In the mid-80s Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli researcher on the West Bank and Gaza, came up with the term irreversibility when referring to the difficulty that will be met to reverse the trend of Jewish settlement

activities in the Palestinian territories. His concept, which was well intended and has a lot of merit, has been dealt a blow by the Israeli government and army.

It was the perfect kind of car, small enough to accommodate my bachelor life style in Palestine, new enough not to give me trouble and old enough so that I wouldn’t worry too much about it when I drive through the rough terrain of  the check post dotted West Bank towns.

RAMALLAH, West Bank — The unilateral Israeli decision to withdraw troops and evacuate settlers from the Gaza Strip has thrown a monkey wrench in the works for all parties. Palestinians and other international players have been especially confused as to how to proceed. The answer is: through

negotiations — not one-sided actions.



Despite months of Palestinian and international entreaties, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon steadfastly refused to negotiate, coordinate or reveal plans for the disengagement and what is to follow. In the months leading up to the withdrawal, the most commonly heard observation in the West Bank and

Gaza was that Israelis negotiate among themselves about the future of the Palestinians.



Israel’s decision to disengage from Gaza independent of any larger bilateral or international framework is unlike any in modern history. Even its decision to leave southern Lebanon in 2000, while taken unilaterally, at least tacitly involved the United Nations. The withdrawal was in keeping

with Security Council Resolution 425, and it was the international body that demarcated the Blue Line and verified Israeli withdrawal to positions behind the de facto border.



The confusion, of course, is due to the lack of answers to numerous questions, major and minor. Are the Israelis planning a respite from further withdrawals, as some Israeli politicians have suggested, or is quitting Gaza  part of the road map, as the Quartet (Russia, the European Union, the United States and the United Nations) insists? The issue of what happens the day after the withdrawal (it looks as if that is about a month down the line) has been left unanswered. Will the provision of electricity and telephone

service, as well as the wheat  and rice that come exclusively from or through Israel, continue?



And what kind of state, or precursor to a state, will Gaza be? Will Gazans be allowed to move freely to and from the West Bank? Will the borders with  Egypt be free? What about the airport and the future port? What kind of taxes and customs regulations will be applied? Will Palestinian airspace be

liberated? The Israeli army tore up the runway that President Bill Clinton had inaugurated, and all attempts since to rebuild it have been rejected. Will Palestinians be allowed to leave and return to Gaza without Israeli approval? Will others be allowed to enter Gaza without Israeli visas?



Confused or not, Palestinians, for their part, will be expected to answer questions — in deeds, not just in words — about their ability to build a modern, pluralistic state. How will the Palestinian body politic deal with the growing power of the Islamic movements, which undoubtedly will expect a significant share of power in post-withdrawal Gaza?



The international community also will have to answer some key questions.



According to the Palestinian Economic Council for Reconstruction and Development, annual per capita income in Gaza continues to be roughly $700, a fraction of the $16,000 Israelis earn.



In the absence of relatively well-paid jobs, what will happen to the lines of unemployed Gazans? The potential flight of job seekers into Israel is only one problem that all concerned must think about.



More immediately, if Gazans cannot feed their families, the recurrence of  cross-border violence, if not a third intifada, will be only a matter of time.



While the economic situation in Gaza is a critical issue, the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be determined mainly by the next steps in the peace process. Permanent-status issues concerning borders, the West Bank, Jerusalem and refugees must be dealt with bilaterally. Any serious observer of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must acknowledge that there can be no unilateral solution to these issues.



As for the peace process’s multilateral guarantors, the United States and its Quartet partners, they have so far failed to provide even the most basic facts regarding Israel’s withdrawal or how it relates to the road map agreed on in 2003. They cannot continue to sit on the sidelines.



Washington’s decision to call Israel’s unilateral move part of the road map has failed to convince many Palestinians. The prevailing opinion among Palestinians is that the road map will be put in a deep freeze once the Israelis complete their Gaza withdrawal.



