Better the devil you know than the one you don't

While Israelis across the political spectrum mourn the passing of Ariel Sharon at the very least from the political stage, if not from life itself there is a dangerous euphoria among Palestinians and their supporters around the world. Such a sentiment is hardly surprising.

A man whose military training began in the Jewish underground in Palestine, who commanded Israeli forces during every major battle in the nation's history, who is remembered as the "Butcher of Beirut" for allowing Phalangist allies to massacre Palestinian refugees, who founded the Likud Party, who engineered Israel's colonies policy, and who instigated the Al Aqsa intifada: in short, for those on the receiving end of his lifelong campaign to advance Israeli interests, both political and military, Sharon is the epicentre of revulsion and hostility.

Indeed, Sharon's life and Israel's history are inextricably linked. As he rose to national and international prominence, Israel was becoming a regional power; when he suffered setbacks, Israel suffered the consequences.

But despite his many failings, and the understandable loathing he inspires in pro-Palestinian circles, his career uniquely suits him to win the support of his people for peace with Palestinians.

That peace may be deeply flawed, its implementation may be lacklustre at best (witness the aftermath of Gaza disengagement), but foreign leaders pressing Israel for more concessions recognise that for Israelis, Sharon is the last of a dying breed: Israeli military leaders turned politicians who lead their country to peace with the enemies they once fought. That translates into a fierce negotiator with the ability to deliver.

Pragmatic conclusion

Much like former Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, Sharon came to the pragmatic conclusion that the country's security was better served through peace than war.

With Sharon's passing, an important chapter of Israeli history closes, one that was written by the country's pre-1948 terrorists-turned-military leaders-turned peacemakers.

Israelis are uneasy about their future. The peace process, not exactly running at full speed, will now come to a complete stop until a new prime minister is elected on March 28.

Palestinians should be even more alarmed. While the "street" may rejoice at this turn of events, the leadership in Ramallah is rightly concerned. As Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas put it: "We are watching with great worry at what might happen if he is harmed."

Gazi Al Saadi, Palestinian commentator for Al Arabiya, was more blunt: "A live Sharon is better for the Palestinians now, despite all the crimes he has committed against us."

Why such pessimism when leaders from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to PFLP commander Ahmad Jabril are welcoming the news? Simply put, there is no other figure on Israel's political stage who inspires the same confidence and (often grudging) respect among a wide spectrum of Israelis. The architect of colonies is the only one who could bulldoze them.

While many assail his Gaza withdrawal as impoverished, failing to provide Palestinians control over their hard-won territory, his enemies on the right have a different view.

Leading American evangelical Pat Robertson, on hearing news of Sharon's condition said that this was a sign of God's "enmity against those who 'divide my land'. I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course".

Perhaps the animosity on both extremes of the ideological spectrum has only served to reinforce centrist Israelis' support for Sharon. To them, despite his numerous failings, he is the only politician who can deliver peace with security.

Of course, how both terms are defined separates Palestinians from Israelis and, within Israel, one party from another.

After Likud failed to offer robust support of his Gaza withdrawal, Sharon formed a new centrist party, Kadima, last month. Under his leadership, Kadima was expected to win the largest block of seats in the upcoming elections.

Three-way race

Now, there is likely to be a neck-and-neck three-way race for the post of prime minister. The contenders are Labour's newly elected leader Amir Peretz, Likud's hardline Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert, Sharon's close ally and de facto leader of Kadima. Shimon Peres, who left Labour for Kadima after Peretz's win, may challenge Olmert but is unlikely to succeed.

Though they wield not a single ballot, Palestinians could well determine the outcome. An uptick in violence, as some Palestinian factions jockey for position in the January 28 elections and others look to exploit Israel's leadership crisis, will only drive the Israeli centre towards the right.

That's not speculation, it's a fact.

The outcome? Likely to be a Netanyahu victory. Is he best suited to deliver a fair and just peace with Palestinians? I think not. So then why ensure his success with continued strikes inside Israeli territory? Unless, of course, the interests of Palestinian extremists are not those of the Palestinian people but are perhaps more in line with the desperate machinations of a faltering regime in Damascus.

Labour, which doubled colony expansion during the Rabin-Peres years, may be no more palatable than Likud. Olmert, whose tenure as the mayor of Occupied Jerusalem was disastrous for Palestinian residents, will have to prove himself Sharon's worthy successor to the Israeli public.

All in all, the three candidates will have to reassure Israelis that they can be just as ruthless as Sharon in responding to Palestinian violence and just as effective at the negotiating table. If there's no violence to respond to, that leaves the negotiating table.

Doubtless, Palestinian extremists who view the peace process as betrayal will be all too willing to sacrifice more innocent lives on both sides to torpedo any prospect of an end to the conflict.

On both sides of the concrete monstrosity that is a daily reminder of Sharon's legacy, the future looks quite bleak.

- Maggie Mitchell Salem is a political and communications consultant based in Washington, DC. Previously, she was director of communications at the Middle East Institute and a special assistant to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.