Posted on 03/10/2002 3:49:42 PM PST by Pokey78
IF you rely on the BBC as your main source of information on Israel, you will find it hard to believe that a minister could have resigned from Ariel Sharon's government on the grounds that it is being too soft.
Mr Sharon is dismissed by many in the European elites as little more than a war criminal, whose reflex instinct is to hammer artillery into Palestinian homes.
This is chiefly his own fault: Mr Sharon is of the older generation of Israeli soldier-politicians, for whom public relations are of secondary importance. Israelis voted for him because they believed he would contain the terrorist violence. Instead, they have seen atrocities against their people become a daily event.
Mr Sharon has contrived to appear nasty and ineffective. He combines clumsy use of the Israeli Defence Force - vide the promiscuous use of live ammunition for crowd control - with political flaccidity.
Thus, harsh countermeasures are followed by substantive diplomatic retreats, most notably his recent dilution of the criteria for a Palestinian ceasefire and his earlier acceptance of George Mitchell's lopsided report on de-escalating the conflict.
This poorly calibrated mix virtually guarantees more Palestinian violence. Why should they stop the killing when such violence triggers both counterproductive Israeli responses and further concessions from Jerusalem?
Mr Sharon's own gaucheness is, however, only part of the problem. Despite his thumping victory in February 2001 over Ehud Barak, he has not broken decisively with the policies of the Israeli Labour party.
Under Israel's old electoral system, the office of prime minister was decoupled from the composition of the Knesset. When Mr Barak was defeated, he left the old parliament in place. This suited Mr Sharon very well, since it disqualified his chief rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, who had resigned his Knesset seat. But it has done little for Israeli security.
Yesterday's resignation of Avigdor Lieberman leaves the government looking rudderless. The only question is, who will gain the political reward by pulling out first - Labour or Likud?
A number of Likud ministers - including Uzi Landau, Limor Livnat and Natan Sharansky - have it in their power to give Israel a fresh start by resigning en bloc for the purpose of triggering new elections.
These are dangerous times for the Jewish state. With a new anti-Iraq coalition being put together, Israel desperately needs a leader who can make its case in the place that matters most - in Washington. The inarticulate Mr Sharon is not such a man. Mr Netanyahu is a better bet.
Sharon is far better than Barak. However, he does seem a little clumsy, and he does appear about ready to explode from fatness. But I wonder, during this time of extreme tension whether replacing him would be a good idea.
A little bit of calm would be quite helpful to effect an orderly transistion. And Netanyahu would be a far better choice.
He was interviewed, not too long ago, about events political, both personal and nationally. He was explaining why he resigned and why he couldn't run in the past election (I didn't quite follow the laws against his being able to do so). It is not out of the question that Netanyahu returns as a leader of the Israelis---I think this would be welcomed, in Israel and abroad. I have much respect for him and his past abilities--he's a good man.
My guess is he will replace Sharon
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.