The Israeli Left Is Opting For Suicide

by Tanya Reinhart
March 25, 2005
Yediot Aharonot,
March 23, 2005
Translated from Hebrew by Mark Marshall

To judge by the political discourse, being a leftist today means supporting Sharon. Even when his government decides yet again to postpone the evacuation of the illegal outposts to an unknown future date, the pundits explain that the mere fact that he even raised the matter for discussion in the government is indicative of the seriousness of his intentions. Sharon will evacuate Gaza first, they say, and afterwards the outposts, and in the end maybe even the West Bank. And those who most believe that Sharon will dismantle settlements are the parties of the Left. On what basis?

Sharon is known as a man who has not always told the truth. At the time of the Lebanon war, he succeeded in concealing his plan even from the then-Prime Minister, Menachem Begin. He has no problem making promises and then not fulfilling. For three years now he has been promising the US that he will immediately evacuate at least the outposts that were created during his current term as Prime Minister. So what? - He can always propose a new commitment that would postpone the realization of the previous one. Why should the Gaza “Disengagement” be any different? The answer that the Right and the Left agree on is that this time Sharon has changed. That is an interesting answer in the realm of psychology. But what confirmation does it have in the realm of facts? It is much easier at the present to imagine many scenarios in which there will not be any evacuation of settlements in July, than the one in which there will be an evacuation.

Let’s take for example the problem of the evacuees. That is a real problem. The Gaza Strip settlers went there at the behest of the Israeli government. They must be compensated for this dreadful idiocy, to allow them to rebuild their lives. A government that really wanted to evacuate them would have already given them the compensation, so they could leave before the evacuation. In the evacuation of Yamit, in 1982, the overwhelming majority of the residents were compensated and left before the evacuation. Those who were present in the confrontation on the scene were settler activists from the outside, with whom it is easier to deal than with families actually living there. According to Yonatan Bassi, head of the Disengagement Administration, over half of the present Gaza Strip settlers have already expressed their willingness to leave (1). So why doesn’t Sharon facilitate their immediate departure? Could it be that he wants the photographs of the first attempt to evacuate them to show us entire families with their children, whose world has been destroyed, so that we will understand through empathy that it is simply impossible to evacuate?

And why this foot-dragging over the Budget? What the right-wing opponents of the Budget are demanding is a referendum. The mainstream of the settlers camp is not interested in a complete break with Israeli society. Their leaders are saying that they will be ready to accept the decision, but only if it is proven clearly that it is the will of the majority. The Likud rebels of course have their own agenda, which they hitch to this demand. But precisely on this issue, it is a simple matter to call their bluff by giving them what they demand. According to all the polls, there is a decisive and stable majority of 60%-70% in favour of the evacuation of Gaza. Even in the poll taken a couple of days after the terror attack at the Stage Club in Tel Aviv, 66% said they would have voted “yes” for the plan, had a referendum taken place that day (2). The disengagement will pass in a referendum. That is clear even to the Right. Why then does Sharon oppose it? Perhaps he does not really want the settlers to compromise and accept the will of the majority? Maybe he is afraid that if the evacuation decision passes in the referendum it will have to be actually carried out sooner or later?

All there is, then, is the faith that Sharon has changed. In its name, all the parties of the Left are obediently lined up behind him. Not only the Labour, which would be probably willing to sit in any government, even one headed by “Gandhi”*; but also Yahad and Hadash**. Sharon is submitting for approval a budget of plunder and robbery, that cuts further the surviving remnants of public services, and all the left-wing parties have to say is that we have to help him to pass it, because he said that he will evacuate settlements.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=7522

"being a leftist today means supporting Sharon"

The Right always torpedoes Left attempts for peace. If the only way to make substantial progress in the peace process is by supporting Sharon, of course they'll do it. The alternative is probably Netanyahu. Labor, Hadash, Balad, Shinui, will never be able to form a one party majority. They are hostage to the center right, namely Sharon's faction of Likud. Israeli politics is often pragmatic, so why shouldn't they support Sharon to make peace?

"And why this foot-dragging over the Budget?" That's the part of the Likud that opposes Sharon. He's just going over the hurdles placed in their path. Look at my post on the issue page.

The referendum? Sharon says it's a delaying tactic. It's widely known that a pullout would win the referendum, so why do it when we could focus on implementing it. It's odd to beat at Sharon for going through the budget process, saying he's delaying, but then urge another delaying tactic.

"Yahad and Hadash." I'm actually really curious about this. I've heard the names used interchangeably. What's the difference?

are two different parties. Yahad* is a new party, resulting from the amalgamation of Yossi Beilin's Shahar movement, the Democratic Choice party, and Meretz. Hadash is the Israeli Communist party.

*Hebrew link; they don't seem to have an English website

Just making sure I understand. Thanks for the post.

in the sense that Meretz formed a part of it. Hadash isn't formally associated with Yahad (or Meretz), but is often a parliamentary ally.

there are two problems with it. The first (actually, the lesser) is that it would set a precedent were the elected government requires a further affirmation on aits mandate. More importantly, the referandum is a delaying tactic. The opponents of the disengagement know they won't win it. But holding a referandum requires the passing of a law to that effect. Theres a minimum of time that requires, and the opponents of the disengagement will likely use every parliamentary trick they can to postpone it. It could drag on for months, if not over a year. And during that time, they may be able to engineer the downfall of the government through a non-confidence vote on a different issue, or (if it drags on long enough) by blocking next years budget (failure to pass the budget by the end of March automatically dissolves the government and triggers new elections). For all Reinhart's sarcasm about Sharon''s intentions, if his government goes down, the disengagement goes with it. In addition, the longer the thing drags on, the greater the chance the momentum will be lost, putting the implementation of the move at risk (as well as increasing the chance a bunch of suicide bombers or other terrorist acts will disrupt it).