OPINION

The end of the Sharon era

Ariel Sharon is part of the political history of the Middle East; and despite the criticism and blame heaped upon him for the volatile situation that persists in the region, it cannot be denied that he was a general and subsequently a political leader who defended the interests of Israel as he deemed best and not according to the views of foreign powers, so-called international public opinion or his Palestinian rivals. Ariel Sharon was a relentless nationalist, and this created problems both on the domestic level and beyond Israeli borders. The administration of former US president Bill Clinton found itself in a difficult position many times, particularly when Sharon visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on September 28, 2000, triggering angry protests from the Palestinians, used as a pretext for breaking off peace talks backed by Washington. There was similar discomfort when Sharon condemned NATO strikes on the former Yugoslavia, along with several eminent Republicans including Henry Kissinger. Only after the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 was Ariel Sharon deemed to be a trustworthy partner and US President George Bush exercised his influence to allow the resumption of peace talks in the Middle East. This inspired Sharon to display such political audacity that he clashed head-on with the hard core of his own party. The end of Ariel Sharon’s era in the politics of Israel and the Middle East will impede rather than facilitate the peace process. This was also the case with the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, if only because longstanding disputes that have been accompanied by bloodshed and violence are not resolved by well-meaning third parties but by those who actually led the conflict. For years, Arafat was regarded in Israel as the sole obstacle to peace. Then, after his death, the international community pinned its hopes on Arafat’s successor Mahmoud Abbas, but the real power is still with the extremists, with Hamas. Israel’s most liberal and democratic representative to date has been Shimon Peres, but the only peace achieved in Israel was in 1977, during the reign of Menachem Begin – the extremist prime minister of the time who ordered the demolition of Israeli settlements in Sinai and handed over the peninsula to Egypt. This was not the only instance of such behavior; only a right-wing president such as Richard Nixon would have dared to restore ties with Red China, as it was known at the beginning of the 1970s. War and peace too are in the hands of politicians with indisputable credentials as nationalists. Seen from this point of view, the end of the Ariel Sharon era represents a blow to the peace process in the Middle East, as was the case with Arafat’s death. These two politicians, although hated so intensely by their political rivals, were the only ones with the ability to impose a settlement. Now peace talks will be much more complex. Only an overwhelming defeat, by military means, could possibly trigger the creation of a new order with new protagonists, but this presupposes the birth of a new outlook among the vanquished. Such a change was achieved after World War II with Germany and Japan. The Soviets tried to impose it on neighboring states and failed as communism collapsed virtually overnight in 1989. The Americans have undertaken a similar initiative in Iraq, the results of which are still not known although there is little cause for optimism. But Israel and the Palestinian Territories do not fall into any of these categories.

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Enter your information below to receive our weekly newsletters with the latest insights, opinion pieces and current events straight to your inbox.

By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.