Sharon Begins Building His Government
ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER-ELECT: I will bring unity, and I will bring peace for the citizens of Israel and stability for the Middle East.</s>JONATHAN MANN, INSIGHT (voice-over): Symbols of strength in a time of uncertainty. Israeli prime minister-elect Ariel Sharon makes public and private gestures to unite a government and a country behind him. (on camera): Hello, and welcome. Ariel Sharon is in an odd position. He won the prime minister's office, but not a government. He won a landslide, but not a majority in Parliament. On our program today - a look at "the bulldozer," as Israelis call him, as he begins building what he needs. We begin with CNN's Jerrold Kessel.</s>JERROLD KESSEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With his first public act a visit to Jerusalem's western Wailing Wall, for Jews and Israelis a historic symbol of their national unity, Ariel Sharon underlined the commitment he'd given in the wake of his mammoth victory - to reconcile national divisions. Only steps away, only four and a half months ago, Mr. Sharon had undertaken his controversial visit to Jerusalem's holiest sites, an act which set in train a course of events that have now ended in him becoming Israel's new leader. Tuesday's election seemed to be about the punishing of Ehud Barak for his high-risk peace strategy and his zigzagging between fighting the Palestinians and negotiating with them. Its aftermath has been about Mr. Sharon's proclamation that he will underpin the search for security for Israelis and unity through the formation of a broad government. With several top advisers, Mr. Sharon began mapping out policy on how to translate this talk of unity into a practical political program.</s>EYAL ARAD, SENIOR SHARON ADVISER: He wishes to establish a formal (ph) national unity government as soon as possible and to move as quickly as possible to face together the challenges that Israel faces.</s>KESSEL: But Mr. Sharon's crushing victory could turn out to be a (inaudible) victory.</s>TOMMY LAPID, SHINUI PARTY LEADER: Mr. Sharon had the biggest electoral victory in Israeli political history, but it didn't make him a very powerful prime minister because he will have great difficulty in establishing a workable government.</s>KESSEL (on camera): Whether in army uniform or in politics, Ariel Sharon has always prided himself as being the kind of leader who is able to shape events rather than for him to be shaped by the events. It's thought he'll have his work cut out to prove that again now, given the context of the turbulence of Israel's political climate. (voice-over): Ehud Barak's abrupt decision to quit his Labor Party after his humiliation probably unveils a bruising contest for the party leadership. That could set back the possibility of Labor joining a broad government. It also emboldens those in Labor who are against throwing in their hand with Mr. Sharon.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Sharon cannot control the reality. The idea of freezing the volcano of the relations between the Israelis and Palestinians is totally, totally theoretic. In reality, what you have to do is to deal with this volcano, and whoever is deciding not to deal with this problem will find himself in a disaster.</s>KESSEL: Should Labor stay out, Mr. Sharon would be left with no alternative but to strike a narrow alliance with leaders of the religious and far-right parties, trying to contain forcefully that volcano of Palestinian-Israeli relations. A reflective personal moment for Mr. Sharon at the graveside of his wife Lily, who died last year, against a very public awareness that he still has to demonstrate that he can form the kind of government which will provide him with a base from which to launch his vision of Israel's future. The sun has set on Ehud Barak's vision of how the Arab-Israeli conflict can be resolved. Ariel Sharon has yet to unveil his precise vision of how to deal with that unresolved conflict. Jerrold Kessel, CNN, Tel Aviv.</s>MANN: Just a short time ago, we spoke to Ra'anan Gissin, an adviser to Ariel Sharon, about day one for the prime minister-elect.</s>RA'ANAN GISSIN, SHARON ADVISER: The day after, of course, is a day of hard work, you know, after the jubilation and the festivities of the victory. First of all, establishing the team that will negotiate with Labor Party. And I say, you know, the most important negotiations right now is for negotiations with Labor Party because Ariel Sharon has stated clearly that he wants a government of national unity, and that's a big - I would say a tall demand at this stage because of the kind of situation that the Labor Party find itself. Nevertheless, the team was formed today, and the offer was made to the Labor Party. And we're waiting for a Labor response. Also, sending emissaries to the various capitals of the world - to Washington, to London, to Europe - to explain Mr. Sharon's program and proposal how to restart negotiation and how he is going to pursue peace.</s>MANN: OK, you've covered a lot of ground. Let's start with the government of national unity. Very basic question - why does Ariel Sharon want one so badly? Is it because he is seeking stability for the government he is going to form, or is it because the government he envisages will be ideologically or philosophically closer to Labor than it will be to the religious and rightist parties that he could also join with?