OVER Israel's 65 years of existence, no one better epitomises its hard-won reputation as a warrior state that will stop at nothing to resolutely defend its right to exist and do whatever it takes to destroy its enemies than Ariel Sharon. But there was another side, too, to the man known as The Bulldozer - that of the flexible pragmatist who warned before he was struck down by a stroke seven years ago that if the Jewish state failed to compromise and insisted on fulfilling its dream in its entirety, "we are liable to lose it all".
Both aspects of Sharon's extraordinary life leave a powerful legacy that is as relevant to today's Israeli leaders as it is to those of their Palestinian adversaries and members of the international community, led by the US, as they seek a formula for the resumption of Middle East peace talks.
Sharon's personal fearlessness as a soldier and ruthlessness as a military commander was, of course, legendary. His reputation was indelibly marked by his actions fighting for Israel's independence and by such events as the retaliatory raid on the West Bank village of Qibya, in which soldiers in his special counter-terrorism Unit 101 used powerful explosives to destroy 45 Palestinian homes, killing 69 people, three-quarters of whom were women and children. So, too, will it be forever overshadowed by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon when, as defence minister, he was held responsible for the massacre of between 800 and 3500 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila camps.
As prime minister, he followed a policy of "retaliating relentlessly" against Palestinian terrorism and isolated Yasser Arafat in his Ramallah compound. Yet, when the time came for compromise, the man of war became a man of peace. Controversially in 2005, to the dismay of many Israelis, he evacuated Jewish settlements and withdrew troops from Gaza, in the process splitting his Likud party. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza could not continue endlessly, he argued. Much as the outside world admired Israel's resolve, he warned Israeli intransigence would threaten the loss of support, even in the US.
That advice from the old warrior is no less relevant now than it was then. So, too, is his warning at the time that compromise can only come from a position of absolute strength and that war creates the opportunities and confidence to make essential concessions.
As he pursues his Middle East peace efforts, US Secretary of State John Kerry would do well to heed Sharon's words. A few days ago, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the most hardline member of the government, similarly expressed his support for the current Kerry peace process in a way that echoed Sharon's advice, warning that "any other offer from the international community will be a lot less comfortable for us".
Sharon was removed from the scene seven years ago. Yet the same principles he espoused remain as relevant now as they were then. No one should ever expect the Jewish state to be anything but uncompromisingly tough on its security and right to exist. That is a basic principle Palestinian leaders too often wilfully seek to ignore. But Sharon also showed that there comes a time for compromise, and in the remarkable personal journey that led to the old warhorse's change of heart must lie at least a glimmer of hope for Middle East peace prospects at a particularly critical time.