For the next few months it will matter little what the Palestinians or the world say about their conflict with Israel -- all will hinge on what Likud does, writes Graham Usher in Jerusalem Never in his 50-something year career has Ariel Sharon basked in such international glory. Foreign leaders, diplomats and editorial writers are all praising his "courageous" decision to withdraw from Gaza and four minuscule settlements in the West Bank. At the UN General Assembly next week, there are literally dozens of foreign ministers requesting an audience with the Israeli prime minister, including those of the US, France, China, Russia and Britain. Sharon will reportedly tell them that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel for all eternity and there will be no negotiations over Jerusalem." Meanwhile, the Israeli media is awash with leaks that President Hosni Mubarak or King Abdullah or both will soon visit Jerusalem -- vigorously denied by Egypt and Jordan -- presumably to bless Sharon for his largesse. As for George Bush, he is urging "allies of the United States" to lay off pressure on Sharon over "marquée" issues like Jerusalem and Israel's burgeoning settlement and wall construction in the West Bank -- at least this side of the next Israeli elections. "Only in his own house, is the prophet without honour". For while Sharon the statesman has never had it so good, Sharon the politician is fighting for his political life -- triggered by the decision last week by his former finance minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to challenge Sharon for the mantle of leading his Likud Party in the next Israeli elections. Netanyahu's ouster was driven by two imperatives. One was to capitalise on the seething discontent among most Likud members over Sharon's decision to ignore their wish and proceed "unilaterally" with the disengagement from Gaza. The second were internal polls among Likud's decision-making Central Committee which showed Netanyahu beating Sharon hands down. But it is trait in Netanyahu that he climbs one mountain without checking to see if there is another. The former Israeli premier wants primaries brought forward to November rather than their scheduled date of May 2006. Sharon has said he would see any such move as a ruse to unseat him. He has also said he would not serve in any government or party that had Netanyahu as a leader. In other words, he would bolt -- wrecking a ship which he, more than any other single politician, has steered to power. What would be the consequences of Sharon's exit from Likud, aside from early Israeli elections? Israeli analysts see three. The first -- least likely -- would be for Sharon to quit politics and retire to his farm in Negev. The second -- more likely -- would be for Sharon to split and run a separate list against Netanyahu's "rump" Likud. This would almost certainly end Sharon's chances of becoming Israel's next prime minister. But it would also doom Likud from becoming the majority party. The third scenario is that sketched by Labour's minister- without-portfolio, Haim Ramon. He believes the time is ripe for the Israeli political constellation to undergo a "big bang", where the Sharon wing of Likud joins forces with Labour and the secularist Shinui Party. Such a coalition would be more in tune with Israeli public opinion, which is mostly of the nationalist centre. But it is a road Sharon is unlikely to take. He knows that new "centre" parties in Israeli politics have a trajectory like shooting stars -- they flare at the start only to extinguish at the end. For now Sharon is readying for a fight over the "soul" of his party. "I will run in Likud and I will win," he told a meeting of Likud mayors on 5 September. This is not hyperbole. The same day saw Israel's Haaretz newspaper commission a poll among Likud members, showing Netanyahu defeating Sharon by 44 percentage points to 38. Two weeks ago the margin was 47 to 30. The more disengagement recedes, the more Likud members appear to be clinging to their chairs rather than their death wish. What does all this mean for the Palestinians? One consequence is that the contest between Netanyahu and Sharon will be fought on the occupied terrain of the West Bank. Netanyahu's first move as the challenger was to visit the Maale Adumim settlement bloc, near Jerusalem. He castigated Sharon for not commencing the E1 plan, which would join the settlement to West Jerusalem and sever the West Bank into two, non-contiguous halves. "If there is no Jewish contiguity here, there will be Palestinian contiguity," he thundered. Sharon answered: "All [Israel's] prime ministers have built in the settlement blocs but I built more than the rest of them." This too is not hyperbole. According to Israel's Peace Now movement, Israel has built 3,980 housing units in West Bank settlements this year alone, mostly in the blocs. In August -- with the world riveted on the screen of the Gaza pull out -- 117 new units were approved for Ariel, a settlement 20 kilometres inside the West Bank. There are plans in the drawer for 3,000 more, both at Ariel and Maale Adumim. But Sharon will not commence the E1 plan without prior approval with the Americans -- at least not yet. Now -- more than ever -- he needs Bush with him against Netanyahu. Only two things are certain: in a pre-election season in Israel it is inconceivable that any Likud contender would make any move to return to a peace process with the Palestinians or be under any external duress to do so. The second is that the foreseeable future "managing the aftermath of the disengagement and completing the West Bank wall will be the pillars determining Israel's policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians," says Palestinian analyst Khalil Shikaki. "And regardless of who will be Israel's next prime minister."
