Let me ask you a serious but uncontenitious question. Were the Gaza settlements difficult to defend prior to Oslo? Why were they put in place to begin with? I think the problem is that Oslo changed two things. It put tons of weaponry in the hands of the Palestinians and removed the fear they had of the Israelis. So the disengagement is really step two of a retreat policy. Oslo would have made sense if there truly had been a change of heart among the Arabs. However, the disengagement was based on the premise there had been no change of heart and that Israel had to retreat from the area.
> Were the Gaza settlements difficult to defend prior to Oslo?
Yes. The main difference was the Palestinians had fewer weapons so there were less attacks. The logistics were no different.
> Why were they put in place to begin with?
For political and ideological reasons, which I disagreed with from the start.
> However, the disengagement was based on the premise
> there had been no change of heart and that Israel
> had to retreat from the area.
Had to? I don't think so. It simply makes more sense from a security standpoint provided we teach the Palestinians the same lesson we taught the Syrians by marching to withing shelling range of Damascus: the price for attacking Israel is one so high that you won't want to pay it.
For disengagement to work at all there has to be a steadfast response to Palestinian attacks. That is lacking so far. Unless that happens my support for Prime Minister Olmert's policies will evaporate.
Will it happen? I do think so, but only after a really serious attack with major casualties occurs. Right now the Prime Minister is too concerned about any IDF action's impacts on the relations with the United States and with his coalition talks. That bothers me no end. How many Jewish lives are good relations with the United States worth?