|
|
Latest Column:
The
Media: 2005’s Big Loser
The New Year Offers a (Much-Needed!) Clean Slate
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
Michael Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@LA Times
..........
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
 Israeli
Politics Will Revert to Its Past
Will realism set in after Sharon?
[by
Daniel Pipes] 1/9/06
Israel's
prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has suffered a massive brain
hemorrhage; at the very least, his long political career appears
to be over. What does that mean for Israeli politics and for
Arab-Israeli relations?
Basically,
it signals a return to business as usual.
Since the
State of Israel came into existence in 1948, two points of
view on relations with the Arabs have dominated its political
life, represented by (as they are presently called) Labour
on the left and Likud on the right.
Contributor
Daniel Pipes
Daniel
Pipes is director of the Middle
East Forum, a member of the presidentially-appointed
board of the U.S.
Institute of Peace, and a prize-winning columnist
for the New York Sun and The Jerusalem
Post. His most recent book, Miniatures: Views
of Islamic and Middle Eastern Politics (Transaction
Publishers) appeared in late 2003. His website, DanielPipes.org,
the single most accessed source of information specifically
on the Middle East and Islam, offers an archive and
a chance to sign-up to receive his new materials as
they appear. [go to Pipes index]
|
Labour argued
for greater flexibility and accommodation with the Arabs, Likud
called for a tougher stance. Every one of Israel's 11 prime
ministers came from the two of them, not a single one came
from the plethora of others. The two parties together suffered
a long-term decline in popularity but they jointly remained
the pivots and kingmakers of Israel electoral life.
Or so they
did until six weeks ago. On Nov. 21, Sharon left Likud and
formed his own party, called Kadima. He took this radical step
in part because his views vis-à-vis the Palestinians had evolved
so far from Likud's nationalist policies, as shown by his withdrawal
of Israeli forces and civilians from Gaza during mid-2005,
that he no longer fit there. Also, he had attained such personal
popularity that he attained the stature to found a party in
his own image.
His move
was exquisitely timed and enormously successful. Instantly,
the polls showed Kadima effectively replacing Labour and Likud.
The latest
survey, conducted by "Dialogue" on Monday and published
yesterday, showed Kadima winning 42 seats of the 120 seats
in the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Labour followed with 19
seats and Likud trailing behind with a dismal 14.
Kadima's
stunning success turned Israeli politics upside-down. The historic
warhorses had been so sidelined, one could speculate about
Sharon forming a government without even bothering to ally
with one or other of them.
Even more
astonishing was Sharon's personal authority in Kadima; never
had Israel witnessed the emergence of such a strongman. (And
rarely do other mature democracies; Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands
comes to mind as another exception.) Sharon quickly lured to
Kadima prominent Labour, Likud and other politicians who shared
little in common other than a willingness to follow his lead.
It was a
daredevil, high-flying, net-less, bravura, acrobatic feat,
one that would last only so long as Sharon retained his magic
touch. Or his health.
I
was skeptical of Kadima from the very start, dismissing
it just one week after it came into existence as an escapist
venture that "will (1) fall about as abruptly as it has arisen
and (2) leave behind a meager legacy." If Sharon's career
is now over, so is Kadima's. He created it, he ran it, he
decided its policies, and none else can now control its fissiparous
elements. Without Sharon, Kadima's constituent elements will
drift back to their old homes in Labour, Likud, and elsewhere.
With a thud, Israeli politics return to normal.
Likud, expected
to slip into a dismal third place in the March voting, stands
the most to gain from Sharon's exit. Kadima's members came
disproportionately from its ranks and now Likud conceivably
could, under the forceful leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu,
do well enough to remain in power. Likud's prospects look all
the brighter given that Labour has just elected a radical and
untried new leader, Amir Peretz.
More broadly,
the sudden leftward turn of Israeli politics in the wake of
Sharon's personal turn to the left will stop and perhaps even
be reversed.
Turning to
Israeli relations with the Palestinians, Sharon made monumental
mistakes in recent months. In particular, the withdrawal of
all Israelis from Gaza confirmed for Palestinians that violence
works, prompting a barrage of rockets on Israeli territory
and an inflammation of the political temperature.
As Israel
settles back to a more normal state, with no politician enjoying
Sharon's outsized popularity, governmental actions will again
come under closer scrutiny. The result is likely to be a less
escapist and more realist set of policies toward the Palestinians
and perhaps even some forward movement toward a resolution
of the Israeli-Palestinian war. -one-
This article
first appeared at National Post [Canada]
copyright
2006 Daniel Pipes
§
|
|
|
