Israel wants the land. Everything else is window dressing.

Better people need to step up and face/negotiate that reality if the blood is to ever stop flowing.

and turn it over to the Palestinians?

It is too densely populated for Israel to use the same ethnic cleansing tactic it is using in the West Bank. There is not enough room to start and grow settlements. The huge number of Palestinians crammed into the area made it hard to guarantee the safety of the few that were there. Directly occupying the Gaza with Israeli troops was too expensive and difficult.

It had nothing, NOTHING to do with giving land back to the Palestinians as a peace gesture--although the Israeli right wing always tries the revisionist claim that it was.

I don't expect you have much in the way of evidence to back it up though. It's amazing how people on the other side of the world from Israel seem to know secret agendas that were so closely guarded that no one in Israel managed to report it when it was occurring.

I noticed the more likely political reason for the withdrawal wasn't mentioned in your post though.

Top PM aide: Gaza plan aims to freeze the peace process

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.

"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with Haaretz for the Friday Magazine.

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

Asked why the disengagement plan had been hatched, Weisglass replied: "Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. And although by the way the Americans read the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians, not on us, Arik [Sharon] grasped that this state of affairs could not last, that they wouldn't leave us alone, wouldn't get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]. These were not weird kids with green ponytails and a ring in their nose with a strong odor of grass. These were people like Spector's group [Yiftah Spector, a renowned Air Force pilot who signed the pilot's letter]. Really our finest young people."

Weisglass does not deny that the main achievement of the Gaza plan is the freezing of the peace process in a "legitimate manner."

"That is exactly what happened," he said. "You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

Sharon, he said, could also argue "honestly" that the disengagement plan was "a serious move because of which, out of 240,000 settlers, 190,000 will not be moved from their place."

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process-1.136686

1. No. Gaza in and of itself is not a sovereign state. I think pretty much the whole world agrees on that one.

2. Extremely doubtful. Especially with the current Israeli government in power.

3. No. Unrelated situations from Israel's perspective.

4. Under very specific conditions.

If Hamas decided to say something like - we renounce violence and recognize Israel - in conjunction with ending all rocket fire and whatnot - then maybe there would be progress on some of those other fronts.

If the Palestinian side accepted all the demands that Israel is imposing - no military, reject violence, recognize Israel etc. then things would change.

Of course, it goes without saying that Israel could take steps, if it wanted to, that would also change the dynamic (withdraw all West Bank settlements, end the blockade on Gaza, etc).

...and my apologies for not responding sooner, but it's been awhile since I've logged in....

(1) I think Gaza and the West Bank are not that separated in terms of Palestinian interests. I think most would agree.

(2-4) I'm just pessimistic that even if the Palestinians were to accept the points you listed that the Likud gov't would change their own stances and move toward peaceful resolution. In fact, I no longer believe either side wants peace anytime soon - at least those in power on either side. This has been going on longer than I've been alive. The debate grows tiresome.

It's like having a friend or family suffering from substance abuse. Everyone has tried for years (decades) to help, but at some point you have to step away and say fine, we can't help you. Only you can help you. But we'll be here should you decide to come to your senses.

This paragraph is right on the money, though I wish it wasn't:

In fact, I no longer believe either side wants peace anytime soon - at least those in power on either side. This has been going on longer than I've been alive. The debate grows tiresome.

But, I DO thank you for your thoughtful response to such a messed up sitch.

MBTB

the settler population has grown from around 200,000 in 2000 to nearly 500,000 today-that's what happens when the rockets stop