/ 31 May 2004

Sharon puts his job on the line for Gaza plan

Ariel Sharon staked his premiership on the future of his plan to force Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip on Sunday as a Cabinet split widened into a power struggle with his archrival Binyamin Netanyahu.

Having been forced to postpone a vote on the plan because it was apparent that he would lose, Sharon opened the weekly Cabinet meeting by threatening to dismiss ministers opposed to ”unilateral disengagement” and to take other ”unprecedented political steps” to force it through.

He accused Netanyahu, the Finance Minister, of putting personal political ambition before the country’s interests in what amounted to a bid for power.

Netanyahu responded by accusing Sharon of undemocratic behaviour in overriding the result of the referendum in their party, Likud, which rejected the Gaza withdrawal plan.

On Sunday Sharon presented the cabinet with a four-stage disengagement strategy for the evacuation of all 7 500 Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip and the closing of four settlements in the West Bank by the end of next year.

Israel would hold on to much larger settlement blocks housing about 400 000 Jews.

”I am determined to pass this plan, even if I am forced to change the make-up of the government or to take unprecedented political steps,” he told the Cabinet, Israel Radio reported.

”I want to warn those members among us who want to exploit this hour of crisis for promoting some personal plan.”

On Saturday Sharon accused Netanyahu, without naming him, of ”extortion and threats” and of allowing ”the personal struggle for leadership [to] jeopardise the state’s interests”.

He said the cabinet battle was not about disengagement but the leadership of Likud. Netanyahu responded by accusing Sharon of trying to personalise the breach between himself and the party after he lost the referendum.

”A month ago there was a Likud vote and we must honour it. If there is democracy, it binds all of us,” Netanyahu added.

But Sharon said the policy could not be held hostage to party members when the disengagement plan has overwhelming support from the public and Israel had made a commitment to Washington to carry it out.

”In the conflict between the duty toward the entire public and the duty to Likud registered members, we have no choice. We must prefer the good of the general public, we must approve the plan.”

The showdown could lead to a radical change in the shape of the government and an attempt to topple Sharon as the party leader and prime minister.

One option for Sharon is to drop minority members of the government coalition, such as the far-right National Union, which has described him as ”pathetic” and called for all Arab-Israelis to be expelled to the occupied territories.

Throwing out the smaller parties would deliver a cabinet majority in favour of the disengagement plan but leave the government as a minority administration in parliament.

If Sharon makes such a move he is likely to seek an assurance that the opposition Labour party will make good its promise to provide a safety net for the government in parliament so that it can carry through the disengagement plan.

It is also possible that Labour could enter the government, although its leader, Shimon Peres, has wavered on the issue in recent weeks.

Another option for Sharon would be to dismiss Netanyahu and other Likud ministers opposed to disengagement, such as the foreign minister Silvan Shalom, and the education minister Limor Livnat.

Either way, he may provoke Netanyahu to challenge Sharon for the party leadership, although he would have to turn to the far-right religious party Shas to stand any chance of putting together a coalition government.

Professor Yaron Ezrahi, an Israeli political scientist, said that a leadership challenge would be likely to split the Likud party.

”If Sharon has to choose between the country and the party, he may have to choose to break with his party to be a statesman.

”In that case, he would take a number of the Likud MPs with him,” he said.

”But Sharon is playing political brinkmanship and he faces a lot of hurdles before this plan goes ahead.” – Guardian Unlimited Â