SHARON'S DOUBLESPEAK?
by Boris Shusteff
The dissipation and dissolution of the modern
Zionist ideology, which at one point contained a Judaic kernel,
is now virtually complete. It did not happen all of a sudden, but
proceeded slowly, over the past few decades. Conclusive evidence
of this is contained within the latest announcement of Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, on December 4, 2002. Speaking at a
conference in Herzlia he said,
"The second phase of President Bush's sequence proposes the
establishment of a Palestinian state... As I have promised in the
past... [this] will be discussed and approved by the National
Unity Government... In the final phase... negotiations will be
opened to determine the final status of the Palestinian state and
fix its permanent borders... Israel must... accept the political
plan which I described."
It is impossible to derive from this statement anything but the
pure fact that the Israeli Prime Minister accepts "the
emergence of an independent democratic and viable Palestinian
state living side by side... with Israel..."(1).
Nevertheless, even the most ardent believers in the concept of
the indivisibility of the Land of Israel are still trying to find
an explanation to Sharon's pronouncements. Ruth and Nadia Matar,
the leaders of the Women in Green, wrote on December 3, in an
article titled "A Misreading of Reality," that,
"...there were those who voted for Sharon who did not believe what Sharon seemed to be saying about supporting a Palestinian State... It would appear to be a tactical maneuver on Sharon´s part to appear to go along with the creation of an Arab Palestinian State... In reality, the conditions which Sharon requires would never be acceptable to the Arabs. Sharon´s favoring a Palestinian State, they argue, is therefore tantamount to a non-endorsement."
On November 22, prior to Likud's primaries, Max Singer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, published a major article in The Jerusalem Post, demonstrating miracles of talmudic thinking in attempts to prove that Sharon's approach to the endorsement of the Arab state is the only one possible. He argues that,
"The question now is not whether there should or will be a Palestinian state, because that will be determined in the future. The question now is what Israel should say about the possibility of such a state. The question of what to say is different from that of what to do" (2).
It is apparent that Singer simply twists the
issue, pushing back Sharon's acquiescence to a new Arab state,
and stresses that NOW it is not a problem, since it will be
"determined in the future." Therefore according to him
NOW Sharon only has to decide what to say. He reiterates,
"The question we have to ask in deciding what to say about a
Palestinian state is what is the most useful thing to say"
(2). And explains that "The advantage we get by saying that
Israel is ready to agree to a Palestinian state under certain
circumstances is that we fulfill our vital need for a vision of
an ultimate solution that is believable to the great majority of
the public and to fair-minded people in other countries"
(2).
It is hard not to notice major flaws in Singer's logic. If the
"Palestinian state" is the vision of "the great
majority of the public," but in reality Sharon speaks about
it only because it is "the most useful thing to say,"
then he is simply lying to this public. Moreover, Singer writes
that this solution is "believable to fair-minded
people." Does it mean that this solution is a
"fair" one? If that is so, then why must Sharon pretend
that he is unwillingly supporting a fair solution instead of
whole-heartedly embracing it?
Singer goes to great lengths trying to whitewash Sharon, stating
that "When he agrees that eventually there will or must be a
Palestinian state, he is dealing with the government's
responsibility to decide what to say now" (2). Again, he
plays with the words "say" and "now" implying
that we do not necessarily have to listen to Sharon NOW, thus
hinting that Sharon is just saying empty words to make everybody
happy.
Singer's working assumption is that since the majority is in
favor of establishing the Arab state, Sharon's "task"
NOW is to pacify them, bringing them hope. "He is speaking
to the majority of Israelis and others concerned about the future
of the region who have to have some hope for what can come after
the necessary completion of the military struggle the
Palestinians started in September 2000" (2). And, "If
in the present circumstances we say Israel will never agree to a
Palestinian state, we may lose necessary support from Israelis
who are unwilling to keep fighting without a goal that seems
realistic, and lose critical international support" (2).
The apotheosis of Singer's explanation of Sharon's behavior comes
in the following sentences: "We have to talk about a
Palestinian state as the eventual solution now because that is
the only label for Palestinian self-rule that we can sell either
to most Israelis or to others. This doesn't mean that a more
complicated understanding may not become feasible and salable in
the future" (2).
Since the whole purpose of Singer's article is to convince
nationalist-minded Likud members to vote for Sharon, he
transparently hints at this "more complicated
understanding". Enumerating_ "arguments against Israel
saying that ultimately there will be a Palestinian state west of
the Jordan" he writes,
"The second argument is that we can't be sure that at some point a better solution than a Palestinian state won't become possible, and we shouldn't preclude such a better solution even though today we can't convince enough people about what it might be, or what circumstances might make it possible. But talking as Sharon is doing does not forever bar the door to a better alternative" (2).
