|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Editorial On Sharon: An Act Or The Real Thing? |
Current rating: 0 |
by haaretz via gehrig
(No verified email address) |
28 May 2003
Modified: 03:27:51 PM |
|
"Sharon has a right to demand encouraging signs from the Palestinians. Those who praise Sharon, the new critic of the occupation, have a right, and even an obligation, to demand such signs from him. There is a wide choice of ways to prove good will and honest intentions on his part. Dismantling outposts. Transferring money. Releasing prisoners, and using what Bernard-Henri Levy called this week in an interview in Haaretz "imagination and a new way of speaking" with the Palestinians." |
An act or the real thing?
By Gideon Samet
Now we know what happens when a prime minister throws his full, not inconsiderable weight against the occupation: There are shouts in the Likud and near hysteria on the extreme right. Prof. Yosef Ben Shlomo cries, "A historic crime"; author Moshe Shamir screams, "Help!!!"; MK Gila Gamliel scolds Ariel Sharon, who regards the scene with a mixture of Olympic disdain and anger. The result: What he wants passes like a knife through butter, even a cliched leftist word like "occupation." But what will remain of what he doesn't want? Along with Sharon's success this week in passing the road map in the cabinet, this question still remains unanswered.
As usual with him, the sudden campaign for peace contained the good and the bad, everything and its opposite. Almost every one of the items in the list of reservations could plow up the land of the map and the roads on it, and scatter salt on them. The familiar argument - that Sharon can, if only he wants to - was proved this week without surprise for its consistent formulators.
But the additional achievement of the prime minister, an almost virtuoso move, was that with all this, he can still block any real progress, and lead Israeli politics away from the plan. After astonishing his friends (but not his critics on the left), Sharon will be able to exploit the 14 comments even more easily, in order to seem at one at the same time both willing to make concessions and incorrigibly stubborn.
He was responding to the desire of the Israeli majority, as indicated in surveys, no less than to President George W. Bush. This majority elected him, but expressed a consistent opinion opposing the occupation. As he was advised, mainly by his opponents on the left, Sharon opened the valve of hope for better times. He showed a way out. We are still far from achieving these things, as long as Sharon continues to be moderate in speech, while refusing to act. But the Israeli desire for change is so strong that mass psychology, which is striving for peace and quiet, worked immediately. The stock exchange went crazy. Spokesmen for the suffering industries, from tourism to trade, went from despair to prophecies of improvement. The advantage of these prophecies is that they are likely to be self-fulfilling, at least partially, on the waves of the new optimism.
The IOUs scattered by Sharon this week are praiseworthy, but they must also be submitted to him every day from now on for payment. The problem is, of course, that despite our long experience, we still haven't learned enough about the prime minister's political ethics of payment. After the praise, there are many reasons to continue to be suspicious of one of the wiliest and most resourceful politicians we have ever had.
Sharon has a right to demand encouraging signs from the Palestinians. Those who praise Sharon, the new critic of the occupation, have a right, and even an obligation, to demand such signs from him. There is a wide choice of ways to prove good will and honest intentions on his part. Dismantling outposts. Transferring money. Releasing prisoners, and using what Bernard-Henri Levy called this week in an interview in Haaretz "imagination and a new way of speaking" with the Palestinians.
There is still justification for serious doubt as to whether he will do so. Just as many doubts remain regarding the intention of President Bush to conduct more than a parade of documents and declarations describing a vision. This is a sensitive period, which is liable to develop with time into a new wave of hatred and lack of confidence, just because of the optimism among those who favor a deal. Therefore, there is room for suspicion. If these weeks are wasted on mutual complaints, and if the Palestinian administration doesn't make an intensified effort to stop acts of terror, only great disappointment will emerge from this positive beginning.
Sharon can do a good job of running the show here. But the direction and the intensity must be dictated by Bush. He will have the opportunity in next week's meetings. What he says and does there will set the tone for the progress of the deal: Is it just a show of doing the minimum expected of him, or is it "the real thing" from which there is no return, and which even Sharon and Arafat won't succeed in spoiling in the face of American determination.
|
