Ariel Sharon is often presented outside of Israel as simply a belligerent and uncompromising political hawk and thus an obstacle to the Middle East peace process. That caricature has never been fair and has rarely been more misplaced than at the moment.

Over the next two days, the Israeli Knesset will debate and vote on Mr Sharon’s plans to disengage (namely, leave) the Gaza Strip and to remove more than 8,000 Jewish settlers in the process. His proposal has earned him the hatred of many on the right of the political spectrum. Posters have appeared in Jerusalem accusing him of being “crazy” and of “tearing the nation apart” through his blueprint. Shimon Peres, the veteran Labour Party leader, gave a warning last week that Mr Sharon risked being assassinated.

It cannot be overstressed just how radical the Gaza withdrawal scheme is and the high price that Mr Sharon has already paid for it. None of the Labour Prime Ministers since the 1967 war has dared to attempt to extract Israel from this territory.

Mr Sharon, by contrast, has wisely concluded that it is both militarily and politically indefensible. His candour here has, however, provoked a huge split within his Likud Party, a ballot of individual members which denounced the Prime Minister’s formula, and led to smaller parties deserting his coalition. Mr Sharon today heads a minority administration and is intensely vulnerable either to a rival such as Binyamin Netanyahu, his Finance Minister, or to a combination of his parliamentary opponents in any vote of no confidence.

It is absolutely vital to Israel itself and the region that the disengagement plan is enacted. It would not of itself rescue the peace process, but it would demonstrate that positive political movement is not impossible. At a minimum, it would serve as a policy downpayment before the point when Palestinians produce a leader with more personal credibility than the corrupt Yassir Arafat. Palestinians will be closer than before to controlling their own destiny and to having a chance to prove that their territory can be run transparently and equitably.

If the vote is carried, then international reaction should not be churlish. The open contempt for Israel has, alas, acquired a momentum that any concession of whatever substance is dismissed as a ruse or a cunning ploy to entrench authority over the Palestinian people. Political leaders should be willing to acknowledge publicly the scale of the political wager that Mr Sharon has accepted. His critics have insisted that he would never pursue a pull-out — he is proving them wrong.

Victory on the principle of disengagement will not change much if it cannot then be implemented. Mr Sharon’s opponents will search for other means of bringing him and his Government down and forcing fresh elections. They hope either to inspire a coup within Likud or to buy time and prevent the Gaza evacuation from occurring. They also do not want to head towards the road map’s destination of a secure Israel and a viable Palestine.

The Labour Party, therefore, as Ehud Barak has urged it to do, has to appreciate that it must be willing to sustain this Prime Minister in his office for another 12 months at least. Much as only Richard Nixon could go to China in 1972, Mr Sharon alone can plausibly take Israel out of the Gaza Strip now.