But the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, their leaders, and the international community must all respond to the challenges that will follow.



Most important, the future of the conflict and the chances for genuine peace in the region will depend on understanding the limits of offensive military power, of defensive resistance and of unilateralism. Serious face-to-face talks, in accordance with international law and with the help of the international community, are the only way forward.

In the mid-80s Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli researcher on the West Bank and Gaza, came up with the term irreversibility when referring to the difficulty that will be met to reverse the trend of Jewish settlement

activities in the Palestinian territories. His concept, which was well intended and has a lot of merit, has been dealt a blow by the Israeli government and army.

Within six days, as long as it took the Israeli army to occupy the rest of Palestine, Israeli soldiers emptied out all the Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, as well as four northern West Bank colonies. The fact

that the number of days it took to evacuate the illegal settlers is equal to those it took to occupy Sinai, the Golan Heights and the rest of Palestine goes to show that neither occupation nor the reversal of occupation is irreversible.



Using Gaza to debunk the myth of irreversibility is not fair. The key to the issue of irreversibility, of course, will be what happens in the rest of the West Bank and Jerusalem. But irrespective of how the situation will evolve after Gaza, one thing is clear: when there is a political will, there

suddenly is a way.



So then, what is the key to this political will that was able to defeat what was called the orange tide (in reference to the colour used by opponents to the withdrawal) and go against religious Jews and a good part of the Israeli public?



Palestinians would differ tremendously on this issue. At first, Palestinians were extremely sceptical of the Israeli intentions. Will they leave from part of Gaza or from all of it? Will they truly allow freedom of

movement in and out of Gaza, as well as provide services needed until then?



 A very astute Israeli official pointed me to the official document of disengagement on the Israeli prime minister’s website. While the document (produced in 2004) does answer some questions about the long-term goals of Israel — namely that they are planning to leave Gaza completely and to

eventually give up the border crossing with Egypt and the port, it doesn’t answer the more immediate questions of what will happen once the Israeli army leaves Gaza, which many said could be as early as mid-September.



The most recent agreement between Egypt and Israel to allow 750 Egyptian soldiers to be on the Egyptian side of the border (Camp David Agreement prohibited that) will make the possibility of the Egyptian border free of Israelis closer to reality.



Of course, the most important news item that Palestinians are waiting to hear has to do with the airport. This international airport that was inaugurated by former US president Bill Clinton is now in ruins, after

Israeli bulldozers ripped its runway apart. Israelis are refusing to allow work on the airport, which seems to have been sacrificed by Sharon in his internal political horse trading. Palestinian Civil Affairs Minister

Mohammad Dahlan has made it clear that the PA will start work on fixing the runway the second the Israeli soldiers leave the Strip.



What is of urgent need is a response to the Israeli desire to have Palestinians declare that the ccupation in Gaza is over. They would love this statement before Sharon goes to New York for the upcoming UN General Assembly, but it is highly unlikely as long as the airport and the airspace are under Israeli control. But if the Israelis have suddenly become interested in abiding by international law, they have to rectify a long list of violations to the Geneva Conventions which, among other things, forbids imprisoning indigenous residents in their own country, as well as continued settlement activity and the illegal annexation of Jerusalem (and the Syrian Golan Heights).



The speedy reversing of the situation in Gaza gives much hope to concerned Palestinians in Jerusalem and the West Bank. No one is naive to think that the reversibility of 38 years of occupation and settlement in the West Bank will be that easy. But with continued determination on the part of the Palestinians, clever political management by the Palestinian leadership and the determination of the international community, what seemed impossible and irreversible a while back can become the fulfilment of the peaceful aspirations of Palestinians and of many in Israel.

Thirty-eight years after Israeli troops rumbled into the Gaza Strip, Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, real change on the ground is taking place. Israel is adding the Gaza Strip to Sinai (as well as south Lebanon) on the list of occupied areas that it has decided to abandon. But unlike the Sinai withdrawal, which was completed as part of a peace agreement with Egypt, or the one from south Lebanon, quitting Gaza is different. Much as Palestinian militants would like to attribute Israel’s withdrawal to their acts of resistance, most Palestinians concede that local, regional and international issues, as well as military and political considerations, contributed to the Israeli decision.



