Sharon, de man van vrede?

Nu er een abrupt einde is gekomen aan de politieke loopbaan van Sharon vallen de commentatoren over elkaar heen – velen van hen gaan er van uit dat Sharon serieus bezig was om vrede te stichten met de Palestijnen en een politieke omzwaai had gemaakt van rechts naar het midden: eindelijk zou er een Palestijnse staat moeten komen die een eind zou moeten maken aan het conflict. De commentatoren die hierin geloven hebben vooral goed geluisterd naar de slogans van Sharon en niet gekeken naar de feiten.

Lees de laatste twee artikelen van Uri Avnery, helaas nog in het engels. Hieronder.

A Napoleon, Made in Israel
Uri Avnery 7-1-2006

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 fulfill 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 fulfillment 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 oldest 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 endeavor to achieve supreme power.

And now it was all coming true. On Wednesday, January 4, 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 anymore, 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 Kibieh, 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 endeavor throughout the last thirty years, in all his diverse positions – Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Industry and Trade, Minister of Defense, 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 savior, 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.
Because of the many questions asked, Avnery wrote this week a second article

Three Fingers, No Fist

Uri Avnery

A political earthquake before an election is an unusual event, but not unknown. A second earthquake in such a period is already rare. But a third earthquake before an election, a short time after the first two – now, that is really scary.

Well, it has just happened. The nomination of Amir Peretz as leader of the Labor Party had already changed the political landscape of Israel. That is what pushed Ariel Sharon to create the Kadima party, the “Big Bang” that changed the landscape once again. Now, with the collapse of Sharon, the landscape has changed yet again – and this time beyond recognition.

Eighty days before the elections, the competition starts again right from the beginning. What will happen to Kadima? What kind of leader is Ehud Olmert? How will the parties do in the elections? Who will be the next Prime Minister? What kind of coalition will come into being?

Important questions. None of them has a clear answer at this time.

Kadima was born as Sharon’s personal party. He was the glue that held together the extreme right-winger Tsachi Hanegbi and the self-declared peacenik Shimon Peres, militarist Shaul Mofaz and former leftist trade union leader Haim Ramon.

The first thought after Sharon’s massive stroke was: this is the end of Kadima. Without Sharon, the entire package will fall apart. Only a miserable group of orphans will remain, something like a political refugee camp.

But that is really not certain at all. True, if someone joined this project only because he adores Sharon or needs a Big Father, he may now want to return to his former home. But if someone has already found a new home in Kadima, he will remain.

Who? First of all, the opportunists who have no chance of snatching a Knesset seat any other way.

But not only they. True, Kadima has no real program, no ideology. But its fuzzy sentiments and vague ideas can serve as a surrogate for a program. Many people entertain a hazy longing for peace – not peace with clear-cut contours, with a clear price, based on a compromise with the Palestinians, but a kind of abstract “peace”. This goes together with the slogan that one cannot trust the Arabs, that with Arabs you cannot make peace. This basic racism, perhaps a natural result of 120 years of war and conflict, expresses itself also in the feeling that the Jewishness of Israel should be reinforced and that Jewish traditions should be preserved, a vague, but nonetheless powerful sentiment.

Altogether this is a popular mixture, common to a significant proportion of the Israeli-Jewish public. It can serve as a convenient alternative to the explicit policies of the Left and the Right – all the more so since the public has become deeply suspicious of programs, ideologies and everything that looks like a miracle cure. The slogan could be: the vaguer, the better.

Until now, the Kadima people had put their trust in Sharon, believing that he would know what to do when the time came. They were sure that he had solutions – even if they did not know what they were – indeed, without wanting to know. They knew that he knew, and that was enough. Now this opaqueness can turn out to be an advantage in itself. A party that has no clear answer to anything can attract everyone.

Certainly, the party called Forwards will go backwards. It will not reach the 42 seats promised to Sharon by the opinion polls. But how many then? One can only guess, and no guess is worth much. My own guess: not less than 15, not more than 30.

One has to face the fact that Sharon is leaving the political arena empty of outstanding personalities and charismatic leaders. For better or worse, Israel will now be a normal Western-style country, with normal political parties headed by normal politicians.

And no politician is more normal than Ehud Olmert; the quintessential politician, who has never been anything but a politician, a politician pure and simple.

He is not a Great Father. Neither a glorious general nor a great thinker. He has no charisma, no vision, no exceptional integrity. At the start of his career, he soon betrayed several of those who favored him. But he is shrewd, smart, sober, ambitious and glib on TV, a politician, without grandstanding and poses.

He landed in his present position by sheer accident. The title “Deputy Prime Minister” was given him as a consolation prize, because Sharon could not satisfy his craving for the powerful Finance Ministry, which had already been promised to Netanyahu. As compensation, Sharon conferred on Olmert a title that was quite meaningless, because it meant only that Olmert would chair cabinet meetings on the rare occasions when Sharon was abroad.

