> 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?
Well we have our disagreements but you are honest and straight forward in your analysis. My history may be off some, but weren't some of the Gaza settlements put in during Labor regimes? In any case, I agree with you that for pullouts to work they have to be followed by iron fisted zero tolerance responses to any terrorism. I don't consider the Lebanon model a successful one either where Hezballah is armed to the teeth and present a strategic threat as well as occasional outrages they get away with.