Now is the time to take stock of the lessons learned from the years of occupation and resistance in order to understand what Israelis and Palestinians should do next.



The Israeli occupiers, as well as their sidekick settlement movement, should by now clearly understand the limits of military power, even when that power is overwhelming. This understanding, however, has not translated into genuine Israeli attempts to negotiate solutions rather than dictate them. Ariel Sharon’s use of unilateralism has produced confusion on all fronts, Israeli, Palestinian and international. Long-term political success and real

peace will not result from one-sided acts.



For a while, a couple of years ago, Ariel Sharon convinced many people that he was interested in negotiations. Israel had no difficulty in persuading Washington to accept its position that it would not negotiate until quiet prevailed over all the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. 

Repeated Palestinian calls for a cease-fire were rejected as Israel, the strong party in this equation, insisted on a total cessation of hostilities. Yasser Arafat also proved a convenient scapegoat. In the post-9/11 era, President Bush was easily persuaded to shun the Palestinian leader, giving the blessing of the world’s only super power to Sharon’s unilateralist

policies.



To short-sighted politicians, unilateralism is attractive because it obviates the need to engage in negotiations, which are messy, human and unpredictable. Going it alone also has political appeal, especially domestically, because leaders can decide how much and how far they want to carry out a particular policy.



Sharon has steadfastly refused to negotiate, coordinate or reveal plans for  the disengagement and what is to follow. In the months leading up to this  week’s withdrawal, a commonly heard observation in the West Bank and Gaza was that Israelis were negotiating among themselves about the future of the Palestinians.



Israel’s unilateral decision to disengage from Gaza, independent of any larger bilateral or international framework, is unlike any in modern history. Even the Israeli decision to leave southern Lebanon in 2000, while taken unilaterally, at least tacitly involved the United Nations. That withdrawal was in keeping with Security Council Resolution 425, and it was the international body that demarcated the Blue Line (the de facto border between Israel and  Lebanon) and verified Israeli withdrawal to positionsbehind it.



To be fair, unilateralism has been convenient not only for a reluctant Israeli prime minister who does not wish to make substantial compromises during negotiations, but is also attractive to hard-line Palestinians who regard bilateralism as a means of pressing them to make unpopular

concessions.



In any case, the day after the completion of the Gaza withdrawal, Israelis  and Palestinians will be confronted with important unresolved questions.

There is no doubt that the evacuation of Jewish settlers in areas some religious Israelis consider part of their God-given territory represents a huge ideological reversal. But after years in which the settlement of Palestinian land formed one of Zionism’s main tenets, encouraged by religious leaders and the state alike, will the removal of settlements continue in the West Bank, or will this be a one-time exception?



The withdrawal and the ambiguity surrounding it have left Palestinians in a state of political confusion and uncertainty. In more than 25 years as a journalist, I have never witnessed more confusion in the Palestinian national (and Islamic) movement than I have seen during the past few months. Nowhere in any of the Palestinian literature, past or present, can one find

any discussion of a scenario that reflects what has been happening in Gaza. All analysis of regaining occupied lands has focused on either a clear-cut military success or a negotiated settlement. The current half-baked partial withdrawal, without any negotiated agreement, real dialogue or a clear road map for the future, has stunned the Palestinian body politic. Israel’s

refusal to reveal even the most mundane details of its plans (even to its American allies), has been the main reason for this state of confusion.



One would have expected the Palestinians to be happy about the turn of events in Gaza. After all, the Israeli decision to withdraw from Gaza (even if they use the term "disengagement") is what the Palestinians have always wanted. Politically, the unilateral Israeli action doesn’t cost the Palestinians anything. There are no agreements to be signed, no commitments to be made. But the Israeli decision was initially faced with skepticism.

