...But
Hashem Hardened Arafat’s Heart
By Shai Gefen
Knesset
member Michoel Kleiner in a special interview with Beis Moshiach: "There
are many troubling signs with Sharon’s leadership." Sharon has been in
office only a few months, yet there are already many signs that show his
policies to be similar to those of Barak’s government: unbelievable restraint,
looking the other way, basic guidelines which lean to the left, excluding the
topic of Yerushalayim from an important speech, and much more. *Knesset member
Kleiner expresses his concerns and explains what troubles him and why.
Why
didn’t you join Sharon’s government?
I
didn’t join, not because they didn’t make great offers - I have no
complaints about that - but because ideologically I didn’t agree with the
government’s basic approach.
What
bothered you?
I
could not accept the mistaken and false premise expressed in the approach of
striving for peace agreements with Syria and the Palestinians on the basis of
U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338. There is something worse here than with Barak’s
government: this is the first time it became accepted policy that Israel agreed
to implement 242 even with the Palestinians. At the time, the lawyer, Elyakim
Rubinstein, produced a document proposing that U.N. Resolution 242 does not
apply to the Palestinians, and now it’s the Sharon government that recognizes
in principle that the U.N. resolutions also apply to the Palestinians. This is a
very serious error, because it is a de facto acknowledgement of a
Palestinian state.
They
all spoke about a compromising policy platform that they could all agree to,
from Gandi to Peres.
That’s
not so. This platform contains positions Gandi cannot accept and which should
not have been accepted. As I said, in some ways this policy platform is more
dovish than Barak’s government. Remember what Shimon Peres yelled at the
meeting of the Labor party when he called upon them to join the unity
government? He read from the government’s platform and shouted to his friends,
"This is Gandi’s platform?" and quoted what I said earlier about
Resolution 242.
What’s
your problem with the platform?
Look
at all the positions and you’ll notice something very strange. It talks about
developing the Negev and Yerushalayim but doesn’t mention Yehuda, Shomron, and
Gaza. I am not opposed to a unity government, and it’s important during these
days of war to have a unified national government in order to fight our enemy,
but I thought we don’t need things that oppose our view in the policy
platform. There is a difference of opinion, but this is put aside. We
established a unity government in order to protect Eretz Yisroel, when it is
clear to all of us that the Palestinians’ goal is not peace with
Israel, but without Israel.
Do
you think Gandi will have to leave Sharon’s government?
I
don’t know. But I do know that Sharon began his government on the left foot.
That he didn’t respond to the shelling of Kibbutz Nachal Oz, which is within
the Green Line, is quite serious. Back in ‘93 I said that if we run from Gaza,
we’ll get katyushas in Ashkelon. They haven’t reached Ashkelon yet, but they’ve
gotten halfway there already.
Sharon
doesn’t react and that reminds me yet again what happened under Barak’s
government. He always said we’d respond strongly and other statements he never
backed up. After an attack, he put a blockade on Ramalla and Beit Lechem, but
immediately capitulated once people around the world raised a fuss, and then the
next day Mr. Cohen of Gush Etzion was killed. Instead of reacting, we vacillate
- and that’s what Barak did.
The
same is true for the border with Lebanon, where they divert the water supplies
with no response from us. The government says it’s just two villages, and
forgets that when Syria diverted water in the ‘60’s that’s how it started,
too. But then, the Israeli government bombed the pumps. Unfortunately, Sharon is
doing just what Barak did. I hope he quickly changes course because otherwise he’ll
wind up like Barak.
Peres
maintains that a great change has taken place in Sharon’s political and
security positions. It’s not the same Sharon we knew in the ‘70’s. Do you
agree?
It’s
too early to say, though he has clearly gotten off to a bad start. There are
always excuses. One week the reason for not reacting is that Sharon is visiting
the U.S., and then there’s a summit, and then it’s Earth Day, and in the
meantime the Palestinians keep active and we don’t react, thus undermining our
deterrent capability. If someone thought that the very election of Sharon would
act as a deterrent to the Arabs because of the image they have of him, he knows
that since he came to power, he has undermined the power of deterrence his
election might have given Israel.
He
failed his first test?
