Can Sharon make peace?

Byline: The Register-Guard

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is so routinely characterized as a hawk that his recent dovish statements have been widely overlooked. Today, the question separating Israel's hawks and doves is not whether to make peace with the Palestinians, but how. In Tuesday's elections Israeli voters strongly endorsed Sharon's approach - crush Palestinian militants first, negotiate later. Cynics suspect that for Sharon, later will never come. He must prove them wrong.

Sharon has told his Likud Party's central committee that he does not rule out a Palestinian state, and has also said that there is no purely military solution to the problem of terrorism. He could hardly say otherwise. George Bush, president of the country that is Israel's primary source of diplomatic and financial support, explicitly favors a Palestinian state. Israeli polls shows consistent public support for an accommodation with the Palestinians involving an exchange of land for peace.

These same Israelis voted to return Sharon to the prime minister's office, nearly doubling his Likud Party's representation in the parliament to 36 seats. The Labor Party, once Israel's leading political party, won only 18 seats, its worst showing ever. Labor's leader, Amram Mitzna, has said his party would not join with Likud in forming a government, but that may not matter - Sharon has the opportunity to lead a right-wing coalition that would control as many as 70 seats in the 120-member parliament. The size of such a coalition would insulate it from the instability that results when the defection of one small party can deprive the government of its majority.

Sharon thus has a mandate, but he should be aware that he won it mainly by default. Voter turnout was at a record low. Israel's economy is sputtering, people are demoralized by continuing violence and Sharon himself is caught up in a scandal involving a $1.5 million loan to his son. Sharon won because many Israeli voters believe that the nation's security, at least in the short term, requires a muscular policy toward Palestinians and all that comes with it - curfews, checkpoints, bulldozers, assassinations and massive retaliation - as long as the uprising in the Israeli-occupied territories continues.

The debate over whether Sharon's policies are a response to violence or serve to provoke it will never be resolved. What's lacking on the part of both Palestinian and Israeli leaders is a willingness to take the first step away from violence. Mitzna was prepared to do that, and has now been repudiated at the polls. But Israel and the Palestinians have been close to an agreement before - just over two years ago, a land-for-peace agreement was almost within reach. The trust that led negotiations so close to success has been shattered, but it can be rebuilt.

It may be foolish to hope that Sharon could be the one to engineer the creation of an independent Palestine in exchange for a secure Israel. Yet Sharon must understand that the alternative is unacceptable: continued Palestinian terrorism against Israelis, and continued Israeli brutalization of Palestinians. Sharon won because Israeli voters perceived that electing Mitzna would reward the past two years of suicide bombings. But just as suicide bombings can't lead Palestinians to statehood, acting as the jailer of an entire population can't lead Israel to peace.

The Bush administration has set the Israeli-Palestinian conflict aside while concentrating on Iraq. Indeed, the White House hopes that the Palestinians would become more tractable if Saddam Hussein were removed. Even if that hope proves well-placed, achieving Bush's goal of a Palestinian state will depend more on Sharon than on Saddam. The Bush administration should use its powerful leverage to ensure that Sharon understands that his nation's future is linked to Palestinian independence. He may be closer to that understanding than is commonly believed.