</s>GISSIN: Well, I want to make an observation. Throughout his political life, Ariel Sharon was always for governments of national unity. And today, in lieu of the difficulties that Israel is facing, the challenges abroad, the cleavage within, he thinks that the only way that Israel can pull itself out of the current predicament is by a government of national unity. And a government of national unity will also enable Israel to present its case to the world better and to negotiate with the Palestinians. So I think it's an ideological belief, in a sense, you know, that a government of national unity can do it. But above and beyond that, the fact that he won by a landslide is also an indication or, I would say, a referendum by the public to pursue a different course of action. And the people voted, they want a government of national unity that can pursue peace in a different way.</s>MANN: So where do things stand? What kinds of negotiations are already under way?</s>GISSIN: Well, currently there is no negotiations under way. I would call the conditions today or the situation today as a reassessment. Everyone reassesses the situation. I think the Palestinians reassess. We are reassessing the situation to see, you know, and to find out how we can restart the negotiation because, clearly, Mr. Sharon is committed to peace. And I think the United States, the brokers of peace and the one who will play a significant role, is also reassessing the situation, trying to decide at what distance it has to take in order to really help the negotiations and really restart them. I must mention one thing. You know, Sharon made no precondition except one. There won't be any negotiations under fire, under the threat of violence and terror. Granted that this - that the violence will stop, there is nothing that will stand in the way of renewing negotiations with the Palestinians, and I would say even with our other Arab neighbors.</s>MANN: Right now, though, once again it's a question of negotiating with Israelis in parliament. Is anyone in Likud, is Mr. Sharon in a hurry to assemble a government, or is the only deadline in mind the legal deadline that comes at the end of March?</s>GISSIN: Well, there's one deadline that's 42 days. That's - you're right. But there's another deadline, and that is the budget. You know, by March 31, we've got to submit a budget. And if you don't submit a budget, that immediately calls for early election, although there can be some intermediary legislation that could postpone it for another month. But I think Sharon is in a hurry, not so much because of these legal things, but because he truly thinks that at the beginning, right after the victory, it would be much easier, you know, to establish a government of national unity than if you let time pass by and drag along. And then, of course, there will be more difficulties, more obstacles on the way for a government of national unity. So I would say that the main battle right now is within Israel really to try and convince Labor Party and the other partners that government of national unity is really the call of the day.</s>MANN: Is Ariel Sharon keen to avoid a parliamentary election? That would solve some of his problems, wouldn't it?</s>GISSIN: Yes, but I think the country is not ready for parliamentary elections. The country does not want another election campaign and definitely not the members of parliament. You know, it's a very costly affair. I think right now, we've got two and a half more years for this government to, you know, to fulfill its term, to do whatever, and the public has voted and said very clearly, we want a government of national unity. We want to try a different approach. After we've tried, you know, a narrow government on the right and a narrow government on the left, which led us nowhere, now the public says let's try a government of national unity, and I think Ariel Sharon is the man that can do it.</s>YOSSI BEILIN, ISRAELI JUSTICE MINISTER: For years, we have fought for negotiations with the PLO, for a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, for concessions which will be worthwhile if we have peace and normalcy and security, and this is actually the real common denominator for all of us.</s>MANN (voice-over): The Labor Party volunteers and officials who gathered Tuesday night knew they were going to lose the election. They did not know they were going to lose their leader. Ehud Barak never suggested that he was close to resigning until he actually did it. (on camera): Welcome back. Labor has some big decisions to make about leadership - about Ariel Sharon's as the head of a government of national unity and about the party's own now that Ehud Barak has announced his resignation. Just a short time ago, we got in touch with Yossi Beilin, Israel's outgoing justice minister, about the feelings within his party and its thoughts about the future.</s>BEILIN: Well, undoubtedly, after the decision of Prime Minister Barak to resign not only from his post as the chairman of the Labor Party, but as a member of Knesset, he put the party in a kind of a shock, and we have to decide what to do. I believe that what we have to do now is to have early primaries of the leader - for the leader of the party in the coming two or maybe three months. And then to become an alternative, a real alternative to the government of Mr. Sharon, to refuse any idea of joining his government in a kind of a false unity government and to watch very carefully what are his suggestions to the Palestinian side, how does he want to handle the very difficult political situation and to suggest to the public opinion our alternatives.