One must not be a senior fellow of a university
to understand that the only "better solution" about
which "not enough people are convinced today" is the
transfer of the Arabs out of western Eretz Yisrael. By hinting
that certain "circumstances might make it possible"
Singer caresses the nationalistic ego of those who, while deep in
their souls believing that transfer is the only option,
nevertheless take the cowardly way out, and convince themselves
that it must happen either only after a mega-terror act, in which
hundreds of Jews are killed, or in the course of a full-scale war
with thousands of casualties on all sides.
When Sharon's defenders bet that his conditions are unacceptable
to the Arabs, they miss an extremely important point. They
completely disregard the fact that Sharon's statements will embed
in the memory of Israel's enemies exactly the words that they
want to hear. Contrary to Singer, they will push aside, as empty
slogans, all the conditions under which Sharon is ready to accept
such a state. Meanwhile, his acquiescence to the creation of
another Arab state will become their main weapon in the war
against Israel.
Singer's formula, which claims that "the question of what to
say is different from that of what to do" is an affront to
Moslem mentality.
"Albert Hourani, one of the greatest Arab scholars living in the West, has said that his people [Arabs] are more conscious of their language than any people in the world... Language itself is an act. Even more, by saying that something is so, it is so. For instance, to say that the enemy is a murderer brings instant conviction that the man is a murderer; no proof is required" (3).
By saying that he agrees to a Palestinian state,
Sharon creates this state in the minds of the Arabs. Alas, the
Arabs will not be satisfied only with words. The state that
henceforth exists in their minds will only exacerbate their
hatred. They will hate the Jews even more for their
procrastination in giving them this state. Now it is theirs, and
they will fight for it with even greater fury and stamina than
before.
In essence, Sharon's declaration, instead of soothing the Arabs'
displeasure will only infuriate them. If we take the position
that "the conditions which Sharon requires would never be
acceptable to the Arabs, and thus Sharon's favoring a Palestinian
State is tantamount to a non-endorsement," one may ask why
deceive both ourselves, and the Arabs? Are we not simply baiting
the bull of Arab nationalism with this red cloth? Through this,
do we not invite additional pressure from the world community?
The whole collection of Sharon's conditions is absolutely
ridiculous from the Arab point of view. The paternalistic
approach that Sharon's "decoy" takes dealing with Arabs
is like spitting in their face. This inferior dhimmi people, the
Jews, will decide for them what kind of a country they are
allowed to have, with whom they will be permitted to sign
agreements, and what they will be able to do inside their
borders? Does anyone really believe that this is the road to
peace?
If Sharon uses his "Arab state" declarations as a means
of dragging his feet and he is positive that his
"conditions" will be unacceptable to the Arabs, then
the only correct way is to do things in exactly the opposite
order. He should state that an Arab state will NEVER be
established in western Eretz Yisrael since the Arabs cannot meet
the conditions on which such a state depends. Sharon's current
approach also does another disservice - demoralizes the Israelis
themselves.
This can be easily proven. When asked at the beginning of the
summer "If it were possible to prevent the establishment of
a Palestinian state, would you support or oppose the
establishment of a Palestinian state?" only 34% said they
will support it (4). Now, when Sharon has vocally made his
position clear, the mood of Israelis has changed.
Asked on December 6 in a Ma'ariv poll "Do you support or
oppose the establishment of a Palestinian sate?" 50% said
that they support it.
Whether he realizes this or not, but just by speaking about the
possibility of an Arab state in a part of western Eretz Yisrael,
Sharon plants new seeds of war. Even if today he manages to
miraculously exterminate all those who murder Jews, tomorrow many
more will arise who were awakened by his acceptance of such a
state. And they will demand their share. As PA Legislative
Council member Sa'adi Al-Karnaz said on December 2, 1997, in an
interview on Palestinian television, "Our war with Israel
and the Jews has not ended and will not end until the
establishment of a Palestinian state on the ENTIRE land of
Palestine."
1. Text of the amended draft of the "Roadmap" as
published in Al Ayyam Newspaper, 20 November 2002.
http://mail.jmcc.org/new/02/nov/roadmap.htm
2. Max Singer. Why Sharon is right not to rule out a Palestinian
state. The Jerusalem Post 11/21/02.
3. John Laffin. The Arab Mind Considered. Taplinger Publishing
Company, New York, 1975.
4. Public opinion survey conducted by Smith Research among a
representative telephone sample of 501 voting-age Israelis
(including Israeli Arabs) from May 31- June 3, 2002.
http://www.imra.org.il
12/08/02
===========================
Boris Shusteff is an engineer. He is also a research associate
with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies