Posted on 04/22/2004 4:21:35 PM PDT by me_newswire
--In addition to all of our other problems - terror, international delegitimization, disagreement over disengagement, Iranian nuclear weapons, socio-economic gaps, religious-secular tensions, etc. - Israel is also in the midst of a leadership crisis.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon may be indicted for allegedly using his influence, while serving as foreign minister in 1999, to advance shady business deals, including a crony’s attempt to buy a Greek island for development. The evidence is not entirely clear, and even if he stands trial, he might not be found guilty, but if the attorney general issues an indictment, Sharon may be forced to resign. This kind of political uncertainty and turmoil is the last thing that Israel needs right now.
Even without the "Greek Island affair" and questionable transactions involving his two sons, the fact that Sharon - at age 75 - faces no serious challenge reflects a wider problem. In the Likud party, former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the current finance minister, is Sharon’s most likely heir, despite his divisive term that ended in resounding defeat. And the opposition Labor Party is headed by the octogenarian Shimon Peres, who, despite multiple electoral defeats, continues at the helm. Peres and Labor, as well as small parties from all ends of the political spectrum, seem to be entirely incapable of providing strong alternative leadership in the event Sharon is forced to resign.
For all these reasons, Israelis should be, and many are, very concerned about the absence of credible leadership. Sharon, for all his faults, has guided Israel successfully through three years of terrorism, responding with growing force while working closely with the Americans and avoiding internal conflict. Critics charge that he has not brought peace, but most Israelis recognize that the romantic notions promised by the architects of the Oslo process were never realistic. Sharon has gradually defeated Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat’s strategy of terror without triggering a confrontation with Washington, and Israel’s security and political situation is significantly better now than under former prime minister Ehud Barak in early 2001. Thus, Sharon’s sudden departure from the scene could, in theory, leave a vacuum and provoke a leadership crisis.
But this is where Israeli democracy comes into play. Sharon’s successes were, in many ways, a reflection of the Israeli consensus, rather than its cause. At each stage, his policies, including both the targeted killing of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and the decision to implement a policy of disengagement and withdrawal from isolated settlements, were solidly backed by a wide spectrum of Israelis. And any future leader who wishes to stay in power will inherit the same consensus, which recognizes the need to fight terror with all available means while also moving to reduce Israel’s exposure to terrorism and friction with the Palestinians.
This Israeli consensus was not forged by a charismatic leader (the era of Ben-Gurion and Begin ended with the departure of both those founding fathers), but through democratic debate backed by a solid dose of collective common sense. For all our faults, we Israelis are relatively sensible, with a healthy degree of skepticism and a strong culture of intense debate and public deliberation. The most popular radio and television programs debate the issues of the day, and for every topic, you can easily find four experts (former generals and government officials are particularly active) with at least five different opinions.
As a result, most important general policies (as distinct from specific operational decisions) are adopted with a public debate on costs, benefits and alternatives. This is true for the construction of the separation fence, the targeted killing of terrorist leaders, prisoner exchanges, etc. In contrast, the absence of any form of democratic debate among Palestinians and in most Arab regimes is reflected in the failures of their policies and the devastating results.
For all its faults, Israel’s democracy remains a very powerful foundation for assessing and implementing policies that reflect the national interest. Indeed, Israel may be the best example of Winston Churchill’s astute observation that democracies eventually choose the best paths, after they have tried everything else. If Sharon is forced to resign, Israeli democracy will continue to be an effective force, regardless of who is chosen to be the next prime minister.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.