Absolutely,
there’s no doubt about it. If you paid attention in the first weeks after the
elections, you saw it was relatively quiet. Then we saw a sharp rise in
Palestinian action. They tested Sharon, and he, I am sad to say, failed. I
repeat, he will fall like Barak, but much quicker and earlier than Barak. Each
time a Jewish leader raises a knife over Eretz Yisroel, he falls.
Are
you afraid that Sharon is going to carry out what Begin did in ‘77 when he
wanted to prove to the world that he wasn’t so threatening and made an
agreement in which he returned all of Sinai and recognized the "legitimate
rights of the Palestinian people?"
What
frightens me more is that Sharon has advisors who speak to him about his place
in history and tell him that he has to be moderate. They can adversely influence
him, and then he’ll take an even more dangerous course than Begin did when he
went to Camp David. He will do what Charles de Gaulle did. De Gaulle was a
renowned general in World War II and he gave France back its national pride.
During the crisis with Algiers he rose to power in order to hold on to Algiers,
but he did the opposite and abdicated Algiers, including the coast, which has
mostly Frenchmen, and abandoned a million and a half of his loyalists. He put
all his friends and the generals who fought with him in jail. That situation was
not over France itself but a French-occupied country, but Sharon is going to
establish a Palestinian state within Israel which can chalila bring
destruction upon the Jews of Eretz Yisroel.
Of
all people, Sharon, the celebrated general?
Nobody
in France believed that of all people it would be de Gaulle who would abandon a
million and a half of his most loyal supporters, the French patriots who lived
in Algiers - but it happened.
I
still hope and want to believe that this won’t happen, but you asked me to
compare Sharon to Begin, and I think far worse will actually happen [ch’v].
During
Sharon’s visit to the U.S. there were news leaks about evacuating little
settlements in the Gaza strip. The leak came from the prime minister’s office
and then was denied. What do you think?
I
think it’s great cause for concern. There’s no question that this
information is Sharon’s way of testing the waters. The direction he’s taking
is frightening. I hoped that Sharon would be tougher with the Palestinians and
would receive broad-based public support after people realized that the
Palestinians’ goal is nothing but liquidating the Jewish presence in Eretz
Yisroel. Even those who believed that concessions to the Palestinians would
achieve peace had their eyes opened.
Sharon
avoided mention of Yerushalayim in his speech.
Yes,
and that’s also a bad sign. He claimed it was unintentional, but it is
certainly cause for concern. Everything together - not reacting, a policy of
restraint, members of the Left in key positions - all are cause for concern.
Minister
Livnat called upon the Right not to rush to attack Sharon and to give him a
longer grace period. Why aren’t you waiting patiently?
He
got off to a bad start and he needs to be criticized for that. If he recovers,
fine. But there’s no reason to sit around and wait. We must begin exerting
pressure. We as the opposition will remind him of what he promised.
What
would you advise Sharon to do at this point?
The
first thing I would tell him would be not to delude himself because he won with
such a large majority. The elections were a referendum about all our
concessions, and the people rejected Barak’s politics because they realized
that Oslo was a mistake. I expect Sharon to act based on the understanding that
Arafat is the problem. He is the one who gives orders to attack. Nobody denies
that. Sharon knows it and the Americans know it. The army talks about it almost
openly. The goal has to be to get rid of Arafat and to return him and 40,000
terrorists to Tunis or any Arab nation that would agree to have them.
Is
that realistic?
I
think so, and this has to be explained to the world. We must start preparing
world opinion and let them know we will not accept a situation in which we
cannot travel the roads or go to the supermarket. The nation did not vote for
Sharon because he is the one who will bring peace. They voted for him because
they wanted to get home safely, and they believed that Sharon, with all his
experience and reputation, would change the security situation. For now, the
people have not gotten the Sharon they wanted.
What
will you do? At one time you led the charge in the Knesset which unseated
Netanyahu.
We
got a seat on the Foreign and Security Committee. I am also part of the Finance
Committee and I make my voice heard and try to publicize our positions. I
believe that if the policies of restraint and concessions continue, Gandi will
leave the government. I’m sure he’ll join us in the opposition at the
earliest opportunity, and then Lieberman and Mafdal will come.
Do
you think that now when he has reached the pinnacle of which he dreamed about
for years, that Sharon will just wipe away his rich history in defending Israel
and will prefer to make more concessions to the Palestinians?
