Sharon is Still the Best Choice

[abu afak]

Sharon is still the best choice

Neill Lochery
National Post

Wednesday, January 15, 2003

This was meant to be the most boring Israeli election in years. Israelis were said to be uninterested in the campaign and were voting with their remote controls by turning off the nightly hour of election ads produced by the various parties. Much of this voter fatigue was put down to the fact that this is Israel's third election in four years, not to mention it seemed a near certainty that the incumbent Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, would become the first Israeli leader to be re-elected since Yitzhak Shamir in 1988.

All this changed with the publication of corruption charges, first against the Likud party that Mr Sharon leads, and secondly against Mr. Sharon himself. The charge that the recent Likud primary elections contained many irregularities has already led to the sacking of one junior minister, and a police investigation that may lead to additional political casualties. The allegations against Mr. Sharon are also of a very serious nature. It is alleged he took money from a South African businessman, and these allegations are being investigated in both South Africa and Israel.

Since the first set of allegations centring on the Likud primaries became known, the Likud has been hemorrhaging votes at an alarming rate. Suddenly we have an electoral contest on our hands.

Interestingly, many disillusioned Likud voters are not shifting over to the Labour Party (the major opposition party), but rather to Shinui -- a party that promotes secular values that could become the third-largest party in Israel after the election scheduled for Jan. 28.

The Labour Party, however, which has been growing in confidence during the campaign, has started to focus its attacks on Mr. Sharon. This is a sure sign that it believes the Prime Minister remains vulnerable on the corruption issue.

Mr. Sharon has seen the polls, and heard the taunts from the Labour Party leadership. Last week, he adopted attack as the best form of defence against the charges. Unfortunately, his strategy backfired when the head of Israel's central elections committee pulled his press conference off the airwaves -- ruling that it was election propaganda, not affairs of the state. There are very tight rules in Israel governing what an incumbent prime minister can or can't do during a campaign. Prior to the plug being pulled, voters were treated to the spectre of their Prime Minister shouting accusations at Labour Party leader, Amram Mitzna, and protesting his innocence on the corruption charges. Many Israelis remain more concerned about the simple fact that Mr. Sharon "lost it" during the address, than the charges themselves.

Let us presume for a moment that normal service is resumed and that Mr. Sharon and the Likud emerge victorious on Jan. 28. The real problems for Mr. Sharon and the Middle East peace process start here. The investigation into the affairs of Mr. Sharon is likely to take months, even years, and he is going to be politically weakened until the inquiry is complete. Just at a time when it appeared that Israel was going to get a leader who was strong enough to push his understandably reluctant countrymen into negotiations with the Palestinians, the reality is that Israel will once more have a politically weak prime minister whose attention is distracted by events elsewhere.

Many Likudniks are acutely aware of this risk and there have been calls in recent days for Mr. Sharon to stand down before the election in favour of his fierce rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, who remains popular with Israel's electorate, and more importantly, is not embroiled in any scandal. In truth, there appears little chance of Mr. Sharon doing this at present.

In terms of policy, the vast majority of Israelis continue to support Mr. Sharon's policy of no negotiations with Mr. Arafat yet refusing to rule out the possibility of a Palestinian state in the near future. If Mr. Sharon does fall, the real casualty will be the abandonment of the middle ground in Israel, with the choice left between the extremely dovish Labour Party and the hawkish Mr. Netanyahu. It would also see the chances of a new national unity government being formed after the elections recede. Most experts argue that Israel needs as broad-based a government as possible upon entering negotiations with the Palestinians.

Every Israeli election uncovers a surprise. This one appears to be no different and the consequences of the recent revelations are going to be felt well beyond the shores of Israel. Israeli voters, however, need to concentrate on the bigger picture and support the man they feel will be their best leader for the difficult years ahead. In short, vote for viable policies, not political cleanliness.

Neill Lochery is director of the Centre for Israeli Studies at University College, London.

© Copyright 2003 National Post

[soral]

Sharon the best choice...? I reality, perhaps, but in actuality, I don't think so. There are three solutions to the problems facing israel.

One- Mitzna: Pull back to 67 borders, dismantle the settlements, kiss arafats arse and pray for the best.

