On August 24, 2005, Israel announced substantial completion of the removal of Jewish citizens from 21 Gaza settlements and 4 in the West Bank without significant violence. Despite the poignancy of forced eviction from homes and settlements established more than 30 years ago, respect for the rule of law and commitment to democratic tradition triumphed over broken hearts, anguish over the government’s decision, and the urging of a few religious leaders and other supporters to resist the force applied by the citizen-soldiers of Israel.

But the images flashed around the world of Jewish families uprooted and evicted through no personal fault of their own by young male and female soldiers who shed tears along with the settlers in the sad fulfillment of their duty has cut deeply into the minds and emotions of Jews everywhere, even those filled with pride and admiration for the people of Israel for their dedication to civil order. It is not Jews alone who shed tears in watching images of puzzled children, sobbing parents, and shocked citizens as they removed mezuzahs from their door posts, Torah scrolls from their closets and prepared to transfer the graves of those they refused to leave behind. The experience was traumatic for many in Israel and around the world who could only wonder why a land had to be rendered free of Jews because a larger number of Arabs would not tolerate them living in their midst.

Israel’s unilateral separation from Gaza and four West Bank settlements was determined by a democratic process and accepted by an apparent majority in Israel, some more reluctantly than others. It was unilateral because it became obvious that Israel’s willingness and efforts to negotiate mutually acceptable forms of living together in peace were not reciprocated by the Palestinian Arabs. The refusal or inability of Arafat and other leaders to convince their people to forego terror, abandon their refusal to accept the existence of the state of Israel, and live peacefully alongside a Jewish state convinced the government of Israel that it had no counterpart with whom a peace process could be pursued. With no one to whom to speak, Israel is embarking on a unilateral policy of separating itself from the Palestinians, a people unlucky in their benighted leadership who have thus far succeeded only to produce hatred of Israel. In this circumstance, who can say Israel is wrong in its determination to protect its people and pursue economic growth and social progress, whatever course the Palestinians follow? If a time should come when the Palestinians accept the existence and legitimacy of Israel, renounce terror and force, disarm the infrastructure of terror, and show an acceptance and appreciation of the benefits of freedom and peace with their neighbors, Israel has shown itself willing to follow a peace process within the framework of the road map. In the present circumstance it is mostly Palestinians who must suffer, but Israel does not owe them the rose garden they demand.

Many Arab leaders exult in the claim that Israel’s evacuation from Gaza is a victory for a strategy of force and terror, compelling Israel to withdraw, as they also claimed when Israel left Lebanon. Some Israeli leaders opposed the Gaza withdrawal for the same reason, warning it would only further encourage Arab violence and aggression. Despite that risk, Israel has disengaged. Time alone will tell whether that disengagement will bring Israel the peace it seeks or the appreciation of world opinion for the trauma and sacrifice it has experienced in uprooting almost 9,000 citizens from their homes.

Prime Minister Sharon has said that until the Palestinians fulfill their defaulted steps under the road map, including dismantling the infrastructure of terror, disarming Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups, and bringing criminals to justice, no one should expect Israel to renew further steps under the road map, which is based on reciprocal progress. It would be a sad commentary on the world’s understanding of the risks, sacrifices, and sorrow endured by the Israeli people if Israel is forced away from Mr. Sharon’s pledge. There are already too many examples of the world’s efforts to place demands on Israel that are not justified by a sense of balance and historical justice.

A major lesson of the disengagement experience is that Israel should not be asked to test its institutions and the fabric of its society by a repeat of the experience and images of tearing Jews from their homes. The Jews of Israel and the Diaspora, as well as fair-minded people everywhere, will not wish to see this happen again. The Gaza disengagement teaches us that, even for those who may feel that Israel should ultimately make some adjustment in the location of Jews in Judea and Samaria, forcible eviction is unacceptable. The West Bank, Judea, and Samaria, unlike Gaza, have political, religious, historical, security, and sentimental roots in the hearts, minds, and souls of Israel and the Jewish people that cannot be denied and must be respected. Their claims are older and clearer and, to say the least, are at least as legitimate as the Arab ones.

For Israel to undertake any future disengagement or evictions of Jewish citizens from meaningful areas of Judea and Samaria, the Arab leopard would have to change its spots and perhaps even accept the present unthinkable prospect that a modern Palestinian society should embrace notions of freedom and human rights, forswear terror and violence, abandon corruption and mendacity, and, hopefully, savor the benefits of living in peace with a Jewish state. Until then, Israel should never again so test the unity of the Jewish people.

Mr. Bialkin, a lawyer, is a former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and former national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League.