Many doubted that it would ever take place. Then they argued that it would result in Israel’s taking a harder line in the West Bank and Jerusalem (which is probably true but doesn’t mean the Palestinians should not welcome the withdrawal).



Then other issues came up. Should Palestinians celebrate this Israeli decision? Again, the arguments varied. Some wanted to celebrate, while others urged a much more muted response because the withdrawal is partial and doesn’t include the bulk of Palestinian land, even though it will include a major portion of Palestinians living under occupation.



Hamas was the first to argue publicly for the need to celebrate. The group  even announced a prize for the best poster depicting the success of the resistance in forcing the Israelis to leave. But Palestinian leaders feared that the celebrations could get out of control, leading to chaos. A more organized series of events was suggested.



On one occasion, even public utterances reflected this contradiction. On one day President Mahmoud Abbas and civil affairs minister Mohammed Dahlan spoke about the need to keep the celebrations low key, while the very next day the local Palestinian press reported that Marwan Barghouthi sent a message from his Israeli jail cell saying that Palestinians should organize loud and popular activities to celebrate the success of the resistance in kicking out

the occupiers. The different viewpoints were broadcast on several Arab satellite stations. Speaking on the Hezbollah-Lebanese station Al Manar, a Hamas spokesman said the Israelis were leaving because of the success of the Qassam rockets. Responding angrily, a Fatah representative said this statement belittled all the other Palestinian sacrifices over the years, a

point that Barghouthi has made. He has argued that Israel’s decision was taken for multiple reasons, including the military and political efforts of Palestinians in and outside Palestine.



The issue of what the Israelis are going to leave behind has also been a source of confusion. Will they or will they not leave the houses intact? (They will destroy them.) Who will pick up the debris? (It looks as though Palestinian and Egyptian companies paid by Israel will do that.) What about the agricultural greenhouses — will they be left intact? Will the Palestinians have to pay for what was built on illegally occupied areas? Will it be acceptable to get them through the USAID mission so as to allow the Americans to pay for them?



The confusion, of course, is due to the absence of answers to major and minor questions. Are the Israelis planning to sleep on any further withdrawals, as some Israeli politicians have suggested, or is quitting Gaza part of the road map, as the Quartet (Russia, the European Union, the United States and the United Nations) is insisting? The issue of what happens the

day after the withdrawal has also been left unanswered. Will electricity and telephone services, as well as wheat and rice that come exclusively from (or through) Israel, continue coming uninterrupted?



And what kind of state, or precursor to a state, will Gaza be? Will Gazans be allowed to move freely to and from the West Bank? Will the borders with Egypt, the airport and the future port be free? What kind of taxes and customs regulations will be applied? Will Palestinian airspace be liberated?

(The Israeli army tore up the airport runway that President Clinton had inaugurated, and all attempts since to rebuild the runway have been rejected.) Will Palestinians be allowed to leave and return to Gaza without Israeli approval? Will others be allowed to enter Gaza without Israeli

visas?



Confused or not, Palestinians, for their part, will be expected to answer questions — in deeds, not just in words — about their ability to build a modern, pluralistic state. How will the Palestinian body politic deal with the growing power of the Islamic movements, which undoubtedly will expect a significant share of power in post-withdrawal Gaza?



The international community also will have to answer some key questions. According to the Palestinian Economic Council for Reconstruction and Development (PECDAR), annual per capita income in Gaza continues to average roughly $700, compared to the $16,000 per capita income enjoyed by Israelis. In the absence of relatively well-paying jobs, what will happen to the lines of unemployed Gazans? The potential flight of employment seekers — a formidable phenomenon worldwide — is only one problem. More immediately, if Gazans cannot feed their families, the recurrence of cross-border violence, if not a third intifada, will only be a matter of time.



While the economic situation in Gaza is a critical issue, the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be determined mainly by the next steps in the peace process. Permanent-status issues concerning borders, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and refugees must be dealt with bilaterally. Any serious observer of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must acknowledge that there can be no unilateral solution to these issues.



