I think you are partially right. I can see that Sharon was a great tactician. He could have perceived the conditions and profited from them in the withdrawal. More telling than what happened previous, which I do not think you can attribute to Sharon more than the nature of trying to successfully militarily occupy a people, is the conditions after withdrawal. Economic closures, lack of trade, no ability to control borders, lack of access to resources, inability to raise money to fund public work projects as Israel takes its share and at its whim can decide not to give the money it takes in taxes back to the people the taxes are meant to service. These things are part of the Sharon effort and are attributable to his administration. They directly undermine a Middle Class or bourgeois element that would lend stability to a nation coming out of war time. This is an ancient tactic used in the siege of walled cities. Cut off access to the outside world and resources until surrender.
Iran ready to work together with Saudi Arabia for Mideast stability, says FM (Reuters)
from the article: It is not from heaven
As long as fighters are willing to remain there, the besieged city will not fall. But life there will become hell.13:03 12.02.16 | 0 comments