Exactly a year ago today, on September 12, 2005, Israeli soldiers locked the iron gates of Gaza. After 38 years of occupation, the settlers of Gush Katif were evacuated, "with resolve and sensitivity," to quote the catchwords back then, but also with rivers of tears. On that day, the last of the soldiers withdrew, without an accord, without an agreement, in a move that Ariel Sharon called "disengagement."

It is no coincidence that while the Zionist left began building in the territories, as if the land had been theirs for generations, it took two extremist leaders, believers in a Greater Land of Israel - Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon - to start giving the land back. When Begin was elected, Time magazine called him a warmonger. But he returned all of Sinai to Egypt and set a precedent. He showed that giving up every last inch of territory in exchange for peace was possible.

Sharon, who was also portrayed as a man of war and a promoter of settlement in the West Bank, surprised the world with his historic declaration that Greater Israel was a dream and the time had come to wake up. Only a leader as strong as Sharon, one of the driving spirits behind this dream, could find the inner strength to impose his will on his supporters and friends and set the dream aside. Indeed, at a later stage in their lives, both of these radical leaders were rehabilitated in the eyes of the international community.

	Advertisement

With no Palestinian partner for implementing George W. Bush's road map, Sharon chose unilateral disengagement. But the far right, the settlers and most of his Likud buddies could not forgive him. They battled tooth and nail to bring him down and block the next step - evacuations in the West Bank. Sharon's plan won massive public support, and the surveys predicted 45 seats for his new party. But God clearly has a macabre sense of humor. At this historic juncture in the life of the country, he sent Sharon into a coma.

It has been a year now since the first concrete step was taken to shelve the dream. What happened in the meantime? All the things we never dreamed of. Anyone who thought that Gaza was behind us discovered that it was right here on our doorstep. We discovered that pulling the Israel Defense Forces out of Gaza was a lot easier than pulling poor people, who feel that they have nothing to lose, out of despair. They see the red roofs and green fields of Israeli communities. They see the industrial and urban development around Ashkelon. Gazing southward, they see Egypt, which has never lifted a finger to help them, and they are exploding.

This year, we have seen how impossible it is to rid the inhabitants of Gaza of the feeling that there is nothing left to lose. Two months after they were "liberated from the occupation" and took a step toward democracy, Hamas won a landslide victory, thumbing its nose at Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen).

In Israel, the Qassam rocket fire from Gaza is perceived as ingratitude. Didn't we pack up and leave? Why, instead of building a world-class holiday village on their beautiful beach, are they continuing to shoot? Why are they kidnapping our soldiers and carrying out suicide bombings? What we fail to grasp is that all this violence is actually directed at Abu Mazen - for agreeing to an Israeli pullout without an agreement, without them getting something to promote their welfare.

Benjamin Netanyahu was right when he said that quitting Lebanon and Gaza without agreements would be interpreted by the Palestinians as a victory for them and a sign of our weakness. That Hamas and Hezbollah have grown stronger after our departure is not accidental. The peace and quiet we hoped for in the north and south have not materialized.

Iran's most successful exports - Islamic fanaticism and the call for Israel's eradication - have found fertile ground in Gaza. After the Oslo Accords, after peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, the Palestinians are so full of despair that all they want is to see us gone.

Ehud Olmert - Sharon he's not - was wrong to replace "disengagement" with "convergence." While "disengagement" implies that we are capable of evacuating settlements and giving up territory, the term "convergence" has an egocentric ring to it. It says: We will converge wherever we want and wherever we decide is best.

Today it is clear that without dialogue, without negotiations with the Palestinians, all that Olmert can look forward to is a future paved with investigations and a government without a diplomatic horizon. "Depressing" is an understatement.