Ariel Sharon did his friend George Bush no favors with the over-the-top siege and demolition of Yasser Arafat’s headquarters that swung the world spotlight from Baghdad to Ramallah.
Bush has had his hands full trying to persuade a reluctant U.N. Security Council to tighten the screws on Saddam Hussein, only to find himself having to switch gears and deal with a new anti-Israel resolution pushed by the Palestinians and their supporters.
In a forum where Israel has few friends and Sharon fewer, Bush wants to keep attention focused on the need to destroy Saddam’s arsenal, not on the near-total destruction of the Palestinian Authority headquarters and the planting of an Israeli flag over Arafat’s office.
Nor will the Israeli action help Bush win the cooperation he wants from Arab leaders, even secretly, to mount a military action against Iraq.
Many of those Arab leaders are as anxious as Sharon and Bush to see Saddam go, but they can’t afford to be seen colluding with Jerusalem.
Bush is sensitive to that and has asked Israel to keep a low profile.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld echoed that in congressional testimony last week, saying it would be in Israel’s “overwhelming best interests not to get involved” in an Iraq-U.S. war.
Sharon has many qualities, but sensitivity is not one of them.
Leaks from his office that he told Bush Israel would respond if attacked by Iraq provide another example. Israel has a right to retaliate, but announcing that now plays into Arab propaganda that this will be a war driven by the right-wingers at the Pentagon and their Israeli friends.
Arafat, who only a week ago was having trouble getting his phone calls returned and faced growing criticism at home as colleagues plotted to replace him, once again became the center of attention, thanks to his old nemesis in Jerusalem. Assorted world leaders were admonishing Israel not to harm Arafat, and Palestinians were marching in the streets as a show of support.
It doesn’t take a strategic genius to figure out that it is far more important to Israel’s security to remove the Iraqi threat than to humiliate Arafat once again and rally Palestinians and others to his side.
It is easy to empathize with Israel’s anger and frustration over the suicide bombings, and Arafat obviously has done nothing to prevent them. He continues, by omission and commission, to encourage the violence.
But it is nearsighted for Israeli leaders to ignore the broader implications of their actions on the greater national interest. Instead of isolating Arafat, as he said he intended, Sharon did the opposite.
An accidental collapse of a wall, a stray bullet or a zealous sniper could create a political catastrophe for Israel.
The Israel Defense Force, Shin Bet and Mossad have warned Sharon that harming Arafat or exiling him is not worth the price of the violence it would provoke at home and the diplomatic damage it would do abroad.
Bush repeatedly warned Sharon in a mild yet pointed rebuke to show restraint and “consider the consequences” of his actions — which a White House spokesman called “not helpful.”
Both men hold Arafat in utter contempt, consider him a liar and a murderer, and would like to see him gone, but that is where Bush and Sharon begin to diverge.
They have different plans for the Palestinians. Bush is actively encouraging Palestinian reformers, and he is committed to establishing a state of Palestine, removing most Israeli settlements and negotiating a final settlement.
Sharon, on the other hand, would prefer to drag things out for years, avoiding tough political decisions about peace, settlements, borders and statehood.
If he wants to block Palestinian reforms that could lead to a return to peace negotiations, his siege of Afafat’s headquarters helped.
Even Arafat’s aides were scratching their heads. One of his ministers said Sharon’s siege could backfire by “strengthening Arafat” and giving him “public sympathy and public credibility.”
Sharon probably doesn’t really want to get rid of Arafat. The old terrorist serves his purpose. With Arafat in place, things will continue to fester but the pressure for political deal-making won’t be on the prime minister.
That means Sharon’s big political headaches will be from the right, and he can turn to the center and left to help neutralize it. The Labor Party, which is marching in virtual lockstep with Sharon as part of his coalition, is in shambles and could shrink if new elections were held today.
What’s left of the peace camp is impotent. Arafat made sure of that.
Sharon, who was rescued from the political wilderness by Arafat’s decision to choose war over peace two years ago, seems intent on returning the favor.
Bush wants to avoid a clash with Sharon for another reason. His administration and GOP congressional leaders have been pressing Jewish leaders to lobby their friends — particularly Democrats — on Capitol Hill to support Bush’s Iraq policy.
Most of Israel’s friends in Congress will vote for a resolution authorizing the president to confront “the threat posed by Iraq,” but many are justifiably uncomfortable with his seeming rush to war and they are troubled by Bush’s request for first-strike authority and broad power to “restore international peace and security in the region.”
It sounds like a blank check for a wider war without congressional authorization.
Into this chaotic political game, Sharon has dealt another explosive wild card by once again rescuing Arafat and thrusting him into the world spotlight at a time when most others are intent on moving him out of the picture. Bush and his team have been restrained in their reaction, but they can’t be happy.