Joining the Haganah in 1942 at age 14, and being wounded in the 1948 war against the invading Arab armies, Sharon has spent most of his life defending Israel against its enemies, at first in the army and later in politics. He never trusted the Arab states and the Palestinians. He thought that the only way for Israel to survive is by being tough and aggressive, to convince the Arabs that there is no other option than to come to terms with the existence of Israel. He is known for his daring and decisiveness, as well as obstinacy and a great flexibility in choosing the means to achieve his aims. Some opponents and anti-Zionist criticasters claim that Sharon is bloodthirsty and driven by a hatred for the Arabs. This however is too simplistic. He is driven primarily by a conviction that the Arabs want to destroy Israel and nothing but force can keep them from doing this.

The title question is on the minds of many people, and Sharon is praised for the disengagement as much as he is loathed for is part in the massacre in Sabra and Shatila and for being 'the father of the settlement movement'. Critics say that Sharon didn't withdraw from Gaza out of love for the Palestinians and is not willing to offer them a viable state. His decision was motivated by 'demographic' reasons (Israel cannot remain both democratic and Jewish if it rules over millions of Palestinians, and the population in the Gaza strip doubles about every generation), and security (how many soldiers should spend the best years of their life and risk being killed by defending 7000 settlers?). However, Sharon also referred to the "occupation" for the first time in public and said it is wrong to rule another people, and his decision to withdraw from Gaza was important and hopeful for peace. It was the first time that settlements were removed from Eretz Israel - the land of Israel, including the territories. The settler movement was convinced that the evacuation wouldn't take place in the end, and right wing politicians warned that the evacuation might lead to a civil war, but this didn't happen, and all went in a very orderly and well-organized manner. It was a major defeat for the settlers, and a victory for democracy, as a clear majority wanted to get rid of Gaza. The Kadima party that Sharon founded recently was another victory for democracy. While a majority of the Israeli public is fed up with the occupation, they are also highly skeptical of the Palestinians' will or ability to dismantle the terrorist organizations and make peace. Especially since Arafat refused the Barak and Clinton offers in 2000/2001, and the Intifada broke out instead, few Israelis trust the Palestinians anymore. Sharon's unilateral approach is the perfect translation of the Israeli wish to disengage from the Palestinians without having to negotiate with them. Although this approach emerged first in the Labor party (the fence/wall was their idea, and Sharon adapted it and changed the route so that it came to encompass the large settlement blocs), Sharon started carrying out this policy successfully.

It is not accurate to state that Sharon has become a man of peace. He has never been a dove, and it is doubtful, to say the least, whether, had the Palestinians fought the terror and delivered on their part of the Roadmap, he would have been willing to offer them something similar to Barak's Taba proposal, which meant a state in virtually all of the West Bank with some minor land swaps and division of Jerusalem. However, he has certainly changed his mind about the future of the territories. He has little confidence in the feasibility of a Palestinian state, but has come to recognize that it is not in Israel's interest to rule over another people who have national aspirations. Besides that, because of his strong security and military record, he is trusted by many people in the political center, to execute this disengagement without compromising Israel's security.

He is not the first 'hawk' who made concessions to the Arabs: Begin gave up all of the Sinai to Egypt in return for peace. It was a much larger offer, and Israel got something in return, but in both cases land was returned to the Arabs and settlements were removed. In both cases this was done for strategic reasons and under pressure of the USA. Begin hoped to be able to keep all of the West Bank by giving up the Sinai. Sharon hoped to save at least the large settlement blocs and East Jerusalem by evacuating smaller and more isolated settlements. This aim does not change the fact of the evacuation however, and does not make future steps beyond Sharon's aims impossible. Some political opponents both on the right and the left allege on the contrary, that by setting the example of evacuating territories without a peace agreement, he has increased the possibility of future removals of more and larger settlements without getting anything in return.

It is probably also the settlers themselves who have helped make Sharon popular among part of the left, by their strong opposition to the Gaza evacuation, including death threats and obnoxious comparisons with the Judenrat. Shortly before his stroke I saw some of these accusations repeated on a right-wing website. It is difficult to say who hates him more: the settlers whom he had always supported, but whom he recently 'betrayed' by removing a few of them, with pain in his heart, because he deemed this in the interest of his - and their - country, or the Arabs against whom he has fought five wars and for whom he never felt much compassion. The latter certainly have more reason to hate him, albeit they should not forget it was mostly their own leaders who brought them into war with Israel, just as by instigating the second Intifada, Arafat himself helped bring Sharon to power.

Ratna Pelle

Ratna Pelle lives in Holland and writes commentary about the Middle East, democracy and peace.

Biography of Sharon:
http://www.mideastweb.org/bio-sharon.htm

Notice - This article is copyright by the author. It has alo been published at Ratna's Blog and israel-palestina.info and appears here by permission.