As for the peace process’s multilateral guarantors, the United States and its Quartet partners, they have failed to provide even the most basic facts regarding Israel’s withdrawal or how it relates to the "road map" agreed upon in 2003. They cannot continue to sit on the sidelines. Washington’s quixotic decision to call Israel’s unilateral move part of the road map has

failed to convin ce many Palestinians. The prevailing opinion among Palestinians is that the road map will be put into deep freeze once the Israelis complete their Gaza withdrawal.



But the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, their leaders, and the international community must all respond to the challenges that will follow. Most important, the future of the conflict and the chances for genuine peace in the region will depend on understanding the limits of offensive military power, of defensive resistance, and the limits of unilateralism. Serious face-to-face talks, in accordance with international law and with the help of the international community, are the only way forward.

As much as some Palestinian groups would like to claim that Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza this week is a direct result of their military actions, the majority of Palestinians don’t buy into such a simplistic narrative. Nor, however, is the withdrawal a product of what we

believed to be the alternative path to liberation from Israeli occupation, a negotiated settlement.



As jailed Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti stated last week from his Israeli prison cell, it was probably a combination of many factors that resulted in the Israeli decision to leave Gaza, a statement with which most Palestinians agree. But while there may be a lack of clarity about the catalyst for disengagement, there is a clear understanding of the manner in which it has been planned and carried out — and the deleterious effects it may have on the prospects for peace.



While the withdrawal from Gaza is certainly a welcome first step in ending the occupation, the unilateral manner in which Israel went about it has set a dangerous precedent. Face-to-face negotiations based on universally accepted guidelines and with the support of the international

community might be more difficult to put into action, but such cooperation can produce long-term solutions, whereas the Gaza disengagement is likely to result in nothing but long-term postponements.



Despite months of Palestinian and international entreaties, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon steadfastly refused to negotiate, coordinate or reveal plans for the disengagement and what is to follow. In the months leading up to this week’s withdrawal, the most commonly heard observation in the West Bank and Gaza was that Israelis negotiate among themselves about

the future of the Palestinians.



Israel’s unilateral decision to disengage from Gaza, independent of any larger bilateral or international framework, is unlike any in modern history. Even the Israeli decision to leave southern Lebanon in 2000, while taken unilaterally, at least tacitly involved the United Nations. The withdrawal was in keeping with Security Council resolution 425, and it was the international body that demarcated the Blue Line and verified Israeli withdrawal to positions behind the de facto border.



Israel and its steadfast supporters in the United States have failed to provide even the most basic facts as to what is going to happen next, or how this week’s events relate to the broader peace process. Washington’s quick-footed attempt to paint the unilateral Israeli decision as part of the Road Map has failed to convince many Palestinians. The majority opinion here

is that the peace process will go into deep freeze once Israel completes its withdrawal from Gaza.



The unilateralism that has dominated Israeli policy on Gaza has been quite convenient for the Sharon government. It doesn’t require the mess of actual negotiations, and it is politically safe because the politicians can decide exactly how far to carry out a particular course of action.

Unfortunately, this kind of policymaking is as shortsighted as it is expedient.



It is simply naive to think that the partial return of our occupied lands will end Palestinian demands for full liberation and independence. The most popular T-shirt being sold now in Gaza sports the Palestinian flag emblazoned with the logo "Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem." Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has himself picked up the refrain,

making it the rallying cry for this week’s celebrations in Gaza.



Sharon need only look east to Iraq to see what kind of problems he will have if he insists on following his irrational and ineffective unilateral policies. Perhaps for a while he actually succeeded in convincing people that he is interested in negotiations, but now that Yasser Arafat is no longer around for Sharon to blame, it is not so easy for him to fool the world. When the dust settles from the Israeli disengagement, Sharon will no longer have a cover for his unilateralism.



