Haaretz
Tevet 7, 5765
If Ariel Sharon could be taken at his word,
then his speech in the Herzliya Conference last Thursday is great news and
we should hold him to it in the next few months. Sharon formulated his
positions vis-?-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in principle terms
that even Yossi Beilin would gladly sign.
Sharon said in the
Herzliya Conference the following things: The new year beginning in two
weeks brings Israel a historic chance to change its strategic situation
from the foundations; the lever for change is the renunciation of the Gaza
Strip; the disengagement plan is among the goals worth fighting for
because our life depends on them - compared to goals which everybody knows
will not be realized and which most of the public is not willing, quite
rightly, to sacrifice so much to achieve; the realization of the vision of
two states in Eretz Yisrael is a huge renunciation on both sides' parts,
and Israel is indeed ready to make that concession, because the
alternative, in which one nation dominates the other, is a terrible
disaster for both nations.
In his Herzliya address Sharon developed
the position he presented in the Knesset some two months ago, when he
asked it to ratify the disengagement plan. Sharon said then that Israel
does not want "to rule over millions of Palestinians forever" and "Israel,
which wants to be a model democracy, cannot sustain the occupation for a
length of time."
On the face of it, Sharon is not making do with
words alone. He has taken steps that indicate his intention to realize his
new vision: He dismantled his right-wing cabinet and replaced it with a
cabinet leaning on the Labor Party; he paid a considerable political price
in confrontations with his party to impose the new line on it; he created
the administrative and legal infrastructure to implement the disengagement
plan (the evacuation-compensation law, setting up the disengagement
administration, coordination with international bodies to provide vital
services in the strip after the withdrawal). Furthermore, in his speech,
he signaled a willingness to coordinate the evacuation with the new
Palestinian leadership. In other words, Sharon has retracted the principle
of one-sidedness he had set for his plan, thus opening the way to turn it
from a rigid security move to a political lever with the chance of
creating a turning point in the relations between the two
nations.
These are not insignificant issues. Sharon's statements
over the last year, and to a certain extent his acts, reflect a radical
change in his declared positions as the public knew them until his
election as prime minister. From the unequivocal declaration that Netzarim
is as integral to Israel as Tel Aviv, he jumped to the conclusion, which
is seemingly self-evident, that "everybody understands we will not remain
in Gaza." From the cry to "run and capture the hills," he skipped to the
insight "that recognizes the demographic reality which has been
formed."
Granted, the practical steps he has taken to implement his
new concept are merely preliminary and appear to be laying the
infrastructure for disengagement, rather than the beginning of executing
his plan, but he is permitted to enjoy the benefit of the doubt: They make
logistic sense and can be explained as necessary preparations for an
orderly evacuation of the settlements. In addition, one cannot ignore that
Sharon is displaying willingness to jeopardize not only his political
future, but also his life, in coming to formulate his updated political
philosophy and implement it.
However, memory and lessons of the
past mingle with the heart's tendency to give Sharon credit, warning
against it: Do not fall into the trap. The man is prone to deceive. He
must be tested on his deeds at the crucial moment, not on his
declarations, or on the impression that his preparations
create.
The crucial question is whether the change, which seems to
be taking place in Sharon, also applies to his attitude to words and their
customary meaning.