Against the advice of army generals, Sharon insisted on extending military operations in the northern Gaza Strip region, indicating that "Days of Penitence" were also politically motivated.

On Friday, the Israeli army began moving forces from inside Palestinian cities and towns in the northern Gaza strip to the outskirts, keeping a tight control of the area, but also signaling the end of operation "Days of Penitence".

The army moved out of densely populated cities of Jabalia, Beit Lahia, and Beit Hanoun, leaving behind a post-earthquake like scene.

With approximately 130 people killed, including 30 children, during the 18 days long operation,the army left behind destroyed towns and it's residents in mourning.

Against the expectations of many analysts, the delay in withdrawing forces from Palestinian towns came from Israeli political circles, not the security establishment.

Analysts expected that with the deteriorating human conditions in the northern Gaza Strip, the Israeli government would be subjected to tremendous international pressure, and therefore would call an end to the military operation against the will of army generals.

Yet, in practice, and during the past few days, Israeli prime minister twice refused to approve an army request to end the "Days of Penitence" operation, insisting that the offense should continue until the launching of Qassam rockets is ended.

In an appeal to the political establishment, army generals explained that it was meaningless from a security point of view to continue with the wide scale military offense. However, Sharon delayed withdrawal approval, forcing army generals to maintain troop presence for an additional two days.

Evidently, with the United States veto in the UN Security Council, Sharon felt that he enjoyed a solid international umbrella of support even as the death toll among Palestinian civilians was unprecedented: close to one Palestinian killed every three hours.

The question remains: why would Sharon act against the advice of his generals and insist on prolonging the offensive in densely populated Palestinian cities and refugee camps?

Even without forcing an extension, the security risk resulting from the firing of homemade rockets at Sderot, compared to the excessive usage of force, with little, if any, sensitivity to civilian casualties of operation "Days of Penitence" is questionale.

After 15 days of intensive assaults, army generals concluded that nothing more could be done to achieve "security" goals, admitting that the operation failed to end the firing of Qassam rockets.

One can't but conclude that extending the military operation was politically motivated.

It is likely that more Palestinians were killed and further destruction was achieved because Sharon is attempting to gain more support from the right wing camp in Israel, especially the right wing within his own party.

It is also possible that such massive and destructive operations would block any attempt to integrate his disengagement plan into the road map peace initiative.

Building on past experience, military attacks that result in massive bloodshed have always achieved an end to all initiatives introduced to reduce the level of violence and pave the way for diplomatic negotiations.

Such offensives have consistently triggered revenge attacks and have escalated the endless cycle of violence in the region.

Operation "Days of Penitence" has no doubt alienated the internationally backed Egyptian efforts to bring about a coordinated disengagement that could serve as a step towards implementing the road map peace initiative.

It is not possible to examine the political reasons behind extending "Days of Penitence" without looking at the real aims of the unilateral disengagement plan, as presented by Dove Weisglass, Sharon's top aid, and one of the main architects of the plan.

Even when Sharon stated that Weisglass' comments on disengagement were solely his viewpoint, Sharon affirmed that he has no intentions of firing him.

Weisglass, in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, said that the main aim of presenting the disengagement plan was to freeze the peace process and exclude the idea of establishing a Palestinian state.