Two- Sharon: Do nothing, only clamp down when innocent Jews are killed. Don't talk with arafat, but don't do anything about him either

Three-Kahanist: Severe clamp down on terrorists. Pay the arabs to leave Eretz Yisrael, pay Jordan to take them. if they resist, deport them by force.

the kahanist option is the only one that is logical, moral and practical. It is naive and wishful thinking to assume that the arabs will stop attacking Israel if we give them Gaza, Judea and Samaria. It is pointless to do nothing, it simpy prolongs the conflict - meaning that the arabs win by default (demographics)

There is NO other option. Transfer is essential.

in 1948 800,000 Jews were forced to flee (without their property) arab countries. 600,000 settled in Israel and instead of languishing in self-pity, they just accepted it and made a life for themselves. in 1991, Kuwait transferred a few hundred thousand "palestinians" for suporting saddam. transfer is the only option

[Simon]

Three-Kahanist: Severe clamp down on terrorists. Pay the arabs to leave Eretz Yisrael, pay Jordan to take them. if they resist, deport them by force.

the kahanist option is the only one that is logical, moral and practical. It is naive and wishful thinking to assume that the arabs will stop attacking Israel if we give them Gaza, Judea and Samaria. It is pointless to do nothing, it simpy prolongs the conflict - meaning that the arabs win by default (demographics)

This gets my full moral support. We need a similar plan for India. The islamic population is like a millstone around our neck and is really slowing us down as a nation. It is probably an even bigger drag on Israel.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by soral
Three-Kahanist: Severe clamp down on terrorists. Pay the arabs to leave Eretz Yisrael, pay Jordan to take them. if they resist, deport them by force.

the kahanist option is the only one that is logical, moral and practical. It is naive and wishful thinking to assume that the arabs will stop attacking Israel if we give them Gaza, Judea and Samaria. It is pointless to do nothing, it simpy prolongs the conflict - meaning that the arabs win by default (demographics)

There is NO other option. Transfer is essential.

in 1948 800,000 Jews were forced to flee (without their property) arab countries. 600,000 settled in Israel and instead of languishing in self-pity, they just accepted it and made a life for themselves. in 1991, Kuwait transferred a few hundred thousand "palestinians" for suporting saddam. transfer is the only option

I agree. I only differ on the exact mechanism to accomplish that. The fear is of full sanctions and long time embargo under European-Arab pressure.

I think there is only two ways to make the transfare possible:
(1) slow and limitid: clear house by house, neighberhood by neighberhood. villiage by villiage, over long span of time. Thus loosing the intrest of world media, making it into a rutine. Thus improving our borders, closing the Arabs within kantons, or fenced off cities. from there, they would rather move to some other place by their own power. The on going security problem israel is facing already force us for similar solution as a direct result of constant warfare in some Arab regions, such as Refah.

(2) A internationaly coordianted effort of several strong countries to simultanecly trasfare Islamic supporting population outside their borders. Usually, such action is a part or a result of a WWIII. Many argue, we are all ready in the midst of WWIII.

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by Simon
This gets my full moral support. We need a similar plan for India. The islamic population is like a millstone around our neck and is really slowing us down as a nation. It is probably an even bigger drag on Israel.

The Kahane or Kahane-type solution is the only logical and worthwhile solution one could have. Without the removal of the Israeli Arabs, they do "win by default". They breed like rabbits while the Jewish growth rate is much slower. This is the most severe problems, only second to terrorism. The reason the demogaphics aren't addressed currently is because it's grave effects won't become evident for 30 years or so, while the terrorism is constantly on-hand and is visible wherever you go.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by soral
Sharon the best choice...? I reality, perhaps, but in actuality, I don't think so. There are three solutions to the problems facing israel.

One- Mitzna: Pull back to 67 borders, dismantle the settlements, kiss arafats arse and pray for the best.

Two- Sharon: Do nothing, only clamp down when innocent Jews are killed. Don't talk with arafat, but don't do anything about him either

Three-Kahanist: Severe clamp down on terrorists. Pay the arabs to leave Eretz Yisrael, pay Jordan to take them. if they resist, deport them by force.

the kahanist option is the only one that is logical, moral and practical. It is naive and wishful thinking to assume that the arabs will stop attacking Israel if we give them Gaza, Judea and Samaria. It is pointless to do nothing, it simpy prolongs the conflict - meaning that the arabs win by default (demographics)

There is NO other option. Transfer is essential.

in 1948 800,000 Jews were forced to flee (without their property) arab countries. 600,000 settled in Israel and instead of languishing in self-pity, they just accepted it and made a life for themselves. in 1991, Kuwait transferred a few hundred thousand "palestinians" for suporting saddam. transfer is the only option

I would tend to agree with you. But option 3 is not really a practical option at all. There is no way that the international community would tollerate such actions. And you have seen how Arab nations treat Palestinian refugees. No doubt that they would continue these sorts of practices to leverage more outrage against Israel.

The only way I see that this could happen is if the Palestinians do something so aggregious that the international community turns squarely against them. but given the Palestinians past and present conduct and its continued strong support from Europe, I would shudder to think what sort of aggregious action would be necessary to turn European support.

And as long as the Arabs are taught nothing except for visceral hatred of Jews, moving them further away will really not make things any better. they will just continue attacking from Jordan (or from the UK).

The real way to solve the problem is that the peoples of the Arab world need to be civilized. But I have no idea how to do that, and I don't think anyone else really does either. Without civility, a real resolution of the conflict is hopeless.