Why Sharon decided the party's over.
BY BRET STEPHENS
Friday, November 25, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
The Likud Party is Ariel Sharon's baby, conceived in the seat of his tractor and initially financed with the sale of two tons of hay from his Negev ranch. In the summer of 1973, Mr. Sharon decided to bring Israel's half-dozen opposition parties together into a single bloc that could credibly challenge the then-dominant Labor Party. The parties ranged from nationalists to free-marketers to left-wing splinter groups. In elections that winter, Likud--the word means "unity" --scored an impressive 39 seats in Parliament, setting the stage for its rise to power four years later under the leadership of Menachem Begin. It has been in power for 20 of the past 28 years.
With that history, Mr. Sharon's decision this week to resign from the Likud and form a new and as-yet-unnamed party seems inexplicable, all the more so since the country is heading for the polls next March. Politicians usually try to consolidate their base in the run-up to an election, not fracture it. As it is, Mr. Sharon had recently humiliated Benjamin Netanyahu, his more hawkish rival in the Likud, on an intraparty vote following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. "I would probably have beaten Netanyahu [in the Likud primary] and gone on to win the general election," was Mr. Sharon's own, likely correct, verdict on his political chances had he remained in the Likud.
So what was Mr. Sharon thinking? Note, first, that the original purpose of Likud was to offer a viable alternative to Labor, which by 1973 had become a vast and corrupted patronage machine. Note, also, that while Mr. Sharon created the Likud, he did so as a matter of political calculation, not ideology, and belonged to none of its constituent parties. Even Begin, the prime minister with whom Mr. Sharon is often compared, frequently "left [him] cold," according to his 1989 memoir. Begin was a "political Zionist," who placed great stock in formal declarations, whereas Mr. Sharon defines himself as a "pragmatic Zionist," who believes in "facts on the ground."
Today, the Likud has more than twice as many seats in Parliament as the next largest faction, and most politics in Israel take place within the party. The results have not been good for Israel's democracy. Like the Labor Party of yore, the Likud has become the Party of Government, its ranks silted with political hacks and underworld types. Party leaders under Mr. Sharon divide between ideologues, who have yet to accept the necessity of some kind of physical and demographic separation from the Palestinians, and opportunists, who live mainly for the perquisites of high office. The broader Israeli public observes the party's spectacles but has no way of participating in them. By calling elections and cracking the Likud, Mr. Sharon has, in effect, re-created his 1973 achievement by once again offering Israelis some meaningful political alternatives.
That's not to say Mr. Sharon quit Likud with only the interests of democracy at heart. The former paratrooper has always understood the uses of surprise, not just on unsuspecting adversaries but also on the public imagination. Contrary to legend, Mr. Sharon did not single-handedly turn the military tide in the Yom Kippur War. Yet he was the man who crossed the Suez Canal--and who can remember the name of any other Israeli general in that war? As a politician, Mr. Sharon's manner has been like that of a saltwater crocodile: placid until it leaps from the water to savage its prey. Just ask Israel's once-untouchable religious parties, or the Palestinians, or Mr. Netanyahu, what it's like to be eaten alive.
Not surprisingly, as soon as Mr. Sharon announced his resignation, polls indicated he would win the next election handily and have his pick of coalition partners. Partly this reflects popular admiration for the prime minister's gutsiness, partly disenchantment with his likely rivals. Yet if four months are a long time in America's politics, they are an eternity in Israel's, and the political risk Mr. Sharon runs is real. He has lost the organizational support of the Likud. The country is faced with an extended period of political drift. His ostensible political allies could turn on him. There could be a massive terrorist strike from Gaza.
To all this, Mr. Sharon shrugs in seeming indifference. "I've already been elected twice, and the people of Israel did not put their trust in me just to keep my chair warm," he says. But the prime minister is not indifferent. He has spotted an opening--a moment of political convenience in Israel and diplomatic opportunity abroad--through which he can push through another withdrawal in the West Bank. This time, however, it will not be a full withdrawal, as it was in Gaza; Israel will keep possession of strategic assets, including most of Jerusalem and its satellite cities, while ceding territories that have become strategic liabilities. Whether such a settlement can hold in the long run--Palestinian leaders certainly won't accept it--is an open question. But at least Mr. Sharon will have placed Israelis and Palestinians on opposite sides of a contiguous border.
Whatever happens, Mr. Sharon has now proved himself as the most astute Israeli leader since David Ben-Gurion, the country's founder. So much for hysterical predictions made about him in other newspapers when he was first elected. Rare among politicians, he is a secure man. He may yet bring security to Israel, too.
Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
www.opinionjournal.com |
