Tel Aviv, Aug 15 (AP) Twenty years have passed since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling 21 Jewish settlements and pulling its forces out. Now, as the Friday anniversary of this significant disengagement nears, Israel finds itself in a challenging nearly two-year war with Hamas. The ongoing conflict has devastated the Palestinian territory, suggesting Israel might maintain a military presence there for a considerable time. Israel’s disengagement, which also saw the removal of four settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, was initiated by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a controversial attempt to renew negotiations with the Palestinians. This move deeply divided Israeli society and indirectly empowered Hamas, leaving lasting implications that continue to echo today. The haunting images of Jewish settlers being removed from their homes by Israeli soldiers stirred strong emotions among Israel’s far-right and settler movements. This anger fueled their organization and political influence, contributing to the rise of hard-line politicians like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Notably, Smotrich recently announced a plan for settlement expansion east of Jerusalem aimed at undermining the notion of a future Palestinian state. For Palestinians, while the disengagement might have been welcomed, it did not terminate Israel's influence over their lives. Soon after, the 2006 elections saw Hamas rising to power, eventually expelling the Palestinian Authority in a violent takeover. Consequently, Israel and Egypt imposed a closure on Gaza, regulating the movement of goods and people. The resultant blockade, varying in intensity over the years, contributed to economic hardships and deepened the separation between Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel, which seized the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war, faces demands from Palestinians for these territories to form a future independent state. Regarding the decision to withdraw, Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at the Misgav Institute and the Institute for National Security Studies, explains that it was motivated by the untenable military and economic costs of maintaining heavily fortified settlements in Gaza. With about 8,000 Israeli settlers versus 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza in 2005, the settlements lacked viability as strategic anchors, unlike the more developed West Bank settlements that enjoy broader support. The unilateral nature of Israel’s withdrawal, made independently of the Palestinian Authority, inadvertently enhanced Hamas’ standing among Palestinians in Gaza. “This contributed to Hamas' win in the elections in 2006, because they leveraged it as a significant achievement,” Michael notes, framing it as evidence of resistance successes and a rationale for continued armed resistance. The internal conflict footage between Israeli settlers and soldiers left a lasting impact on Israeli society. Reflecting on the future, Michael doesn't foresee any government repeating such disengagement, creating challenges for flexibility over West Bank settlements in potential future negotiations for a two-state solution. “Disengagement will never happen again, this is a price we're paying as a society, and a price we're paying politically," he concludes. Among those yearning to return is Anita Tucker, who was part of the first group of Jewish families settling in the Gaza Strip in 1976, recalling the community and farm they built in harsh conditions. Her memories include the moment when Israeli soldiers arrived to evacuate them, leaving enduring regrets over the disengagement's consequences. For her, the decision had personal and broader negative repercussions. Despite time passing, the longing to return remains strong, with her grandchildren connected to the area through their service in the current conflict. However, some Palestinians view the initial withdrawal as an incomplete process, dubbing Gaza an “open-air prison” under Hamas leadership yet ensnared by Israel's external control. Skepticism abounds about any future complete withdrawal from Gaza by Israel, particularly following Netanyahu’s potential plans to maintain long-term security control. Amjad Shawa, from the Palestinian NGO Network, and other local figures express doubt that Netanyahu will fully repeat Sharon’s actions, fearing perpetual military presence through buffer zones. The missed chances and missteps form a reflective narrative among Israeli viewpoints. Former Maj Gen Dan Harel, overseeing the Southern Command during disengagement, shares his view that although the settlements had to be evacuated due to unsustainable conditions, Israel lost critical opportunities post-withdrawal. Notably, the lack of negotiations for strategic concessions from Palestinians and the containment policy toward Hamas are points of concern. Harel criticizes the oversight which allowed Hamas to evolve into a sophisticated militarized entity, highlighting a 14-year period of insufficiently addressing the changing dynamics in Gaza, culminating in the intelligence failure represented by the Oct 7 attack, which he argues stems not from the disengagement but from subsequent actions.
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)