Israel's Loss

THE INCAPACITATION of Israeli Prime Minster Ariel Sharon greatly reduces the possibility that his country will take significant steps toward a settlement with Palestinians during the remainder of President Bush's administration. In forming a new, centrist political party for the elections in March, Mr. Sharon had declared that his aim in a third term as prime minister would be setting Israel's final borders. Though he never spelled out what he had in mind, his allies assumed he intended to initiate a partial withdrawal from the occupied West Bank, following the successful Gaza pullout of last summer. Mr. Sharon saw Mr. Bush as a vital partner in any such initiative; the 77-year-old leader probably would have sought to implement his vision before Mr. Bush left office. It seemed likely yesterday that Mr. Sharon would not return to office; even if his successor shares his ambition, he or she may lack the political strength to carry it out, or the same impetus to work with this White House.

Throughout a storied life Mr. Sharon has more than once changed the course of Israeli history: from his encirclement of the Egyptian army on the Suez Canal as an army commander in 1973 to his authorship as defense minister of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon; from the planting of dozens of new settlements in the West Bank and Gaza to their first dismantlement. His apparently crippling stroke Wednesday night plunged Israel into political turmoil. The party that Mr. Sharon formed in November, Kadima, was united only by his leadership: Its platform was vague, though it endorsed a Palestinian state and implied further territorial concessions by Israel. Polls showed Kadima finishing first by a wide margin under Mr. Sharon in the March 28 elections. Now the party may have trouble uniting around a new leader and retaining followers. Rivals to Mr. Sharon will have a new opportunity; chief among them is former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who opposed the Gaza withdrawal and enjoys little trust in Washington.

Most Israelis, like Mr. Sharon himself, came to accept in recent years that withdrawal from most of the occupied territories, with or without a peace agreement, is necessary if Israel is to remain both a democracy and a Jewish state. But it is one thing to accept that reality and quite another to formulate a workable plan for Israel's retrenchment, or to aggregate the political, military and diplomatic clout to make it happen. Mr. Sharon may or may not have had the means: It was never clear whether he was willing to give up enough, in the West Bank and in Jerusalem, to make possible an enduring settlement. The growing violence in Gaza and the likelihood of a strong finish by the Islamic movement Hamas in Palestinian elections clouded the prospect for an Israeli-Palestinian accord well before Wednesday. Yet many Israelis believed that the huge man sometimes called "the bulldozer" would find a way to lead them to peace, or at least to a more secure place in the Middle East. Now once again Israel's future is up for grabs.