Editorial: Sharon deserves to succeed

Throughout a volatile history, only two parties, Labour and the right-wing Likud, have governed Israel. Attempts to break their stranglehold, some from positions of apparent strength, have come to nought. That, however, is the task Ariel Sharon, the 77-year-old Prime Minister, has set himself by quitting Likud to lead a new centrist party into an early election. The gambit is full of risk but deserves success, given that it is underpinned by a desire to plough a path towards peace in the Middle East.

In effect, however, Mr Sharon had little choice but to leave the party he helped to found three decades ago. Within Likud, opposition had accompanied each of his cautious peacemaking steps. It flared during this year's withdrawal from Gaza, and had surfaced again with the blocking of Cabinet appointments. Further pursuit of an end to conflict with the Palestinians was bound to see the Prime Minister even more at odds with many of his own party colleagues in the Knesset.

But the final straw was the ousting this month of veteran Labour leader Shimon Peres by a populist trade union official, Amir Peretz. Mr Peretz vowed quickly to pull out of the governing Likud-Labour coalition, and to tackle Likud on a platform that highlighted poverty as much as security, the traditional focus of Israeli politics.

Mr Sharon's strong suit as he seeks to redraw Israel's political map is a personal approval rating that stands at 60 per cent-plus. This reflects his record as a distinguished Army commander and a politician with an instinctive grasp of popular opinion. Early opinion polls have given him added impetus. They predict that in the March 28 election, his tentatively named National Responsibility Party will win between 30 and 33 seats in the 120-seat parliament, enough to virtually assure him a third term as leader of a governing coalition. Labour would win 25 to 26 seats and the splintered Likud, now a party of hardline opponents of a Palestinian state, would gain just 12 to 15 seats, down from a present holding of 40.

The polls suggest Mr Sharon is, again, in tune with many Israelis. After years of sometimes chaotic politics, they have had enough of being hostage to extreme views. They believe also that, as long as the country's borders are secure, the peace process should be pursued vigorously. They, like many Palestinians, are jaded by years of conflict. Perceptively, Mr Sharon has also made dealing with poverty a priority for his new party, thereby seeking to defuse much of Labour's new-found popularity.

In terms of the prospects for a lasting peace, Mr Sharon is by no means the best option. Mr Peretz, working from the framework of the Oslo Accords, is prepared to make far more territorial concessions to the Palestinians. But Israelis were reacquainted with their vulnerability during the first Gulf War and the Palestinian uprising. They may not be ready to embrace the risk implicit in the Labour leader's largesse. There is more comfort in Mr Sharon's security-based approach, which revolves around the United States-backed roadmap to peace and demands that the Palestinian Authority disarms militants before a Palestinian state can be envisaged.

Mr Sharon has said that he would be willing to make "painful concessions" for peace, and has hinted at withdrawals from isolated enclaves on the West Bank. But that policy will go only so far. Nonetheless, he offers renewed hope. In both the Israeli poll and Palestinian parliamentary elections, which will also be held soon, obstacles to the peace process could be sidelined. If so, reinvigorated peacemaking is a realistic prospect.