Carnac the Magnificent gives the answer: “Chaos, infighting, renewed intifada.” The question always seemed so obvious after Johnny Carson then read it. “What happens next in Gaza?”.

Hardliners among the approximately 8000 settlers, although surrounded by about 1.3 million hostiles, protest leaving what they’ve built, but most are expected to leave peacefully, and enriched by large payments from Israel. Israeli forces will no longer be tied down to protect their enclaves. But, new demands on Israel and its forces remain.

Hardheaded analysts point out that the Gazans and their rulers offer only more trouble for Israel from a sanctuary for terror, and that withdrawal encourages militants to increase attacks in the West Bank and to demand control of Jerusalem and the destruction of Israel.

The founding director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, based in East Jerusalem, on July 27 in Lebanon’s The Daily Star wrote pessimistically of Palestinians leaders’ commitment or competence to effect economic improvements, security or peace, due to their corruption. The secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, Mustafa Barghouti, writes in Al-Ahram that the ineffectiveness of Palestinian leaders and institutions is largely responsible for “a panicked scramble for cosmetic solutions rather than an attempt to confront real challenges” of true democraticization of Palestinian politics.

The Palestinian Authority’s number two man, Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, declared July 28 that, “The process that started in 1965 is now making its way, through the strong determination and will of our people, toward Jerusalem, the West Bank and the rest of the homeland.” Hamas-Al Quaeda links have been reported. A leading MidEast reporting watchdog, CAMERA, reports the U.S.’ leading media’s “double standard” has led to downplaying statements by Palestinian leaders promising more violence.

The opponents of withdrawal are correct about the likely immediate portents.

Of course, there are boosters, but they are fewer and further between, and their optimism is more in public than private. The United States is most prominent in trying to make the disengagement work. The U.S., and its fellow more passive quartet members, sent former World Bank head James Wolfensohn to aid economics of the Gazan entity, including $3-billion of promised support, and to work out civilian matters like transit and the transfer and recompense for settlement property. America's Lt. Gen. William Ward was sent to help reform the Palestinian security services, to arrange effective controls against those committed to violence by developing a unified command under peaceful civilian authority.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stands firmly behind the disengagement prospects, saying during her recent visit to meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders: “Both parties will have to do their parts if this is to be a peaceful and orderly withdrawal from Gaza.” She pressured the Palestinians that, “Much more needs to be done particularly to actively use the security forces to combat lawlessness, and to combat terrorism.”

In early August, Rice sent a senior advisor, James Wilkinson, to improve the effectiveness and public relations of PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas. Rice has also been reported as forceful with senior Israeli leaders, insisting on resolving Palestinian concerns with issues of access, security, travel, and import/export. But, despite these efforts, even Rice is keeping her political distance. The New York Times’ reporter in Jerusalem reported that “one American official in the region said” Rice decided against a trip to Israel next week to monitor the Gaza pullout. Quoting this American official, the report continues, “She’ll get credit if it works, and she doesn’t want to be here if it doesn’t.”

Formerly optimistic, U.S. News & World Report’s Mortimer Zuckerman now observes, “the Middle East’s old diplomatic game of make-believe is back….The Palestinian Authority is in disarray. Abbas ducked elections in Gaza scheduled for July 17. Hamas opposes a negotiated peace, but it is filling the void left by the Palestinian Authority. . . . Abbas’ strategy has been to present himself as a victim…in the hope that the international community will force Israel to make still more concessions.” There is little or no reason to believe that the weight of the international press, of European governments, in the U.N., and from those in the U.S. who place hope or anti-Western agendas above experience will lead to an epiphany supporting Israel.

I asked an authority on Israel and its politics, who recently returned from there, Rutger’s Judy Klinghoffer (see her wonderful blog at History News Network,) her opinion whether the disengagement will put international and media focus and onus on the failings of the Palestinians and their Arab state supporters, rather than on Israel. Not among the optimistic on this score, Klinghoffer adds, “If it is going to be successful, non-violent, we will have a great opportunity to sell democracy as a system that enables a government to make hard choices without sacrificing freedom or human rights. It will also be an opportunity for the PA if they take the bull by the horns and decide to build instead of destroy, break with the Arafat model.” Klinghoffer continues, “it is a contest between experience and hope though the international atmospherics have changed so I think there is a small chance Israel will not have to return.”

That’s about as halting an optimistic assessment as I can currently find.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Sunday resigned from the Israeli Cabinet, challenging the disengagement. Netanyahu set out his views in a recent interview. On the other hand, the details of any other country’s internal politics are not so one-dimensional. A realignment among Israel’s politicos may result, as happens in a democracy.

No such portents, especially in the virtual absence of strong democratic institutions and honest leaders dedicated to peace, appears imminent among the Palestinians in favor of peace and progress for the Palestinians.

Reprinted with permission of the author after article originally appeared at  www.democracy-project.com