Geodog

Bush = Sharon?

I was reading an interesting article on the coming Israeli general election in my print copy of The American Prospect this evening when I ran across this statement:

Analyzed coldly, Sharon's tenure as prime minister has been disastrous. Curfews, roadblocks and "targeted killings" against suspected terrorists haven't ended attacks on Israeli civilians. Indeed, within Israel the death toll has climbed precipitously. Meanwhile, the economy has collapsed.

Yet Sharon remains popular. The public blames the Palestinians, not the prime minister. Terrorism creates public support for muscular answers that, even if they don't succeed, hold off the deeper fear of feeling weak. And a silent opposition allowed Sharon's policy to seem the best available.

Substitute Bush for Sharon, American for Israel, and that statement still sounds accurate. Although luckily we have (yet) to endure the kind of casualties that Israel suffers from, the parallels are erie. In both cases there is a posture of looking tough, a sly celebration of the use of assassination and torture as a replacement for a strategy, a refusal to address any of the grievances that are felt much more widely than just by terrorists, and extensive use of the security situation for domestic political purposes. In Israel at least the opposition seems to be getting off its back -- it is unclear if in the US, the Democratic politicians will ever have the guts to really oppose Bush.

As RKB says, the parallels would be funny if they weren't so scary.