So history is remade again by events. Israel was poised to break the mould of its own politics and follow the iron logic of external reality by calling the Arabs’ bluff and unilaterally imposing a state upon them. Ariel Sharon’s Kadima party was said to have had the support of Israel’s mainstream and to be heading for an election victory. Now, with Sharon almost certainly out of the political game altogether even if he survives his brain haemorrhage, the political centre finds itself robbed of the leader who created it out of a political vacuum. The political obituary is thus being written not just for Sharon but for what the BBC erroneously calls the ‘peace process’ (you can’t have a peace process without a partner in that process) but which is actually merely the most intelligent strategy for Israel’s long-term survival. It is therefore said to be back to Israeli political business as usual: the old choice between the parties of the intellectually and strategically bankrupt left and the parties of the morally and strategically bankrupt right. A tragedy, in other words, for Israel.

Maybe this is so. Maybe the best chance in 50 years that this terrible impasse with the Arabs might now be resolved has indeed now been destroyed. Maybe all the Jewish people can do is shake their fist at a fate which seems determined to rob them of the peace and security they crave. But maybe this is not necessarily the case. There is, after all, a huge constituency in Israel for this centre ground. Where is it now going to go? Politicians are created by the people, not the other way round. It is of course possible that, in despair, centrist Israeli voters will drift over to either Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud, on the grounds that at least they know him, or (less likely) the untried Amir Peretz leading the Labour party. But to assume that this is inevitable is to ignore two facts.

First, there is now an alternative, a centrist party, Kadima, representing the strategy that they support. Yes, it was Sharon’s creation; yes, it was Sharon who attracted to it politicians of the left and right; yes, without Sharon it might therefore lose all credibility. But second, there is the co-architect of that strategy, the now caretaker prime minister Ehud Olmert, who despite his absence of charisma is not to be underestimated. What Olmert crucially lacks is a record as a war hero which the Israelis have always required of their prime ministers as reassurance that their security will be safeguarded -- the issue that drives all before it. Olmert might, however, overcome that handicap if he can prominently attach to himself a war hero, such as defence minister Mofaz, to underwrite his military credibility. Or possibly Mofaz himself might emerge as the party's new leader.

All this remains necessarily speculation. Israel’s political future, and the story of the Middle East, is suddenly a terrifyingly blank page. The danger is that the Arabs will now exploit this crisis by stepping up the atrocities against Israelis to spook them into voting for hard man Netanyahu — who the Arabs might think is their best hope of permanent war. So it’s no surprise to see this ominous prospect turned on its head and Israel blamed in advance for its own presumed reaction by that well-known Arab moderate, Saeeb Erekat:

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told the BBC's The World at One programme he is concerned about the possible effect Mr Sharon's absence would have on the peace process. ‘I'm really worried that the competition to replace Mr Sharon will be marred with more escalation against the Palestinians whether in the form of assassinations, arrests, incursions of settlements and that worries me a lot,’ he said.

It’s certainly business as usual among the Arabs. Scroll down here for the pictorial evidence.