This story certainly produced dramatic images of Israeli settlers being evicted from their homes in Gaza, but this move was mostly symbolic at the end of the day. Don't get me wrong, especially in the Middle East, such moves are significant, but this should be considered more as a cease fire rather than a solid trend towards a lasting peace in the region. Sharon made this move primarily to shore up his diplomatic and military standing with Europe, the US, and the Palestinians, not to establish a sweeping move towards a peace agreement. Israel's security interests are hardly affected by this move; in fact, Israel still retains the right to deploy troops and to use their air force to retaliate against those who commit violence against Israel in Gaza. Israel still controls the freedom of movement of the 1 million people who live in Gaza. For Israel, the reality is that a majority of Israeli citizens had already supported for a long time the idea of removing the settlers from Gaza. This support had some roots in a genuine desire for a negotiated peace with the Palestinians, but most of it had to do with practical concerns. Israel's control of a quarter of land in Gaza for settlements and farming didn't make a lot of sense, especially when considering that it required a very large military presence to protect a very small group of Jewish settlers living in the midst of a large, angry and poor Arab population. Maintaining Gaza, especially during the last Intifada was proving to simply be too costly. So the decision on the part of Sharon was not some broad historic move for peace. Sharon knew that the withdrawal plan enjoyed the support of much of the political establishment, with the noteworthy exception of Israeli nationalists, some of whom were in Sharon's governing coalition. With regards to the "road map" for peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state, it could be fairly stated that Israel's unilateral move out of Gaza will forestall any moves in that direction for a long time. If Sharon had agreed to reactivate the international process, he probably would have been forced to diplomatically negotiate Israel's commitment to the formation of a Palestinian state and the withdrawal of Israel from both Gaza and the West Bank back to the 1967 lines. Instead, Israel's recent moves ensure that the two-state solution would be put on hold for the time being, although with Sharon's political future up in the air given his recent illness, it can go in any direction now. The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process in Israel. Freezing the process prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state. At the same time, Sharon was able to, as Lance said; put a fig leaf on the peace process. The hope is that more moderate Palestinian leadership would prove successful in implementing political and economic reforms which could serve as the base for establishing a new Palestinian state which would incorporate most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and which could co-exist with Israel. I tend to be skeptical towards the ability of the Palestinian authority under Mahmoud Abbas to win the support of a majority of Gazans. The more radical elements of Islamic Hamas remain very popular in Gaza, especially among young people who believe that their militancy forced the Israeli citizens out of Gaza. Hamas' political clout is a significant hindrance towards a lasting peace. But, even if the Palestinians and the Israelis are not ready to end the conflict, perhaps this move could relieve the tension somewhat. And maybe it might allow for the Palestinians in Gaza to begin building their institutions and drawing foreign investment into their economy. However, this will only occur as a best case scenario. So far, events have not been so amenable.

Hopefully it is a start. However, I anticipate a retrenchment of some type.

I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time. Yes, it was a fig leaf of sorts, an offer at creating peace. The fig leaf was chewed up and spit back in Isreal's face. Oddly enough, just a day or two ago was the 67th anniversary of the Munich Pact between Germany and Great Britain and France, which essentially handed Czechoslovakia to Germany in the name of preserving peace. Well, we all know how that turned out.

A huge step forward in the overall quest for peace. By embracing this policy despite widespread domestic opposition, Sharon has demonstrated his commitment to the peace process and has extended a hand of cooperation to the other side. I'm quite anxious to see how this turns out in the long term. The ball now rests in the court of the Palestinians, and I'm hoping that they'll match Sharon's move with equal prudence in the spirit of cooperation.

It was strategically prudent (along with the security fence) and a nice fig leaf for peace process- it's a start.

Gaza today,the West Bank and Jerusalem tomorrow-Abbas-http://tinyurl.com/9x6n4

This one is still playing itself out. It may not be a huge story in and of itself (as time wears on), however, the results/events/conclusion it is likely to lead to will be. As the world is watching the Israelis leave, most outsiders now expect the Palestinians to be nice (to a degree) in return. Mark my words right here: THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Anyone who thinks it will does not understand the mentality of the street in the Middle East. Most Arabs do not view concessions as signs of good faith. They see them as indications of weakness. Further, Yasser Arafat never prepared his people for the potential of peace. It runs generations deep. They expect and/or want all the Jews gone. Period. Attacks on the West Bank will increase. Sharon is setting the stage for justification of SERIOUS military action against the Palestinians. He is not old and out of it. He is old and knows his enemy well.

If I recall accurately, Israel took possession of the Gaza Strip as a result of the 1967 war started by the Syrians, won convincingly by the Israelis. The people who settled there did so at great personal risk, have suffered innumerable terrorist attacks and are simply being displaced by their own government, against their will. They're hoping this doesn't indicate weakness to the Palestinian terrorists, but diplomacy. Not a reward for the effectiveness of terrorism, but a gesture toward peace. What an incredible time to be alive.

A huge, watershed event. Sharon's surprising backing of this initiative will be a litmus test for Islamic / Western relations. Sharon has put the ball / responsibility squarely in Palestine's camp for moving the peace process forward. The question is: can/will Palestine control the terrorist violence of organizations like Hamas and Hizballah?

A huge story. How this will play out, in all its myriad possible ramifications will be intriguing, and probably somewhat bloody.