There can be only one real rationale for Prime Minister Sharon to leave the party, in the Likud, that he created and that became the vehicle for his political accession, and it is that he’s decided to go for disengagement in Judea and Samaria, which the rank and file of Likud does not support. Even if Mr. Sharon’s new party does well, however, the odds are that he’s going to have to go into a coalition with the left. This means with the new leader of the Labor Party, Amir Peretz, who is the most left-wing leader labor has ever had as a prime ministerial candidate. One has to figure that if the retreat from Judea and Samaria is important enough for Mr. Sharon to jettison the Likud, disengagement is the part of his portfolio that he is going to want to handle himself, delegating the economy to Mr. Peretz and his comrades.

In other words, for those of us who believe in a large, vibrant, Jewish state with a free-market economy in the vanguard of the expansion of democracy in the Middle East, Mr. Sharon’s great gamble is shaping up as something less than a win-win proposition. It is not easy for us to say such a thing in respect of a man, in Mr. Sharon, for whom we have maintained a great admiration over a generation. We first met him in 1982, when he was making the rounds in America to brief editors, among others here, on his willingness to respond to terror out of Lebanon with an invasion. At almost every juncture since then, not to mention before, he has towered over his detractors in military experience, political savvy, strategic sense, and personal warmth.

It may be that Mr. Sharon is looking at factors others of us don’t see. Our contributing editor, David Twersky, whose sagacity rivals Mr. Sharon’s, has sent a wire suggesting that Mr. Sharon is looking at the global situation and reckons American power is at an apogee. He suggests that Mr. Sharon has concluded that the next two years are those in which Israel is apt to be able to get the best possible arrangement, even if it does involve an element of retreat.

It may also be that Mr. Sharon feels that he owes it to Israel’s nationalist camp to allow them to mount an opposition to the withdrawal without the handicap of a party leader who favors concessions. Having a loyal opposition to his right will help Mr. Sharon bargain for secure borders for Israel; he can say to the Palestinian Arabs and to President Bush that he is constrained not only strategically but also politically from drawing Israel back to what Abba Eban called the “Auschwitz Borders” that obtained before 1967. It’s about the best interpretation one can put on this from Mr. Sharon’s perspective.

For all the hand-wringing among the Democrats on Capitol Hill, however, we’re not so sure America’s power is about to diminish rapidly. We prefer to keep our eyes on the big possibilities – a remaking of Syria, say, not to mention of Lebanon, and a pro-American revolution in Iran. The decision of Al Qaeda to attack the Hashemite kingdom appears to have awakened in Jordan an understanding of its own peril in the war. Something could happen in Egypt. Even the Palestinian Arabs might eventually break free of their current leadership of Arafat henchmen. The idea that this is the last best moment for Israel to lay down what could become permanent borders in the West Bank strikes us as an idea we’ve heard many times before in the Middle East, where it always seems to be 15 minutes before midnight.

No political party lasts forever. Here in America, the Democrats used to be called Republicans and there used to be a party called the Whigs. And great men have been known to bolt their parties, as Roosevelt did for the Bull Moose. The thing to remember is that when in Israel the decision is made on where the last giant of the founding generation lays down what could become a permanent border for the Jewish state, the decision will – unlike in any of its immediate neighbors – be taken by voters in free elections.