|
As Ariel Sharon teeters on the brink of extinction, Uri
Avnery dispels some of the myths that are emerging about his
legacy, in particular the myth that Sharon had become "a
man of peace". These myths, Avnery says, "have nothing
to do with the real Ariel Sharon" and are based on "ignorance,
illusion and self-deception".
He was an Israeli Napoleon.
From early youth, he was totally convinced that he was the
only person in the world who could save the State of Israel.
That was an absolute certainty, free of any doubt. He just knew
that he must achieve supreme power, in order to fulfil the mission
that fate had entrusted him with.
This belief led to a complete integration of personal egocentrism
and national egocentrism. For a person who believes he has such
a mission, there is no difference between the personal and the
national interest. What is good for him automatically becomes
good for the nation, and vice versa. This means that anyone
who hinders him from attaining power is really committing a crime
against the state. And anyone helping him to come to power, is
really doing a patriotic deed.
This belief directed all his actions for decades. It explains
the dogged determination, the tenacity, the unbending perseverance
that became his trade mark and earned him his nickname "the
bulldozer". This attracted admirers, who fell completely
under his influence.
It also explains his attitude to money matters. It has been said
that he "does not stop at a red light", that "laws
are not for him". More than once he was accused of accepting
millions from rich Jews abroad. On the day before his fateful
stroke, it came out that the police had formally accused him
of receiving a bribe of three million dollars from a casino-owner.
(It is quite possible that this raised his blood pressure and
helped to cause the massive stroke.) But not all these millionaires
expected a return. Some of them believed, as he did himself,
that by supporting him, they were actually supporting the State
of Israel. Can there be a more sacred duty than to provide an
assured income to the Israeli Napoleon, so that he can devote
his entire energy to the fulfilment of his historic mission?
On his long journey, Sharon easily overcame such hurdles. They
did not divert him from his course. Personal tragedies and political
defeats did not hold him up for a moment. The accidents that
killed his first wife and his eldest son, his dismissal from
office after being convicted by a board of inquiry of "indirect
responsibility" for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, as
well as the many other setbacks, failures and disappointments
that struck him throughout the years did not deter him. They
did not divert him for an instant from his endeavour to achieve
supreme power.
And now it was all coming true. On Wednesday 4 January 2006,
he could be certain that in three months time he would become
the sole leader of Israel. He had created a party that belonged
to him alone and that was not only on track to occupy a central
position in the next Knesset, but also to cut all other parties
into pieces.
He was determined to use this power to change the political landscape
of Israel altogether and introduce a presidential system, which
would have given him an all-powerful position, like that enjoyed
by Juan Peron in his heyday in Argentina. Then, at long last,
he would be able to realize his historic mission of laying the
tracks on which Israel would run for generations, as David Ben-Gurion
had done before him.
And then, just when it seemed that nothing could stop him any
more, with cruel suddenness, his own body betrayed him.
What happened resembles a central motif of the Jewish myth: the
fate of Moses, whom God punished for his pride by allowing him
a glimpse of the Promised Land from afar, but having him die
before he could set foot on its soil. On the threshold of absolute
power, the stroke hit Ariel Sharon.
While he was still fighting for his life in hospital, the
myth of "Sharon's legacy" was already beginning to
form.
As has happened with many leaders who did not leave a written
testament, every individual is free to imagine a Sharon of his
own. Leftists, who only yesterday had cursed Sharon as the murderer
of Qibya, the butcher of Sabra and Shatila and the man responsible
for the plunder and slaughter in the occupied Palestinian territories,
began to admire him as the "man of peace". Settlers,
who had condemned him as a traitor, remembered that it was he
who had created the settlements and kept on enlarging them to
this day.
Only yesterday he was one of the most hated people in Israel
and the world. Today, after the evacuation of Gush Katif, he
has become the darling of the public, almost from wall to wall.
The leaders of nations crowned him as the "great warrior
who has turned into a hero of peace".
Everybody agrees that Sharon has changed completely, that he
has gone from one extreme to the other, the proverbial Ethiopian
who has changed his skin, the leopard who has changed his spots.
All these analyses have only one thing in common: they have nothing
to do with the real Ariel Sharon. They are based on ignorance,
illusion and self-deception.
A look at his long career (helped, I may add, by some personal
knowledge) show that he has not changed at all. He stayed true
to his fundamental approach, only adapting his slogans to changing
times and circumstances. His master plan remained as it was at
the beginning.
Underlying his world view is a simplistic, 19th-century-style
nationalism, which says: our people stands above all others,
other people are inferior. The rights of our nation are sacred,
other nations have no rights at all. The rules of morality apply
only to relations within the nation, not to relations between
nations.
He absorbed this conviction with his mother's milk. It governed
Kfar Malal, the cooperative village in which he was born, as
it also governed the whole world at the time. Among Jews in particular
it was reinforced by the horrors of the Holocaust. The slogan
"all the world is against us" is deeply anchored in
the national psyche, and is applied especially to Arabs.
