The Likud Party's rejection last Sunday of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw all settlements from the Gaza Strip would seem to be a fatal blow to the prime minister and to hopes for peace. Cynics might claim that the result is exactly what Mr. Sharon, one of the settlers' strongest supporters, actually wanted. In fact, however, the refusal could break the deadlock in Israeli politics and force the majority in that country to take control of the nation's destiny. Then the world will discover whether Mr. Sharon is indeed, as he has often claimed, a man of peace, or merely another hardline opportunist.
Mr. Sharon had proposed a unilateral withdrawal of some 7,500 Israeli settlers living in 21 settlements from the Gaza Strip; four other small settlements in the West Bank would also be removed. The benefits of the move were threefold. First, it minimized Israel's vulnerabilities as the cost of securing those settlements was prohibitive. Second, it allowed the prime minister to cast himself as a man of peace, capable of making bold moves to break the deadlock in the peace process. Finally, it gave him leverage to argue for recognizing "facts on the ground," namely that Israel would be keeping more settlements in the more highly valued West Bank than had been laid out in the "road map" to Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
Mr. Sharon had won support from U.S. President George W. Bush on this last point during his visit to Washington last month -- to the fury of Arabs, Palestinians and other governments.