Having slept through Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip last August, India was rather quick to recognise the unfolding drama in that country following the hospitalisation of Ariel Sharon. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s quick message wishing the speedy recovery of the legendary Israeli warrior has signaled hope that India will play a more activist role in the Middle East peace process. Its pedestrian response to Iran’s outburst against Israel and the Holocaust did not go down well with the Israeli establishment, especially when the Palestinian leadership distanced itself from Tehran’s antics. Even the Arabs and Palestinians who were at the receiving end of Sharon’s fury for decades have reluctantly come to recognise his critical contribution to the peace process. Therefore, there is no reason for the UPA government, known for its Cold War mindset, not to wake up to the far-reaching changes in Israel’s political landscape. Vilified both inside and outside his country, Sharon has always been the most controversial political figure in the Middle East. War or peace, he has been there in every major development that has affected Israel’s destiny. As a soldier he fought in all major wars of the region since 1948 and came to be known for unconventional thinking and maverick action. Some of his military campaigns brought miseries to Israelis and Arabs alike. But even his nemesis would concede that it was his personality and determination that brought about Israel’s unilateral pullout from the Gaza Strip. None but Sharon could have accomplished it against increased opposition both within and outside the ruling Likud party. While other Israeli leaders spoke of ‘painful concessions’, Israel was explicit: dismantling of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. Unilateralism — this was Sharon’s unique contribution to the Oslo process. He vociferously opposed the Oslo process and consistently refused to see Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as a negotiating partner. On a few occasions he explicitly threatened to assassinate the Palestinian leader who was confined in his Ramallah headquarters after 2001. Sharon recognised the impossibility of the status quo and the need for Israel to ‘disengage’ itself from the Palestinians. Since a negotiated settlement looked bleak, he opted for unilateralism. Despite scepticism and initial opposition, he went ahead and unilaterally pulled out Gaza in August. Such foresight made even non-Arab leaders like Pakistani President Parvez Musharraf to publicly admire Sharon as “a bold man, a great soldier, a courageous leader.” Herein lies the challenge before Israel. Sharon’s unilateralism appears to be the only short-term solution to the problem. Prospects for a negotiated settlement are bleak especially in the wake of growing lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, now under the complete control of President Mahmoud Abbas. The possibility of a Hamas victory in the Palestinian election slated for January 25 completes the gloomy picture. Even the domestic situation inside Israel is not very encouraging. Opinion polls continue to predict that Kadima, the new party floated by Sharon just weeks before his hospitalisation, would emerge as the largest party in the March Knesset elections. Internal tensions and defections would hamper the prospects of the Likud and the Labour party. Some of the centrist parties such as Shinui are facing a crisis of identity. Above all, sympathy for the ailing leader might also enable Kadima to garner additional support. Sharon’s deputy and former Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert has emerged as Sharon’s successor. But Olmert is no Sharon and would have to settle for a collective leadership to stay in office. This in turn would erode Israel’s ability to actively pursue a peace process. Given the complexities of the peace process and weakened Palestinian leadership, Israel needs a leader of the calibre, stamina and strength of Sharon to impose a peace deal. Not only upon the Palestinians but upon the Israelis as well. At least in the short run, one can visualise the return of uncertainty and violence. This is an opportunity for India to look at the larger picture and actively engage itself. The watchword is: engagement not sermonising. The writer teaches Israeli politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University
