What The Media Would Miss Most Without Sharon

Just noticed on Reuters how Sharon's departure from the political scene is being described by the media:

ANALYSIS-Sharon's departure casts shadow over peace hopes

Setting off earthquakes is what Israel's Ariel Sharon has always done best. His final, dramatic disappearance from politics will be no exception.

It will shake Israel's political landscape to its core and its deeper effect may be to destroy his hope of ending decades of conflict with the Palestinians -- if only on his own uncompromising terms.

"There is no-one that can unite the country around the hard decisions that need to be made the way that Sharon could," said Israeli political analyst Yossi Klein-Levi.

Another item off of Google News from China on the EU reaction:

EU concerned about Sharon's health

BRUSSELS, Jan. 5 (Xinhuanet) -- The European Commission (EC) is concerned with the health of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, EC spokeswoman Emma Udwin said here on Thursday.

"We remain concerned about the news of Mr. Sharon," Udwin told the EC midday press briefing, adding that the situation was " worrying."

Could the issue worrying them, and the West in general, be whether--or merely how soon--a new Israeli leader can be found who will not only be amenable to the pressures of the Quartet and the West to make further unilateral concessions, but also be able to bulldoze Israel along the way?

After all, if someone equal to Sharon were not found--then there might be a need to have something approaching real negotiotions and real concessions, maybe even requiring Palestinians to do something. We know that under the best of conditions, nothing could be gotten out of them; with the 'spiraling violence' in Gaza the usual excuses have applied.

At the very least, if there were real negotiations and real Palestinian concessions, there might be something vaguely resembling the beginnings of a real peace.

But the prospect of having to actually put in the hard and frustrating work to make peace in the Middle East instead of pushing one-sided concessions through, probably scares the Quartet and the EU.

Bottom line, the 2 things the West would miss most without Sharon being around are a leader that is amenable to the idea of unilateral concessions and the ability to bulldoze the idea through the Knesset and make it happen.

The West in general and the Quartet in particular seem to think it's easier to make peace when you can rely on one side to do all the work.

But the problem is, that's not peace, it's surrender.

And in the Middle East, accepting surrender means never having to accept the legitimacy of your enemy.

In the meantime the best way to keep up-to-date is through Mere Rhetoric.

Soccer Dad notes that PM Sharon's name: Ariel ben Devorah and the list of Tehilim (Psalms) to recite according to Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger: [6, 20, 130, 121, 142]

Boker Tov, Boulder has photos of the reaction from the Palestinian Arab's blossoming democracy.

More important, of course, is what Israel is missing without Sharon. Hillel Halkin has a piece today in the NY Sun on the likely political repercussions. He writes:

Two things seem definite. One is that, whether or not Mr. Sharon pulls through, and whatever his rate of physical and mental recovery, he will not be able to lead his new Kadima Party in the election campaign now getting under way. The other is that everything that has been predicted about this campaign, about the government that will emerge from it, and about this government's policies can now be tossed out the window. As of this moment, Israel is in a state of political uncertainty such as it has never known in its 58-year-old history.

...A country on which a new mood of confidence had settled following the breaking of the Palestinian intifada and the successful Gaza disengagement, both accomplishments for which Ariel Sharon deserved full credit, is now a confused and worried one.

Mr. Sharon will go down as one of the best prime ministers in Israel's history, one who won a war against terror that was deemed unwinnable and restored a sense of direction to a people that had lost it. Yet if, as has often been said, one mark of a great leader is his making sure that he has a successor, or that there is at least a clear procedure for choosing one, Mr. Sharon fell short of greatness. In impetuously leaving the Likud to found Kadima, it never occurred to him that, at the age of 77, he would not be around for at least a few more years. It should have, though. That's not the kind of oversight that a meticulous planner like him should have been guilty of.

As a bulldozer, Sharon may have left a trail to follow, but not the leader to take Israel through it.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Sharon.