‘No Confidence’: Sharansky’s Courageous Resignation Offers Only Hope to spare Israel Disastrous Summit and its Fallout

(Washington, D.C.): This week, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided to
ignore his Interior
Minister’s strong recommendation that he not attend a summit meeting with President Clinton
and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat without first creating the political conditions necessary in a
democracy to forge a broadly supported plan to govern the negotiating sessions and outcomes.

Interior Minister Natan Sharansky responded in the only way consistent with his honor and
principles: by resigning his Cabinet post and ending his party’s participation in Barak’s coalition
government. This courageous step, if matched (as promised) by the National Religious Party,
would leave Barak without a majority in the Knesset. That would mean he would be reliant upon
Arab legislators of dubious commitment to Israel’s well-being to secure the necessary
parliamentary support for a deal he is obviously determined to reach, at apparently
any cost, with
Messrs. Clinton and Arafat at Camp David.

By so doing, Mr. Sharansky may effectively prevent Israel from being saddled with yet
another
bad deal, and a potentially fatal one at that, with Arabs who exhibit an undiminished hostility
toward the Jewish State. This Russian emigre is a hero in Israel and around the world for his
refusal to accept Soviet tyranny. He described his reasons for taking this momentous step in a
powerful op.ed. article that appeared in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal.

Wall Street Journal, 6 July 2000

No Justice, No Peace

By Natan Sharansky

Since my arrival in Israel, I have been criticized for not struggling for human rights in my
new
country with the same vigilance as I struggled for human rights in the Soviet Union. That
criticism is sure to grow now that I have announced my intention to resign from an Israeli
government that is making concessions to the Palestinians with insufficient popular support. To
these critics, it would seem, something happened to me on the way from the prisons of the Gulag
to the halls of the Israeli Knesset. In truth, not only has my adherence to the sacred human rights
principles I fought for never wavered, it lies at the core of my entire approach to the peace
process.

There were two fundamental ideas that guided my struggle for human rights in the Soviet
Union.
First was the sanctity of individual autonomy. It was clear that a totalitarian regime, by its very
nature, could never respect human rights. The institutions that enable free societies to protect
human rights — a freely and fairly elected government, meaningful opposition parties, a free
press, law courts with due process, not to mention human rights organizations — were all
glaringly absent from communist societies. The sovereignty and autonomy of the individual is
incompatible with any society that maintains stability by controlling the minds and bodies of its
subjects.

Reliable Gauge

Second, I believed, along with men like Andrei Sakharov, Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson
and
President Ronald Reagan, that the most reliable way to gauge a state’s intentions towards its
neighbors was its treatment of its own citizens. Put simply, a country that respected the rights of
its own people would also respect the rights of its neighbors. A repressive regime would always
need internal and external enemies to justify its policies, and would therefore always pose a
threat to peace. This idea was the basis of the dissidents’ demand that the West must link
international agreements with the Soviet Union to its human rights record.

When I arrived in Israel, I was deeply disappointed that the principles for which I fought
were
not well understood. The fact that brutal Arab dictatorships had the temerity to attack Israel on
the issue of human rights did not surprise me. The Soviet Union, with similar Orwellian flare,
used to allege that rights in the West meant nothing more than the right to die from hunger.

But Western and even Israeli critics would condemn Israeli human rights policies without
acknowledging the unique dangers facing a state that is an island of democracy in a sea of
authoritarian regimes. Not that there was nothing to criticize. As minister of the interior, I can
appreciate as much as anyone the human rights problems that are created by illegal immigration,
the illegal seizing of land and building of property, and the many other violations that fall under
my authority. I must bear the consequences, both personal and political, of my decisions, and I
must make those decisions under the constant glare of the international media and the pressure of
public opinion around the world.

But what makes these painful decisions bearable is not merely that I am convinced that I
have
made the right choices, but the fact that I know all too well the face of a society where ministers
don’t have such headaches. Human rights advocates must recognize that while Israel must
improve its human rights record, it remains, despite the existential threat it faces, an open,
transparent society, with independent courts and a free press. Most importantly, its human rights
activists are free to criticize the government and write press releases, rather than having to
conduct hunger strikes from the confines of a punishment cell.

After the peace process began, the misunderstanding became even more apparent. Not only
was
the non-democratic nature of Mr. Arafat’s emerging regime hardly ever criticized, it was actually
viewed as advancing the cause of peace. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, articulating an attitude
that is still pervasive among Western leaders, coined the phrase that chillingly summed up this
entire line of thinking. Mr. Arafat would deal with terrorists, he said, “without a Supreme Court,
without Betselem [a human rights organization] and without all kinds of bleeding heart liberals.”
Unfortunately, the shrill voices of most human rights organizations went silent — a notable
exception being Bassem Eid, who, after years struggling against Israeli violations of human
rights, now continues, as the director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, to
criticize the Palestinian Authority.

In effect, the peace process has betrayed the two core principles for which I have so bitterly
fought. Not only has individual autonomy been sacrificed on the alter of political expediency, but
the link that Sakharov and others drew between a state’s internal policies and its external
behavior has been flipped on its head. The undemocratic nature of Mr. Arafat’s regime, far from
being an obstacle to further peace, is now considered a crucial asset in the fight against terror. In
the euphoric march towards peace, we seem to be losing sight of the fact that the Palestinian
society that will emerge — a society with no supreme court, no human rights organizations and
no bleeding heart liberals — will not only undermine the rights of Palestinians but also endanger
the security of Israel.

The same human rights principles that once guided me in the Soviet Union remain the
cornerstone of my approach to the peace process. I am willing to transfer territory not because I
think the Jewish people have less of a right to Judea and Samaria than do the Palestinians, but
because the principle of individual autonomy remains sacred to me — I do not want to rule
another people. At the same time, I refuse to ignore the Palestinian Authority’s violations of
human rights because I remain convinced that a neighbor who tramples on the rights of its own
people will eventually threaten the security of my people.

I trust Mr. Arafat no more than I trust any despot. He has spent the seven years since Oslo
building a repressive regime and repeatedly inciting his people to violence instead of opening
Palestinian society and preparing his people to live in peace. Therefore, I will continue to see an
emerging Palestinian state as a threat to our security — and continue to demand that our
negotiating position reflect this reality.

‘New’ Middle East

A genuinely “new” Middle East need not be a fantasy. But it will not be brought about
merely by
ceding lands to Arab dictators and by subsidizing regimes that undermine the rights of their own
people. The only way to create real Arab-Israeli reconciliation is to press the Arab world to
respect human rights. Israel must link its concessions to the degree of openness, transparency and
liberalization of its neighbors. For their part, Western leaders must not think the Arabs any less
deserving of the freedom and rights that their own citizens enjoy — both for their sake and for
ours.