the Americans' various forays into peacemaking here has been a quick yes, followed more quietly by modifications. He has taken that approach to the "road map" to peace and a Palestinian state that the Bush administration is drafting with diplomatic allies. Mr. Sharon says he "accepts" the road map, but that he also wants numerous changes made.
Over the last two years he has added conditions to a resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians, and the Bush administration has agreed to each one.
First Mr. Sharon demanded that the Palestinians halt all violence and dismantle all terrorist organizations. Then he demanded that Mr. Arafat be replaced, and that the Palestinians reform their security forces, economic system and governance.
Today Mr. Arafat offered to meet Mr. Sharon immediately, but the prime minister dismissed the proposal, declaring in a statement that Mr. Arafat was tied to terrorism and "will not be a partner for negotiations."
President Bush effectively endorsed Mr. Sharon's conditions in a speech in June. The draft road map, by contrast, demands that Israel also speedily make concessions, including stopping settlement construction. In saying he accepts the plan, Mr. Sharon means that he accepts what Mr. Bush said in June.
Mr. Sharon has said he will accept an eventual Palestinian state that would occupy less than half of the West Bank ? and none of Jerusalem ? and be demilitarized. Israel would control its airspace. He envisions the borders of this state as being made final in perhaps 10 years.
Under Mr. Sharon's plan, Israel would retain areas of the West Bank that he regards as essential to security ? areas where, not incidentally, most of the settlements have been built.
"He thinks he can settle the problem at a lower cost, and on a longer timetable," said Shimon Peres, long a leading figure in the Labor Party, who served as Mr. Sharon's foreign minister in the unity coalition.
He said he doubted that any Palestinian leadership would agree to Mr. Sharon's terms. "The Likud doesn't understand that to make peace with the Palestinians you need the Palestinians," he said.
Another of Mr. Sharon's former ministers from Labor, Ephraim Sneh, said today that the time had come to end the guessing game over whether the prime minister wants to make peace or war.
"Instead of judging between two assumptions," Mr. Sneh said, "I suggest something different: let him act, and if he goes in the right direction we shall give him full support, even, if needed, to join him after he did the right thing."
Asked what Labor would consider a possible litmus test to demonstrate Mr. Sharon's intentions, Mr. Sneh said he should dismantle the many settlement outposts built in the last two years that Israel has considered illegal.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
Facebook
Twitter