Ariel Sharon's Contentious Life and Legacy

• Share

(2 of 3)

SAEB EREKAT Palestinian chief peace negotiator: Sharon was very candid, very blunt and sometimes absolutely undiplomatic in his suspicion of—and frustration with—Palestinians and Arabs. He did not believe in negotiations, and he did not believe that we were ready as Palestinians for the end of the conflict. He suspended all contacts and negotiations; he did not consider us as partners. Now that he is gone, we have major concerns. First, regarding the Palestinian elections scheduled for this month: we hope that the situation and confusion in Israel will not prevent them from taking place, especially in East Jerusalem. Second, we are concerned that the competition to replace Sharon will lead to a hardening of Israel's posture, meaning more settlements, walls, incursions, assassinations and collective punishment. We Palestinians like to say that Israeli political developments are a purely domestic Israeli matter—but that isn't always true. Sharon's departure from the Likud erupted in a political volcano. Sharon's stroke will create another volcano. We Palestinians happen to live on the slopes of the volcano.

DANIEL KURTZER Former U.S. ambassador to Israel: Ariel Sharon was writing the last and most important chapter of his legacy when he was struck down. My conversations with Sharon last September, as I departed my ambassadorial post in Israel, convinced me that the historic disengagement from Gaza was not his last peace step. I believe he was intent on redefining Israel's eastern border, which would require dismantling many additional settlements in the West Bank. Immediate peace moves by Israel are highly unlikely. The new Israeli leadership will need time to consolidate its power at home and build up credibility on security to justify taking future risks for peace. A period of conflict management rather than conflict resolution is far more likely.

MICHAEL OREN Senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and author of Six Days of War: He will leave two legacies, perhaps of equal importance: a military legacy of conventional audacity and innovative anti-terrorism, and a diplomatic legacy of flexibility and openness toward Palestinians. But absent Palestinian reciprocity, it was a policy of unilateralism. Sharon departed from the Israeli paradigm—historically characterized by capturing a chunk of land and demanding, for its return, negotiations and recognition of Israel as a legitimate state. He called for a viable Arab partner with whom to negotiate. The acceptance of that shift by the nation's majority is a legacy—and unique to the Kadima Party, which is why I think it is still going to win the March elections. One thing remains unchanged: the prospects for a negotiated bilateral peace are very, very dim. But the prospects for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank are still very strong.

DENNIS ROSS Former U.S. envoy to the Middle East: Sharon was always governed by what he thought would make Israel strongest and most secure. He once said to me when we were talking about whether it was possible to reach agreement on the issues of Jerusalem, refugees and borders with the Palestinians, "We can't do what they want, and they can't do what we want." Did that mean that nothing would be done? No, because that would not serve Israel's interests. He knew that there was a