...The arguments in favor of unilateral solutions seem compelling. Israel has no credible Palestinian partner. Terrorism and violence are rampant. So why not reduce Israeli exposure by eliminating the need for the Israeli military to protect small pockets of settlers with large numbers of forces?

Because, first, in the rough-and-tumble Arab-Israeli conflict, giving without getting would only encourage Israel's enemies to ask for more and in the process erode Israeli deterrence. Hezbollah still claims that it is the only Arab party that has forced Israel to withdraw from Arab territory -- southern Lebanon -- without giving anything in return. Indeed, many Palestinians in the West Bank learned by example. Within three months of that Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in June 2000, the Palestinians had begun the intifada. The reaction of Hamas and the al Aqsa Brigades to Sharon's current proposal -- "we're winning" -- should by itself give pause.

Second, if the current initiative reflects an Israeli strategy of Gaza first but Gaza only, it will not improve Israel's political or strategic position vis-a-vis the Palestinians or the international community. Some Israelis may believe that withdrawing from Gaza would somehow improve their capacity to retain the strategically and ideologically more important West Bank. Thirty years ago, Menachem Begin tried trading Sinai in order to keep the West Bank. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Most Israelis know that Israel has a strategic need to separate from millions of West Bank Palestinians, who pose a critical challenge to its security and viability as a democratic Jewish state...