The landslide victory of Ariel Sharon is a measure of Israeli voters' desperation. A majority of Israelis didn't suddenly take leave of their senses or develop amnesia concerning their new prime minister's bloody and irresponsible history. Instead, they reluctantly turned to Sharon as the only available alternative to Ehud Barak, who had left them with the worst of both worlds: once-unthinkable concessions, which produced only more violence and insecurity.

With Sharon's election, Yasser Arafat has given the Palestinians the worst of both worlds, too. In rejecting Barak's historic concessions over the future of the West Bank and Jerusalem, Arafat set in motion a new wave of violence, most of which has been inflicted on the Palestinians. Arafat also destroyed Barak's credibility and brought about the astonishing political resurrection of Sharon, who immediately took Barak's concessions off the table. The next deal Arafat is offered will not be nearly as generous as the one he rejected last year.

Still, Sharon's election is likely to mark only a respite in the peace process -- perhaps even a welcome respite -- rather than a complete unraveling of negotiations. This page always was skeptical of President Clinton's late-term efforts to forge a Middle East peace agreement according to his timetable, rather than the Israelis' and Palestinians'. Now that hopes for a quick, comprehensive agreement are dead, the new Bush administration would be wise to take a slower and more incremental approach.

First, Washington must see what shape the new Sharon government takes before determining what, if any, role the United States can play in reviving negotiations. Sharon's offer to bring the Labor Party into a coalition government is not an act of conciliation; it is an act of necessity. Sharon's Likud Party controls only 19 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. Without Labor, Sharon would have to cobble together a shaky alliance of religious and far-right parties whose shelf life would be measured in months rather than years. For all his public bluster, Sharon over the years has managed to cultivate cordial working relationships with Labor leaders such as former Prime Minister Shimon Peres. If Sharon fulfills his promise to build a true unity government, he may begin to look like a more plausible negotiating partner to the United States and the Arab world.

The disruptive events in the Middle East present an early test for a Bush foreign policy team just beginning to define itself. Secretary of State Colin Powell's reaction was appropriately cautious: "It has to be more than us just forcing (the Israelis and Palestinians) into positions that they may or may not support," Powell said. "At the end of the day, they have to come together across the table and negotiate with each other."

That sounds like an unlikely scenario for two aging warriors with the checkered histories of Arafat and Sharon. But unless and until the Israelis and Palestinians develop a new generation of more enlightened leadership, Sharon and Arafat represent the region's only hope. Neither the United States nor any other outside party can take these two stubborn leaders, or their people, where they are not yet prepared to go.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page