Realignment?

We've had "disengagement," "convergence," "consolidation" and now "realignment." What difference does a word make? In this case a lot. What is being sought is a translation of the Hebrew term: התכנסות(hitkansut) in English that is neutral enough not to be threatening or negative in any way, a term simply describing a movement, but without its implications. Thus, we don't use the term "concentration" (because of the connection to "camps") or "withdrawal" (sounds like a retreat) or "transfer" (it sounds too much like ethnic cleansing) or even "retrenchment." Since the visit to Washington Olmert's Plan is now called the "realignment plan."
Realignment is the perfect word because it implies no loss, merely a rearrangment of resources. But, after the Gaza disengagement, what happened? There was no reciprocation from the Palestinians, for the most part the Israeli facilities were destroyed. Most notably, the greenhouses that were bought for millions of dollars by a group of (mostly Jewish) Americans (suckers) for the Palestinians to use, have largely been trashed by groups of armed gunmen, probably al Aksa or Islamic Jihad, because they don't want anything left by the Israelis to remain (this is the usual practice of the Palestinians, they totally destroyed the few Jewish settlements they captured in the War of Independence in 1948, such as Kfar Etzion, even uprooting all the trees!), such is their hatred! The hope of the Palestinians to export their produce through the Karni crossing was sunk by the continued attacks and threats by the terrorist groups against it, thus causing Israel to close the crossing most of the time. At present it is only open periodically for the transfer of humanitarian aid into the PA.
And from a political pov the disengagement from Gaza was a failure. It did turn the tide for a while on the European attitude towards Israel, but the basic sympathy for the Palestinians is still very evident. Its true that the election of Hamas caused a cessation of US and EU payments to the PA. But, there has been no admission that the previous payments were completely wasted as far as humanitarian issues were concerned. Billions of dollars were stolen at all levels, and nothing was left in the PA coffers, so they are currently bankrupt and cannot pay their government worker's salaries. At least the EU has given up on the idea of paying their salaries directly since this would clearly be a subsidy to the Hamas Government. Today there were major demonstrations in Gaza and Ramallah against Hamas for non-payment of salaries.
At present, the Office of Pres. Abbas is in the process of trying to organize a referendum of the Palestinian people on the issue of the peace proposal of the Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, that was adopted a few weeks ago. This closely follows the so-called Arab or Saudi plan that gives the Arabs everything they want, Israel must withdraw to the pre-June 1967 borders, give up all the land and Jerusalem, and allow the "right of return" to all Arab refugees, and then they might recognize Israel (but there is no commitment to an "end of conflict" clause). This "plan" is unacceptable to Israel, being the complete Arab position, without any consideration of Israeli interests or compromise. Needless to say Hamas opposes this plan and this referendum.
So the disengagement from Gaza did very little for Israel, except reduce casualties and make the job of the IDF somewhat easier. But, even that is debatable given that the IDF has admitted that it has been sending patrols deep into Gaza, as well as using artillery bombardments, to try to stop the Kassam rockets falling on the Negev. They admitted this the other day when a patrol managed to kill four terrorists and wound eight when they were caught on a launching mission. In fact the number of rocket launchings are down, but still continuing.
Now its true that disengagement, as used in Gaza and northern Samaria, is not quite the same as realignment, as being used in relation to the West Bank. In the case of Gaza, Israel left the area completely (until now), but in the West Bank we definitely intend to keep some of it (say 10-20%). So Olmert's plan is to move all the settlers in "isolated settlements" into the zones of the densely populated areas, including Ariel, Etzion and Ma'ale Adumim. But, remember the West Bank is a small area, not as tiny as Gaza, but not much bigger than Montgomery County, Maryland (where we used to live), so such movements are quite small, and yet politically very significant. One can understand why settlers who have lived for up to 30 years in some of these places will oppose moving on religious and practical grounds, to be uprooted to move a short distance, particularly when they see how the Gaza settlers were abandoned by the Government once they had been displaced.
So the question is, "is this journey really necessary." In an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled: "West Bank Terrorist State; The folly of Israeli disengagement," James Woolsey, former Head of the CIA, is one of a growing number of leading American experts who are arguing that the "realignment" from the West Bank is a step too far, not only is it a potential danger for Israel, but by empowering the Islamist terrorist organizations even further, it is a threat to the stability of Jordan, Egypt and to the USA itself.
Israel needs permanent borders, but if they will not be recognized by the international community there is no point in withdrawing to them. And if the other side is controlled by Hamas, an unregenerate terrorist enemy of Israel, why give them any land without negotiations and recognition. And finally, was Fatah under Arafat or Abbas really engaged in peaceful negotiations with Israel? They never even took the first step required of them in the Road Map, to stop all terrorism and disband the terrorist organizations. So we should do what's in our interests, and realigning from areas of the West Bank without a partner is not it!