Sharon's shift from ‘hawk’ to negotiator told a bigger
story about Israel
By DANIEL BEN-AMI
Despite the bitter differences between the admirers
and critics of Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli prime minister who died on
Saturday, most share one outlook in common. They claim to have divined a
continuity in his career despite his apparent shift from ultra-nationalist hawk
to architect of Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza.
It is understandable that both sides should fall for
this temptation, since it provides the easiest way to make sense of Sharon’s
contradictions. Either he was a pragmatic
Zionist who would do
whatever was necessary to protect the embattled Jewish state. Or alternatively he
was a ruthless
butcher of the Palestinians whose
latter-day talk of peace was merely a cynical cover for greater repression.
Both sides fail to grasp the fundamental shift that
has taken place in Israeli society since the 1970s. Until that decade, the vast
majority of Israelis were united behind the project of building a Jewish state
within Eretz Yisrael (the historic Land of Israel that includes the present-day
West Bank). This goal was generally seen as a necessary response to the scourge
of anti-Semitism rather than being viewed as a religious mission. Indeed, most
of the original founders of Israel considered themselves socialists. The
earlier settlements, including those in the West Bank and Gaza, were founded
under the auspices of early leftist Israeli governments.
Since the 1970s, however, support for this classical
conception of Zionism has steadily eroded. Many Israelis have become unsure
about what their country stands for. The pioneering ardour has gone, and
controlling land occupied by large numbers of Palestinians is seen as
problematic at least. The one important exception to this disaffection is the
mainstream religious community, the backbone of the settler movement, which
retains its own particular conception of Zionism.
Sharon in many ways personified the shifts within
Israel itself. Indeed, in some respects he was behind the times since he was an
ardent supporter of settlement for longer than many in the Israeli elite. He
only retreated from the goal of settlement expansion in his final years in
office.
Read more at:
No comments:
Post a Comment