Israeli voters are widely expected to give Kadima, the new centrist party founded by Ariel Sharon last November, most of their votes in today's parliamentary elections. Its leader, Ehud Olmert, who took over when Mr Sharon suffered a massive brain haemorrhage in January, has spelled out its policy of unilateral disengagement from the West Bank much more clearly since then.
This would be done without negotiating the matter with Palestinian leaders and would be consolidated by the wall/barrier Israel is constructing, which is tantamount to a unilaterally-declared border between them.
The policy suits Israel's current mood very well and is expected to give Kadima the predominant role in whatever coalition government emerges. The prospect of negotiations with the Palestinians lost credibility after Hamas won thePalestinian elections. If Israel cannot defeat Hamas militarily and fears being outnumbered in an indefinite continuation of the occupation, political logic seems to dictate that selective withdrawal best protects Israeli security. Mr Olmert has had to set out the policy in greater detail than Mr Sharon to compensate for his lack of charismatic appeal. The gamble seems to have paid off in what many describe as one of the dullest campaigns in Israel's electoral history.
But this should not disguise the plan's sheer audacity. It completely reverses years of effort to construct a peace process in which a final settlement and borders would be mutually agreed through international mediation and endorsement, not unilaterally imposed. Mr Olmert referred over the weekend to the need to talk to the United States and the international community about Israel's final borders, as if to dismiss previous commitments to find prior agreement with the Palestinians.
The best that can be said for the plan is that it could reverse the momentum of Israeli settlement expansion, give the Palestinians a breathing space in which to come to terms with a Hamas government and give that party time to accept that it must recognise and negotiate with the Israeli state. In due course a two-state settlement could be agreed. The dangers are that the plan would endorse a unilateral redrawing of the Israeli border, which seizes an estimated 10 per cent of Palestinian land, splits up many Palestinian communities, maintains most of the Israeli West Bank settlements in place and risks a further destabilisation of the Middle East. Even if this election has not excited great passion or international attention, it would be a mistake to underestimate its long-term political significance.