by Ghassan Khatib

There is no doubt that the absence of Ariel Sharon from the political scene is a very dramatic development for Israelis, especially the vast majority of the Israeli people who elected Sharon and believed he was on course to fulfill some of their hopes and aspirations. There is also no doubt that this is a tragic moment for his family and those who worked closely with him.

Sharon was in many ways a unique Israeli leader. At a time of serious crisis, he managed to govern Israel with almost no serious political opposition while also almost completely neutralizing international criticism and even influence. Yet, such an unparalleled achievement should not hide the fact that as far as the basic, legitimate Israeli objectives of peace and security are concerned, he achieved little.

In spite of some right wing criticism, he will always be remembered as the champion of the Israeli settlement project in occupied Palestinian territory, Gaza notwithstanding. The withdrawal from Gaza was an achievement from an Israeli perspective because Gaza, which had neither security nor historical significance to Israel, had become only a demographic and security burden with no returns.

As far as Palestinians are concerned, Sharon represented the worst possible in Israeli politics. In addition to the inerasable memory of Sharon's responsibility for massacres at Kibya and Sabra and Shatila, as well as his bloody practices against Gazans in the early stages of the occupation there when he was commanding officer in the area, there is the harsh and brutal treatment meted out to Palestinians during this intifada. On top of all these bitter memories, Palestinians are living the politically negative consequences of Sharon's unilateral strategies, which have been responsible for undermining and politically marginalizing the current Palestinian leadership by refusing its genuine request to resume a political process and negotiations on the basis of the roadmap.

Mahmoud Abbas, a most moderate and reasonable Palestinian leader, who was elected on the basis of replacing violence by peaceful, political negotiations, has been the most prominent victim of Sharon's strategy, a combination of the use of excessive force and unilateralism. Abbas, whose only comparative advantage is his political and negotiations skills and peaceful and moderate reputation, was thus left with no leverage when Sharon, by deciding not to have any political dealings with him, left him out in the political cold.

And, at the same time as Sharon was winning the sympathy of the world by evacuating Gaza, he was busy increasing settlements and building illegal walls, checkpoints and barriers in the West Bank including East Jerusalem--some 95 percent of the total occupied territory.

Through these policies and other brutal measures, Sharon is also responsible for the continuous shift in the internal Palestinian balance of power in favor of the extremists. For one, the peace camp had an impossible task in convincing the Palestinian public of the efficacy of a political approach in which the other side was not willing to engage. Second, by pursuing the use of force as an alternative to political negotiations, Sharon empowered the elements in Palestinian society that also promoted the use of force, as the only viable response to the occupation.

The sudden absence of Sharon from the political scene has come in the midst of other dramatic changes in Israel, including the split in the Likud, the transformation of Labor back into an opposition and early elections. It is possible to hope that with these dramatic changes, the Israeli public might realize that the use of force, together with the failure in recognizing the existence of the other side and thus the necessity of dealing with it, has only deepened hatred and hostility and increased the potential for further violence.

A cursory glance at the history of the last 38 years of occupation should show Israelis that the only period of relative peace and relative security was the period that followed negotiations and agreements. The only way to ensure peace, security and economic prosperity for both sides is when they can recognize and deal with the other as a party that has the same legitimate rights to freedom, independence, peace and security.

__________________________

- Published 9/1/2006 - bitterlemons.org

Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is the Palestinian Authority minister of planning and has been a political analyst and media contact for many years.