To be fair, a go-it-alone approach is convenient not only for an Israeli prime minister reluctant to make substantial compromises during negotiations, but also for hardline Palestinians who see multilateralism as a means of forcing them into adopting unpopular positions. Combating the

unilateralist tendencies among segments of Palestinian society will be just one of our tasks as we focus on rebuilding of our lives and our future.



The challenge of building a new tomorrow, however, is made much more difficult when we don’t know what to expect the day after disengagement. The withdrawal from Gaza can be a real and meaningful step toward a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinian — but only if our leaders forego the unilateralist tendencies that for too long have resulted in policies of

convenience.

The withdrawal of Israeli troops and the evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza, after 38 years of occupation, is the most recent proof of the limits of military power, even when that power is overwhelming. Now is the time to take stock of the lessons learned from the years of occupation and resistance in order to understand what Israelis and Palestinians should do next.



To begin with, it is imperative to understand how much credit Palestinians can credibly claim for the Israeli withdrawal. True, Palestinian resistance and sacrifices were a contributing factor in Ariel Sharon`s decision to reverse a policy he had espoused for decades. But it would be a mistake to attribute the Israeli withdrawal exclusively to Palestinian militancy. After all, this bittersweet Israeli action was neither a clear result of military defeat nor a consequence of political negotiations.



But unilateralism is not a rational long-term and effective policy, for it will not lead to a genuine and lasting peace in the Middle East. Just as President Bush has discovered in Iraq, Sharon will also be forced to acknowledge the limits of his strategy.



Unilateralism seems very expedient to shortsighted politicians, for it obviates the need for what they perceive as the mess of actual negotiations – that is, meeting their counterparts face to face and discovering the human results of their policies. Going it alone also seems politically advantageous domestically, because leaders can decide how much and how far they want to carry out a particular policy.



To be fair, unilateralism is convenient not only for a reluctant Israeli prime minister who does not wish to make substantial compromises during negotiations; it is also attractive to hard-line

Palestinians who regard multilateralism as a means of pressing them to make unpopular concessions.



In any case, the day after the completion of the Gaza withdrawal, Israelis and Palestinians will be confronted with important unresolved questions. There is no doubt that the evacuation of Jewish settlers in areas that Israelis consider part of their God-given territory represents a huge ideological reversal. But after years of preaching and practicing one of Zionism`s main tenets, will the removal of settlements continue in the West Bank, or will this be a one-time exception?



Palestinians, for their part, will be expected to answer questions – in deeds, not just in words – about their ability to build a modern pluralistic state. How will the Palestinian body politic deal with the growing power of the Islamic movements that undoubtedly will expect a significant share of power in post-withdrawal Gaza?



The international community also will have to answer some key questions. According to the Palestinian Economic Council for Reconstruction and Development, annual per capita income in Gaza continues to average roughly $700, while Israelis enjoy incomes averaging a $16,000

per capita. In the absence of relatively well-paying jobs, what will happen to the lines of unemployed Gazans? The potential flight of employment seekers – a formidable force worldwide – is only one problem. More immediately, if Gazan families are not well fed, the recurrence of cross-border violence, if not the eruption of a third intifada, will only be a matter of time.



While the economic situation in Gaza is a critical issue, the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be determined mainly by the next steps in the peace process. Perma-nent-status issues concerning borders, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and refugees must be dealt with

bilaterally. Any serious observer of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will no doubt acknowledge that there can be no unilateral solution to these issues.



As for the peace process`s multilateral guarantors, the United States and its partners – the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia – have failed to provide even the most basic facts regarding Israel`s withdrawal or how it relates to the "road map" agreed in 2003. They cannot continue to sit on the sidelines. Washington`s quixotic decision to call Israel`s unilateral move part of the road map has failed to convince many Palestinians. The prevailing opinion among Palestinians is that the road map will be put into deep freeze once the Israelis complete their Gaza withdrawal.



But the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, their leaders, and the international community must all respond to the challenges that will follow. Most importantly, the future of the conflict and the chances for genuine peace in the region will depend on understanding the limits of offensive military power, defensive resistance, and unilateralism. Serious face-to-face talks, in accordance to international law and with the help of the international community, are the only way forward.

