"…a moment of promise and hope":

This is how U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan characterizes Israel’s disengagement from Gaza. Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal, describes this event as “the beginning of the end for Israel…” With the U.N.’s well-established antagonism against Israel I guess you could say, in a sense, both statements are compatible. P.A. Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia said, while reviewing Palestinian forces in Gaza: "We are telling the entire world, today Gaza and tomorrow Jerusalem. Today Gaza and tomorrow and independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”

Debbie Schlussel illustrates the msm’s historical spin on Gaza: “* In news stories of the Gaza surrender, how many times have you heard reporters say, "giving Gaza back to the Palestinians"? I counted at least ten such reports on TV, radio, and in print--and I was barely noticing (that includes Monday's NBC Nightly News report by Martin Fletcher, who stated, "and handing the land BACK to the Palestinians"). Yet, what was Gaza before Egypt attacked Israel in 1967? It was EGYPTIAN land. NOT Palestinian land. The idea that it is now being "GIVEN BACK" to the Palestinians is a LIE. It was never theirs in the first place. And, by the way, where was that pressure from the State Department on Egypt to give the land "back" to the Palestinians for the decades that Egypt held it? Only when Israel does so.”

Many people are wondering why Ariel Sharon is handing over Gaza to the Palestinians (btw- Jews used to be included in that title), lock, stock, and barrel. M.E. expert Daniel Pipes reminds us that “Sharon won the prime ministry in early 2003 by electorally crushing an opponent who espoused unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Sharon declared back then: ‘A unilateral withdrawal is not a recipe for peace. It is a recipe for war’.” Pipes compares the disengagement to “French appeasement of Germany in the 1930s” and “American incrementalism in Vietnam”.

Anybody who has studied Ariel Sharon’s past surely knows this is completely out of character for him. So what gives? Is he just wimping out. Is he tired, feeble, or has he found the entrance for the “road to peace” and believes concessions will calm Palestinian rage.
Militant Arabs have always perceived any offer of concessions as weakness. And terror groups will probably race each other with weapons in hand and bullets firing in the air to stake their claim as victors against the Zionist occupiers as the last settlers leave Gaza. Here are some possible strategic outcomes from this bold undertaking…(IMO):
· Security resources used to protect .6% of the population from the 99% who hate them will no longer be needed.
· The U.N. will have to acknowledge Israel’s unilateral good-will attempt.
· The U.N. will have to acknowledge the subsequent violence from the Palestinians.
· The “whirled [sic] community” will witness yet another failed consequence of appeasement.
· The consequent surge in violence will shore up the resolve that’s been diminishing recently among the IDF ranks as well as civilians.
· Tightened boundaries will be less vulnerable.
· The “occupation” in Gaza will no longer be an issue.

Ariel Sharon may be just digging in his heels for an all out confrontation knowing that the status quo will never buy peace for Israel. Perhaps he’s now just bringing the rest of the family back into the relative safety of circled wagons. Hamas may hold back major aggressions until after the national elections scheduled Jan. 21, in which they have much popular support. “Just make my day, punk…” may be Sharon’s ensuing policy and sentiment once the disengagement has completed.

Any other theories on Sharon’s intentions and possible scenarios?