However, profound doubts and scepticism abound with regard to Sharon's evacuation drama in Gaza. "In fact, Gaza is a bit of side show", says Jonathan Lindley of the Royal United Services Institute in London. "It changes very little in the greater shape of the conflict". Indeed the two sides continue to be way apart when attention turns to the West Bank -- with very different ideas on how fast to move and what the final destination should be.

A growing number of Palestinians are beginning to believe that an Israeli disengagement in an impoverished Gaza will not mean the end of occupation even there. The Gaza Strip would still be an occupied territory under international law according to Renad Qubbaj of Ramallah-based Palestinian NGO network because the Israeli army will remain in effective control of all border crossings in and out of Gaza. The disengagement plan also states that "Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of Gaza Strip and continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza airspace and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off its coast. The Palestinians in Gaza will have no control over the airports, seaports or natural resources thus virtually turning Gaza into vast prison for them.

A paper released by the same NGO network says "the disengagement plan is a trade off meant to legitimise the Israeli settlements in the West Bank including in and around Jerusalem. The Palestinians fear that the price for Gaza is a stronger Israeli hold on the West Bank and East Jerusalem which they also want for a state. At least for now Israel is likely to reinforce their fear as Sharon stresses that Israel will never give up major West Bank settlement blocs -- of course, with the apparent blessings of its US patrons while there will obviously be no talks of Palestinian statehood until all militants are disarmed.

Meanwhile, work has sped up on Israel's West Bank barrier looping deep into the territory to take in settlement blocs. Though Israel dubs it a temporary measure to stop suicide bombers the Palestinians call it land grab to deny them a viable state. The barrier creates the reality of a new border whether there are talks or not. Sharon aids hint that the isolated settlement east of the barrier might one day have to go but in the short-term Sharon will be able to shift the settlement rightward ahead of 2006 election. It will benefit him in his electoral bout with another hawk, Netanyahu. Therefore, more settlement expansion and huge Israeli retaliation to any Palestinian resistance are just too obvious.

The US Secretary of State, Ms Condoleezza Rice visiting the region in advance of the Israeli pull out from Gaza reassured the Palestinians that her country was committed to the realisation of two independent, democratic and viable states: Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security. Ms Rice also told the reporters that "we also recognise that the economic revival of the Palestinian territories is a key element for peace." That means that as the Israelies withdraw from Gaza it cannot be sealed or isolated area with the Palestinian people closed in after the pull out. Rice continued that "we want openness and freedom of Palestinian people. We are committed also to connectivity between Gaza and West Bank."

However, given the US' unqualified support to all Israeli policies aimed at fulfilling its dream of a greater Israel it appears highly unlikely that Rice's mealy mouthed words of assurance for the Palestinians can ever come to fruition. Sharon has no intention of ever pulling out of the West Bank. The Gaza evacuation is in fact his clever move to augment the West Bank's Jewish population by rehabilitation of those Jews who have left Gaza -- in West Bank which already has 4,000,000 Jewish settlers. This will in course of time enable Israel to incorporate their biblical land of 'Judea and Samaria' in Israel proper. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon seems to be enjoying Bush Administration's blanket support in this regard. In fact, during one of Sharon's visit to Washington President Bush told the media that Israel would keep 'some' land in West Bank thus torpedoing the 'road map' prepared by the Quaret -- the US, the UN, the EU and Russia.

Actually, the larger dimension of the Sharon's game plan behind Gaza withdrawal runs counter to the spirit of all UN resolutions and peace plan including the Oslo accords and the April, 2003 road map for peace which all presupposed 'land for peace'. Now it is changed to 'land for time.' Israel is in no hurry. Part of the point of the Gaza plan was to ensure a Jewish majority in lands including the West Bank -- now under Israel's control. The security barrier made in defiance of International Court of Justice will render Palestinian attacks across it difficult. According to Ali Jarbawi, a Palestinian analyst, Israel might have bought some time with its gimmick over Gaza but this unilateral approach of her will hardly be acceptable to the Palestinians.

Mahmoud Abbas with his hands empty, is under much more pressure to deliver. He faces a huge, immediate challenge in controlling his security forces and reining in unruly gunmen even from his own Fatah government. Another incipient challenge to his leadership is steadily growing from the Hamas after the latter's huge gain in local body election. While their political rise is phenomenal, the election due in Israel will be fought between the two hawks.

Whoever wins on either side they, particularly the Israelis, will be buried in domestic politics and resist any external pressure for peace talks. In that event the age-old conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians will continue ad infinitum. There could have been an element of historiography is Gaza pull-out but in no way it could promote the cause of peace in the Middle East.

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.