Alternative Insight

Why Sharon?


Winston S. Churchill III in 1973 asked Ariel Sharon, "What is to become of the Palestinians?" Sharon's answer: "We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We'll insert a strip of Jewish settlement, in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart. " That is what Labor and Likud administrations have done during the last three decades. Israel told the world of its intentions and the world ignored the direct testimony. The final clue to Israel's intentions occurred with the election of Sharon to Prime Minister.

Ariel Sharon left a legacy:


Israel has its "good" guys" (usually the Labor Party), its "bad" guys" (usually the far right Parties), and extremists that supposedly act on their own and do not represent the true Israel. Although the "good" guys, "bad" guys, and extremists speak different words, they all have constructed personna and seem to have the same ultimate objective -- subdue the Palestinians and create a greater Israel. Was Ariel Sharon's personna also constructed to serve the Israeli establishment? Was the description of him as a "loose cannon," an insubordinate who acts outside of the system and becomes personally responsible for goverment atrocities and expansionist policies, a ruse to shift charges of irresponsibility from the Knesset to him? Was Ariel Sharon an integral part of the Isareli political system?

Why Sharon?
Israel has achieved objectives it signaled from the date of its inception. The lengthy, rambling and awkward "peace process," which proceeds to nowhere while settlements expand, provide additional clues to Israel's intentions. The elevation of Sharon to Prime Minister in 2001 provided the final evidence to Israel's real objectives -- completely dominate the West Bank, neutralize Gaza and create a greater Israel.

The walk of secular Sharon on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif occurred on September 29, 2000. At that time peace negotiations were still in progress and the Labor Party's Ehud Barak was still prime minister. As leader, Barak could have denied permission to Sharon's provocative excursion. Rather than doing that, Barak provided military protection for Sharon and the military killed 12 Palestinians, which made the Labor Party a deliberate accomplice to Sharon's actions. Nothing new -- during the Labor party's reign, the military never stopped provocative actions against the Palestinians.

The table below, which contains statistics compiled by Israel Human rights organization B'Tselem, shows that from the date of the Israeli excursion on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif in September 29, 2000 until the beginning of the year 2001, Israeli forces killed 237 Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. More than 100 Palestinian civilians, of which about 1/2 were minors under 18 years of age, had already been killed before two terrorist bombings killed four civilians in Israel.

   WITHIN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
WITHIN ISRAEL 
Month  Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli
forces
 
Of them: Minors under age 18   Israeli
civilians
killed by Palestinians
 
Of them: Minors under age 18    Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians   Of them: Minors under age 18   
Sept. (from Sep. 29)  12    4  --  -- --  --
October    89  28 --  --   -- 
November  101   39  7 --  4  --  
December    41 10   5 --  --  -- 
 Total 243 81  18 --  4  --  

The table clearly shows that the election of Sharon in February 2001 did not occur after massive Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. On the contrary, his election occurred after massive attacks by the Barak Labor government against Palestinian civilians.

Why was Ariel Sharon, whose past identified him as provocative, bigoted, mendacious and brutal, elected to Prime Minister by the Israeli electorate? The Labor Party must have realized that the mounting toll of Palestinian deaths, especially youths, would soon provoke Palestinian extremists against the Israeli populace. A more intelligent response to this threat would have been to prevent attacks on Palestinian civilians; otherwise, Israel could be on a path to war and increased violence. Israel took a more aggressive role and initiated the selection of an Israeli politician willing to undertake a war, someone whose reputation had already been sullied, someone who would be perceived as being provocative and brutal. Circumstances dictated the elevation of Ariel Sharon to Prime Minister (PM) of Israel. If the Israel populace and the Labor party didn't want to provoke the Palestinians and wanted a peaceful resolution with justice would they have brought about the election of Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister? By electing Sharon as PM, the Israel nation assured itself of a more violent struggle.

With a militant Sharon as Prime Minister, Israeli assaults on the Palestinian people provoked Palestinian terror responses. Israeli counter-responses to terrorist attacks provided more deadly attacks on the Palestinians. These assaults used heavy weapons; tanks helicopter gun ships and F-15 fighter bombers. The strikes favored targeted assassinations of militants and destruction of the more rebellious communities.

