Israel this week completed implementation of its most controversial policy: the complete withdrawal from illegal settlements in the occupied Gaza Strip and partial withdrawal from a small number of settlements in the occupied West Bank. Bulldozers there are still demolishing vacated homes and the dust has yet to settle on the political fall-out within Israel.
But prime minister Ariel Sharon, isolated now within his own Likud party and a politician deeply mistrusted by large sections of the international community, can take heart - if he wishes - from popular opinion within Israel itself. The vital question, however, is what are Mr Sharon's medium to long-term intentions now that his limited and unilateral action is all but complete?
If Mr Sharon chose to go further, despite his professed determination not to, a majority of Israelis would, it seems, support him. An opinion poll published yesterday by Israel's largest newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, shows that a majority of people favour removing more than the 25 illegal settlements dismantled in recent days. Some 54 per cent of those surveyed want the government to disengage further from conflict with the Palestinians. An even more decisive 68 per cent favour removing hilltop outposts which Israeli governments have not authorised.
Mr Sharon long ago lost the argument within Likud where 60 per cent of rank-and-file members opposed any withdrawal. In a leadership contest, his party rival and former finance minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, would beat him easily. But Mr Netanyahu's earlier stint as prime minister is recalled best for the welter of scandal which forced his premature resignation and temporary retirement from politics. However, even if Mr Sharon was ousted as Likud leader, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he could survive as prime minister as part of a wider realignment of Israeli politics. The question is whether Mr Sharon's withdrawal is pragmatic, a strategic retreat and retrenchment underpinned with a "not an inch more" response to the scenario envisaged by the "roadmap" to a settlement of the Middle East conflict?
The US government, which is invariably slow to criticise Mr Sharon, has praised the limited Israeli withdrawal but, as the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has noted: "It cannot be Gaza only."
In Gaza, there were some 8,000 settlers in 21 settlements. The West Bank is far larger, involving some 240,000 settlers in over 100 settlements branded illegal by the World Court, something Israel does not accept. Is it Mr Sharon's intention, as many suspect, to hold fast to the rest of the West Bank settlements or will he surprise sceptics by moving with the tide of events? The roadmap, sponsored by the US, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, remains the only internationally-supported template for a Middle East peace agreement. It envisages a total withdrawal by Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state. The case for the road map must be pressed with Mr Sharon.