Victory for Sharon, not for peace

It should be anachronistic for fear to be the driving force of politics in the 21st century. Politicians preying on public anxiety are somewhat reminiscent of Mongol chiefs or Viking conquerors. Unfortunately, given the continuing aggression in international relations, many nations are still susceptible to this kind of power play. A nation's fear of war can lead it into irrational decision-making.

In Israel, this is clearly fundamental to the political system. It is this fear that is currently driving the government. Why else would Israelis elect a violent, irresponsible butcher to the position of prime minister? Only unreasonable anxiety could tempt the citizenry to vote for the man who consciously sparked the current Intifada. Ariel Sharon is a leader who could very possibly destroy any hope of a peace agreement.

Sharon's nickname? "The Bulldozer." The general's reputation is not one of a peaceful, levelheaded man. As Minister of Defense in 1982, Sharon led Israeli forces into what would be one of the most controversial political moves in the country's history—the invasion of Lebanon. This invasion led not only to endless military casualties, but to the slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians.

NEWSMAKERS The transfer of power in Israel threatens the peace process.

Sharon, who was in a position to stop the initiative, did nothing to prevent Christian militias from invading the Palestinian refugee camps. The massacre that ensued caused the deaths of 2,000 Palestinian men, women, and children. For this offense, Sharon was forced to resign as defense minister and was barred from ever assuming that office again. By some unfortunate logic in Israel's political structure, this did not bar him from assuming any other ministerial positions. When Sharon was foreign minister under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he refused to speak to or even shake hands with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat except when forced to by the pressure of media coverage at the 1998 Wye River talks in Maryland. What kind of a peace agreement could possibly be forged if the key parties refused to speak to each other?

"I believe in peace, but I believe in peace that might provide Israel with real security for its existence," Sharon once said in an interview. What does this mean, coming from the man who knowingly initiated the current onslaught of violence by visiting the Temple Mount, the most controversial site in all of Israel? A leader who is truly committed to peace does not purposefully start a conflict.

The Israeli people are scared, and they have good reason to be. It is not a peaceful time. Car bombings, snipers, and civilian terrorists are part of their daily consciousness. Children are taught to fear unclaimed lunch bags on buses for fear that they might contain a bomb. In such an atmosphere, it is hard to accept a leader who seems unable to stop the violence. Ehud Barak was on the way to peace, but he was not there yet.

Writing a peace agreement is also a scary prospect for many Israelis. To Jews living in the occupied territories, the idea of Palestinians taking control of land is not easy to swallow. The thought of splitting Jerusalem is anything from mildly upsetting to utterly horrifying. In a climate of violence, the idea of ceding power to the aggressor is difficult to accept. Despite that, the creation of a Palestinian state is a step that is vital to the lasting peace and prosperity of the area. Sharon has not illustrated his comprehension of this fact as of yet.

Though some Israelis are glad to hold on to land at the cost of peace, hopefully they will all see the damage to be wrought by such a leader and will vote him out of office before long. It is difficult to see what lies ahead, but it seems that under Sharon's leadership, the only kind of peace possible would be a tense and temporary ceasefire. 

Lainie Fefferman is a freshman in Silliman College.

Back to Opinion...