Bribe Charges Cloud


The state prosecutor’s recommendation to indict Ariel Sharon
on bribery charges came just as the Israeli prime minister was putting the
finishing touches on his plan for Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and
parts of the West Bank.

If Attorney General Menachem Mazuz decides to press charges,
it could mean the end not only of Sharon’s political career but of the policy
he hoped would alter radically the contours of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. If indicted, Sharon almost certainly would suspend himself or resign,
and his successor would be free to drop the plan to disengage from the
Palestinians.

In the meantime, until Mazuz makes up his mind — which could
take up to two months — Sharon will find it difficult to garner U.S. and
domestic backing for his far-reaching plan while under suspicion of criminal
wrongdoing.

Though it carries enormous weight, the prosecution’s
recommendation is not binding, and it is far from certain that Mazuz will
accept it. Justice Ministry insiders said Mazuz has described the case against Sharon
as “problematic” and “borderline.”

Sharon confidants said they are convinced that, when it
comes to the crunch — with tenuous evidence able to determine a prime
minister’s political future — Mazuz will not indict.

Sharon is suspected of receiving hundreds of thousands of
dollars through his son, Gilad, from Likud activist and millionaire contractor
David Appel for helping to promote Appel’s real estate interests in Greece and
the central Israeli city of Lod. Appel already has been charged with giving a
bribe. Now Mazuz must decide whether Sharon was aware that he was receiving one
and whether there is enough evidence to make a charge stick against the prime
minister.

In the meantime, Sharon is a prime minister under a cloud
and something of a lame duck.

Before the indictment recommendation, Sharon was working
hard to move his disengagement plan forward. He was close to tying up a deal
with the Bush administration for U.S. support; he had just made bold moves
against Hamas to facilitate Palestinian Authority control of Gaza after an
Israeli withdrawal, and he was hoping to use those two factors to win support
in his own Likud Party, where right-wingers, including some prominent Cabinet
ministers, have been highly critical of the plan.

Sharon also was covering his coalition bases. He was close to
cutting a deal with the opposition Labor Party for its 19 Knesset members to
join the coalition if the 13 legislators from the right-wing National Union
bloc and National Religious Party bolted over the disengagement plan.

Now, it will be hard for Sharon to tie up all the loose
ends. He might not even be able to get Cabinet approval for the plan: 11 of 23
Cabinet ministers expressed their opposition before the indictment
recommendation, and others may now come out against the weakened prime minister
and tip the balance against him.

Labor will stay out of the coalition as long as Sharon
remains under a cloud, and party leaders like Avraham Burg, who oppose any
alliance with Sharon, will have a stronger case. In addition, when Sharon flies
to Washington for a key April 14 meeting with President Bush, U.S. officials
are less likely to make formal commitments to a man who could be out of office
within weeks.

The fiercest challenge to Sharon, though, will come from the
right. Leaders of the National Union, the National Religious Party and the
Yesha settlers’ council are hoping to utilize Sharon’s plight to scuttle the
disengagement idea. They hope that if the prime minister is replaced, his
successor will shelve a plan that entails the dismantling of nearly all the
Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and at least six in the West Bank.

If Sharon is forced to resign, Likud insiders said he
probably would be succeeded by Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has
shown little enthusiasm for the disengagement plan.

By Israeli law, the resignation of a prime minister does not
necessarily trigger a general election. Sixty-one Knesset members can propose
an alternative candidate, and the president can confer on him the task of
forming a new government.

Though Industry and Trade Minister Ehud Olmert, who backs
the disengagement plan, and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who does not, might
mount leadership challenges, most Likud insiders believe Netanyahu would win
the party nomination easily.

But what Netanyahu does about disengagement is not a
foregone conclusion, and the right-wingers may be disappointed.

Despite his criticism of the plan, Netanyahu is leaving his
options open. Rather than rejecting it outright, he has laid down three
conditions for supporting the plan:

\n

• That Israel control border crossing points to prevent arms
from flowing into Palestinian areas.

\n

• That the United States recognize a route for the West Bank
security fence that puts more Jewish settlements on the Israeli side.

\n

• That the United States publicly back Israel’s position
that no Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israel proper.

Insiders said this stance gives Netanyahu maximum
flexibility: If he becomes prime minister, he will be able to keep a right-wing
coalition together while negotiating with the United States on his conditions
for disengagement. If Sharon survives, Netanyahu will be able to claim the
credit if his conditions are met or choose his moment to confront Sharon if
they are not.

In both his disengagement plan and in targeting Hamas,
Sharon has been playing for high stakes. Some critics even imply a connection
between his bold moves and the burgeoning legal case against him. Indeed,
Sharon’s critics on both the right and the left accused the prime minister of
playing with fire.

In contrast, his supporters said that his twin policy of
cracking down on terrorism and disengaging from the Palestinians could
transform the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To make those policies work,
however, Sharon needs more time.

And as Mazuz assesses the evidence, Sharon’s time could be
running out. Â


Leslie Susser is the diplomatic correspondent for the Jerusalem Report.