Now, suddenly, the empty title turns out to be an excellent springboard. Automatic procedures have turned Olmert into Sharon’s temporary successor, and in politics, as is well known, nothing is more permanent than the temporary. The first to occupy a position has a huge advantage over all challengers.

One can trust Olmert not to do foolish things. His ego will not lead him into a hole, as frequently happens to Netanyahu. He is also much more experienced and devious than Amir Peretz.

If he maintains a steady hand until the elections, he has a chance to become the next prime minister.

Israeli politics now resemble the three fingers of a hand: Likud, Kadima and Labor. Three fingers instead of a fist.

It is quite possible that on election day, the three will get almost identical results – something around 25 seats each. If one of them does better than the others, its leader will probably be called upon to form the next government.

While the three are practically equal, Kadima has an advantage, since it occupies the place in the middle. When three lie in a bed, the one in the middle is always covered. In such a case, Olmert will be able to form a coalition either with Likud or with Labor. He will have no ideological qualms – he can be a leftist or a rightist, as required.

The situation presents a challenge to Amir Peretz. Since his nomination, his campaign has not left the ground. The massive figure of Sharon left no space for any contenders. Sharon had the initiative, with the media dancing around him. Now, with Olmert, Peretz has a much greater chance – provided he does not appear to be a second Olmert. Vagueness is good for Olmert, it is bad for Peretz.

Peretz has chosen the slogan “The Time Has Come!” A vague slogan that says nothing. He must move ahead, demonstrate leadership, present daring initiatives, capture the imagination, prove that he is capable of bringing about a revolution both in matters of peace and social affairs. It is hard to win, easy to fail. Now it’s up to him.

And all this, of course, is also true for Netanyahu on the other side.

After the third earthquake, these elections are good for democracy. For the first time in years, the public is faced with three clear options, represented by three parties with three leaders:

– On the right there is Likud under Netanyahu, championing the continuation of the occupation and the enlargement of the settlements, placing territory above peace.

– In the middle, Kadima under Ehud Olmert, will try to continue the ways of Sharon: annex territories and fix new borders for Israel unilaterally, adding some meaningless gestures spiced with vague slogans about peace.

– On the left, Labor under Amir Peretz will call for practical negotiations with the Palestinians, aimed at bringing an end to the conflict.

If these alternatives are clear-cut, and if the candidates do not try to obscure the differences between them, these elections can be really democratic, offering the public a real choice.

Voters will have to make the choice themselves, instead of leaving their fate in the hands of the Great Father.


Your donation helps making our voice loud

Please, send checks in your own currency – for confirmation of receipt include email address

In several countries tax-exemption can be obtained by donating through local charities

For specific information, write to

(Voor donaties aan Gush Shalom kun je ook naar Sivmo!)

5 gedachten over “Sharon, de man van vrede?

  1. Anja, hierbij een kleine aanvulling. SIVMO waar je naar verwijst bij Gush Shalom staat zoals je weet voor Steuncomite Israelische Vredesgroepen en Mensenrechten Organisaties, hun adres is Postbus 15823, 1001 NH Amsterdam, postbank 6181625
    Ze hebben een kwartaalblad “de Brug”, waarin veel te lezen valt over o.a. Gush Shalom.

  2. Avneri is duidelijk geen vriend van Sharon, maar dat ontneemt hem nog niet de plicht om zuiver te redeneren. Avneri stelt, dat Sharon nimmer iets anders gedreven heeft dan een zucht naar macht, gemengd met een nationalisme dat hem met de moedermelk is ingebracht. Avneri laat zelfs niet na te melden, dat persoonlijk leed zoals de dood van Sharons vrouw hem nooit van deze drijfveer heeft kunnen verwijderen. Die verwijzing naar het verdriet uit de intieme levenssfeer van Sharon lijkt mij op z’n minst smakeloos. Zoals ook de toevoeging dat de hersenbloeding veroorzaakt zou kunnen zijn door het bericht dat Sharon vervolgd zou kunnen worden. Ik scrolde op dat moment terug om te zien, wie het artikel nu geschreven had: ik dacht even aan Henk van der Meiden.

    Avneri’s analyse van Sharons psyche ( macht met elk denkbaar middel) lijkt mij tamelijk eendimensionaal, hoezeer ik ook Avneri’s stelling deel dat Sharon niet noodzakelijkerwijs uit was op een zelfstandige Palestijnse staat.

    Bron van de oorlog tussen Israel en de Palestijnen lijkt mij angst gemengd met wederzijdse haat. Dit is een ingewikkelder en giftiger mengsel dan de ambities van één man die het gelukt is hoog in de politiek te eindigen. Israel heeft nog altijd redenen om bang te zijn dat het op een dag aangevallen zal worden in een vernietigingsoorlog. Daar doet het bezit van een atoombom niets aan af. De president van Iran sprak nog niet zo lang geleden geen woord Frans over zijn intenties als het Israël betreft.

