The decision of Israel’s attorney general to clear Ariel Sharon of wrong-doing in the so-called “Greek Island” bribery affair offers much to think about in an era of ad hominem politics. The prime minister has long been the object of legal rumormongering. The latest case involved allegations he took bribes from a developer when he served as foreign minister. After months of an extensive review of the evidence assembled by the state prosecutor’s office, Israel’s attorney general decided not to indict the prime minister. He said there was no evidence that could even remotely be expected to end in conviction, and he also cleared Mr. Sharon’s son and adviser, Gilad.

In doing so, the attorney general rejected the recommendation from the state prosecutor. The inquiry had been fraught with political intent as well as political consequences. By most accounts, Edna Arbel, the state prosecutor who recommended the indictment several months ago, presided over an unusually politicized staff, a member of which had leaked a report of a separate set of allegations about Mr. Sharon to the press just before his election a year and a half ago. Because Mr. Sharon was simultaneously leading his party and government and Israeli public opinion in a decisive turn towards a new policy regarding the Palestinian Arabs, his critics concocted a “wag the dog” theory.

According to these critics, the prime minister was offering the Gaza Strip disengagement plan as a sop to the political left, in exchange for which he hoped to escape from the judicial proceedings casting a shadow over his political future. “The deeper the investigation, the deeper the withdrawal,” was the way one wag put it. Adding to the conspiratorial atmosphere, Ms. Arbel was appointed to the Supreme Court just before Mr. Sharon’s vindication. A decision to indict would have inflicted a grave, perhaps fatal blow to Mr. Sharon’s long political career.

Mr. Sharon’s hold on power now depends on whether rivals within his Likud Party can successfully mobilize the large internal faction opposed to Mr. Sharon’s disengagement policy. He does remain the object of two separate investigations, neither of which has been resolved. These are not connected to the bribery case, which fell apart upon being subjected to the attorney general’s close scrutiny. Successive opinion polls indicate Mr. Sharon is the indispensable ingredient necessary for the fulfillment of his plan to partially disengage Israelis from Palestinian Arabs. The broad center of Israel’s voters trusts Mr. Sharon to manage this complicated maneuver, which is not free of risk.

Nor does any other Israeli political leader own a résumé that would allow him to implement a policy involving the dismantling of Jewish settlements. Mr. Sharon’s efforts will now turn to shoring up his governing coalition, weakened by the exit of a number of Knesset members who could not swallow the new policy. Every potential partner comes with a price. The logical choice, long favored in this space, is the Labor Party. The problem is that Labor opposes the economic policies favored by the Sharon government thus far, a theoretical argument that focuses on control of the Finance Ministry.

Mr. Sharon’s principal rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, occupies that post. Mr. Sharon would no doubt relish punishing Mr. Netanyahu with a demotion, on the premise of making room for Labor, but he may lack the political support within Likud to do so. One cannot conclude that Mr. Sharon is finished. He is a survivor, and many of his critics have written him off prematurely in the past. Our bet is that he will prevail in the current political circumstance, as he has in the matter of his legal trouble. The biggest victory, though, is that an Israeli leader has stood up to and beaten the politics of personal destruction. It’s not surprising that the victory went to a man who has shown himself to be so tough over such a long stretch under such sustained and bitter attack.