</s>MANN: How do you decide, without a leader, whether to accept the prime minister's offer? That decision has to be made before a new leader is chosen.</s>BEILIN: Well, there is a kind of a collective leadership. There are some people who are on the top of the list and who are leading the party. It is not totally leaderless, and I think that we will have to take our decisions by (inaudible).</s>MANN: What about Labor voters, the constituency that supported the party in previous elections, that supported its efforts toward peace? One has a sense, at a distance, that those people are in a very particular state of mind. Can you tell us about that?</s>BEILIN: Well, one very important constituency is the Arab voters. The Arab voters decided yesterday actually not to vote as a result of the situation whereby 13 Arab citizens were killed by the police in October last year. This was their decision. I believe that they punished themselves twice - once when their kids were killed and the second time when they boycotted the elections and got Sharon. And they all know who Sharon is. But now it is a fact of life, and what we will have to do is to recover and to get back the support of the Arabs, they will never, I believe, support the right. But they have to get back to the left and to trust us again. As to the other constituencies, it is difficult to pinpoint and say here is a very specific constituency but for the Arabs, which we lost. But I think that generally speaking, many people said, well, what's the big difference? Well, what can I do? Well, I don't have the drive to vote. And many, many people remained at home. I hope that it will never happen again and that people will understand what price are they paying when they remain at home and get the candidate of the other camp. I believe that what we have to do is to prove, while being in opposition, that our alternative for peace and for better relations with our neighbors for normalcy, these are the alternatives which I would say are the proper alternatives for the future of Israel rather the idea of living another 100 years on our (inaudible).</s>MANN: Much will depend then, as you say, on who the next leader will be. Ehud Barak claimed the mantle of Yitzhak Rabin. Is there a figure now who wants to pick up where Mr. Rabin and Mr. Barak left off? Is there a clear line pointing to one individual?</s>BEILIN: Well, there are some candidates from the peace camp in the Labor Party who may compete. My own hope is that we will find a way. How such competition will not take place, how such a contest will not happen, and that one of us will represent the moderate group, which is the biggest group in the Labor Party, and become the leader of the party immediately and then toward the next elections.</s>MANN: Are you thinking of running yourself?</s>BEILIN: No, I did it once, and I don't think that I will repeat it now. I think that there are others, some of my friends, and all of them are very good people. And all of them may become the leaders, and one of them will be the leader.</s>MANN: Let me then ask you what will be the last question - you have been very vocal about your opposition to a unity government. There was some speculation on people who appeared on our air and elsewhere that if Labor joins, you would leave the party. What's your future going to be like?</s>BEILIN: Well, I will not leave the party alone. I mean, if I - if there is a split in the party as a result of the wrong decision of my party to become part of Sharon's coalition, then there will be a real split, and I may be part of it.</s>MANN: Yossi Beilin, thank you so much for talking with us.</s>BEILIN: Thank you.</s>MANN: After the break, counting on the Knesset. Can "the bulldozer" make inroads where others have stalled? We'll be right back.</s>BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I could get elected fairly easily. I think that's common consensus. But I would have difficulty governing with the parliament that does not go to elections in this upcoming election. So the parliament is stacked against any possibility of really effecting the kind of security, peace and economic policies that I believe in.</s>MANN (voice-over): Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu intended to be the Likud Party's candidate in Tuesday's election. Polls showed that he was more popular than Ariel Sharon and that he would have easily beaten Ehud Barak. But as we've just heard, he felt that without a new supportive Knesset, his task would be too difficult. So he dropped out. (on camera): Welcome back. For an Israeli prime minister to be successful, he has to be a skilled negotiator - not with the Palestinians, but with other Israeli politicians. The 120-member Knesset is made up of many different parties. Labor and Likud maintain the biggest individual pieces of the pie, but more than a dozen other parties also have a voice and often a veto. It is now Ariel Sharon's turn to appease enough of them. David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy joins us now. Thanks so much for being with us. It depends how you do the math, but there are between 15 and 17 parties represented in the parliament. Israel is now welcoming its fifth prime minister-elect in just over five years. Does this seem to you like a system that's working either for the politicians or for the people of the country?