    Israël op zijn beurt geeft alle grond om zulke vijandigheid over zich af te roepen: het land houdt de Palestijnen in een vernederende en onmenselijke wurggreep. Die wurggreep wordt echter niet minder, zolang de vijandschap niet afneemt en vice versa.

    Soms denk ik ook wel: stond er nu maar eens een president op in Israel die durfde te zeggen “we zorgen dat er een levensvatbare Palestijnse staat komt.”, maar ik ben er niet geheel gerust op dat het land dan niet langer meer bedreigd zal worden vanuit de Arabische wereld. En omgekeerd brengt een nieuwe Sadat nog niet zomaar een goede Palestijnse staat.

    Het kernprobleem blijft, denk ik, dat Europa de Joden heeft willen vermoorden. Als reactie daarop is er een land gesticht op de plaats waar al 2.000 jaar andere volkeren wonen. Over de consequenties daarvan is nooit goed over nagedacht. Men zal onwillekeurig gedacht hebben: “Die paar bedoeinen met hun geiten schikken zich wel.” In Israël draagt Europa een dubbele schuld die het continent tot op de dag van vandaag niet wil inlossen. Hoe pijnlijk en vijandig ook: de Iraanse president had wel degelijk goede grond om te zeggen, dat de Arabische staten het probleem van Europa ( en in afgeleide daarvan, van Amerika) moeten oplossen. Europa zwijgt en vindt het wel best, zo. Een actie Afghanistan, maar dan voor de Palestijnen zou een stap kunnen zijn?

    Het lijkt mij in elk geval zinniger dan te kibbelen over de vraag, welke motieven Sharon had. Het feit dat het mógelijk is een stuk door Israel geannexeerde grond te ontruimen zonder bloedvergieten enz. zou een onverwachte energie kunnen losmaken voor andere geannexeerde gebieden. Daarin kan ik Avneri wel vinden.

  3. Je onderschat Avnery heel erg, Sybrand. Je hebt het over een veteraan die als jongen al heeft meegevochten in de joodse ondergrondse, nog voor de stichting van de staat Israel. En Averny’s analyse van Sharon’s drijfveren, die hij als geen ander van dichtbij heeft meegemaakt, hebben een aanleiding: dat nu in Europa de mythe wordt verspreid dat Sharon bezig was met het herstel van het vredesproces. In dat licht is het geen gekibbel om te laten zien dat Sharon altijd consequent dezelfde lijn heeft volgehouden, ook al is hij er aardig in geslaagd de wereld te laten geloven dat hij ondertussen een voorstander van een Palestijnse staat was geworden. Dat ‘men’ dacht dat de Palestijnen wel in zouden schikken is ook een mythe, Ben Goerion, Jabotinski, later Dayan voorzagen heel goed dat ze een vijand hadden gemaakt die ze alleen met militair geweld tegen konden houden.
    De gedachte dat de oorzaak van het conflict gelegen is in ‘wederzijdse haat’ is ook zo’n mythe waar Nederland lang in heeft geloofd. Er is weinig wederzijds aan de situatie: een staat met een grote militaire macht houdt het land bezet van een ander volk, met steun van de VS. Dat dat volk dat niet prettig vindt spreekt nogal voor zich.
    De Arabische landen hebben wel degelijk vrede en genormaliseerde betrekkingen aangeboden in ruil voor de teruggave van de Westoever en Gaza aan de Palestijnen. Daarmee deden de Palestijnen al een vergaande historische concessie, om genoegen te nemen met 22% van het land waar ze voorheen vrij konden wonen. Maar Israel, en ook Sharon, wilden nog meer, en hebben daar twee intifada’s mee over zich afgeroepen. Egypte heeft een houdbare vrede gesloten. Het vredesaanbod van de Arabische landen is door Israel genegeerd, en is in Europa alweer ‘vergeten’. Het is echt niet aan de orde om een van de sterkste militaire machten ter wereld die ook nog in de rug gedekt wordt door de allergrootste macht af te schilderen als een land dat zichzelf alleen maar verdedigt. Ook dat is zoals Israel zichzelf graag presenteert, en daar hoeven wij niet in te trappen. Of Israel, die een desastreuze invloed heeft gehad op de hele regio, en nooit heeft geprobeerd om werkelijk een onderdeel te worden van het Midden Oosten in dit post-koloniale tijdperk tot in lengte van dagen in staat zal zijn om een ander volk zo te onderdrukken is een andere vraag.
    Ik zou maar wat meer luisteren naar wat Avnery te vertellen heeft. Die heeft al deze mythes, met feiten om ze te staven, allang ontmaskerd.

  4. beste Anja,

    als je wilt zeggen, dat ik een lichtgewicht ben naast Avnery, dan heb je helemaal gelijk. Ik luister ook wel naar zijn observaties -ik weet wie hij is- maar dit artikel vond ik niet sterk. Jammer genoeg leent de mail zich niet zo voor een gesprek. Maar wie weet komen we elkaar hier of daar eens tegen en is er gelegenheid.

    Sybrand van Dijk

Reacties zijn gesloten.