David Eshel News Commentary

The ailing Sharon is leaving behind not just a leadership vacuum, but an ideological and strategic void as well.

Israel’s 77 year old prime minister Ariel Sharon threw the Israeli political arena into turmoil last November, by deciding to leave his Likud Party and run for re-election at the head of a new centre party called “Kadima”( Forward) , committed to a compromise peace on his terms with the Palestinians.

Political analysts predict that at the end of March Israel will experience one of the most exciting and fateful elections the nation has ever known.

According to Professor Arik Carmon, president of the Israel Democracy Institute: the people of Israel want secure and recognized borders for a stable Jewish majority. For this they seek a leadership which can deliver within a new political scheme which can survive extreme opposition, as well as keep relative calm through viable deterrence against enemies.

With Ariel Sharon gone, there seems to be great demand for a new Chieftain to take the helm, but suitable candidates seem, at best, extremely scarce.

Leading analysts ask themselves whether Sharon’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip marked the beginning of a process of drafting the country’s borders.

Sharon gave up the Greater Israel dream for the sake of demographic reality.

The crowning glory of Sharon’s legacy is that human life and the Zionist dream come before land and the commandment to settle it. The Kadima political platform, created by Sharon shortly before his hospitalisation states, “The existence of a sovereign, Jewish and democratic state requires that parts of the Land of Israel be relinquished”.

In fact, Sharon has actually begun shaping the permanent borders of the State of Israel by constructing the separation fence and annexing territory on the seam line, using security as a pretext.

Rating demography higher than the topography in which he once believed and gathering Israelis into a new border, one that would be more internationally accepted and would include the “settlement blocs” and a security region in the Jordan Rift represents Sharon’s diplomatic legacy. But can it be, that the fate of the State of Israel was in the hands of one mortal being who has left nothing behind him - only political chaos, at home and with the neighbors?

Sharon considered himself second only to his teacher and mentor, the founder of the state, David Ben-Gurion. On his way to a third term, he set for himself two objectives that “the old man” was unable to accomplish: Setting the boundaries of the state and reforming the regime structure, which was to strengthen the government’s effectiveness and weaken the parties.

So who will gain and lose in the oncoming March elections:

Benjamin Netanyahu’s “fatherless” Likud party, which he inherited from Sharon has already become halved, descending from 40 to a mere 16 mandates in latest polls.

Netanyahu, not for the first time in his political life, made every mistake “in the book”. He did not join the “rebels” when the time was right, because he was obsessively involved in his economical plan, which may well backfire on him, being considered anti-social. When he decided to leave, a week before the disengagement it was already too late. By taking sides with the “rebels” at this late stage, he was regarded negatively by them, but publically marked as a rightwing extremist. Netanyahu may have gambled that Sharon’s adventure in Gaza would fail or end in disaster, but when it did not, he lost all his credibility, including his excellent image in the economy. Moreover, by leaving a mere week before placing his 2006 budget, his move signaled political bungling, not suitable for a serious PM candidate.

Amir Peretz, now leading the Labour Party wishes to win it back to power. Peretz, a young activist has certainly made it to the top with a big impact. Since becoming Labour chairman, in a mere two short weeks, he had already managed to reset the country’s public agenda, change the political landscape and bring Israeli politics into total turmoil, forcing Sharon to hurriedly create his new party and move to disband the Knesset. His surprising rush, from Union chief to the center stage has already challenged all Israeli public officials into a battle of wits. But he is regarded inexperienced and under his leadership Labour has already reached a low point in latest polls. The addition of a few names of prestige to his chosen list, will not change his own image as a convincing PM candidate.

Unfortunately, Labour has received a leader who is no more than a rhetorical Union speaker, with no record in anything nor experience in statesmanship or security matters. If he stands against Netanyahu he could perhaps be able to beat him in his anti-social domain, but it seems inconceivable that he will head Israel’s next government.

The cardinal question is: will Ehud Olmert who stepped into Sharon’s shoes on that fateful Wednesday night be up to the job he has taken over?

People have great doubts. On the face of it, Olmert may have the qualifications. He has leadership ability and sufficient experience in Israeli politics. As former mayor of Jerusalem he is well known and respected in political circles around the world and in his capacity as deputy prime minister in his capacity as deputy during the past three years, he has been exposed to events and information usually reserved only for prime ministers and defense ministers.

But for Olmert, taking up the role of prime minister under the present circumstances, with the situation in Gaza on the verge of blowing up the northern border under constant alert and on the eve of fateful elections in the Palestinian Authority, as well his own fledgling party just heading towards its first election, may be too much for even the most adept mortal.

If Olmert manages to overcome internal opposition within Kadima and will manage his 100 day term decisively to prove his leadership, he may politically survive, but his party will have a rough time and only a miracle will bring him a landslide victory after which he will be able to form a stable government.

With Sharon, the political magician gone, the best that Kadima can hope for is to achieve a brittle coalition, of short duration until someone arrives on the scene to become the next Israeli chieftain.

The crucial question in the forthcoming elections remains who can “deliver” after Sharon is gone.

In Israel’s history there were only five leaders who “delivered”.

David Ben Gurion delivered the statehood, he could have achieved even more if he would have been determined to carry out his plan to capture the West Bank in September 1948 and thus eliminate one of the major problems haunting Israel’s security and demography today.

Menahem Begin delivered the first peace break-through with Egypt in 1979- a tremendous strategic achievement.

Yizhak Rabin delivered the perhaps problematic Oslo agreement in 1993, but which laid the foundation for the second peace agreement, with Hussein’s Jordan. By eliminating the notorious ‘eastern front’, Rabin eliminated Israel’s existential threat through conventional warfare and Israel gained significant strategic advantages.

Ehud Barak delivered the disengagement from south Lebanon in May 2000, achieving what had been for over twenty years a bloodletting chaos, which no one dared to stop. While his followers made a strategic mistake to allow Hezbollah to create a strategic threat through Iranian missiles along the border ( a repeat performance of the 1970 fiasco along the Suez Canal and the shifting of Russian missiles into the area- which nearly lost Israel the 1973 war), Barak;s decision proved right and apart from sporadic incidents, Israel’s north remains relatively safe.

Barak also delivered the 2000 Camp David proposal, which may have been premature, but nevertheless brought into the open a plan, which no one before had dared to offer.

Ariel Sharon delivered a tremendous political feat through the Gaza disengagement last August 2005. His determination to evict his own followers by force gave him an international prestige and internal electoral power, second to none. But unfortunately, he left the scene just when he was about to reap his final victory.

With Ben Gurion, Begin, Rabin and now Sharon gone, the only potential leader who has “delivered” remains Barak, who may until now suffer from negative political image, but should he play his cards well, Ehud Barak could well achieve a political come-back when the time is right.

Sofar Ehud Barak has not placed his candidacy, which could signal a wise decision on his part. Entering any political party as ’second in line’ could become devastating for him. On the other hand, Barak could well reap a political comeback should the March elections fail to bring a landslide victory to one of the parties. Should either Kadima or Labour fail to achieve a decisive breakthrough to form a stable coalition, new elections will become inevitable, which could bring Barak to the helm, as saviour to a political turmoil which will certainly follow.

Barak may not be popular today, but neither was, Winston Churchill before Dunkirk, nor Charles deGaulle during the sixties when he was called to “save” France.