In
wartime, you don't have to
expose everything to the
world, to stand in public and
reveal everything, in the name
of that hypocritical and
lie-filled concept known as
honesty.--Ariel
Sharon, Prime Minister of
Israel |
Sunday, May 6, 2001
Sharon's
doublethink by Uzi Benziman PRIME Minister Ariel
Sharon keeps repeating that he has not
changed, and five days ago the familiar
voice from the past echoed once again. At
a meeting with the Yesha Council of
Settlements and leaders from the Jordan
Valley communities, in the presence of
media cameras and recorders, he made the
following statements in reference to
Israel's methods of operation against
Palestinian terror: "There
are things we will tell the public about,
there are things we will deny and there
are things that will remain hidden
forever." It is superfluous to add to what
has already been written about the
political wisdom of such statements, but
we think it is worth expressing an opinion
about the moral worldview behind them. Sharon is in effect saying that the
words he utters are intended to achieve
practical results; they have no intrinsic
value. Words are a political or political
-- and apparently personal as well --
tool, but they lack the original, specific
meaning that people usually attribute to
them. According to this approach, a
politician can use words any way he
pleases without considering their accepted
meaning. One can say that black is white or that
big is small, because there is an
external, superior purpose to the phrases
issuing from a politician's mouth. Sharon
felt no shame in declaring from the outset
that he, or his government, will not
hesitate to deceive the public, or the
world ("there are things we will
deny"). This attitude comes as no surprise from
someone who once said that "in wartime,
you don't have to expose everything to the
world, to stand in public and reveal
everything, in the name of that
hypocritical and lie-filled concept known
as honesty." If that is how the prime minister views
the role of words and interpersonal
communication, how is it possible to
evaluate his statements? If, for example,
he repeats that he has a clear plan of how
to restore calm, can the public see this
as a simple promise - i.e. that the prime
minister is about to bring about an end to
the Palestinian violence - or does he have
a hidden intent when he says such things?
If he announces that he will bring peace,
and that after bringing about calm, he
will offer the Palestinians a wise,
achievable diplomatic proposal - is this
declaration being made in the language of
an ordinary man or in the doublethink
language of George Orwell, which
Sharon sees as being reserved for
statesmen? This clarification is particularly
necessary when one reads the way the prime
minister words his official
announcements. The press announcements released by the
Prime Minister's Bureau regularly focus on
the responsibility of Yasser Arafat
and the Palestinian Authority for the
terror attacks and the deterioration in
security. The listener draws the
conclusion that this is the prime
minister's learned perception about the
terrorist organizations and that the
frequent reminders regarding the part
played by the Palestinian leadership are
meant to prepare the ground for an
operation that will nip the evil in the
bud. Nevertheless, when it becomes clear
that Sharon has his own private
dictionary, it raises doubts about the
accepted meaning of the accusations he
pins on the PA. This disease is also spreading into
other areas. When Sharon tells the High
Court of Justice that dispatching his son,
Omri, to speak to Arafat can save
lives, are we to accept his statement as
given, or is it couched in a code that
views honesty as hypocritical? After all,
according to Sharon's perception, his son
is his right arm, his long arm meeting
with Arafat. If his mission is to save
lives, then why doesn't Sharon carry it
out himself? Just because he announced
that he will not hold direct talks with
Arafat as long as the shooting
continues? Why is it that on this issue, of all
others, he chooses to keep his
word.
|