E-Paper
Road ahead for Israel
Ariel Sharon?s sudden illness leaves Israeli polity up in the air, and a huge question mark hanging over the future of geopolitics in the region.
Ariel Sharon’s sudden illness leaves Israeli polity up in the air, and a huge question mark hanging over the future of geopolitics in the region. The moment he was incapacitated by a stroke, it became clear that the post-Sharon era had begun. This, alas for Israel, couldn’t have come at a worse time. The Jewish State is facing some of the toughest economic, political and security challenges ever, and has no choice but to continue along the course charted by Mr Sharon. When Mr Sharon walked away from the Likud Party last December to form his own centrist party, Kadima, it precipitated a parliamentary crisis. But it also provided Israelis with a fresh opportunity to realign their political system.
From all accounts, Kadima is way ahead of all other political parties in opinion polls and looks set to win a record number of seats in the elections next March. The party owes this support to Mr Sharon as the leader who could best shield Israelis from harm as well as take tough decisions like the Gaza withdrawal in the interests of peace. So even though he didn’t fully deliver on peace and security — the twin platform on which he won a landslide victory last time — voters apparently trust his party and what it stands for. It seems likely that Kadima will get to form the next government, probably in coalition with Labour and other religious blocs, and strike a middle path between Labour’s ‘land for peace’ approach and the Likud’s hardline stance. But then, a lot will depend on how well, and to what extent, Ehud Olmert — who’ll almost certainly lead Kadima — can pick up where Mr Sharon left off. Not that it will be easy for any leader to step into the boots of Mr Sharon, a larger-than-life figure — an outstanding general and a controversial army chief and politician.
But there are troubling aspects to his strategy of keeping Palestinians out of the peace process. His unilateral disengagement from Gaza ensured that the peace process didn’t require two partners, but it could also prove to be unsustainable. In fact, had he remained politically and physically viable, he could conceivably have made successive unilateral disengagements up to a point that gave enough security to Israel. A position of strength from where the country could negotiate final peace with the Arabs. The coming weeks and months will tell how much his absence will matter.
