Soccer Dad: Without a chute

November 21, 2005

Without a chute

Excellent roundup on Ariel Sharon's bolting from the Likud Party at Israelly Cool! in Political Waves in Israel. More here later.
UPDATE: Now I have the opportunity to report and comment.

Jackie Spinner of the Washington Post has an interesting characterization of Jordan's King Abdullah:

The king, who was educated in the West, promotes democracy and has championed Muslims to stand together against extremism.

I won't quibble with the second part of that sentence, but in what sense does the heir to the Hashemite dynasty who rules with the authority of his family having descended from Mohammed promote democracy? Does His Majesty regularly submit to a plebescite to decide if he should remain ruler of his country?

Next door however, even someone who was once referred to as "King" has to periodically ask the voters, "How am I doing?" So PM Sharon is going to the voters of Israel in a few months time, but not as leader of the Likud party anymore.

I've expressed skepticism at such a move. Bloghead in Sink or Swim explains why in historical terms:

So, Sharon has exploded Israeli politics and gone to set up his own, supposedly more 'centrist' party. It is a bold move and he is a very brave man to attempt it; the last (admittedly then former) prime minister who tried setting up his own rebel party (with none other than Shimon Peres), David Ben Gurion, notoriously failed, and the party, Rafi, dissolved after one term.

Aluf Benn in Ha'aretz, Leaving the Likud - no one asked him to stay, underlines the practical problem with leaving a party:

Sharon has shown great interest in recent weeks in the smallest details involved in forming a new party. He was more than anything interested in how a party could attract voters without infrastructure and offices. His advisors told him that this could turn out to be an advantage.

I'm skeptical of what advantages there are without that infrastructure and those offices. I think back to all the positive press there was over the Center Party in 1999. How they were going to win 15 seats and change Israeli politics. Of course all the principals of that party really had going for them was a disdain for Netanyahu which was shared by the media; so the media hyped them, though they had no clearly defined program. So all the media hype in the world won't save you, if you don't have an infrastructure and you don't have a program. (For more on the 1999 election see Gerald Steinberg here or the JCPA''s analysis here.)

Sharon, though, according to Benn would have a program:

Sharon is sticking to the Quartet-sponsored road map to peace (which aims to create a Palestinian state, for those who have forgotten), and denies any plans of a second disengagement.

In lieu of a disengagement, Israel under Sharon will opt for a "convergence plan" under which isolated West Bank settlements are dismantled and the main settlement blocs bolstered. Such a move, even in its initial stages, involves complex coordination with the United States.

I'm not sure exactly how he intends to say that we're not disengaging but we're converging.

And perhaps the comparison with Ben-Gurion isn't that compelling. It's Almost Supernatural quotes Head Heeb who says:

For one thing, Sharon will be leading it from the prime minister's chair rather than as a leader cast out by his own party. Even more to the point, it will occupy a critical vacancy in Israeli political space. Rafi (Ben Gurion's party) was formed primarily for personal rather than ideological reasons, and didn't have any policies or programs that couldn't be co-opted by some other party.

Maybe PM Sharon is dealing with a position of strength as a sitting Prime Minister who is leaving not being pushed, but will he be "... occupy[ing] a critical vacancy in Israeli political space?"

Nissan Ratzlav-Katz has argued, to the contrary in the Gaza Betrayal:

In almost every news story or political commentary show aired of late, the same lie has been consistently repeated: that the majority of the Israeli people were in favor of the Disengagement Plan. In truth, every time the question of ceding to the Arabs those areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza settled by Israelis was made a central issue in any authoritative vote, the Israeli people, or any part thereof, actually rejected the proposal.

PM Sharon ran very effectively against Amram Mitzna in 2003 arguing against withdrawing from Gaza. And he lost a referendum in Likud that he was supposed to win in support of disengagement. Running on a platform of ceding territory may seem like a winner in newspaper polls but not in elections.

Yossi Verter in Ha'aretz (via Israelly Cool!) also seems to feel that running on his own is to the detriment of PM Sharon:

Even if the most optimistic poll numbers are accurate and Sharon puts together the next government, it is clear that at least half of those who are currently ministers, as well as the so-called "Dichters and Bravermans," will have to get used to the cold, back benches of the 17th Knesset.

Some of them will not be ministers even if they remain in their current parties, where there is at least a future beyond the upcoming term, which will be Sharon's last and the new party's first and final term. After Sharon, there will be no party. All the deserters will return home to their parties, or will go home.

A Sharon aide met Sunday with a senior political figure from one of the factions. "Come with us," the aide said. "We are on the verge of making history. You can't miss this opportunity." The figure declined the offer for the obvious reason - what spot on the list would he receive in the Arik Party. Sixth or seventh is already no-man's land.

and

Sharon met Sunday morning with the heads of the ultra-Orthodox Knesset factions. United Torah Judaism MKs Moshe Gafni and Avraham Ravitz came to Sharon armed with the opinion of Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinman. He shouldn't quit, the rabbi said, it will not be good for him.

UTJ MK Shmuel Halpert told Sharon of a conversation he had in the early 80s with Menachem Begin. "When I am in the Likud," Begin told Halpert, "it is a great power. But me without the Likud is worth nothing."

Sure, Sharon said, but they didn't do to him what they are doing to me. Tell me, Sharon said, turning to coalition whip Gideon Sa'ar, who took part in the conversation, did you send them to try to convince me?

Meanwhile Joe Settler argues that Ariel Sharon has met his match in Amir Peretz.

UPDATE II: While I'm posting others are too.
Elder of Ziyon wonders about labels. Cosmic X debates Clarity and Resolve. C & R believes that PM Sharon's departure from Likud signals:

This is phase two (the Gaza and four Judea-Samaria neighborhood disengagement being phase one) of Sharon's grand plan for resolving the convoluted�and deadly�conundrum of making peace with a Palestinian Arab population that feels entitled to nothing less than all of Israel.

CX points to other weaknesses in PM Sharon's position that I have not addressed: the corruption charge against his son and party (not politician) loyalty.

IRIS contributes his specialty: relevant headlines and analysis.

Technorati Tags: Ariel Sharon, Israel.