What is it that informs Ariel Sharon's "new" attitude toward the "peace process?" His sidekick, Ehud Olmert, provided a valuable clue in his speech at an Israel Policy Forum Tribute Dinner last month (quote via My Right Word):
We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies. We want them to be our friends, our partners, our good neighbors, and I believe that this is not impossible.
That's a nice thought, a nice sentiment (especially when you're talking to die-hard Oslo appeaseniks like the IPF). It's harmless, feel-good stuff. Except when you're in the middle of a war with people who aren't tired of fighting, of blowing themselves up on your schoolbuses, or of winning the propaganda and endurance wars, people who have absolutely no interest in being your friends, your partners or your good neighbors. Then it's not nice and it's not harmless. It's just plain stupid and dangerous.
But beyond that, it's important to remember that Ariel Sharon's justification for his "disengagement" plan had nothing to do with making nice, with making friends, partners or good neighbors. Here's how Sharon justified the policy shift when he first announced it at the Herzliya Conference in December, 2003.
We wish to speedily advance implementation of the Roadmap towards quiet and a genuine peace. We hope that the Palestinian Authority will carry out its part. However, if in a few months the Palestinians still continue to disregard their part in implementing the Roadmap – then Israel will initiate the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians.
The purpose of the “Disengagement Plan†is to reduce terror as much as possible, and grant Israeli citizens the maximum level of security. The process of disengagement will lead to an improvement in the quality of life, and will help strengthen the Israeli economy. The unilateral steps which Israel will take in the framework of the “Disengagement Plan†will be fully coordinated with the United States. We must not harm our strategic coordination with the United States. These steps will increase security for the residents of Israel and relieve the pressure on the IDF and security forces in fulfilling the difficult tasks they are faced with. The “Disengagement Plan†is meant to grant maximum security and minimize friction between Israelis and Palestinians.
We are interested in conducting direct negotiations, but do not intend to hold Israeli society hostage in the hands of the Palestinians. I have already said – we will not wait for them indefinitely.
The "Disengagement Plan" was originally painted as a threat, not an overture. It was styled as intimidation, not accommodation. So Olmert's syrupy, self-effacing justification reflects either gross disingenuousness or yet another stealth change of policy for the Sharon cabal (read the whole speech -- it gets worse), but probably a little of both. More important, it surely gave aid and comfort to Israel's enemies. I think there's a word for that.
(Cross-posted at The Jewish View)
