Disabled Prime Minister Ariel Sharon initiated a plan for Israel to separate from the Palestinians and it was called disengagement. Sharon was known as a mover and shaker leader that was effective under pressure; however his developmental capabilities in long range planning were his weakness. Sharon was a powerful leader that commanded respect with an ability to back track from his weaknesses. Sharon shook up Israeli politics when he acquiesced to the Bush Administration insistence to establish a Palestinian State. When it became clear that the Palestinians under the Palestinian Authority were attempting to call the shots as to how a Palestinian State would be established. Sharon developed his “disengagement” plan to unilaterally establish Israeli borders. The problem with “disengagement” is that the plan called for the termination of long time Jewish settlements in both Gaza and the West Bank. Only Sharon’s remarkable political leadership skills successfully began the initial stages of “disengagement.”

Sharon’s multiple strokes incapacitated him, therefore enter Ehud Olmert. Olmert eventually became the official Prime Minister when it became obvious Sharon might never recover.

Olmert exchanged Sharon’s euphemism of “disengagement” to “convergence.” This is a different name with the same plan of unilateral defining Israeli borders to leave the Palestinians on their own to figure out their internal problems.

Enter Palestinian and Hezbollah kidnappings of Israeli soldiers.

The editors of ZionNet have compiled an essay entitled “The Empire Strikes Back.” ZionNet implies that Olmert used the excuse that of kidnapped soldiers to give credence to his “convergence” plan.

The theory goes like this: If Olmert wups up on Hezbollah grandly maintaining Israel’s legendary image of being undefeatable, then Olmert would reap huge public opinion favorability to continue to institute the “convergence” plan.

Olmert of course had a good plan; the problem though was horrible execution. Hezbollah had years to develop a cagy plan to confront Israel’s military. By no means did the Israeli Defense Forces lose in Lebanon. On the other hand the IDF did not execute a humiliating victory over Hezbollah as in previous victories over Mohammedan armies and terrorist commandos. In fact the IDF win was so pyrrhic that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran LOUDLY proclaimed at the end of the cease fire that was a Hezbollah victory.

The result is a huge dent into Israeli invincibility. Olmert’s dream of a huge political advantage to complete “convergence” has become a political albatross around his neck. Instead of shoring up support, public opinion is calling for his resignation.

If Olmert and his Kadima Party are cast out of Israeli power, what will become of “disengagement/convergence?”

Certainly a new Prime Minister would have a mandate to end “disengagement/convergence.” If a new Prime Minister ended unilateral withdrawal, what would be America’s position? Israel may be at a point of no return with “disengagement/convergence.” If that is the Israeli political sense, will Israel expand their unilateral borders in the West Bank (and/or take some land in Gaza)?

None of it is pretty picture. The United Nations has failed to keep Hezbollah from re-arming. If Israel makes political unilateral decisions that Mohammedan Arabs will largely frown on, will Hezbollah join a Palestinian explosion of violence by engaging Israel once again?

Questions. Questions. Questions. Only time will show the portrait of a Middle Eastern future.