On this moral base the aim emerged: to establish a Jewish state,
as large as possible, free of non-Jews. That could lead to the
conclusion that the ethnic cleansing, begun by Ben-Gurion in
1948, when half the Palestinians were deprived of their homes
and land, must be completed. Sharon's career began shortly after,
when he was appointed to lead the undercover commando Unit 101,
whose murderous actions beyond the borders were designed mainly
to prevent the refugees from infiltrating back to their villages.
However, Sharon became convinced quite early that another wholesale
ethnic cleansing was impossible in the foreseeable future (barring
some unforeseeable international event changing conditions altogether).
In default of this option, Sharon believed that Israel must annex
all the areas between the Mediterranean and the Jordan without
a dense Palestinian population. Already decades ago, he prepared
a map that he showed proudly to local and foreign personalities
in order to convert them to his views.
According to this map, Israel will annex the areas along the
pre-1967 border as well as the Jordan valley, up to the "back
of the mountain" (an expression particularly dear to Sharon).
It will also annex several East-West strips to connect the Jordan
valley with the Green Line. In these territories that are marked
for annexation, Sharon created a dense net of settlements. That
was his principal endeavour throughout the last 30 years, in
all his diverse positions - minister of agriculture, minister
of industry and trade, minister of defence, minister of housing,
foreign minister, minister of infrastructure, and prime minister
- and this work is going on at this minute.
The areas with a dense Palestinian population, Sharon intended
to hand over to Palestinian self-government. He was determined
to remove from them all the settlements that were set up there
without thinking. This way, eight or nine Palestinian enclaves
would have come into being, cut off from each other, each one
surrounded by settlers and Israeli army installations. He did
not care whether these would be called a "Palestinian state".
His recent use of this term is an example of his ability to adapt
himself, outwardly and verbally, to changing situations.
The Gaza Strip is one of these enclaves. That is the real significance
of the uprooting of the settlements and the withdrawal of the
Israeli army. It is the first stage in the realization of the
map: this small area, with a dense Palestinian population of
a million and a quarter, was turned over to the Palestinians.
The Israeli land, sea and air forces surround the strip almost
completely. The very existence of its inhabitants depends at
all times on the mercy of Israel, which controls all entrances
and exits (except the Rafah crossing into Egypt, which is monitored
by Israel from afar.) Israel can cut off the water and electricity
supply at a moment's notice. Sharon intended to create the same
situation in Hebron, Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin and the other areas.
Is this a "peace plan"?
Peace is made between nations which agree to create a situation
where all of them can live in freedom, well-being and mutual
respect and believe that that is good for them. This is not what
Sharon had in mind. As a military man, he knows only truces.
If peace had been handed to him on a platter, he would not have
recognized it.
He knew perfectly well that no Palestinian leader could possibly
agree to his map, now or ever. That's why he did not intend to
have any political negotiations with the Palestinians. His slogan
was "we have no partner". He intended to realize all
the stages of his plan "unilaterally", as he did in
Gaza - without dialogue with the Palestinians, without considering
their requirements and aspirations, and, of course, without seeking
their consent.
But Sharon did indeed intend to make peace - peace with the United
States. He considered American consent as essential. He knew
that Washington could not give its consent to his whole plan.
So he intended to obtain their agreement phase by phase. Since
President Bush has submitted to him entirely, and no one knows
who will succeed him, Sharon intended to realize the main part
of his plan within the next two or three years, before the end
of the President's term in office. That is one of the reasons
for his hurry. He had to come to absolute power now, immediately.
Only the stroke prevented this.
The eagerness with which so many good people on the left embraced
the "Sharon legacy" does not show their grasp of his
plans, but rather their own longing for peace. They long with
all their heart for a strong leader, who has the will and the
ability to end the conflict.
The determination with which Sharon removed the settlers from
Gush Katif filled these leftists with enthusiasm. Who would have
believed that there was a leader capable of carrying it out,
without civil war, without bloodshed? And if this has happened
in the Gaza Strip, why can't it happen in the West Bank? Sharon
will drive the settlers out and make peace. All this, without
the left having to lift a finger. The saviour, like Deus,
will jump ex machina. As the Hebrew proverb goes,
"the work of the righteous is done by others", who
may be something quite other than righteous.
Sharon has easily adapted himself to this longing of the public.
He has not changed his plan, but given it a new veneer, in the
spirit of the times. From now on, he appeared as the "man
of peace". He never cared which mask it was convenient to
wear. But this mask reflects the deepest wishes of the Israeli
people.
From this point of view, the imaginary "Sharon legacy"
can play a positive role. When he created his new party, he took
with him a lot of Likud people, those who had come to the conclusion
that the goal of "The whole of Eretz Israel" has become
impossible to attain. Many of these will remain in the Kadima
party even after Sharon has left the tribune. As a result of
an ongoing, slow subterranean process, Likud people, too, are
ready to accept the partition of the country. The whole system
is moving in the direction of peace.
The "Sharon legacy", even if imaginary, may become
a blessing, if Sharon appears in it in his latest incarnation:
Sharon the uprooter of settlements, Sharon who is ready to give
up parts of Eretz Israel, Sharon who agrees to a Palestinian
state.
True, this was not Sharon's intention. But, as Sharon himself
might have said: it is not the intentions that matter, but the
results on the ground.
|