Here's why: From its founding, Likud was dedicated to the goal of expanding the state of Israel into all the lands on both sides of the Jordan River that the Jews controlled in biblical times. When Sharon, as prime minister of the modern Jewish state, unilaterally withdrew Jewish settlers and the Israeli army from Gaza earlier this year, leaving that territory to the Palestinians, he betrayed that goal.

Nevertheless, it was a betrayal that served the greater good. Sharon realized that it made no sense to continue to claim and defend islands of a few thousand Jewish settlers in a sea of Palestinians. This bow to reality was logical to everyone except the die-hards of Likud and the religious parties.

They argued, besides, that Sharon gained nothing from the Palestinians in exchange for his concession of territory, and that he strengthened the hand of Muslim extremists who claim that terror attacks had forced the Israeli withdrawal.

These critics do not understand the difference between a tactical withdrawal and surrender. Sharon does.

He also understands a larger reality at work in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel could never incorporate all of the occupied territories - primarily the West Bank - into the Jewish state without undermining the Jewish electoral majority. Put simply, there soon would be more Arabs in Israel than Jews.

That is just one of the realities that should drive both sides toward an eventual peace: a Jewish state and a Palestinian state living side by side. The trick is to convince Muslim extremists that terrorism, as a strategy to destroy Israel, is a dead end.

Sharon realizes that he may not live to see that day. In the meantime, he apparently has decided to separate Israel from the Palestinians behind the new security fence.

If the Palestinians become willing and able to disarm the terrorists, Sharon may bargain over territory. But not until then.

The Israeli elections will be a referendum on Sharon's vision.