As I write this article, the condition of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon remains uncertain. However, medical experts are in agreement that it is extremely unlikely that Sharon could ever return to power. The loss for Israel, for the United States, and for peace and stability in the Middle East is tremendous.

In the last hundred years, we have witnessed again and again the critical difference a single individual can make in a position of leadership -- some for bad, others for good. In the first category, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all had monumental impacts on millions of people both within and outside of their own nations. The twentieth century would have been far different had none of them been born or achieved a position of leadership. On the positive side, Winston Churchill's leadership for a beleaguered nation and free world made an enormous difference. England might not have survived Germany's onslaught had it been ruled at the time by one of its mediocre 20th Century prime ministers.

There are so few individuals in positions of power who truly have the vision and foresight required to launch their nations in a daring new direction as well as the strength and will to implement that course of action. Israel has been blessed with two such individuals in modern times. The first was David Ben Gurion, who had the wisdom to recognize that Israel was best served by accepting the “half a loaf” that the U.N. was offering in terms of a state with limited territory in 1948. Ben Gurion then dealt firmly and harshly with those Israelis who disagreed with that policy and would have held out for more. Unfortunately, the Arabs didn't have comparable leadership. They lost a war rather than accept their half a loaf peacefully.

The second is Ariel Sharon, an individual who is larger than life. As a soldier, he fought in all of Israel's wars. In the '67 and '73 wars as a brilliant commander, he developed the strategy for fighting with Egypt in the Sinai and implemented it. That meant blasting through the desert in 1967 to the Suez Canal. In 1973, at Israel's bleakest hour, Sharon surprised Egypt and crossed the Suez Canal in defiance of Israel's civilian leadership, an action that turned the course of battle.

As prime minister, Sharon recognized that the two existing political philosophies in Israel were bankrupt. Those on the left, responsible for the Oslo peace accord, continually insisted that Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians, failing to realize was there was no negotiating partner. Yasir Arafat demonstrated at Camp David that he was not interested in a negotiated peace. The right wing in Israel was also proceeding from a delusionary vision. They believed that Israel could continue to occupy all of the land, including Gaza and the West Bank, and somehow rule millions of Palestinians while preserving the character of the Israeli state.

Sharon found a third way. Namely, that Israel should unilaterally fix the boundary between Israel and the Palestinian nation that would inevitably be born. Without a negotiating partner, there was no other way. In the first stage, the Gaza withdrawal, Sharon had the courage and strength to deal firmly with the right wing in Israel -- his own Likud party -- to affect that withdrawal, though it meant abandoning Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank.

Following the Gaza withdrawal, he formed his own centrist party: Kidima. There was no doubt before Sharon was stricken that Kidima's objective would be disengagement on the West Bank. A barrier is being erected to serve as a de facto border between Israel and the Palestinians. The plan also includes a withdrawal of Israelis from settlements outside of that boundary, which would give the Palestinians about ninety-three percent of the West Bank.

The key question is what will happen on the Israeli side after Sharon's loss. Sharon's concept of disengagement is clearly the right way for Israel to go, and his plan enjoys the support of a majority of the Israeli people. However, it will take strong leadership to continue to force Israeli policy in that direction. Based upon his prior record, it is unlikely that Ehud Olmert, Sharon's deputy and now acting prime minister, can assume that role.

Leaders make an enormous difference for better or for worse. Israel is desperately in need of someone to pick up the torch that has fallen from Sharon's hands. In the next several months, we'll see whether such an individual emerges.