Palestinians mourn for their relatives killed in the ongoing Israeli siege of Gaza. (Wissam Nassar, Maan Images)

Once more, there has been an upsurge of violence in the Gaza Strip. Israeli military attacks have killed over 30 Palestinians in the last few days, while in the neighbouring Israeli city of Sderot and across the Negev, Palestinian rockets have fallen in their dozens.

At the same time, however, there is also a renewed emphasis on negotiations - it was only Monday that Israelis and Palestinians began to discuss issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and the borders of the proposed Palestinian state. Most of the media coverage this week has dealt with these parallel stories by referring to the fresh bloodshed as coming "despite" the "renewed peace talks", or as representing an ill-timed challenge to the successful continuation of the top-level meetings.

The IDF operations and rocket attacks are indeed linked to the so-called peace process, but not in the way that most have suggested. One cannot divorce events in Gaza and Sderot from the Annapolis agenda since, in fact, far from being a threatening interruption to Olmert-Abbas talks, the violence is sadly a natural extension of Roadmap logic.

First, let us remember the context for Israel's self-declared "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The spectacle of Israeli soldiers dragging away screaming settlers, an image which apparently symbolised the rift in Israeli society between those willing to compromise and the religious extremists, was a useful smokescreen for the openly-stated motivations for the redeployment. From then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to veteran statesmen like Shimon Peres and US negotiator Dennis Ross, it was explained that disengagement was about demographics, the term preferred in polite conversation for the reality that Palestinians are considered a strategic threat on account of their race.

Related stories Punitive engineering Honorary citizenship of the moon Palestinian refugees still skeptical after Bush visit

As Sharon's advisor, Dov Weisglass, made clear, disengagement was all about putting the peace process in "formaldehyde". Talking to Ha'aretz newspaper, Weisglass boasted how disengagement legitimised "our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians", and moreover:

"... in regard to the large settlement blocs, thanks to the disengagement plan, we have in our hands a first-ever American statement that they will be part of Israel ... Sharon can tell the leaders of the settlers that he is evacuating 10,000 settlers and in the future he will be compelled to evacuate another 10,000, but he is strengthening the other 200,000, strengthening their hold in the soil.

To read the full article please visit The Guardian.