MIDDLE EAST: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his aides spent much of yesterday talking about a new, revised diplomatic initiative.
But political survival, not far-reaching diplomatic blueprints and a place in the history books, must have been uppermost in the Israeli leader's mind, a day after his own ruling Likud party rejected his Gaza withdrawal plan by a humiliating 20 percentage points.
Even before Sunday's vote, Mr Sharon's aides had made it clear he would not resign if he lost.
Yesterday, they spoke of a slightly watered-down version of his plan to evacuate all 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank.
"The Likud members said 'no' to a specific plan, not to all plans," said Likud cabinet minister Ms Tzipi Livni, a proponent of the withdrawal plan.
Some of Mr Sharon's allies suggested he would not make the same mistake twice and that a new plan would not be subjected to another internal party referendum.
But the prime minister's loss inside his own party - and the gaping margin of defeat - raise serious questions about his political future and his ability to continue to promote any substantive diplomatic initiative.
More than one commentator was asking yesterday whether Mr Sharon had become a "lame duck." If he tries to push his "disengagement" plan through the cabinet or parliament, he is almost certain to face opposition from ministers and lawmakers inside his own party who will refuse to buck the referendum result, even though it is not binding legally.
Such a move could also prompt a leadership challenge from within the Likud, especially with Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waiting in the wings.
Already yesterday rumours began circulating that Mr Sharon planned to sack Mr Netanyahu. The prime minister's office quickly released a statement saying nothing of the sort was planned.
The White House reportedly passed on a message to Mr Sharon that it expected him to continue promoting his plan.
But if he tries to rework his initiative and comes up with a watered-down version, it is hardly going to win the backing of President Bush who went out on a limb to back the Israeli leader's plan - a move that earned him criticism in the Arab world.
For the second time in four years, an Israeli leader has convinced the US to support a far-reaching diplomatic initiative, only for both sides to then watch as it unravelled.
In mid-2000, then prime minister Ehud Barak had his offer for a final status settlement rejected by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, despite the vigorous entreaties of Bill Clinton.
At the time, the Americans placed the blame on Mr Arafat. But this time round, it is Israel - the ruling Likud party, to be exact - that has resoundingly rejected a major diplomatic initiative, and one proposed by its own leader.
Already, US officials have begun grumbling - off the record - about the price Mr Bush paid in the Arab world for his enthusiastic backing of Mr Sharon's plan and the Israeli leader's failure to produce the goods inside his own party.
When the two leaders met last month in Washington, Mr Bush provided Mr Sharon with a letter that included some significant changes to long-standing US policy: Palestinian refugees, it said, could return to a future Palestinian state, not Israel; Israel would not have to completely withdraw from the areas it occupied in the 1967 War.
Despite US annoyance at having provided the Israeli leader with guarantees and having been rebuffed, a public rupture with Israel is highly unlikely.
With elections in the US only six months away, the Bush administration will be reluctant to make any public statements critical of Mr Sharon. Christian evangelicals, who form a committed part of Mr Bush's political base, are strongly supportive of Israel.
The price Israel is likely to pay could come in the form of a US decision to distance itself from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - certainly until the presidential elections are over. That could open the way for European countries, whom Israel has always considered to be essentially hostile to its interests, to reassert their role in the Middle East conflict. This could take the form of new initiatives for an imposed solution to the conflict.