Israel and U.S. Move to the Right
(Signs of the Time - March 2001)
Both the United States and Israel have recently elected new heads of State. Both elections were similar in that the politics of the people mandated a move from left of the political center to the right; in Israel’s case, the far right.
New Israeli Prime Minister
In early February, Israel elected a new prime minister ousting Ehud Barak. Mr. Barak
was not only soundly defeated in the election, but also indicated he may step down as a
member of Parliament. This election marked a dramatic shift in direction for the people of
Israel. Former Prime Minister Barak had the reputation of a moderate leader, one who was
not afraid to compromise or offer concessions in order to achieve peace in Israel. The
newly sworn-in Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, has a reputation of leading with a
strong-hand and offering nothing in the way of compromise or concessions.
For the most part, the reason peace talks stalled centered around the sovereignty of Jerusalem. Both Arabs and Jews claim the city as their own and Barak had proposed several compromise scenarios that would have seen Jerusalem as a divided city. During the election, the people of Israel, and in particular Jerusalem, voiced their dissatisfaction over compromise. The citizens of Jerusalem voted 78-to-22- percent for Sharon and his strong hand solution for Jerusalem.
As one of his first acts of business, Sharon clearly established his position on Jerusalem. The New York Times reported: "For decades Sharon’s home has been his 1,000-acre farm in the southern Negev, though he also kept an apartment in a secular neighborhood of West Jerusalem. But in what critics and admirers took to be a pointed political statement, he recently made his official residence a small house he bought in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City, an area where Israeli sovereignty claims are not internationally recognized." In essence, Sharon has firmly put his stamp on where he stands on Jerusalem, going further than any leader before him, declaring by his actions that all of Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people, not merely a quarter of it.
As one might expect, the Palestinians are wary of Sharon. He spent most of his adult life as a military commander and tactician. Many peers considered him the best field commander of his generation. Though Sharon was a decorated young platoon leader in the 1948 war of independence, it was the years when he led an elite commando unit in the early 50’s that brought him national recognition. As well, he readily accepts responsibility for the military engagement in Lebanon and for the policy of building new Jewish communities on what he views as strategic hilltops and crossroads throughout the territories occupied by Israel after the Middle East war in 1967. His followers vehemently defend both ventures as essential to Israel’s security.
Looking at Sharon’s past, one begins to wonder whether Sharon has a grand plan. The settlements, encouraged by Sharon in the late 70’s, have made it almost impossible for the Palestinians to create a viable contiguous state in the Gaza Strip and West Bank — a policy that the Israeli right says has been vindicated by the resurgent Palestinian violence. Fast forward to the year 2001, we find Sharon creating a pocket settlement in the Arab section of Jerusalem. If successfully extrapolated, it will be difficult if not impossible for the Arabs to maintain a viable contiguous city within Jerusalem.
The U.S. presidency
Similar to Israel, the citizens of the United States elected a new head of state who
comes from the political right. Not only is President George Bush pushing for a deep tax
cut, he is also working toward modernizing armaments and transitioning from the old world
to the "new world."
One of the first orders of business for Mr. Bush was to create a strategic doctrine, as well as a new approach to arms control that reflects today’s world rather than the cold war’s superpower standoff. The terminology of "today’s world" means that the U.S. will be moving ahead with a number of initiatives including a satellite-based electronic shield. The New York Times reported on these developments in the February 10, 2001 issue. "Mr. Bush first outlined his vision for a strategy that coupled cuts in nuclear warheads with a missile shield during a speech last May, declaring that the nation’s security no longer required ‘a nuclear balance of terror.’ He also said it was possible to move ahead with defensive missiles and still ‘defuse confrontation’ with Russia, even though President Vladimir V. Putin and others have ardently opposed such a shield."
The directive for reviewing the strategy is highly classified, but officials said the president was asking for a review of the nation’s strategy, its method of selecting targets, its stockpile, and new and potential threats to the United States and its allies. As well, it looks as thought the entire Bush Administration is united in the desire to upgrade the military defense system. In February, at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the country’s aging weapons-production facilities had deteriorated badly and needed an overhaul. The Department of Energy has allowed its nuclear-weapons production plants to degrade over time, leaving a tremendous backlog of deferred maintenance and modernization. He said, "The deterioration of existing facilities is a very serious threat."
The results of the review are expected to provide the broad policy guidelines for a Congressionally mandated "nuclear posture review" that is to be completed this year under the direction of the military, the first such review since 1994.
These military initiatives may place the United States at odds with many of its NATO allies and resurrect old Russian fears of American aggression. As well, Russia will no doubt exploit any situation to decrease American influence and encourage U.S. isolation.
God works in the kingdoms of men, placing in power whom He will to work out His wonderful plan. The two new world leaders have certainly not been put in place at random. The Mideast peace plan, actively pursued by the Clinton administration for the past eight years, is effectively a failure. Peace will not come through man’s efforts. We are reminded that God’s plan is not man’s plan and God will bring His own Prince of Peace to establish universal harmony on His terms.
George Rayner