In what should be the least unexpected news of the year, the Palestinian-Israeli cease-fire agreement is all but defunct after a surge in militant rocket attacks and Israeli retaliations. In the last week, hundreds of militant rockets have been fired at Israel killing at least six civilians, while Israeli military forces have resumed targeted counter attacks against terrorist leaders.

The news stories about these events are sadly predictable and could probably be written fairly accurately in advance. A typical outline goes something like this: “Hamas fired several rockets and sent a suicide bomber into Israel, killing several innocent civilians and wounding many others. Israeli commandos retaliated by sniping one militant leader and killing a few others with a gunship attack. A Hamas spokesman denounced these retaliations as crimes and vowed revenge. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas called for an end to the violence. Washington urged the two sides to resume peace talks.”

I call this the least unexpected news of the year in part because the cease-fire never really existed to begin with. The first rockets were fired just two days after the agreement was signed on Feb. 8.

In a March 1 column on the subject, I wrote the truce was misguided because peace is not a goal of the militants. “Israel,” I said, “seems, in its eagerness for peace, to have put this knowledge temporarily out of mind.”

What I did not attempt to predict at the time was the prospects of then newly-elected Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Whatever optimism of an Abbas-led reform that existed five months ago has been firmly put to rest. He has shown himself to be essentially lukewarm, both in regard to attacking Israel and to ending such attacks. His detached approach is captured by the ever-present news story sentence: “Abbas called for an end to violence.”

The lack of substance to his words is captured succinctly in a news photo in Saturday’s Rocky Mountain News. The photo shows an obsolete Palestinian tank, tires flattened, set ablaze with a gasoline fire. The tank, resembling a playground more than a tool for military force, is covered and surrounded by about 20 unarmed Palestinians, ages 12 to 30, wearing T-shirts, jeans and sandals. The picture was taken in Gaza City, where Palestinian police were essentially run out of town by militant groups, their station burned down and their vehicles destroyed. Such is the result of Abbas’ five months of “crackdown.”

Contrast this to the image of bulldozed homes of Israeli settlers in Gaza which are being evacuated by Israel in hopes of furthering the cause of peace. The recent violence, the utter inability or unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to curb it and the track record of militant groups should raise serious doubts as to the long- term benefits of the pullout plan.

The prospects for peace are dim, considering that groups like Hamas, emboldened by recent municipal election success, are already licking their chops over the control of post-pullout Gaza.

Another harmful consequence of a pullout is the encouragement of further attacks. One poll found that up to three quarters of Palestinians supported Hamas’ contention that the pullout is a direct result of the intifada. Common sense dictates that rewarding violence is counter to the goal of lasting peace, yet the Gaza pullout seems to be just that, even if that is not Israel’s intention.

One would expect such issues to cause at least some hesitation about the whole plan. The words of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suggest otherwise. If you heard that Sharon advocated the “severest possible measures,” and assumed he was talking about retaliating against terrorists, you’d be wrong.

In this instance, he is referring to the sealing off of Gaza to prevent opponents from slowing the pullout process. The zealous dedication to a pullout that could very likely bring disaster should at least give cause for some reconsideration.

I won’t bother to make dire predictions now. They would only fall on deaf ears.