Two recent documents – the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague and a report of the International Development Committee of the British Parliament – both purporting to base their conclusions on legal grounds, actually show how abysmally ignorant of the most rudimentary facts of law and history these bodies are.

Politics, especially related to security and the putative peace process, have always dominated Israeli public life. They became, inevitably, an end in themselves, consuming immense energies and resources. As a result, Israel neglected its many economic and social problems, with negative repercussions on security and peace as well.

The present political turmoil in Israel over the reshuffling of Sharon’s coalition is a good example. It seems that for the sake of an uncertain disengagement plan – a unilateral withdrawal, really – Sharon is going to threaten the one major achievement of his coalition: an economic reform that will greatly strengthen Israel and also enhance its ability to make peace.

“I personally undertake to guarantee security in Gaza after you vacate it,” Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s president, assured Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s emissary, Dov Weisglass, Yediot Aharonot reported.

This is only the latest in a flurry of Egyptian activities designed to establish Egypt as the only broker capable of stopping terrorist attacks from Gaza. Torn and weakened politically, the Sharon government seems prepared to allow the Egyptians to copy in Gaza the successful Syrian model in south Lebanon.

From the simplistic accounts in the American press, you might think Israelis are uniformly delighted over President Bush’s support for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan—the unilateral withdrawal from all Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and from several in Judea and Samaria. In fact, there are passionate arguments here over the meaning of Bush’s extraordinary statement of U.S. commitment to Israel.