We literally have no idea what this sentence means:

Launching a wide-scale operation in Gaza would be imprudent and ill-advised, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said during a Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting on Monday. "I highly recommended that we do not get tangled up in operations and costs which are disproportionate to the constraints we are facing," he said. Olmert expressed his satisfaction with the IDF's performance in fighting terror organizations in the Gaza Strip. "I think that hundreds of dead terrorists in Gaza over the past year are a very significant loss for the terror organizations.," he said. Having said that, Olmert reiterated that in the future he might decide to approve a wide-scale operation.

"Constraints" has to be a mistranslation, but we can't imagine how the original sentence could have made sense. "Costs" maybe? Anyway, it's nonsense - the entire basis of unilateral Israeli territorial concessions is that a bargain is struck: Israel will leave the Palestinians alone, but if they persist in their blind genocidal lunacy then Israel will come back in and treat them like military enemies. So while Olmert is promising Israelis security, he's demonstrating to the Palestinians that the rock bottom, most basic Israeli expectation - that the Palestinians not respond to concessions with increased genocidal fervor - isn't an actual red line. Which makes sense given that the rest of his cabinet appears to think it's still the early 1990s:

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Monday that while Israel was willing to make significant territorial concessions in peace negotiations with the Palestinians, any deal reached would depend on the Palestinian Authority fulfilling all of its road map obligations. "I can not afford to sit on the wayside and wait for things to pass us by, wait for the pragmatists to be replaced ideological extremists and terrorists who see things this as a religious war," Livni stated. The negotiations themselves were not a concession, she said, and Israel was not approaching them from a weak or defeatist position.

(1) Actually, even the most abstract negotiations are functional concessions since they're used as the starting point for future talks even if they're inconclusive.

(2) Considering the recent polls that show plummeting Fatah support in the West Bank, it looks like a majority of Palestinians are already among those who "see this as a religious war." Except replace "majority" with "even bigger majority."

(3) You'd think that Oslo would have dissuaded people from making concessions to moderates right before they lose power. Or that Gaza would have done it. Or that common sense would have done it. Alas, no.

UPDATE: Might as well order a full scale invasion. He's going to catch the same kind of hell from the international community anyway.

References:
* PM: I don't recommend major Gaza op [JPost]
* One Jerusalem Conference Call: Ambassador Dore Gold On How Current Limited Negotiations Are A Slippery Slope To Losing Jerusalem [MR]
* Hey, How About Having Fatah Support Plummet In The West Bank? [MR]
* Hamas Victory - Don't Pretend to Be Shocked [MR]
* Hamas Has 200 Tons Of Explosives That The US Gave To Fatah (Plus: Egypt Says It's Israel's Fault) [MR]

Previously:
* Palestinian Non-Civil War Watch - Hamas Kidnaps Senior Fatah Leader, Shaves His Mustache
* Fatah Security Forces: "Murderers Of Two Israelis Aren't Terrorists". Murderers Of Two Israelis: "We're Fatah Terrorists" (Plus: Fatah Hid Them From Israeli Security)
* Fatah Moderates Respond To Billions In Aid By Stressing Unity With Terrorists

Cross-posted to:
* Israpundit