Sharon Rejects “Land For Peace” Principle

Sharon Rejects “Land For Peace” Principle
Vol: 50 Issue: 23 Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Israel’s political establishment was rocked to its heels by Ariel Sharon’s decision to quit the Likud Party (which he founded in 1973) to form a new party titled “National Responsibility.” The split resulted in Sharon’s asking Israel’s president, Moshe Katsav, to dissolve the government.

His former party, the Likud, was reeling from his breakaway and hurried to set an early date for electing a new party leader. The leading candidate is former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

The split draws new political lines with clearer distinctions between hawkish and dovish parties. Labor’s Chairman Amir Peretz is a left wing dove, Sharon is a centrist. His defection leaves the Likud in the hands of the hawks.

Sharon broke with the Likud’s guiding ideology when he accepted the Quartet-imposed ‘road map’ to peace. The Likud opposes both a Palestinian State or giving up any more of what it says is Greater Israel.

Speaking of Sharon’s withdrawal from the Likud, party leader Limor Livnat urged his compatriots to remain committed to the “old ideology” even if it means losing power. For them, he said, accepting an Arab sovereignty west of the Jordan River “was impossible.”

Eyal Arad, speaking for Sharon, said that Sharon’s acceptance of the road map – and its vision of a two-state solution – caused an ideological revolution inside the Likud, which long dreamt of Greater Israel. Once the road map was accepted, he said, a split inside the Likud became unavoidable and was a “natural and logical outgrowth” of Sharon’s acceptance of the idea of a Palestinian state.

Even those of us who are well versed in Israeli politics have trouble understanding just how big a deal Sharon’s political makeover is for Israel. Joel Rosenberg put it into perspective in a column at National Review.

“Imagine if George W. Bush elected president of the United States with overwhelming conservative Republican support suddenly woke up one morning, called a press conference, and announced, “I believe Hillary Clinton was right about how to reform health care, and I hereby intend to implement her plan to nationalize America’s health-care system.”

Rosenberg goes on, “Imagine then that a furious GOP demanded that President Bush at the very least hold a referendum within the party to decide whether embracing HillaryCare was really a good idea, and abide by its results. Now imagine that having lost that referendum decisively, and choosing to ignore the results, President Bush now asked Dick Cheney to step down and asked Hillary to serve as his vice president for the sake of “national unity.”

“Finally,” Rosenberg writes, “Imagine that having begun to implement HillaryCare and thus alienating most of the GOP, President Bush decided to bolt the party that nominated and elected him and create his own “centrist” party.”


Ariel Sharon’s top strategist, Eyal Arad, is to Sharon what Karl Rove is to President Bush. Arad outlined Sharon’s new political strategy, saying that the land-for-peace process set in motion at Oslo, ” erroneously presupposed that the root of the conflict was the occupation of the territories, and that if the occupation would only end, then peace would follow.”

This has proven “false philosophically, and naive politically,” he said, pointing out that the Oslo process, which was based on the land-for-peace formula, was followed by the worst terror the country ever faced. Instead, Sharon’s embrace of the road map’s new formula, “independence-for-security” would likely “revolutionize the Israeli political structure.”

The shift from ‘land-for-peace’ to ‘independence-for-security’ was inevitable. Israel could only give away so much of itself, and it appears that Sharon plans to draw the line in the sand where things are right now.

It is expected that he might negotiate away a few isolated settlements, but basically, Sharon has decided that he will draw Israel’s borders along current lines.

The shift is also in line with the Bible’s chronology for the last days. The Oslo peace accords were set up in a framework that called for Israel to exchange territory in the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for peace with the Palestinians — “dividing the land for gain” — so to speak.

The outline of the process called for it to be completed exactly seven years after it was signed on September 13, 2000. Daniel said that the coming antichrist will be a ‘prince’ of the people “that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

Looking forward from Daniel’s day, the ‘city’ (Jerusalem) and the ‘sanctuary’ (the Temple) were destroyed by Titus of Rome in AD 70. Since the ‘people’ were the Romans, the ‘coming prince’ should arise from the Roman Empire.

The only qualifying body is modern Europe. The imposition of the formula of ‘independence-for-security’ by the Quartet is the natural followup to Oslo, but it leaves a major element of the land-for-peace formula unresolved.

The third and final leg of the Oslo journey, scheduled for implementation by September 13, 2000, was to be a resolution of the ‘final status’ of Jerusalem.

Daniel envisioned the ‘confirmation’ of the terms of a seven-year peace deal, but notes that it is a false peace agreement that will last for the first 3 1/2 years before being broken. (Daniel 9:27)

Its metamorphosis from the ‘land-for-peace’ formula to one of ‘security-for-independence’ is foreseen by Ezekiel, who described Israel as a ‘land of unwalled villages’ in which Israel is pictured as being ‘at rest’ and dwelling ‘safely’. (Ezekiel 38:11)

And the prophet Zechariah forecasts the total breakdown of Israel’s false sense of security that results in the whole world gathering itself against the Jewish state will be over the as-yet-unconfirmed issue of Jerusalem’s final status. (Zechariah 12:3-4)

Following the Bible’s timeline, Israel’s current political upheaval is right on schedule.

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s