JERUSALEM The quick and relatively smooth execution of Ariel Sharon's plan to evacuate Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank has won him praise from all around the world. Yet back home he is fighting for his political survival as the leader of his Likud Party and consequently as prime minister of Israel.
Sharon is being challenged by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who quit the government and now heads the opposition to Sharon in the Likud Party. But opinion polls show that among the public at large he enjoys across-the-board support: Two out of three Israelis, regardless of their political affiliation, feel that he is leading the country in the right direction. If Sharon is defeated in the primaries by Netanyahu, I wouldn't be surprised if he leaves Likud and forms a new centrist party together with other factions and groups.
The political arena in Israel, which has long ceased to reflect the true aspirations and interests of the Israelis, is ready for such a reshuffle. Let Netanyahu stay with the old Likud and cling to the past. A new centrist party should look with hope to a future where Israel - smaller in size but stronger in spirit - will dwell peacefully next to a viable Palestinian state.
If Sharon formed such a party, it would still have to deal with the settlers, however. These people have settled in the West Bank and Gaza with the blessing of Israeli governments from both left and right. They genuinely felt that they were the New Zionists, descendants of the early pioneers who had established the state of Israel. Many of them were driven by religious motivation, believing that settling in all parts of the promised land was their part in advancing the redemption.
Now, with the evacuation of Gaza and the northern West Bank, the settlers' dream is shattered. Consequently, they might react in either turning inward, dissociating themselves from the state that had "betrayed" them, or, conversely, amassing their troops to topple Sharon - once their biggest supporter - in order to bring back Netanyahu as their savior.
There is no way in the foreseeable future by which Sharon could win back the political support of the settlers. Yet if we look deeper into what has happened in Israel last week, we realize that despite all the doomsday prophecies of civil war, nothing of the sort happened. In this formidable test, the Israeli democracy prevailed.
Furthermore, although the settlers put up a fierce fight, in the final analysis they conceded that the state of Israel comes before the land of Israel. For them it is a question of the highest importance that this state keeps its strong Jewish identity, and this is precisely where Sharon can play a critical role.
Instead of obscuring the reasons for the evacuation, Sharon should have said loud and clear, that by pulling out of Gaza, Israel was acting in its own best interests, in trying to maintain the Jewish majority in the state. This is a language that the settlers would appreciate, because it gives a new meaning to what is perceived by them so far as a senseless move.
Sharon has just done the greatest service to his country by putting an end to the Israeli rule over more than one million Palestinians. If, however, he wishes to go down in history as one of Israel's truly great leaders, then he shouldn't pause here: Instead of clinging to the West Bank, he should maintain the momentum and pull Israel back inside borders in which it can survive as a Jewish and democratic state.
Is Sharon capable of such a bold move? He has already surprised us with the withdrawal from Gaza; he could surprise us again. If this happens, the settlers might oppose it politically, yet deep in their hearts, they would be able to relate to it. Many other Israelis would openly support such a move. And on election day - I can't believe I'm saying this - I might even be voting for him myself.
This article was first published in the International Herald Tribune on September 2, 2005. www.iht.com/opinion.html
The opinions expressed herein are the author's own personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Israel Democracy Institute.