I am writing this article when all indications seemed to suggest that Ariel Sharon’s political career seems to be over.

While Jews shed their tears and Hamas rejoice at the “good news”, moderate Palestinians called for reflection and an expression of sorrow at the Israeli leader’s fate.

The Arab world itself was divided as to how to react to the news.

The reason being that although in recent years Sharon has come across as a pragmatist and a peacemaker, there are many who still identify him as being responsible for what happened in Sabra and Chatila.

Since his new splinter party Kadima has all the makings of a one-man show, it will be interesting to find out what the future holds for the Israeli political landscape.

The strongest rumours seem to suggest that since none of his possible successors were seen as having the ability to pull together the ruling coalition, it is likely that a sharp divide will emerge between a Netanyahu-led Likud and the revamped Peretz Labour camp.

It is most unlikely that Shimon Peres will be asked to head Kadima, while if this newly emerging movement opts for Sharon’s deputy – the former Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert – it is unlikely that it will continue to pursue a centrist path.

One might ask – why did I choose to give my article such a title?

The mighty pendulum tag is not my concoction.

It is attributable to Israeli novelist David Grossman – a writer of international standing and repute. Apart from describing Sharon as a politician who saw himself as a man who makes history, not one who yields to circumstance, he called him a man of potent primal urges, of violence, of combat, cunning and brilliance.

Describing him as a sharp manipulator, according to Grossman Sharon swung like a mighty pendulum, between construction and destruction. He goes on to add that the Israeli leader blatantly ignored limits, whether international boundaries or the boundaries of the law.

What intrigued me most about Sharon was that either when he was at his best or at his political worst, he did not merely set out to change the Middle Eastern world, but he invariably tried to make it fit his own vision.

He was a man for whom the means were used without restraint to achieve his ends.

This explains his determination, which often tipped into brutality.

So why given this scenario are even his sworn opponents concerned about the vacuum that he is likely to leave in Israeli politics?

While disagreeing with those who considered him to be a master tactician without a master plan, he has managed to redraw Israel’s borders politically instead of militarily.

While many – those my senior – are more inclined to dismiss his hawkish ultranationalism, his legacy is likely to be that of a senior and seasoned politician, who managed to sidestep, by pass and even neutralise the hardliners within his ranks who are now accusing him of betrayal over the Gaza pull out.

Who would have ever thought or imagined that a political warrior would have given birth to a party of the political centre?

While some argue that Kadima might be swept to electoral success on a wave of voter sympathy, I think that without Sharon, Kadima is likely to end up as an empty shell.

What his unexpected demise from the political scene will leave unanswered will be something that has perplexed me for the last few months. Primarily as to whether his withdrawal from Gaza marked the start of a genuine process that would lead the Palestinians to true statehood, or else whether this was a deft political move intended to actually avoid it by consolidating the Israeli hold over the West Bank.

While the majority of Israelis have been supportive of his efforts – so much so that his new party was already leading in the polls – the electorate might now have a clearer choice in the sense that they will now have to decide between intransigence and a renewal of a genuine peace process.

Personality-wise, Netanyahu has far more charisma that Labour’s Peretz, whose persona is somewhat one of a self-caricature.

But this is the deep choice that the Israelis will have to make come next March – as to whether they intend to work for peace and reverse certain inequalities that have been eating away at Israeli society or else whether their top priority will be that of boosting the notion of a greater Israel.

In his own way, Sharon was a walking contradiction – having taken the bold step of dismantling settlements, after having erected them in the not too distant past.

Even though Sharon’s policies would have remained a mystery even had he lived on politically, it was intriguing that he still managed to command the respect and trust of the majority of the Israeli electorate, including those who traditionally never voted for Likud.

What Israel needs, apart from a clear-cut policy on settlements and social inequalities, is a true leader with a political vision and sense of direction.

Whether Sharon survives or not by the time that this article appears in print is immaterial. No one can dispute the fact that the Sharon era is over.

Which brings us to the Americans.

They seem to have “invested” so much in Sharon that one begins to wonder whether they did consider alternative scenarios. I say so because as the London Times commented editorially – Progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track is regarded as crucial for American efforts to prove to the Arabs and the Islamic world that it is serious about bringing peace to the Middle East and promoting democracy. Without a strong, pragmatic leader in Israel, that task will be very difficult – if not impossible.

Out of sheer sensationalism, the media will gloat on photos of rejoicing Hamas members. But what impressed me most was the unexpected praise that a Palestinian commentator on the respected Al-Arabiya network came forward with when he described Sharon as “the first Israeli leader who stopped claiming Israel had a right to all of the Palestinians’ land”.

On that basis alone, one should express concern about the end of the man’s political career and era.

Given the chaos in the Palestinian camp, the last thing we need now is uncertainty in the Israel side.

email : [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the Main Opposition Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs and IT.