Glick vs. Stephens in a Sharon-off
Ariel Sharon is a strange figure, and I can never decide if I like or loathe him. The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens
expresses admiration for his move to dump Likud and start a brand new centrist party. He says Sharon could easily have won the Likud nomination and the general election as well, but wanted to offer Israelis a renewed and meaningful political choice, so he had to get out of Likud. Caroline Glick says not so fast
-it wasn't some courageous and altruistic move, it was rank opportunism. She calls him self-obsessed and deluded, guided by fear of losing the Likud nomination and lying to the voters about his plans. Apparently, Sharon is campaigning on a pledge not to withdraw unilaterally from any more of Israel; she disbelieves him because he broke the exact same campaign promise with regard to Gaza.
Since Caroline speaks my language-resolve, responsibility, and free markets-in talking about this moment of Israeli history, I'm more inclined to agree with her. In fact, Bret Stephens's article reads like puffery. Read both and tell me what you think.