To what extent will Sharon's absence from the scene affect the Middle East equation, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed Sharon's condition has been described as "critical but stable" in the wake of the massive stroke he suffered last week. It is only after he is brought out of his induced coma that doctors can begin to evaluate the damage to his brain, but they are already discounting the possibility of a full recovery. This somber prognosis is in stark contrast to the upbeat tone of the early medical reports, when doctors seemed to believe they were in control of the situation. Throughout the medical crisis, the reports issued by the team of treating doctors at the Hadassah Hospital have been praised for their transparency and their alleged democratic character. But how true is that? While I do not usually subscribe to the conspiracy theory, there is no doubt that news of Sharon's health can profoundly affect the course of Israeli politics and that the medical reports may have been issued with an eye on Israel's upcoming national elections to be held on 28 March. Could the early optimistic medical reports have been designed to give a boost to Sharon's new party, Kadima, and finalise the contest to his benefit not only vis-à-vis his opponent Netanyahu, but even vis-à-vis his partner, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert? Has the game become trilateral instead of bilateral; that is, does it now involve Sharon? Netanyahu and Olmert and not only Olmert and Netanyahu, in the aim of lengthening the pre-electoral (and possibly also post- electoral) period? Are the Arab parties aware of this possibility? The trilateral game could be a ploy designed to postpone the elections especially that the Arab parties are in no position to affect the course of events but can only accept what is imposed on them. In other words, what appears to be an internal Israeli struggle may actually be a struggle between Israel and the Arab parties by which Israel seeks to improve its bargaining position in final status negotiations and at wresting still more concessions from the Arab side. What can appear to be an inner struggle between Israel and the Arab parties aimed at improving Israel's negotiation position and at settling the dispute through having the Arab parties assume still further concessions? Bush astonished the world when he described Sharon as "a man of peace" after one of their early summit meetings. Sharon is a complex character who could be described in a variety of ways, but peaceful is certainly not among them. He has too much blood on his hands, most notably the Sabra and Shatila massacres, for which he was held responsible by the Israeli court which investigated the matter. Sharon inspires very different feelings among the Israeli people. Some see him as embodying the best of Israel's values, others the worst. This polarisation is particularly sharp in the current situation, where the most acute conflict is between Netanyahu and Sharon despite the fact that they share a similar ideology and display the same degree of extremism. But there is something new, Israel is no longer a garrison state threatened on all sides and, whatever the Zionist propaganda spread by extremists such as Sharon and Netanyahu, its military and material superiority is undeniable. Thus the new generations of Israelis are unable to keep up the militant traditions of the founding fathers. Sharon might appear to be a hero in the eyes of those for whom the Holocaust must never be forgotten, but can such an ideology remain valid for ever? In a way, Israel's superiority is a source of weakness. It is no longer forced to remain in a state of high alert and full mobilisation to protect itself against a hostile environment, and its depiction of itself as a vulnerable entity is no longer credible.
