POLITICS-ISRAEL: Sharon Stands Tough Under Siege

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Ferry Biedermann

JERUSALEM, Jan 22 2004 (IPS) - Israeli Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom mounted an uncharacteristically robust defence this week of Israel’s separation barrier. He sounded angry and combative, even picking fights with members of the foreign press.

On the one hand, Shalom’s tone matched the strident and unapologetic flavour of Israel’s government. But on the other hand, Shalom had been among the most diplomatic of ministers. Maybe something has caused him to change tack.

There is increasing speculation in the Israeli media that an indictment will be filed shortly against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The police have charged a businessman with paying a bribe to Sharon and his son Gilad, and to deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Many commentators see the political end of Sharon in the offing. They are asking already how this will affect other politicians in his Likud party who may soon vie for leadership.

The questions may be premature. Israeli prime ministers have faced police investigations in the past, over improprieties in financing campaigns for example. None has had to resign. The allegations against Sharon are more serious but he has declared he will not quit.

Waiting in the wings as always is former prime minister and now Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He had tried to overtake Sharon on the right for Likud leadership before the last elections more than a year ago. He had sounded even less compromising on negotiations with the Palestinians than Sharon.

Netanyahu has since had to deal with a recession, labour unrest and social protests, and he has lowered his profile on diplomatic issues considerably. In the cabinet he has consistently supported Sharon on most political and security questions.

But despite his troubled tenure at the finance ministry, Netanyahu is still the most likely candidate by far to take over from Sharon, should it ever come to that. Shalom is known to be a contender and he may be trying to ingratiate himself with the right, but he is unlikely to beat Netanyahu.

It is doubtful that Netanyahu would take a different line on policy questions should he become prime minister. Both he and Sharon excel at stonewalling and playing for time. They both embrace what has long been the central tenet of Likud foreign policy: maintain the status quo as long as possible.

Meanwhile Sharon and Olmert have been rocking the Likud boat. They have spoken of unilateral steps to disengage Israel from the Palestinians, which means in effect partial withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967.. Both have hinted at dismantling some of the more isolated Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

Sharon said at a recent briefing that he had no intention of holding on to the “Palestinian population centres.” In a remarkable statement he said that “it had never been the intention” of Israel’s leaders to annex the whole of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. When asked why he had promoted settlements in these areas, he said “these are different times.”

He emphasised, as did Shalom at a later briefing, that the separation barrier Israel is building in the West Bank is a security barrier and that it can be moved after, as he put it, the Palestinians start acting against terrorism. Sharon has not spelt out what unilateral steps he could consider, just as he never gave details of what he had meant by “painful compromises” earlier.

A recent poll commissioned by the Haaretz daily newspaper suggests that 59 per cent of Israelis do not believe Sharon will carry out any disengagement.. Even so, the Israeli right is sufficiently alarmed to have started a campaign against the idea. It mobilised more than 100,000 people to a rally earlier this month against withdrawal from the territories. Several prominent Likud members attended, but not Netanyahu.

The idea that is emerging now is that Sharon wants to pressure the Palestinians into compromises by threatening to take away more and more of the land from their future state. He has consistently said that if he carries out unilateral disengagement, the Palestinians will end up with less land than they would through negotiations.

Sharon’s plans for a Palestinian state are well known. He is talking about some 40 percent of the West Bank, a patchwork of cantons connected by some roads and tunnels to give the ‘state’ territorial contiguity. There are some hints that once this mini-state is established, negotiations could begin on a final territorial settlement.

But the plan means nothing when no negotiations are taking place. Sharon may well have floated the disengagement idea as an answer to mounting criticism that he had no plan at all. This became urgent after last summer’s presentation of several alternative peace plans.

It seems unlikely that Sharon intends to do anything. Political turmoil and a change of prime minister may actually serve Likud’s interests. As long as there is political uncertainty, no big and bold initiatives will be launched.