In over 25 years of journalistic reporting, I have never witnessed more confusion in the Palestinian national (and Islamic) movement as I have seen during the past few months.

Israel’s refusal to reveal even the most mundane details of its plans, (even to its American allies), has been the main reason for this state of confusion.



One would have expected the Palestinians to be happy about the turn of events in Gaza. After all the Israeli decision to withdraw from Gaza (even if they use the term disengagement) is what the Palestinians have always wanted. Politically, the unilateral Israeli action doesn’t cost the Palestinians anything. There are no agreements to be signed and no commitments to be made. But the Israeli decision was initially faced with scepticism. Many doubted that it would ever take place. Then they argued that it would result in Israel taking a harder line in the West Bank and Jerusalem (probably true but this doesn’t mean the Palestinians should not welcome the withdrawal).



Then other issues came up. Should Palestinians celebrate this Israeli decision? Again, the arguments varied. Some wanted to celebrate and consider the Israeli decision a result of the Palestinian resistance, while others preferred keeping a much lower profile because the withdrawal is partial and doesn’t include the bulk of Palestinian land, even though it will include a major portion of Palestinians living under occupation. Hamas was the first to argue publicly about the need to celebrate.



They even announced a prize for the best poster that could depict the success of the resistance in forcing the Israelis to leave. But this issue was a source of contention. Palestinian leaders feared that the celebrations could cause havoc and get out of control. A more organised series of events was suggested.



On one occasion even public utterances reflected this contradiction. On one day President Mahmoud Abbas and Civil Affairs Minister Mohammed Dahlan spoke about the need to keep the celebrations low key, while the next day the local Palestinian press reported that Marwan Barghouthi sent a message from his jail cell saying that Palestinians should organise loud and

popular activities to celebrate the success of the resistance in kicking out the occupiers. The different viewpoints were broadcast on several Arab satellite stations. Speaking on the Hizbollah-Lebanese station Al Manar, a Hamas spokesman said the Israelis were leaving because of the success of the Qassem rockets. Responding angrily, a Fateh representative said this statement belittled all the other Palestinian sacrifices over the years, a point that Barghouthi has made. He has argued that Israel’s decision was taken for multiple reasons, including the military and political efforts of Palestinians in and outside Palestine.



The issue of what the Israelis are going to leave behind has also been a source of confusion. Will they or will they not leave the houses intact? (They will destroy them). Who will pick up the debris? (It looks like Palestinian and Egyptian companies paid for by Israel will do that). What about the agricultural greenhouses, will they be left intact? Will the Palestinians have to pay for what was built on illegally occupied areas? Will it be acceptable to get them through the USAID mission so as to allow the Americans to pay for them?



More important are issues of whether the Israeli occupation should be compared with some type of military activity so as to give the impression that they are leaving under military pressure as in the case of south Lebanon. Islamic and Nationalist groups discussed this issue, with the Israeli army and senior politicians threatening to crush and reoccupy Gaza

if they are attacked during the withdrawal process.



The confusion, of course, is due to the absence of answers to major and minor questions. Are the Israelis planning to sleep on any further withdrawals as some Israeli politicians have suggested, or is quitting Gaza part of the roadmap as the Americans and the Quartet are insisting. The issue of what happens the day after the withdrawal has also been left

unanswered. Will electricity and telephone services, as well as bread and milk that come exclusively from Israel, continue uninterrupted? Will Gazans be allowed to move freely to and from the West Bank? Will the borders with Egypt, the airport and the future port be free? What kind of taxes and customs regulations will be applied? Will Palestinian airspace be liberated?

Will Palestinians be allowed to leave and return to Gaza without Israeli approval? Will others be allowed to enter Gaza without Israeli visas?



The Israeli decision to quit Gaza is certainly a unilateral one. The questions that remain will only be answered once they end their long overstay. We will all have to wait and see what will happen.