An Israeli commentator has suggested that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s illness and incapacitation is the greatest political tragedy in the country’s history, even greater than that of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

In the final analysis, it is pointless to weigh two very different events in Israel’s history. What is clear is how deeply sad Mr. Sharon’s illness is on a personal and national level. At the peak of his powers, Mr. Sharon was supported by the overwhelming majority of Israelis across most of the political spectrum and, he had so much more to do in his next term. From a national perspective, he seemed to have developed a formula for how Israel could move forward – hence the new party’s name, Kadima – by addressing dilemmas that Israel was increasingly facing with regard to security, the Palestinians, territory, demography and Israel’s place in the world.

And now, there is uncertainty as to whether his ideas would be realized.

However, we should take solace at this time that at least he had the chance to present, initiate and implement his disengagement plan which has changed the Israeli dynamic. We must remember that only he – a powerful leader, a man of the right, the architect of settlements, the person identified with security – could have introduced this concept without it being represented as one more left-wing, naive initiative (indeed, the left has been talking about pulling out Gaza for some time).

Now that Mr. Sharon’s disengagement proved successful (even with outstanding issues about security), there is no longer either a taboo or simple identification as this being a left-wing step. A certain national consensus surrounds unilateral separation involving the left, the center and the moderate right. It is no longer only one man’s idea that depended entirely on the force of his personality. Indeed, both Mr. Sharon and the now acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who was seen as a stalking horse for Mr. Sharon when he advocated unilateral disengagement weeks before the prime minister did, were working with a right-wing assumption, that Israel has no partner for peace in the Palestinians, and reached a left-wing conclusion, that exactly because there were no prospects of a peace partner Israel has to act on its own. This is where the majority of Israelis are because Mr. Sharon made it an option for them and clarified and legitimized for the public the real choices facing the nation.

None of which is to belittle the obstacles facing any government looking to take further steps. Mr. Sharon’s credibility is unique. There is no guarantee that Kadima will avoid destructive infighting, though so far they have stuck together. And even if Mr. Sharon were still Israel’s prime minister, the West Bank is a far tougher nut to crack, for historical, religious, and security reasons, than Gaza. But we should be heartened that there are real options because of what Mr. Sharon had time to do.

Meanwhile, there is much looking back and examination of how he became a different person these past few years. I have ambivalence about such a reading. Clearly, as the man of settlements, of not making concessions without steps by the other side, he changed dramatically. Still, I think in many ways he always had a strongly pragmatic instinct and his new positions reflect pessimism over the possibility of change on the Palestinian side and a hardheaded assessment that Israel would fall into a trap if it simply remained in control of the territories while waiting forever for new Palestinian realism. The trap would be demographic, would allow for the rise of the Palestinian idea of a one state-solution and would isolate Israel in the world.

Whether change or continuity characterizes what Mr. Sharon did the last two years, it is inarguable that he was acting completely out of a sense that Israel’s national interest required a new approach, his approach. It is no exaggeration to say that he had taken on the role of statesman in a world where such a description applies to few leaders. He had the chance to set Israel on a particular path and the greatest acknowledgement of his achievements is the commitment by Israel to fulfill his unrealized dreams.

Mr. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of “Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism.”