In the last hundred years, we have witnessed again and again the critical difference a single individual can make in a position of leadership. Some for bad. Others for good. In the first category, Hitler, Stalin and Mao all had monumental impacts on millions of people both within and outside of their own nations. The twentieth century would have been far different had none of them been born or achieved a position of leadership. On the positive side, Winston Churchill’s leadership for a beleaguered nation and free world made enormous difference. Had England been ruled at the time by one of its mediocre twentieth century prime ministers, that country might not have survived German’s onslaught.

There are so few individuals in positions of power who truly have vision and foresight to launch their nation in a daring new direction and then have the strength and will to implement that course of action. Israel has been blessed with two such individuals in modern times. The first was David Ben Gurion, who had the wisdom to recognize that Israel was best served by accepting the “half a loaf” that the U.N. was offering in terms of a state with limited territory in 1948. Ben Gurion then dealt firmly and harshly with those Israelis who disagreed with that policy and would have held out for more. Unfortunately, the Arabs didn’t have comparable leadership. They lost a war rather than accept their half a loaf peacefully.

The second is Ariel Sharon, one of those individuals who is larger than life. As a soldier, he fought in all of Israel’s wars. In the ’67 and ’73 wars as a brilliant commander, he developed the strategy for fighting with Egypt in the Sinai and implemented it. That meant blasting through the desert in 1967 to the Suez Canal. In 1973 at Israel’s bleakest hour, Sharon in defiance of Israel’s civilian leadership, went on the offensive, surprised Egypt and crossed the Suez Canal, turning the course of battle.

As a statesman in his position as Prime Minister, Sharon recognized that the two existing political philosophies in Israel were bankrupt. Those on the left, responsible for the Oslo peace accord, continually insisted that Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians. What they failed to realize was there was no negotiating partner. Yasir Arafat demonstrated at Camp David that he was not interested in a negotiated peace. The right wing in Israel was also proceeding from a delusionary vision. They believed that Israel could continue to occupy all of the land, including Gaza and the West Bank, and somehow rule millions of Palestinians while preserving the character of the Israeli state.

Sharon found a third way. Namely, that Israel should unilaterally fix the boundary between Israel and the Palestinian nation which would inevitably be born. Without a negotiating partner, there was no other way. In the first stage, the Gaza withdrawal, Sharon had the courage and strength to deal firmly with the right wing in Israel in his own Likud party to force through that withdrawal, though it meant abandoning Israeli settlements in Gaza and a couple on the West Bank.

Following the Gaza withdrawal, he formed his own new party, Kidima. This is to be a centrist party. There was no doubt before Sharon was stricken that Kidima’s objective would be a disengagement on the West Bank with the barrier being erected to serve as a de facto border between Israel and the Palestinians. There would be a forced withdrawal of Israelis from settlements outside of that boundary. The Palestinians would end up receiving about ninety-three percent of the West Bank.

The key question is what will happen on the Israeli side after Sharon’s loss. Sharon’s concept of disengagement is clearly the right way for Israel to go and it enjoys the support of a majority of the Israeli people. However, it will take strong leadership to continue to force Israeli policy in that direction. Based upon his prior record, it is unlikely that Ehud Olmert, Sharon’s deputy and now Acting Prime Minister, can assume that role.

Leaders make an enormous difference for better or for worse. Israel is desperately in need of someone to pick up the torch that has fallen from Sharon’s hands. In the next several months, we’ll see whether such an individual emerges.