The only reason Israel has had to act in a 'unilateral' fashion is the utter absence of a negotiating partner both capable of and interested in hammering out a serious agreement. Sharon has correctly dealt with the matter as a military issue, pulling settlements out of areas which are difficult if not impossible to defend without an unreasonable risk to Israeli soldiers. One is reminded of Hindenburg's withdrawal from much of East Prussia prior to the Battle of Tannenberg, in order to consolidate his forces in an attack against the over-extended Tsarist Army. Had he succumbed to Junker pressure to defend each and every crappy little fiefdom, the Germans might well have gotten swamped on the Russian Front.

The tough choice for Sharon is going to be Hebron. It has both religious and historical significance to Jews and is of historical importance to modern Israelis. It is the burial place of Abraham, and prior to the pogroms of 1929 had been a place of continuous Jewish settlement for 3000 years.

The Syrians have given no one any reason to support their claims to Golan. They continue to be a sponsor of terror, an imperial presence in Lebanon and a hiding place for people killing Americans.

I would expect continued Israeli pullouts to a point more or less contiguous to the current fence. Then, if the Israelis are smart, they will discontinue allowing Arabs to pass through the fence for any reason, and look to foreigners to do the unskilled labor. The 'cold peace' with Egypt has essentially worked for Israel, so a 'cold peace' with the so-called Palestinians should work just fine.

Bart:

Actually, the genius was to stop treating it as a military issue and start dealing with it as a demographic issue. They've already said they're giving the Golan back.

The demographics required treating it like a military rather than a political issue. The Israelis were unwilling to behave like the Spartans and so could not rule over a large population of helots. The decision they have made is to withdraw to an easily defended, topographically rational border.

No Israeli government can survive surrendering the Golan. I don't know where you heard that Sharon is giving it back. Sure, there are some Labor Party hacks who were given general's stars who may support the idea, and the criminal and traitor Rabin mentioned it in passing, but every poll ever taken on the subject shows that Middle Israel opposes it. OTOH, Middle Israel has pretty much always been more in favor of giving up territory in Judea, Samaria and especially Gaza.

They surrendered a vast portion of the territory they claim historically in order not to be voted out of power by Muslims. They lost militarily in order to preserve something politically.

The Golan is gone:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/014863.html

General Moshe Yaalon, a Labor party stooge with stars on his shoulders, suggested that Israel could give up the Golan. That is a very far cry from the Israeli public, which has vivid memories of rockets going from the Golan into Kiryat Shimona and elsewhere, accepting the notion.

When that Clintonista Shinseki claimed we needed more troops in Iraq did that mean it was official American policy that we needed more troops in Iraq?

Was Shinseki Chairman of the JCS in 2003?