Israel’s voters and 15 political parties are preparing for an election on March 28. The choices they face have been transformed by the upheavals the country’s politics have seen in the past eight months — the clear frontrunner is the Kadima (forward) party, which did not even exist until November. The most distinctive feature of the new party’s platform, moreover, is that it turns its back on 58 years of Israeli commitment to negotiating peace with its neighbours, promising voters instead that a Kadima-led government is eager to draw Israel’s borders unilaterally.

On March 8 the party’s head, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, spelled out his intention that by 2010, “Israel will be disengaged from the vast majority of the Palestinian population, within new borders.” These permanent borders , he said, would be close to the line of the separation barrier in the West Bank, with some adjustments. And Israel would determine their location on its own.

This unilateralism appeals strongly to voters who, since late 2000, have been very disillusioned with the idea of trying to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. Kadima’s unilateralism builds on the success of the step taken last summer by now-ailing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when his government unilaterally withdrew all Israel’s troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip. That success punctured the myth of near untouchability previously enjoyed by the country’s well-organised networks of militant settlers. Hamas’s victory in the recent Palestinian elections only strengthened that feeling.

Kadima looks set to sweep to victory. The border Olmert plans to create encompasses less land than some Israeli right-wingers would like. But he said he aims to keep within the border key settlements around Jerusalem and elsewhere in the West Bank. These include Maale Adumim, whose connection to the Jerusalem settlements would cut the West Bank into two. He will also keep the fertile bottomlands of the Jordan Valley. No Palestinian leader would ever agree to this.

The concept of unilateral action in the West Bank builds on the popularity — in Israel — of the “separation barrier” that already snakes deep into the West Bank, keeping large settlement blocs connected to Israel and walling out the Palestinian cities. Some commentators say that Olmert’s promise to turn this barrier into a permanent border is directed largely to the 20 per cent of Israelis of Russian origin. Olmert still offers a passing nod to the idea of negotiations, promising to give the new Palestinian government a last chance to recognise Israel and renounce violence. But there is little chance of that happening. His unilateral plan will most likely proceed.

What will this mean for the US policy? For nearly 40 years now, sponsorship of Israeli-Arab peace talks has been the keystone of Washington’s engagement with the Middle East. If there are no negotiations, and Israel proceeds with the annexation of the West Bank, this will present Washington with some tough dilemmas. — The Christian Science Monitor