That is how Martin S. Indyk, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel and former national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, characterized the Israeli prime minister. Speaking in San Francisco this week, Indyk compared Sharon, in his gyrations among three roles, to an Egyptian belly dancer.
In town for the New Israel Fund’s Guardian of Democracy dinner on Tuesday evening, the London-born, Australian-educated Indyk had no flattering words to offer about Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
As for Sharon, he is governed by three conflicting impulses, depending on the circumstances, said Indyk, who is now a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution.
“As the general, he wants to evict Arafat, as he did in Beirut. And as the politician, he has to maintain the center, and stop [Benjamin] Netanyahu from taking the right away, as well as giving the people some sense of security and hope. Without either, his support won’t last.”
And then, there’s Sharon the statesman. “He doesn’t want to alienate the United States. He also feels the burden of responsibility for the nation in a time of deep crisis.”
On the one hand, the Israeli leader speaks of the need to make painful concessions and how difficult it is to be a Palestinian, said Indyk. On the other, he doesn’t seem ready to make those compromises. “At any particular moment, one or the other personality is dominant.”
Indyk was also highly critical of Arafat, saying he had completely failed his people as a leader. “He is totally cynical about exploiting the suffering of his people to advance whatever he sees as the Palestinian cause.”
Arafat’s rejection of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David was “a mistake of historic proportions,” said Indyk, comparing it to Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini’s rejection of the United Nations partition plan in 1947.
Indyk dismissed the Palestinian interpretations of what happened at Camp David in 2000 and Taba a year later, saying that so much misinformation had been disseminated by the Palestinians because “Arafat made a huge mistake and can’t admit it.”
Simply put, Indyk said, Arafat is a leader who “won’t make difficult decisions and will wait for something to turn up.”
When asked whether he considered Sharon’s recent military operation a success, Indyk said it had succeeded on at least one ground: Before it took place, the front line was every Israeli pizzeria, coffee shop or mall. That has changed, though Indyk admitted that while it is now more difficult for suicide bombers to get through to Israel, it was only a matter of time before such attacks would occur again.
Indyk emphasized that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is indeed the only viable option, but he wondered what it would take to get there. Intervention by the United States was necessary, he said, saying that the United Nations had proven itself unfair to Israel in the past.
He recommended a trusteeship of U.S. observers that would help build Palestinian infrastructure “from scratch,” ensuring it be democratic.
“In that context, it could be of great advantage to both the Israeli and Palestinian people.”
On a personal note, Indyk, who left Israel in July 2001, said he was sorry he had to leave in his official capacity at that time, although he has been back since.
“When I left we were on the brink of a comprehensive peace, and now we’re on the brink of a comprehensive war. It’s very hard to deal with.” Nevertheless, “I don’t feel if I were there it would make a difference.”
It’s up to Bush, Indyk concluded. “This president being so reluctant to engage has resulted in a worsening of the situation.”