A New Bulldozer

In Israel, a meaningful peace for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires that leaders be willing to be bold. The few successes in the peace process have come about only when politicians resolve to make the difficult compromises that lasting agreements require. When Ariel Sharon was elected Israeli Prime Minister five years ago, few could have imagined that he would take the bold steps necessary to move the peace process forward. Of all the strengths that Sharon displayed during his decades in Israeli politics, willingness to compromise never was among them. And yet, as we contemplate Sharon’s sudden exit from political life, triggered by a massive stroke from which the chance of a full recovery appears slim, we worry about the consequences for a peace process that, largely as a result of his actions, has steadily gained momentum in recent months.

Sharon, like the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, was a towering figure in the ongoing strife between Israelis and Palestinians. But while the sentiment after Arafat’s death in November 2004 was one of cautious optimism for a new, more progressive generation of Palestinian leadership, Sharon’s illness may bring the slowly emerging Israeli movement toward peace to a halt.

Certainly Sharon, as was Arafat, is as controversial a figure as there is in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sharon’s supporters touted him as a war hero, a man who had throughout his military and political career passionately defended Israel’s expansion into disputed territory like the West Bank and Gaza. His critics maligned him as a war criminal, the “Butcher of Beirut” who bore responsibility for numerous atrocities against the Palestinian people and had dedicated his life to repressing their struggle for self-determination.

But neither side could have anticipated the final act in the political life of Ariel Sharon, who had for decades championed the establishment of Israeli settlements. As prime minister, Sharon’s decision to withdraw settlers completely from the Gaza Strip and from parts of the West Bank—even once using the politically charged word “occupation” to describe the Israeli presence in some areas—represented a significant and welcome evolution in his philosophy. The decision was an act of political courage, made in the face of intense pressure both from the thousands of Israeli settlers being uprooted from Gaza and from his own right-wing Likud bloc. To give him greater freedom to promote his vision of peace, Sharon recently announced that he was leaving Likud, the political party he helped found 30 years ago, to form a new, more centrist party, called Kadima.

As Sharon clings to life, his lasting legacy may well be his Kadima party, which still appears to be the favorite to become the dominant party after the elections in March. But we do not yet know what the character of that legacy will be. Kadima does not currently have an identity outside of Ariel Sharon himself; it is more of an expression of his leadership and larger-than-life persona than a functioning political party with a clear ideological platform. Sharon’s exit from the political stage leaves a leadership vacuum that will not be easy to fill. “There is no single American figure to compare [Sharon] with,” wrote James Bennett in a 2004 New York Times Magazine profile. “He is Andrew Jackson, George Patton, Robert Moses.” Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who may very well become Kadima’s new leader, must develop a viable political vision for the party, complete with specifics for the future progression of Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.

Sharon’s hawkish credentials made him uniquely capable of taking steps toward peace. Now, it is our hope that the Israeli leaders who may not have his stature, charisma, and national appeal can continue to make the wrenching decisions that must be made to move the peace process forward. Israel’s continued ability to embrace the strategic pivot that Sharon executed in office, and the political will of Palestinian leaders to make difficult compromises of their own, will ultimately determine whether Sharon’s bold strokes contribute to a lasting peace in the region.