</s>DAVID MAKOVSKY, WASHINGTON INST. NR. EAST POLICY: Israel is becoming increasingly ungovernable. Israel is becoming Italy when even, I think, Italy isn't Italy anymore. You pointed it out very well. You cannot keep having elections every day. I mean, Netanyahu's tenure was, I think, less than three years. Barak's tenure was half that time, and now people are saying Sharon's tenure might be half of what Barak was. If he - if a narrow government falls and there's yet new elections. And so I think Netanyahu was correct in saying he would only go for this if there was - if he could go to Knesset elections, and that's why Sharon also would like a broad-based government as well. Just to give you a sense, in 1981, Labor and Likud were 95 out of 120 seats in the Knesset. In 1999, Labor and Likud together were 45 seats out of 120. When Rabin put together a coalition in '92, there were three main parties. When Barak tried in '99, he had about seven parties to negotiate with. It's an impossible system.</s>MANN: How does it work? What kind of deal-making is involved in assembling a coalition?</s>MAKOVSKY: Well, ironically, the law for direct election of prime minister was supposed to centralize executive authority. And what happened is the reverse occurred in that people felt that a vote like for national candidate for prime minister and to vote sectorally or ethnically for the Knesset. So on one hand, you know, when there is a direct election, the winner is supposed to win because in the past, even the guy who was second place said don't go with the guy who has the most votes because I'll give you a better deal and more portfolios. But basically, the prime minister has to negotiate with every single one, has got to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. And frankly, the image that he may have is like this is the White House, you know. I'm directed - elected directly. But in fact, both Netanyahu in '96 and Barak in '99 were like - thought they were running for president, but they were locked in a parliamentary body where any 61 guys could bring them down, and they brought down each of them. So there's got to be a change. This is just - this is not good for Israel's stability right now.</s>MANN: Right now, despite everything you've just said, Ariel Sharon has to begin this exercise of assembling enough people for form a government. What kind of inducements can he offer, either to Labor, if he wants to have the government of national unity that he's spoken about, or to the multiple right-wing and religious parties that he'll have to turn to if he's not successful?</s>MAKOVSKY: Well, I assume to Labor, what they want to hear most of all is that the program, the platform, the policies of this new government will be to continue the peace process. It might not be in the exact same format that Labor did. I don't think it will be. But that basically that talks will continue and there will have to b assurances of some sort of a mutual veto just the way Sharon wanted it in the fall as well. To the other parties, the religious parties, they are concerned about funding for their schools. So it's more of an economics issue than anything else. But I think what's very important, Jonathan, that the viewers here realize is that the last two times the Likud was brought down in the `90s - the Shamir government of '92 and the Netanyahu government in '98 and `99 - is that they were brought down by the right, not by the left. And that to the extent that Labor, Barak's government, there was a certain homogeneity of people who said, OK, our platform is two states for two peoples dealing with Arafat. In the Likud, it's much more heterogeneous in that you've got hard-liners and hard bargainers. And over this last decade, there has never really been a thrashing out between these elements. Well, what are we exactly? And the party went to Oslo, you know. Arafat and Netanyahu shook hands, et cetera. But the point is is that the hard right never really accepted that, and once he made these moves - went to the Wye agreement, agreed to give up 13 percent of the West Bank, they brought him down. Sharon is aware of that, and I think to avoid the case that the hard right brings down a right-wing government for yet a third time, he would like a broad-based government so that he is not dependent on any one of these small factions.</s>MANN: It sounds like he can't trust his allies, so he's turning to his opponents.</s>MAKOVSKY: Very well said.</s>MANN: How unpredictable, how unstable is Israeli politics because of both the system and the people in it now?</s>MAKOVSKY: That's right. No, you said it well. I mean, that's really what it is. I mean, you know, when you've got - take 61 out of 120 to govern. It is possible that he will be able to do 64 in the narrow government for a variety of reasons which I won't get into here. But the point is is that means - let's say he could get 64 - that gives the power to four people out of that 64, any four of them, at any moment to say, "We could pull the plug on you." And that gives extraordinary power to a very small element. So even if the bulk of Likud says, you know what, we want to go ahead with the deal, but we don't want to give away the store, in their words, like Barak did. We just want to bargain hard for Israeli interests. It's enough that four guys say, you know what, I don't agree with this approach. Because the West Bank is Judea and Samaria. It's biblical patrimony, and the whole concept is an anathema. So any four of the 64 could just pull the plug, not to mention some of the religious.</s>MANN: On that note, I'm terribly afraid I'm being told to pull the plug now on us. David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, thanks so much for being with us. That's INSIGHT for this day. I'm Jonathan Mann. END TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com