Sharon has said in the past that he is willing to make "painful compromises" for peace. He has supported the creation of a Palestinian state. He has spoken of moving settlements. And, he has called Israel’s control of three million Palestinians an "occupation" – a term even left-wing prime ministers did not dare utter.
To date, not a single of these pronouncements has gone beyond the rhetorical realm. Asked if Sharon is genuine about his latest, and most far-reaching statement yet on the removal of Jewish settlements, it is not surprising that many politicians, pundits and Palestinian leaders have responded with a chorus of skepticism and accusations of spin.
Sharon told the liberal daily Haaretz earlier this week that he had given an order for a plan to be drawn up for the evacuation of 17 settlements in the Gaza Strip – there are a total of 21, with a combined population of 7,500. His stated plans include also evacuation of a further three in the West Bank where more than 200,000 settlers live in some 120 settlements.
He said the plan would take one to two years to implement, would be presented soon to U.S. President George W. Bush, and that he was working on the assumption that once an agreement was reached with the Palestinians, there would be no Jews living in Gaza.
The Israeli leader, who referred to the Gaza settlements as a "security burden" during a meeting with members of his ruling Likud party, said Tuesday he was determined to carry out his plan because it was vital to the future of the country.
Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat was derisive: "He plans to remove 17 mobile homes?" he scoffed. "What, so they can replace them with another 170."
Members of the opposition Labour Party accused Sharon of being big on talk, but woefully short on action. Not a few politicians and commentators suggested the prime minister’s decision to publicize his plan now was a cynical attempt to divert attention from corruption probes against him.
"So far, it’s all talk," wrote Haaretz political commentator Yossi Verter. "Verbally, over the past three years, Sharon has established a Palestinian state, expelled Arafat and made numerous painful concessions."
The skepticism is well placed. On top of his inaction, Sharon has earlier hailed the strategic importance of settlements in Gaza. "The fate of Netzarim is the fate of Tel Aviv," he said just 18 months ago, referring to the isolated and highly fortified settlement in Gaza which has come under repeated Palestinian attack.
Sharon’s talk of removing settlements is part of what he calls his "disengagement" plan – a series of unilateral measures including drawing a boundary that will separate Israel from the Palestinians.
Unilateral action will be taken, he says, if there is no progress in talks with the Palestinians. If implemented, the separation barrier Israel is building deep inside the West Bank would likely serve as a border. That would leave the Palestinians with a truncated entity.
There were reports Wednesday that Sharon is to receive the first detailed draft of the disengagement plan next week from his National Security Council.
Even if Sharon has not undergone an ideological metamorphosis – from the man who built many of the settlements to the man who is now ready to tear them down – his statements alone have an impact. Most significantly, they undermine the legitimacy of the settlers who for years have viewed Sharon as their political patron.
The significance of the prime minister’s words was not lost on Labour Party leader Shimon Peres. "Sharon’s declarations have a cumulative weight," he said. "Another word, another declaration, another announcement, and this is already a path from which there is no turning back."
Abraham Diskin, professor of political science at Hebrew University in Jerusalem believes Sharon is not bluffing. "I think he means to carry out what he is saying," Diskin told IPS.
The evidence is that Sharon’s latest declarations, and especially his publicly- declared support for a Palestinian state have carried a political price in that they alienate a part of his right-wing support base, says Diskin.
This is the one group taking Sharon at his word. Settler leaders, incensed by his Gaza plan, have said they will work to topple him. Leading settler rabbis called for a day of fasting in protest against Sharon’s plan.
Two ultra-nationalist parties in his ruling coalition have said they will bolt if he proceeds. They recall bitterly how Sharon, as defense minister under prime minister Menachem Begin in 1982 oversaw the demolition of Jewish settlements in the northern Sinai desert which was being returned to Egypt as part of a peace agreement.
The first signs of a coalition rebellion were evident Monday when a large number of right-wing lawmakers stayed away from a no-confidence vote, which narrowly failed to pass (42-41). Losing the vote would not have forced Sharon from office since an absolute majority is required in the 120-seat parliament to topple the government. But it would have left the prime minister red-faced, and would have been a glaring illustration of his political vulnerability.
It has often been said that the first sign that Sharon is serious about acting on his pronouncements will be when the far-right parties in his coalition decide to leave. So far, they are sitting tight. But the prime minister’s talk of uprooting settlements has set off feverish speculation about the future of his right-wing coalition. It is being asked whether Labour would enter the government if the far right departed, or whether Sharon would face new elections.
Peres said Tuesday that Labour would support Sharon in parliament and ensure he is not toppled if he went ahead with his evacuation plans. But he stopped short of saying his party would join a Likud-led national unity government. Sharon spoke Wednesday of a possible national referendum on his plan.
Sharon could find that the stiffest opposition to his plan comes from within his own party. Some Likud members say a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza would be viewed as a victory by Palestinian militants and would encourage them to escalate attacks.
Foreign minister Silvan Shalom was critical in his first reaction to Sharon’s plan. "My position has been made known publicly in the past, and it hasn’t changed: unilateral steps will not lead to a lessening of the confrontation," he said. Shalom is a senior Likud member with leadership aspirations.
Diskin is unsure whether Sharon will have the political clout needed to implement his plan. "It will be very, very difficult," he says. "But Sharon does have a record of being stubborn, of being a survivor, a bulldozer. And that bulldozer image is not just an image."