The death toll grew on of both sides, and Israel and its supporters unleashed several media campaigns designed to influence the world community and stifle negotiations. Israel media sympathizers tried to show that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) had refused a "generous" plan at the end of Camp David talks that guaranteed them almost all the West Bank, that the PNA wanted to destroy Israel and that it had prepared an Intifada to accomplish the task.

These suppositions are false:

All of these suppositions have a common objective--to place the Middle East struggle into an "all or "nothing" proposition and solicit support for Israel in enabling it to achieve the "all."

Israel continued its misinformation. Sharon proclaimed that Arafat was at fault for the violence and therefore cannot be trusted as a negotiating partner. If Sharon truly wanted to eliminate Arafat as a leader of the PNA he would not boldly state his objective. He would quietly contact PNA and world leaders to gather their opinions and try to cajole them into a preferred negotiating position without Arafat. By loudly voicing opposition to Arafat, Israel assured that the Palestinian people and its authorities would not publicly yield to the Israeli leader's demand and Arafat would remain in his position. By having Barak forcefully support Sharon with scathing attacks on Arafat, the PNA President's position with the Palestinians became more secure. Attacking a statesman (Arafat) with whom someone (Barak) engaged in secret negotiations is offensive to the diplomatic community and rallies that community to the attacked person. Arafat did not have the inclination or sufficient power to stop terrorism, had proved incapable of settling the disputed issues, had not gained the necessary support for halting Israel's trajectory towards total incorporation of the West Bank and had not prevented much of the corruption that inflicts the PNA, all of which served Israel well. Who wouldn't want an adversary who demonstrated a lack of success and permitted it to daily fortify its own position?

The next step in Israel's campaign readied the world for complete military domination of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel sources, such as previous Ambassador to the United States, Zalman Shoval, blithely stated to audiences that the West Bank historically and legally belonged to the Jewish people, and that some minor form of Palestinian governing might be allowed. Israel supporters published op-ed articles that stated that negotiations are not possible at this time and only interim talks can be held. The Likud party voted that a Palestinian state not be allowed. To soothe this extreme view, Sharon pretended disagreement with the vote and voiced approval for a "Palestinian state." Nevertheless, Sharon stated that Israel will not return to its 1967 borders and all settlements will be maintained. By maintaining, "We will not negotiate with Arafat or while terrorism exists," and gaining U.S. support by linking terrorism against Israel to that against America, Sharon effectively silenced negotiations. After all, the terrorists are against negotiations and won't stop even if there are no negotiations.

Israel's vocal campaigns occurred simultaneously with major Israel military incursions into Palestinian cities and villages. Sharon obtained the reins of the Israel government with a promise to stop the violence. In his first 18 months of leadership, Israel suffered its greatest violence and the Palestinians were pulverized. Despite his contradictory and punishing record Sharon remained unchallenged as head of the Israel government. How could this be?

Prime Minister Sharon attempted to soothe his brutal appearance by a statement that "Israel's rule over the Palestinians was an occupation, and Israel could not occupy Hebron, Ramallah and Bethlehem for ever," and by withdrawing Israeli military and settlers from Gaza. If Sharon was concerned about Israel being an occupier in the specific West Bank cities, why did he not do anything to diminish the occupation?

Because Sharon gave the directive, the Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and the expelling of 9,480 Jewish settlers from 21 settlements, served to refine the "bulldozer's" image. It should have reinforced his image of slyness and deceit.

The Israeli army was not present in Gaza to protect the settlers; the settlers were placed so they could harass the Palestinians and give the military an excuse fo be in Gaza. Advancements in drone technology permitted Israel to increase surveillance and target its power without endangering soldiers, complementing the air force, which controlled the skies over Gaza, the army, which were stationed only a few kilometers from Gaza and the navy, which limited Gazans fishing and excursions from their coast. Drones coupled with rapid response techniques proved more efficient and safer than stationing troops in Gaza.

Ariel Sharon didn't stumble into becoming Prime Minister. Israelis and Israel politics, which includes a deceptive "opposition," selected him as the leader to complete the task of dominating all of Palestine. Sharon's brutal methods in accomplishing the task did not matter. The final denouements of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples also do not matter. The world of innocence takes no action and silently observes the final denouements--a potential genocide of the Palestinians and generations of violence against the Israeli people -- a grim testimony to the life of Ariel Sharon.

alternativeinsight
june 16, 2002
updated January 2014

MAIN PAGE contact alternativeinsight