It
would be a great tragedy, but as I said earlier, we were very apprehensive about
Sharon. We remember how he evacuated Jews from Yamit with iron clubs, drew maps
eliminating settlements at the Wye Accords, and now again we have been receiving
hints about his intentions to evacuate settlements. Sharon grew up in the fields
of Mapai. He is a security expert, but what is called a pragmatic security man.
The
Intifada has been operating for over half a year now. How do you see the
situation?
The
Palestinians want to escalate matters and look at Yugoslavia as their model.
They want to do to us what they did to the Serbs. When one side wants things to
escalate, you can’t stop them except with the force of deterrence, which is
why we have to respond strongly to every disturbance. If the Palestinians knew
we would respond harshly for every mortar they shot, and they also knew they
couldn’t broadcast from the frequencies given to them by the Oslo Accords
(today they use their television and radio only for incitement), then Arafat
couldn’t give his murderous orders and things would quiet down.
You
can cut off Arafat’s lines of communication, attack his headquarters, and
pressure him to run with his people like he ran from Lebanon, like when Hussein
threw him out of Jordan in the ‘70’s when he tried to undermine him. We have
to ensure that he and his gang of murderers are out of here. It’s easy to do
and the world will understand. The idea of Oslo was that we would bring Arafat
here and he would bring order, but he’s doing the opposite and so he has to
go. He broke all the agreements, even according to international law.
After
Sharon’s election, Arafat was scared somewhat. He tested Sharon a number of
times and saw there was nothing to be afraid of, and that’s when the mortars
against Nachal Oz started to boom. When they saw that Sharon continued Barak’s
policy and that he wasn’t that frightening, they intensified their attacks.
One
would have the impression that the government is more hawkish with Uzi Landau,
Lieberman, Gandi, and others; why are they quiet?
Lieberman
is someone who tried to sell the Wye Accords to the settlers. He’s a hawk when
Labor is in power. Gandi is really different than the other parties, which is
why I think he’ll soon be in the opposition.
What
is the fate of the settlements in Yesha? Are there any changes?
Sharon
committed to expanding the settlements. I don’t think he’ll give a reason to
the Labor party to leave his government. In the policy positions it explicitly
states that they won’t expand the settlements.
Where’s
all this going?
It’s
hard to say. G-d is hardening Pharaoh’s heart. I am not religious, but I can’t
ignore the fact that three car bombs were planted in Mei’a She’arim and
miraculously none of them exploded. I can’t ignore the fact that Barak made
all those concessions at Camp David, which, if they were implemented, could have
brought an irreversible churban upon us. But Hashem hardened Arafat’s
heart…
Is
there a change in the way the army talks?
The
army operates according to government guidelines. There’s one directive it was
given - to stop the terror. The big question is whether they will follow
through, or the situation will carry on as it has until now. If Sharon had
responded immediately, it would have quieted down Arafat.
Are
you planning on reestablishing the "Front for Eretz Yisroel" in the
Knesset?
I’m
always working among the Knesset members. We are signing up Knesset members who
will not support Sharon if he makes political concessions. It’s just the
beginning, and we’re giving Sharon a chance. As time goes on I think there
will be more and more Knesset members who will realize they have to do all they
can to prevent Sharon from dismantling the State of Israel.
What
message do you have for Chabad Chassidim?
I
know that Sharon highly esteems Chabad and what the Rebbe said about shleimus
ha’Aretz. Chabad must take a strong stand and not allow Sharon to move
towards the Left.
I’ve
been reading what the Rebbe said about shleimus ha’Aretz for years now,
and also about halachic conversions, which we supported all these years.
I wrote to the Rebbe a number of times about shleimus ha’Aretz, and
feel ideologically close to the Rebbe. I think the Rebbe was the first to say
things so sharply and clearly. The Rebbe said Torat emes, and truth is
recognized, so it’s no wonder the Rebbe has so many admirers. Many people
began keeping Torah and mitzvos because of the truth of the Rebbe’s
words on the security and political fronts, as well.
Chabad
should definitely proudly hold up what the Rebbe said and chalila not
support the terrible things the Sharon government does. Our people greatly
admire the fact that we did not join the government because of ideological
reasons. We get inquiries from all over the country, and we hope we won’t have
to create an ideological alternative to Sharon since he’ll bravely and boldly
wipe out terror and return our security.
|