It is a measure of Ariel Sharon's political stature that Israel and the rest of the world spent yesterday contemplating his subtraction from the Israeli and Middle East political scenes and concluding that they look bleak indeed without him. As Israel's prime minister he was a towering figure capable of changing political and strategic parameters, irrespective of the widely differing opinions about him.
Now that he has suffered a devastating cerebral haemorrhage removing him from office everyone asks who will fill the resulting vacuum of leadership. With elections now due in Israel and Palestine it will take time to answer this question - and possibly much more conflict before it is seriously addressed or resolved.
Mr Sharon travelled a long political journey from his time as a hardline military leader to his recent political role as a centre-right prime minister who withdrew from Gaza last autumn and broke ranks with the Likud party he founded to dominate a new centre ground of Israeli politics. In doing so he trod a well-worn Israeli path whereby strong military figures enter politics and broker compromise by exerting authority established by fighting or leading wars. Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak spring readily to mind.
Mr Sharon's departure leaves no obvious successor in this mould. This is serious because Israeli voters trust those from such a background to carry them through difficult decisions in the peace process with the Palestinians. It is a measure of how much Mr Sharon's personality mattered that Kadima, the party he founded to form the core of a new coalition, has no policy platform or candidates and now looks an exceedingly hollow vehicle. It is quite unclear whether a centrist coalition can be assembled or whether Israelis are likely to gravitate towards more radical positions on the right and left of their political spectrum.
Palestinian and Arab leaders doubt that Mr Sharon was willing to take anything like the steps necessary to achieve a peace settlement, even as they acknowledged yesterday that his departure makes the pursuit of peace much more difficult. His recent policy of Gaza withdrawal went hand-in-hand with strengthening settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, building the separation wall and tightening restriction on Palestinians' free movement. This is no recipe for a fair and balanced settlement, whatever would have been the strength and certainty of a Sharon-led Israeli government able to deliver serious negotiations. However his departure from the political stage does not improve the outlook for a settlement in the short to medium term.
Confusion and uncertainty in Israeli politics is more than mirrored on the Palestinian side. A bitter three-way conflict divides older and younger generations of mainstream Palestinian leaders, and both are challenged by a growing Hamas movement. Sharon's departure reinforces all these divisions.