Austin Bay Blog

In late November 2005 ago I wrote a column examining Ariel Sharon’s attempt to forge a new “political center” in Israel. The column appeared a couple of days before Shimon Peres agreed to join Sharon’s new centrist party. When I read that Peres and Sharon had linked up for the new election I thought “Finally. Give’em eighteen months. We’ll see significant change in the Israeli-Palestinian situation.”

From my November column:

This week, Sharon quit his own conservative Likud Party to form a new centrist coalition. Once again, the prime minister is gambling, this time on the political field. The historical stakes are huge. Sharon’s ultimate goal is a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace, with the ancillary benefit of reshaping an Israeli domestic political system that all too often gives political extremes on the left and right decisive power to reject sensible compromise.

Audacious? Of course. Arrogant? Perhaps, but so what? A rash charge into political debacle?

Not likely. The old warrior has always been a deft calculator…

Well, human frailty –Old Mortality– has dealt hope a blow. Sharon’s stroke is a strategic strike, removing the war hero from the political arena.

Realclearpolitics has three excellent essays up this morning.

Charles Krauthammer. “The stroke suffered by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon could prove to be one of the great disasters in the country’s near-60-year history…”

Colin Coughlin (in the Daily Telegraph)
Key quote:

It was Sharon’s experience as a soldier that, more than anything else, moulded his political persona, and lay very much at the heart of his determination to bring an end to decades of bloodshed between Arabs and Jews.

As he remarked in a recent interview: “As one who participated in all the wars of the state of Israel, I saw the horror of wars, I saw my best friends being killed in battles.” Consequently he saw it as his duty “to take care of the security of the Jewish people”.

And finally, Daniel Pipes (writing in the National Post).

Here’s Pipes thesis, which is very much in line with my view:

What does that mean for Israeli politics and for Arab-Israeli relations?

Basically, it signals a return to business as usual.

Since the State of Israel came into existence in 1948, two points of view on relations with the Arabs have dominated its political life, represented by (as they are presently called) Labour on the left and Likud on the right.

Labour argued for greater flexibility and accommodation with the Arabs, Likud called for a tougher stance. Every one of Israel’s 11 prime ministers came from the two of them, not a single one came from the plethora of others. The two parties together suffered a long-term decline in popularity but they jointly remained the pivots and kingmakers of Israel electoral life.

Or so they did until six weeks ago. On Nov. 21, Sharon left Likud and formed his own party, called Kadima. He took this radical step in part because his views vis-à-vis the Palestinians had evolved so far from Likud’s nationalist policies, as shown by his withdrawal of Israeli forces and civilians from Gaza during mid-2005, that he no longer fit there. Also, he had attained such personal popularity that he attained the stature to found a party in his own image…

However, ABC News says a new poll indicates Sharon’s centrist can still win the election. Perhaps others (Peres?) will carry out Sharon’s vision.

The lede:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s centrist Kadima party would easily win a March 28 general election even without the incapacitated leader at its helm, two newspaper polls published on Friday showed.

The polls were the first to test the political waters for Sharon’s newly formed Kadima party since the prime minister suffered a severe cerebral hemorrhage on Wednesday night and was said by doctors to be unlikely to return to public life.

UPDATE: MENL (Middle East News Line) has this out (6:11 AM), though no confirmation elsewhere –(see my comments after the lede– and MENL’s own update):

JERUSALEM [MENL] — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the most powerful Israeli leader in 50 years, has died. He was 77.
Sharon was declared dead by physicians at Jerusalem’s Hadassah Hospital before 1 p.m. Israeli time [6 a.m. EST]. Authorities have already been notified of the death, and a government announcement was expected to be issued over the next hour.

I hope this report is false. However, there are several reports on the web that say his death is imminent. I’ll update this as appropriate. The latest radio news says Sharon is in for another operation. The report says doctors wanted to declare Sharon dead sometime on Thursday, so perhaps that rumor is the source of the MENL report. MENL publishes informative material on Israel and the Middle East, and provides good coverage of defense-related issues. In fact, MENL’s latest report says Sharon’s death is imminent, so that’s a correction and update. The death report isn’t on the site.

Quote: “JERUSALEM [MENL] — Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been felled by a massive stroke and his death could be announced within hours.” The story says Sharon’s chances of recovery are “nil.” There is an AP report out that says his condition has improved, slightly. This is the way breaking news breaks.

UPDATE 1B: WorldTribune.com has an article up on the false (or premature) reports of Sharon’s death. This is typical, though. Initial reports of West Virginia miners surviving the mine accident proved to be wrong. The internet gives us the opportunity to update and correct rapidly.

UPDATE 2 (9:41 AM Jan 6) : I just read the comment referencing the poll on Pipes’ site. (Scroll down– it’s at the bottom of his post, which includes the points made in his essay plus some pertinent links.) Excellent point– the poll ABC News reported on may reflect a surge of sympathy. My own gut read says Kadima is weaker without Sharon. Comment 4 offers an interesting take.

UPDATE 3: Christopher Hitchens at Slate. Hitchens reviews Sharon’s career (especially Sharon in Lebanon) then makes several key points:

Thus, when Ariel Sharon—the Arik who had been the hero of the settlers and of those who believed in “transfer” or expulsion—announced that “occupation” was the only word to describe the situation in the territories, the shock was quite something. When he added that the idea of Eretz or “Greater” Israel was in fact a demographic impossibility, the shock was even greater. Together with his colleague and possible successor, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, he publicly told the old Zionist hard-liners that the expansionist dream of Vladimir Jabotinsky was one that would have to be abandoned…

And:

There are, and always have been, only four alternatives in the Israeli-Palestinian quadrilateral. The first is the status quo of mingled apartheid and colonization that would eventually see the Israelis ruling without consent over a people as large as or larger than themselves and that is now almost universally seen as intolerable and unsustainable. The second is a state where those under its jurisdiction are equal citizens with the right to vote, which would be the end of Zionism. The third is the destruction or removal of one people by the other or their common ruin in a catastrophic war. The fourth is a partition between two separate states. All have their disadvantages, but the fourth appears to have the fewest and is supported officially by the PLO and endorsed by a probable majority of Israeli and diaspora Jews.

Hitchens acknowledges Sharon moved from One to Four. Read the entire essay.

UPDATE 4: The Jerusalem Post reports Kadima is uniting to support Olmert. We shall see.