COVER -> RECOMMENDED DAILY REQUIREMENT
SHARON & 1/3 - KEVIN CAREY says that the outcome of the Israeli election suits most Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arab World and the White House.
The election of Ariel Sharon as Israel's new Prime Minister is yet another example of the 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 rule in contemporary democratic politics, a rule as firm as the 80/20 rule in shop keeping. This rule says that there is an approximately 1/3 group in favour of leaving things exactly as they are 1/3 in favour of making fundamental changes and 1/3 who are, technically, floating between the two other positions.
The trick amongst fixed progressives is to persuade half of the 1/3 of the floaters to go with it, but the more fundamental the change proposed the fewer those who are likely to be converted; the classic problem is that the 'floaters' applaud the end but will not accept the means. The trick for those who want to leave things as they are is not to oppose the end proposed by progressives but to persuade enough people that the means are unsatisfactory.
Thus, in Israel there is no doubt that the country is fundamentally divided almost equally between 1/3 who want a fundamental change from war to peace and 1/3 who think a permanent state of insecurity is a price worth paying. The Barak proposals for resolving the situation were, however, so extreme that the conservatives were able to capture just about all of the 'floating' 1/3, leaving only died in the wool progressives to vote for him.
The 'floaters' who had seen the Palestinians turn down proposals for shared sovereignty in Jerusalem and transfer of 95% of the occupied territories, quite rightly decided that concessions could go no further. An Israeli Labour Party prepared to cede sovereignty of Jerusalem and the whole of the occupied territories would be unelectable. In these circumstances it would be best to put power in the hands of those who promised security.
 |
What precisely the mix was between wishing to hold off a challenge in his own Party from Benjamin Netanyahu and wishing to wreck an imminent peace based on the Barak proposals we may never know (he may not know himself) but surely both motives were there. Sharon did not want peace and he did want power; that is what he has got. Arafat, who could not control his own dissident, gun carrying terrorists, had no choice and found he was better off with war than peace; it would keep his own terrorists quiet and deaden internal and external criticism of his corruption.
The Arab world, too, is likely to welcome the unifying force of an intransigent foe; such posturing pushes egalitarianism and democracy nicely down domestic agendas. The people stop pleading for fairness and justice, they simply demand a Haj.
As for the new administration in Washington, it probably welcomes this turn of events because its major foreign policy goal in the region is to line up Arab support against Iraq which will be much easier with the Arab/Israeli peace process in abeyance.
Which leaves 1/3 of Israelis and not many other people that matter in favour of a peace settlement. Every so often in history there is a shooting star of humanity that blazes briefly and if it does not ignite other material it burns out and is forgotten. Barak is such a shooting star who was abandoned by everyone of importance except for Bill Clinton. True, the Israelis lost their nerve on the brink of an historic settlement but they were finally betrayed by Palestinian rhetoric which is saying on the day after the election
- that there really is no difference between Barak and Sharon,
- that they are two sides of the same coin, that the metal is base but that one side speaks sweetly while the other is harsh.
That they characterise Sharon as the Butcher of Beirut in the very same diatribe is a sure sign of the insincerity of their metaphor of the coin. They will shortly learn to their cost that Sharon, as they always knew deep in their hearts, is a very different proposition from Barak. One can only hope that their regret is productive rather than merely bitter.
This week's Poll: Is your Work a definition of You?
WEB SITE PICK OF THE DAY: The ever-opinionated Vincent Bugliosi has some scathing things to say in The Nation this week. We thought you might want to check it out.
