The astute Ami Isseroff complained this week about “the mountain of publicity generated over the molehill of disengagement” in Gaza:

As Isseroff wearily explains:

Furthermore, he notes, Gaza was never a central part of Greater Israel; in Biblical times it belonged to the Phillistines. (I might add that its sole religious significance is as the setting for mass slaying of Phillistines by Samson; who, by the way, has been diagnosed with a serious mental disorder and may not be the worst conceivable symbol of the settlers.) Isseroff is aware, of course, that Sharon has played a gambit to prepare for annexing large chunks of the West Bank, which, unlike Gaza, is rather essential to the Greater Israel idea. He thinks, however, that the settler movement made a fatal error in taking a stand over the dispensable Gaza Strip instead of Jerusalem or Hebron:

Much as I hope this analysis is correct, I surmise the reason they made such a fuss about Gaza, despite having long realized that the cause is lost, was to send this message: “Behold, such is the hell we can raise over 8,000 settlers on a dusty patch of land peripheral to Jewish history and religion. Just imagine, then, the consequences of removing 220,000 from Judea and Samaria!”

And though the evacuation proceeded as smoothly as could be expected, that message may well have gotten through to the recipient - not Sharon, but any Israeli leader even contemplating full withdrawal from the West Bank. Which, in turn, is critical to a just peace.