Search our Archives:
» Home
» History
» Holidays
» Humor
» Places
» Thought
» Opinion & Society
» Writings
» Customs
» Misc.
|
Arik Sharon - He Charted His Nation's Destiny
By Alon Ben-Meir
There are no words to express the sadness of millions of
Israelis and people around the world on hearing of the strokes suffered by
Prime Minister Sharon during this fateful time in the Middle East. Those who
pinned their hopes on his vision to deliver peace and those of us who knew
Sharon first-hand have a deeper sense of the potential loss for Israel and
even for its foes. No matter how harshly he may have been perceived because
of the actions he took to ensure the security for his people, Sharon was a
man of peace. He answered the call when time and circumstances summoned him.
He placed national interests above personal and party interests while
beseeching his fellow politicians to rise to the historical occasion and
answer the public's yearning for peace, even when it meant making painful
territorial concessions.
In assessing the political implications of Sharon's critical
illness, one has to keep in mind that Sharon the person is an historical
giant who transcends his time. Sharon may be remembered for being many
things: war hero, father of the settlements, founder of the Likud party, and
to some, the person indirectly responsible for the 1982 massacre of
Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Most of all,
however, Sharon will be credited for creating a public consensus in Israel
for making major territorial concessions by withdrawing from Gaza, beginning
the de-facto creation of a two-state solution and thereby moving decisively
to end the decades-long agonizing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A realist,
he came to accept that, from a demographic perspective, continued occupation
is simply not sustainable. With courage and iron determination, he then
abandoned a lifetime commitment to a party and its ideology of a greater
Israel to pursue a policy of peace and security. In planning and
implementing the withdrawal from Gaza, he demonstrated incredible political
resiliency, an unsurpassed capacity to rally his people, and the decisive
leadership required by time and circumstances.
Once he concluded that the Likud's current ideology made it an
obstacle to peace, he abandoned it not to lead another party, but because he
thought it necessary to form a new organization responsive to the needs of
his people and to resolve the Palestinian question. In taking this step,
Sharon created a movement to which people from the left, right, and center
gravitated -those who had lost faith in their own parties. The formation of
Kadima offers the substantive proof to the overwhelming majority of Israelis
that Sharon recognized their ardent desire for an end to the conflict with
the Palestinians.
As India's Jawaharlal Nehru once observed: "A leader does
not create a mass movement out of nothing, as if by a stroke of the
magician's wand. He can take advantage of the conditions themselves when
they arise. . . . " Sharon captured the public imagination at an historic
crossroad in his nation's life. Thus, he was viewed as the right person at
the right time and place to deliver what his people wanted-peace with
security.
Although he would have been a major force in leading his new party
to victory in the March elections and then in forming the new government,
the movement he has created transcends personalities. Kadima, in my view,
will forge ahead because there is no other political party with a clear and
credible plan that could lead to a permanent solution acceptable to the
Palestinians while still safeguarding Israel's national security interests.
We can only hope that Sharon will recover soon enough to
reassume the leadership of his movement. Sharon has written his own destiny.
But if destiny prevents him from realizing his life-long dream of peace,
other Israeli leaders will come to the fore and forge ahead to fulfill his
legacy. In the event of his absence, other prominent members who have joined
Kadima will vie for its leadership.
Two obvious contenders would be the
current Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni.
However, the most likely successor will be former Deputy Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert, now the acting Prime Minister. A seasoned politician, Olmert has
held several portfolios and was mayor of Jerusalem for 10 years. He has
worked side-by-side Sharon for many years and thoroughly shares his
convictions. As a believer in the two-state solution, Olmert was the first
Likud member to speak publicly about the need for Israel to withdraw from
much of the West Bank. If he becomes prime minister, he must, to succeed,
not only pursue Sharon's vision, but demonstrate decisiveness and clarity on
national security matters while also establishing his leadership in the
party early on to avoid any speculations about where he stands on issues of
vital national concern.
Although the current political uncertainty in Israel may create
the sense of a political vacuum, it will be a terrible mistake to assume, as
some of Israel's foes might, that Israel is vulnerable and try to capitalize
on this perception. Israel is a country of law and order and succession to
power is enshrined in its laws.
A number of Israeli officials told me that
any adversaries of Israel, including Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, or militant
Palestinians, that initiate violent hostilities against Israel to deflect
attention from their own problems, will face a rude awakening. The Israeli
retaliation, they emphasized, will be swift and unforgiving because the
country's military command structure is in place, and when national security
is threatened, political differences are totally forgotten. That said,
Israel's defense establishment and the Palestinian Authority must take
extraordinary measures to allow each other to conduct their respective
elections in a calm atmosphere and so avoid playing into the hands of
extremists in both camps who are ready to seize the spoils.
The prospect of a power transition in Israel could not have come
at a more momentous hour for Israel itself, the Palestinians, and the entire
Middle East. But although Israel has experienced more than its share of
adversity and losses, time and again it has risen to the challenge. In that
tradition, inside or outside the government, Sharon will be remembered as a
leader who charted not only his individual destiny but the destiny of his
nation.
Alon Ben-Meir is professor of international relations at the Center for
Global Affairs at NYU and is the Middle East Project Director at the World
Policy Institute, New York. alon@alonben-meir.com
~~~~~~~
from the February 2006 Edition of the Jewish Magazine
|
|