'A serious blow for the peace process'

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's illness has people all over the world speculating about the political future of a post-Sharon Israel. We asked several Atlantans with close ties to the Middle East for their thoughts on what we might expect in an Israel without the leadership of the last of the "giants of Israel."

Doron Lubinksy, math professor, Georgia Tech:

"It's very difficult to say.   He obviously leaves a gap. If you read the Jerusalem Post . . . there   are other people who can take his place. They may not be Sharon, and   they may take time to fill his shoes . . . A few years ago they were   castigating Sharon, and now they're praising him. I do have faith in   Israel's democracy. It will produce leaders who will take up the challenge."

Dr. Robert Friedmann, director of the Georgia Israel Law Enforcement   Exchange. He returned Sunday night from a trip to Israel:

"I would   advise some caution. If Kadima will hold in the polls for the next two   or three weeks, if it manages to hold on beyond the first weekend of   [Sharon's] hospitalization, I think Kadima will pull together the next   coalition government. Kadima is becoming a phenomenon unto itself   because it offers a centrist approach."

Sivan Ben-Moshe, Emory University senior in neuroscience, who served   two years in the Israeli Defense Force.

"I really don't think it will   affect the peace process. . . . The people of Israel want peace and   the majority of the people believed in Sharon. I believe he probably   would have been re-elected if he were healthy because the majority of people support him.
They were happy with what he did, and they wanted him to continue."

Lavon Mercer, associate athletic director at Spelman College and an   Israeli citizen:

"[Sharon] was the catalyst to make everybody pull   together. The class of people that were there when he came up through   the ranks, that fought to establish the state of Israel, they have   done what they needed to do to establish it. The individuals that are   coming behind him have a great foundation to work from. The new blood   has to draw from the old."

David Tal, visiting professor, Department of History, Emory   University, from Tel Aviv:

"Most likely, Sharon's days as a prime minister are over.
But then again, he might surprise us, and we all hope and pray that he   can do that. Three months in Israel is like years in any other normal place.
Things in Israel change almost overnight, and what was news today will   be very distant memory tomorrow. . . . It looks like his party will   survive his absence. The Kadima Party is comprised of very experienced   politicians. It was not only Sharon who brought them together. . . .   They have a very strong political agenda. That agenda still exists."

Fahed Abu-Akel, a Palestinian Christian and executive director of the   Atlanta Ministry With International Students:

"[Sharon] comes from the camp that said military power and the use of force is the only language that the Palestinians and Arabs can understand . . .
His policy is that power and force will dictate the agenda and not negotiations. His successor is not going to be able to do anything in the next two months. He will be a caretaker. We need to wait for the election for Palestinians this month and then in Israel [in March]. Whoever wins --- whether in the Labor Party, the Likud Party or the Kadima Party --- will do the negotiations for Israel. Many are predicting that if a Palestinian state is not established in 2006 or 2007, the third intifada will begin. When people are oppressed they will revolt. The ingredients for a third uprising are there. . . . The new leader of Israel must negotiate with the Palestinians."

Sam Cherribi, acting director of the Center for the Study of Public   Scholarship at Emory University and a former member of the Dutch
parliament:

"A Sharon absence is "a serious blow for the peace process.   Sharon was Israel, in a way. Sharon was an anchor and could deliver   very, very well. He could be very hard but he would deliver . . . If   [Benjamin] Netanyahu gets the power . . . he will be more difficult   [for Palestinians] to deal with than Sharon. For Israelis, they may   see Netanyahu as the security alternative."

Kenneth W. Stein, professor of contemporary Middle Eastern history,   political science and Israeli studies. Director of the Middle East   Research Program and the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel:

"We're in the midst of a major shift in Israeli politics. The shift   has to do with a broad center emerging . . . where the majority of the   population has committed itself to unilateral action. Unilateralism   means not just withdrawing from the territories without talking with   the Palestinians, it means focusing on domestic issues. They have put   behind them whether there should be a Palestinian state. For Israelis,   the question is what should be the border of that Palestinian state .   . . Sharon's demise is happening at a time when the Israeli body politic is pragmatic."

Compiled by Mary Lou Pickel, Shelia M. Poole and Tessie Borden