Life After Ariel Sharon
Editorial
The New York Times
January 6, 2006
When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced two months ago that he was leaving the right-wing Likud Party, which he had embodied for three decades, one thing seemed certain: his new centrist party, Kadima, would be far more about one man - himself - than any one idea.
It's possible that this could even have worked for a time. Mr. Sharon struck such a powerful chord with the Israelis' craving for security and stability that he might well have been able to bulldoze his people into the future as he saw it. But Mr. Sharon's massive second stroke means that both Kadima and what passes for the Israeli political center must now find a political vision that revolves around more than just Ariel Sharon.
With Mr. Sharon not expected to return to the helm, the Israeli people could still have three clear choices. Mr. Sharon's old Likud Party, now headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, represents the same old Likud way: inflaming Palestinian tensions through war and continuing settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank.
The Labor Party, with its new leader, Amir Peretz, represents the Labor way: negotiations with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the failure of the Oslo accords and the Palestinians' own inability to rein in their self-defeating attacks on Israel have understandably left many Israelis with little appetite for more talk. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and his ruling Fatah Party seem ill equipped even to hold proper local elections, let alone negotiate a peace deal.
But what, then, is the third way that Kadima could theoretically represent? The vision pushed forward by Mr. Sharon for the past year has been built around the central tenet of separation: the idea that the Israelis can't live with the Palestinians, so they will separate from the Palestinians and build a wall to make the separation visible and permanent. Mr. Sharon looked at the demographics of his country and came to the conclusion that the only way to keep Israel a Jewish state was to detach it physically, wherever possible, from the Palestinians. Toward that end, he faced down the relatively small number of Israeli settlers in Gaza and carried out the country's first unilateral withdrawal from land that Palestinians claimed for their future state.
That Sharon approach, for which the combative prime minister won the enthusiastic backing of President Bush, called for less confrontation than the one offered by Likud, and less talk than proposed by Labor. It didn't depend much on whether the Palestinians ever got their act together - something they appear bent on proving themselves incapable of doing.
It is possible that Kadima, with Mr. Sharon's deputy, Ehud Olmert, likely to be at the helm, can cast itself as a new centrist alternative to Labor and Likud. But Mr. Olmert, while a respected politician who helped formulate the Sharon doctrine of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, has neither the stature nor the popularity of Ariel Sharon. So while Mr. Sharon would probably have been able to carry Israel on the back of his own charisma and appeal, Mr. Olmert is likely to have to rely instead on the appeal of Kadima's vision.
That vision cannot be one that relies solely on unilateral separation. For a centrist way to work, there has to be a vision that also encompasses the steps necessary to eventually end the seemingly never-ending conflict with the Palestinians, including a complete enough withdrawal from the West Bank to give the Palestinians a workable state. It would secure Mr. Sharon's place in history if the centrist party he founded somehow managed to turn his vision of separation into one of a just and lasting peace.
The New York Times
January 6, 2006
When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced two months ago that he was leaving the right-wing Likud Party, which he had embodied for three decades, one thing seemed certain: his new centrist party, Kadima, would be far more about one man - himself - than any one idea.
It's possible that this could even have worked for a time. Mr. Sharon struck such a powerful chord with the Israelis' craving for security and stability that he might well have been able to bulldoze his people into the future as he saw it. But Mr. Sharon's massive second stroke means that both Kadima and what passes for the Israeli political center must now find a political vision that revolves around more than just Ariel Sharon.
With Mr. Sharon not expected to return to the helm, the Israeli people could still have three clear choices. Mr. Sharon's old Likud Party, now headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, represents the same old Likud way: inflaming Palestinian tensions through war and continuing settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank.
The Labor Party, with its new leader, Amir Peretz, represents the Labor way: negotiations with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the failure of the Oslo accords and the Palestinians' own inability to rein in their self-defeating attacks on Israel have understandably left many Israelis with little appetite for more talk. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and his ruling Fatah Party seem ill equipped even to hold proper local elections, let alone negotiate a peace deal.
But what, then, is the third way that Kadima could theoretically represent? The vision pushed forward by Mr. Sharon for the past year has been built around the central tenet of separation: the idea that the Israelis can't live with the Palestinians, so they will separate from the Palestinians and build a wall to make the separation visible and permanent. Mr. Sharon looked at the demographics of his country and came to the conclusion that the only way to keep Israel a Jewish state was to detach it physically, wherever possible, from the Palestinians. Toward that end, he faced down the relatively small number of Israeli settlers in Gaza and carried out the country's first unilateral withdrawal from land that Palestinians claimed for their future state.
That Sharon approach, for which the combative prime minister won the enthusiastic backing of President Bush, called for less confrontation than the one offered by Likud, and less talk than proposed by Labor. It didn't depend much on whether the Palestinians ever got their act together - something they appear bent on proving themselves incapable of doing.
It is possible that Kadima, with Mr. Sharon's deputy, Ehud Olmert, likely to be at the helm, can cast itself as a new centrist alternative to Labor and Likud. But Mr. Olmert, while a respected politician who helped formulate the Sharon doctrine of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, has neither the stature nor the popularity of Ariel Sharon. So while Mr. Sharon would probably have been able to carry Israel on the back of his own charisma and appeal, Mr. Olmert is likely to have to rely instead on the appeal of Kadima's vision.
That vision cannot be one that relies solely on unilateral separation. For a centrist way to work, there has to be a vision that also encompasses the steps necessary to eventually end the seemingly never-ending conflict with the Palestinians, including a complete enough withdrawal from the West Bank to give the Palestinians a workable state. It would secure Mr. Sharon's place in history if the centrist party he founded somehow managed to turn his vision of separation into one of a just and lasting peace.
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 4:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home