Raising Munich, Sharon Reveals Israeli Qualms nytimes.com
A more conventional and less obviously self-serving analysis of what was going on in Sharon's head. Yes, Israel has its interests, but the US has its interests too, and they're not necessarily the same.
At the core of the difficulties is the simple fact that the national interests of the
United States and Israel have never perfectly aligned. Although the United
States has long been Israel's best friend in the world , the geopolitical
interests of a global superpower are inevitably different from those of a small
nation surrounded by hostile countries.
Whether because of the exigencies of the cold war, or huge Arabian oil
reserves or the need to form alliances against other foes, the United States
has frequently taken steps that Israel perceives as threatening, like supplying
Awacs surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia.
The United States, moreover, has long understood that the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict also poses a major problem for American relations with moderate
Arab states, which consider Washington too friendly to Israel and too timid
to put real pressure on the Israelis. Israel, for its part, has often chafed at
what it sees as American pressure to take steps that might undermine Israeli
security. More broadly, Israelis have always been tacitly aware that,
however great American aid and support, Israel always had to be prepared
to defend itself with its own means. Israel is widely known to have
developed a nuclear weapon, although it has been ambiguous about it.
These tensions, however, have always been a given in American-Israeli
relations, and they have never led to anything approaching a real breach. Mr.
Sharon's reference to Munich went beyond what any of his predecessors
have allowed themselves to say in public, and, in Israeli eyes, beyond what
the current frustration warranted.
"Mentioning Munich was a gross exaggeration, a mistake, and even Israeli
public opinion cannot buy that argument and saw it as hysterical," said
Nahum Barnea, a columnist for the newspaper Yedioth Ahronot.
What Mr. Sharon's comment confirmed is that he is not the sort of man to
retreat when a fight is shaping. A hawkish general who led tanks into Egypt
in 1973 and, as defense minister, directed the invasion of Lebanon in 1982,
he would be unlikely to hunker down if an American attack against Al Qaeda
prompted someone to drop a missile on Israel.
Mr. Sharon has also never concealed his view of Yasir Arafat, the
Palestinian leader, as a terrorist, and has often invoked Hitler when
discussing him. "I don't know anyone who has so much civilian Jewish blood
on his hands since Hitler," was a typical comment before he became prime
minister.
Almost from the time the United States began building a coalition against Al
Qaeda, Mr. Sharon has warned that it should not be at Israel's expense.
According to Israelis who have observed Mr. Sharon since the Sept. 11
terror attacks, the prime minister has felt frustrated — some said betrayed
— by Washington.
After Israel immediately and unconditionally shared its extensive intelligence
on Islamic terror groups with the United States, they said, Mr. Sharon felt
that instead of showing gratitude, Washington went to the Arabs. On the
same day Mr. Sharon made his controversial comments, for example,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was munching dates with Sultan
Qaboos bin Said of Oman in his desert tent.
The frustration, however, might not have been enough to draw so
provocative a comment. Not surprisingly for Israel, there were also critical
political factors at play here.
First among them is that Mr. Sharon is sitting on a very fragile coalition of left
and right. He is keenly aware that both his predecessors, Ehud Barak and
Benjamin Netanyahu, fell from power because they could not keep their
coalitions together, and he is determined not to follow suit. But that requires
a keen balancing act, for example, excoriating Mr. Arafat at every turn while
letting the dovish foreign minister, Shimon Peres, meet with him.
So if Washington now puts further pressure on Mr. Sharon to start dealing, it
would also put serious pressures on his government — the left would leave if
he refused, the right if he complied. The situation is all the more difficult for
Mr. Sharon because Mr. Netanyahu is pressuring him and could force a
leadership battle in the party. For a veteran survivor like Mr. Sharon, a tough
battle requires tough words. |
