The results of the Israeli elections were very positive from the standpoint of lowering the rhetoric and extending the relatively quiet period between Israel and the Palestinians. The victory of Olmert's Kadima party was not overwhelming, but it did the job. The critical fact is that a center left coalition will have a majority of the seats in the Israeli Knesset. This means that Israel's new government, when it is formed (and that will take a while as the parties jockey for roles in the new government) will have enough votes to advance the next stage of Ariel Sharon's program.

Israel's visionary former prime minister, who remains in a coma, developed a plan for Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the vast majority from the West Bank, following Israel's successful unilateral withdraw from Gaza last year. Sharon had come to the conclusion, which Olmert endorses, that the Palestinians are not prepared to negotiate meaningfully with Israel on the terms for a peace agreement. Therefore, Sharon, in a burst of creative thinking, decided that Israel should unilaterally disengage from the Palestinians and set its own borders for the two nations at least on a temporary basis. All parties recognize that if the Palestinians ever come to their senses and are willing to sit down and negotiate in a meaningful way these borders may be readjusted. Meantime, there will be the security fence and barriers to mark the border between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Sharon plan for the unilateral disengagement from the West Bank would have created problems with the United States and Europe had Abbas and his Fatah cohorts remained in power. However, Hamas soundly defeated them in the recent elections. Hamas has made it easy for Israel to pursue the Sharon plan by announcing that they do not recognize any agreements previously entered into by the Palestinian government. Nor are they prepared to negotiate with Israel on any issue. Prior to the ascension of power by Hamas, the Palestinians could have argued to the U.S. that they were prepared to negotiate and Israel's unilateral designation of borders should not be accepted. It's very difficult for Palestinians to make that argument in view of the statements announced by the Hamas leaders. Once again, Palestinian politics have eroded the position of their people.

Some commentators claim that Hamas, now that it is in power, will change its stripes and become moderate. This is wishful thinking. As Michael Herzog wrote in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, “the short term dynamics seem bleak enough” that Hamas will move away from extremism. The Israeli government has set clear and not unreasonable conditions for negotiations with Hamas. Under these Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence, unify the Palestinian security forces and dismantle other armed factions. There is no indication that any of these will occur.

On the Israeli side, when the new government moves forward with its unilateral disengagement, the country will be in for a stormy period. The right wing parties have a significant share of the Israeli parliament, even though the Likud party will have only 11 out of 120 seats. Equally important, the settlers on the ground, as well as some of the religious parties, will bitterly resist the Israeli withdraw. Gaza has little significance in terms of Jewish history, relative to the West Bank. The next withdrawal can be expected to be far more violent when it occurs.

This second Israeli withdraw has anther disadvantage relative to the Gaza withdrawal. Olmert is not Sharon. No other Israeli leader of the past several years enjoyed the public support and confidence of the charismatic Sharon. Moreover, Sharon had the courage and character to fully implement actions that he believed were correct. No one knows how close Olmert will rise to Sharon's brand of leadership. Optimistically, one can hope that he will mature into a successful leader. Unfortunately, that remains to be seen.

On the U.S. side, the Bush administration would do well to encourage the Israeli West Bank withdrawal and disengagement. Simply removing many of the settlements eliminates possible flashpoints for future violence. This is pragmatically all that can be hoped for at the present time. It won't be a lasting peace between the parties, but it will at least be a step in the right direction.