CLIFFORD SMITH
Contributing Writer
Regardless of what happens, it seems to me that one of the great geo-political “What Ifs” of the past couple of decades will prove to be “What if Ariel Sharon had been able to see his vision through to completion?”
We don’t know if Israeli Prime Minister Sharon will survive his massive stroke for long, but it does seem to be highly unlikely that he will be able to return to his leadership position, which is really a shame.
The book is not closed on the end result of many of his policies. But if early indications are correct, he was proving to be simultaneously one of the most pragmatic and idealistic leaders in Middle Eastern history, possibly one that could have brought a lasting peace.
According to Ecclesiastes 3:1 “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.” It is Sharon’s understanding of this principle that has made him a great leader. As more then a mere moderate, he took hard positions that were seemingly contradictory to some and always recognized that things are not always equal.
For years, the conflict between Israel and Palestine was at an impasse. Israel was constantly the target of not only terrorism from the Palestinians and their allies, but of outright war from neighboring Arab nations. The only person they had to negotiate with was Yasser Arafat, who, frankly, was completely untrustworthy and a terrorist enabler who would do nothing to stop attacks on innocent Israelis. Arafat did little to help his people achieve his stated goal of having their own homeland. It also didn’t help that he frequently called for Israel to be pushed into the sea. In this situation, Sharon drew a hard line, and fought for what he saw as right.
Given that Israel is surrounded by people who have repeatedly called for its destruction (most recently, this happened in Iran), it is not surprising that the country’s leader chose the hard-line route most of the time. I believe, sincerely, that this led to Israel’s survival but not lasting peace. It has led to retaliation and constant conflict with is neighbors, and regardless of who was right or wrong, that conflict has been worse for both.
Like Ronald Reagan, who opposed arms agreements during the Cold War, Sharon opposed every peace agreement and truce that had come along during his long career in the Israeli Army and in politics. He was determined to see that, first and foremost, his country was secure.
But also like Reagan, Sharon realized when the situation changed, and his goals were available through different and better means. Reagan is remembered for calling the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire” and decrying its leaders as being lying, conniving, untrustworthy and opposing every arms control agreement. He also publicly called for not merely staying even, but also winning the arms race.
What most people forget, is that even for an idealist like Reagan, things changed. Toward the end of his second term, during a trip to the Soviet Union, Reagan was asked by a reporter: “Do you still think you are in an evil empire Mr. President?” to which he replied “No. I was talking about another time in another era.”
Some on the left gloated, saying, “I told you so,” while some on the right accused Reagan of selling out. Neither was right. Reagan merely realized, that he was in a different position now, as were his adversaries, and that things that were not possible for a rightly ordered peace before, could now be achieved. He was now negotiating with a country with he felt he had a greater degree of trust. Furthermore, with the Strategic Defense Initiative as a threat to Soviet blackmail, he was in a position where he had the leverage. This gave him the strength to be able to make some concessions for the sake of peace.
Sharon’s accomplishments were similar. While he maintained his commitment to the security and survival of Israel, he realized the things that were now possible could create a better outcome for both. With Arafat gone, he had Mahmoud Abbas to deal with, a person for whom he had a greater degree of trust. By creating a security fence, that outraged many Palestinians and leftist in his own country and around the world, he put himself in a position where he could withdraw from Gaza without the kinds of risks as before. Ultimately, starting the process toward Palestinian statehood was now the best interest of both countries, which delighted the left and infuriated the right.
But like Reagan’s arms control agreement, it seemed to be working. For the first time in history, Palestinians seem excited about the possibility of having their own land to really control, and likewise, for the first time in recent history, Israel is much more secure then it once was and suicide bombings are down.
It remains to be seen if Sharon’s recently created centrist Kadima party will be able to survive the next election without him, although recent polls suggest that they will. However, they will have to do it without his leadership and wisdom. We can only hope and pray that they will still be able to follow on in his work.
01-19-2006