Ariel Sharon's legacy

Ariel Sharon’s reputation as an indomitable warrior is long-standing and well-deserved. Egyptian Army, fellow Israeli politicians, US media and lawyers (who lost a libel case against him), Palestinian militants and Gaza settlers have all experienced his relentlessness, strategic daring, compelling drive and ultimate efficiency. Thus, one cannot rule out that he might yet defy Mother Nature and survive his massive brain haemorrhage. But, even if he does, it is highly unlikely that he will ever return to active politics. Sharon era is clearly over and it is time to assess his legacy. Many pundits assert that he is leaving a vacuum and his forced departure opens an era of uncertainty. I beg to differ. It looks like media are seeking to recycle the material written at the time of the death of Yasser Arafat.

Yet, while the comparison between the two men is instructive, it is also cruel. Arafat left his people in the state of hopeless confusion, his party in a state of deep disarray and Palestinian economy in tatters. Under Sharon, Israeli economic performance has been impressive; its military might, stronger than ever. As for Israeli politics, they never suffered from vacuum; overflow may be a much more accurate descriptive term. The smoothness of transition of power from Sharon to Olmert and the upholding of the election calendar (while that for Palestinians remains in doubt) shows the robustness of the institutional system. Of course, for a man like Sharon, there is always unfinished business. But, in short time of less than a year, he has achieved two dramatic breakthroughs, which have durably affected Israel’s international standing and internal politics: Gaza withdrawal and the creation of a new political party, Kadima. Although their implications have not fully played out as yet, their impact has already been far reaching and potentially irreversible.

By withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza, Sharon has shifted the burden of international community pressure from Israel to Palestinians. The onus is now on Palestinian Authority to put its house in order in Gaza and establish its credibility as a nation-builder. As long as it fails to do so (and it may be a long time), Israeli can afford to play a waiting game in the West Bank. Furthermore, the withdrawal has allowed Israeli to reduce the ever-present threat of international isolation. Under Sharon, Israel diplomacy has regained momentum, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe and in Asia.

Outside Israel, Sharon was seen as a polarising figure. In Israel, however, he was a man of consensus. Some of his most controversial policies were actually initiated under Labour leadership: this is the case for targeted assassination of Palestinian terrorists and for the West Bank wall. He presided over a coalition government.

The launch of Kadima can be seen his as logical extension of his political approach. Its aim is to durably realign the political landscape, traditionally characterised by an out-dated polarisation between the right and the left, and the excessive influence of small religious parties. Although Kadima was created by Sharon and for Sharon, its continuing popular appeal (despite Sharon’s illness, it apparently maintains its lead in pre-election polls) shows that it tapped a widespread yearning for a new voice, which would articulate an emerging consensus on the need to come to terms with Palestinians but without making undue and risky geographic or political concessions. Kadima’s economic policy is similarly centrist: seeking to reconcile the openness and focus on high technology as the development vector with the necessary social net to accommodate the diversity of Israeli population.

Kadima may or may not succeed. But it is unlikely that any government, even if it is Likud, will stray far away from its program. As Sharon himself put it: “Things looks very differently when one looks from above (from the Prime Minister’s perspective) rather than from a side (from a viewpoint of a Minister or a party leader).”