Back to Likud and Ariel Sharon

The stunning victory of Mr. Ariel Sharon and his Likud party in the recent Israeli elections has made the Middle East peace process more uncertain and doubtful. President Bush in his State of the Union address this past week barely mentioned the festering Arab Israeli conflict that has been for over 50-years the cause of much of the turmoil in the world. Now with Mr. Sharon in the saddle again and Mr. Bush preoccupied with his impending war with Iraq, the Palestinian issue has all but lost its urgency and has been left to Mr. Sharon to tackle it in any way he wishes.

It is just the way Mr. Sharon would have wanted. Now Mr. Sharon is free, as he has been the past two years, to tighten his chokehold on Palestinian territories and in the guise of rooting out terrorism, crush Palestinian opposition to Israeli occupation. A tit-for-tat approach has not stopped suicide bombers to cause havoc in Israel. Instead a forceful and indiscriminate response by Israel has lured more suicide bombers to the Palestinian cause.

Most Israelis realize that a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza is not only inevitable, it is also in the long-term security interests of their country. Though some in Likud leadership, including Mr. Sharon, have endorsed the principle of land-for-peace, their concept of a Palestinian state remains drastically different than the one proposed by the US and its allies including Saudi Arabia. Mr. Sharon has kept his idea of a Palestinian state purposefully vague to allow him the wiggle room with his hard line Likud supporters and powerful right wing settlers. What can be culled from his previous statements is that he would tolerate a Bantu like state (a sham homeland created by the apartheid government of South Africa to deflect international criticism) on parts of the West Bank and Gaza. In his scheme of things illegal settlements would continue to grow.

The Likud and its hard line supporters lay ideological claim to the entire West Bank and Gaza. They consider it their land even though a great majority of them are recent arrivals from other countries and that the Palestinians they have displaced or want to displace have deep roots in the land. This expansionist policy is consistent with angry rejection of the partition of Palestine in 1948 by the likes of David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin who vowed to restore Eretz Israel or the land of Israel to pre-partition Palestine. Their present day right-wing followers are publicly committed to expel all the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and push them across the river into Jordan. A majority of Israelis however does not subscribe to the expansionist ideology of their founders and are willing, as the recent polls indicate, to make necessary compromises to achieve peace. But at the same time they went ahead and elected an uncompromising Mr. Sharon in lieu of the peace advocate Mr. Amram Mitzna.

Mr. Mitzna, the former army general turned politician, is currently the mayor of the coastal city of Haifa. He is an honest and straight talking man. In Haifa he is admired and respected both by the Jews and the Arabs. As leader of the Labor Party he thought he could bring the Palestinians and the Israelis together, as he had done in his city. He advocated resumption of peace negotiations with Palestinians, committed to dismantle Jewish settlements and in case of a deadlock would have pulled out of the occupied territories and build a wall separating Israelis from the Palestinians.

The contradiction of the Israeli voters in agreeing with Mr. Mitzna (a full 70% liked his peace plan) but voting for anything-but-peace candidate Sharon is confusing but understandable. They want peace but they vote their fears and apprehensions. They voted for Mr. Sharon even though he has not been able to stop the wanton carnage caused by suicide bombers. Israel’s economy is in ruins; tourism is drastically down and general morale of the people an all-time low. Many well-educated and well-healed Israelis find it convenient to leave the country and live abroad. When current policies have not borne the fruits of peace or security then why not try something different? Mr. Mitzna was able to think out of a box but he was tossed aside.

Israeli hard-liners and their leaders need to understand that the price their country is paying for their concept of Eretz Israel is steep and cannot be sustained in the long run. The sooner they relinquish claims to the land that in not theirs, the better off they would be. And the world.

(S. Amjad Hussain is an op-ed columnist for the daily Toledo Blade).