Mr Sharon deserves international support - but so does the peace process

The Knesset vote to approve Ariel Sharon's plan for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza should be embraced for what it is: a landmark in the recent history of Israel and a rare, positive one at that.

The Knesset vote to approve Ariel Sharon's plan for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza should be embraced for what it is: a landmark in the recent history of Israel and a rare, positive one at that. It is also a personal triumph for Mr Sharon, who deserves credit first for broaching such a plan, then for sticking with it despite ferocious opposition, and finally for mobilising sufficient support to clinch a convincing majority. None of this was easy, nor was it without risk.

Those risks were great and many of them remain. Some, indeed, have been exacerbated by the Knesset victory. The first is to Mr Sharon himself. His personal security has been increased amid death threats. That the vote took place on the anniversary - by the Jewish calendar - of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination only underlines the danger to any Israeli leader who even broaches the concession of territory.

The second is to Mr Sharon's governing coalition. He summarily dismissed two ministers who voted against the plan. Four more, including the finance minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, voted in favour, but have threatened to resign unless the vote is endorsed by a referendum. If they act on their threat, Mr Sharon will not only have to seek new coalition partners - which he has undertaken to do - but could be forced into an election, postponing any withdrawal perhaps indefinitely.

Mr Sharon's position as leader of the Likud party could also be in jeopardy. If there are elections, Mr Sharon may well find himself ousted as leader, given the unpopularity of the withdrawal from Gaza among significant sections of Likud. More immediately, Mr Netanyahu's threat to leave the government could destabilise Israel's fragile economy: the effect was felt in the markets yesterday.

A further risk is the response of the Palestinians. How difficult could they make it for Israel to withdraw if, indeed, the decision stands? Palestinian leaders have already demonstrated their remarkable facility for turning advantage to disadvantage, good news to bad. When their senior negotiator, Saeb Erekat, complained after the Knesset vote that Palestinians had played no part and the Israelis had been "negotiating with themselves", he was needlessly peevish. A less grudging response would have been to call on Israel to act on the vote, not to allow the timetable to slip, and to ensure that the withdrawal from Gaza marks the beginning, rather than the end, of a revived peace process. These are precisely the demands that the international guarantors of the peace plan, known as the road-map, should now pursue. The qualified welcome given to the Knesset vote by the European Union was a suitably balanced response. It said that the withdrawal should take place in the framework of the road-map, be a step towards a two-state solution and entail no transfer of settlement activity to the West Bank.

Mr Sharon and his coalition have hitherto appeared ambivalent on the last point, which is crucial. Giving up Gaza must be a prelude to further territorial concessions - not, as some Likud officials have suggested - a move to consolidate Israel within its present borders, minus Gaza; in other words, to "freeze" the peace process. It must be a prelude, too, to the dismantling of the security fence and to meaningful statehood for the Palestinians.

With all these caveats, Mr Sharon deserves international support in his efforts to pursue his withdrawal plan. He will certainly need it. Whether his coalition survives or a new one is built, he will face new risks as each phase of the withdrawal comes up for cabinet approval. On his side, he has the war-weary majority of ordinary Israelis who are willing to trade land for security. He also has the personal traits that have made him such a difficult character for non-Israelis to warm to: his warrior's courage, his willingness to take risks and his bull-headed persistence. For the time being, his Gaza plan should be given the benefit of the doubt.