logo
20 years after its landmark withdrawal from Gaza, Israel is mired there

20 years after its landmark withdrawal from Gaza, Israel is mired there

Arab Newsa day ago
TEL AVIV: Twenty years ago, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling 21 Jewish settlements and pulling out its forces. The Friday anniversary of the start of the landmark disengagement comes as Israel is mired in a nearly 2-year war with Hamas that has devastated the Palestinian territory and means it is likely to keep troops there long into the future.Israel's disengagement, which also included removing four settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, was then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's controversial attempt to jump-start negotiations with the Palestinians. But it bitterly divided Israeli society and led to the empowerment of Hamas, with implications that continue to reverberate today.The emotional images of Jews being ripped from their homes by Israeli soldiers galvanized Israel's far-right and settler movements. The anger helped them organize and increase their political influence, accounting in part for the rise of hard-line politicians like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.On Thursday, Smotrich boasted of a settlement expansion plan east of Jerusalem that will 'bury' the idea of a future Palestinian state.For Palestinians, even if they welcomed the disengagement, it didn't end Israel's control over their lives.Soon after, Hamas won elections in 2006, then drove out the Palestinian Authority in a violent takeover. Israel and Egypt imposed a closure on the territory, controlling entry and exit of goods and people. Though its intensity varied over the years, the closure helped impoverish the population and entrenched a painful separation from Palestinians in the West Bank.Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians claim all three territories for a future independent state.A unilateral withdrawal enhanced Hamas' statureIsrael couldn't justify the military or economic cost of maintaining the heavily fortified settlements in Gaza, explained Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at the Misgav Institute and the Institute for National Security Studies think tanks. There were around 8,000 Israeli settlers and 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza in 2005.'There was no chance for these settlements to exist or flourish or become meaningful enough to be a strategic anchor,' he said. By contrast, there are more than 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, most living in developed settlement blocs that have generally received more support from Israeli society, Michael said. Most of the world considers the settlements illegal under international law.Because Israel withdrew unilaterally, without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority, it enhanced Hamas' stature among Palestinians in Gaza.'This contributed to Hamas' win in the elections in 2006, because they leveraged it and introduced it as a very significant achievement,' Michael said. 'They saw it as an achievement of the resistance and a justification for the continuation of the armed resistance.'Footage of the violence between Israeli settlers and Israeli soldiers also created an 'open wound' in Israeli society, Michael said.'I don't think any government will be able to do something like that in the future,' he said. That limits any flexibility over settlements in the West Bank if negotiations over a two-state solution with the Palestinians ever resume.'Disengagement will never happen again, this is a price we're paying as a society, and a price we're paying politically,' he said.One of the first settlers longs to returnAnita Tucker, now 79, was part of the first nine Jewish families that moved to the Gaza Strip in 1976. She and her husband and their three kids lived in an Israeli army outpost near what is today Deir Al-Balah, while the settlement of Netzer Hazoni was constructed.Originally from Brooklyn, she started a farm growing vegetables in the harsh, tall sand dunes. At first relations were good with their Palestinian neighbors, she said, and they worked hard to build their home and a 'beautiful community.' She had two more children, and three chose to stay and raise their families in Netzer Hazoni.She can still recall the moment, 20 years ago, when 1,000 Israeli soldiers arrived at the gate to the settlement to remove the approximately 400 residents. Some of her neighbors lit their houses on fire in protest.'Obviously it was a mistake to leave. The lives of the Arabs became much worse, and the lives of the Jews became much, much worse, with rockets and Oct. 7,' she said, referring to the decades of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel and the date in 2023 of the Hamas attack that launched the ongoing war.Despite the passage of time, her family still is 'yearning and longing for their home,' she said. Several of her 10 grandchildren, including some who spent their early childhood in the Gaza settlements, have served in the current war and were near her old house.'It's hard to believe, because of all the terrible things that happened that we predicted, but we're willing to build there again,' said Tucker.Palestinians doubt Israel will ever fully withdraw from Gaza againAfter Israel's withdrawal 20 years ago, many Palestinians described Gaza as an 'open-air prison.' They had control on the inside – under a Hamas government that some supported but some saw as heavy-handed and brutal. But ultimately, Israel had a grip around the territory.Many Palestinians believe Sharon carried out the withdrawal so Israel could focus on cementing its control in the West Bank through settlement building.Now some believe more direct Israeli occupation is returning to Gaza. After 22 months of war, Israeli troops control more than 75 percent of Gaza, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks of maintaining security control long term after the war.Amjad Shawa, the director of the Palestinian NGO Network, said he doesn't believe Netanyahu will repeat Sharon's full withdrawal. Instead, he expects the military to continue controlling large swaths of Gaza through 'buffer zones.'The aim, he said, is to keep Gaza 'unlivable in order to change the demographics,' referring to Netanyahu's plans to encourage Palestinians to leave the territory.Israel is 'is reoccupying the Gaza Strip' to prevent a Palestinian state, said Mostafa Ibrahim, an author based in Gaza City whose home was destroyed in the current war.Missed opportunitiesIsraeli former Maj. Gen. Dan Harel, who was head of the country's Southern Command during the disengagement, remembers the toll of protecting a few thousand settlers.There were an average of 10 attacks per day against Israeli settlers and soldiers, including rockets, roadside bombs big enough to destroy a tank, tunnels to attack Israeli soldiers and military positions, and frequent gunfire.'Bringing a school bus of kids from one place to another required a military escort,' said Harel. 'There wasn't a future. People paint it as how wonderful it was there, but it wasn't wonderful.'Harel says the decision to evacuate Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip was the right one, but that Israel missed crucial opportunities.Most egregious, he said, was a unilateral withdrawal without obtaining any concessions from the Palestinians in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority.He also sharply criticized Israel's policy of containment toward Hamas after disengagement. There were short but destructive conflicts over the years between the two sides, but otherwise the policy gave Hamas 'an opportunity to do whatever they wanted.''We had such a blind spot with Hamas, we didn't see them morph from a terror organization into an organized military, with battalions and commanders and infrastructure,' he said.The Oct. 7 attack, Israel's largest military intelligence failure to date, was not a result of the disengagement, said Harel. 'The main issue is what we did in the 18 years in between.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Arab, Islamic foreign ministers condemn Netanyahu's ‘Greater Israel' remark
Arab, Islamic foreign ministers condemn Netanyahu's ‘Greater Israel' remark

Arab News

time5 hours ago

  • Arab News

Arab, Islamic foreign ministers condemn Netanyahu's ‘Greater Israel' remark

RIYADH: The foreign ministers of Arab and Muslim nations on Saturday denounced statements about a "Greater Israel" that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reported to have made in the wake of pronouncements by his far-right allies to annex Palestinian territories. In a joint statement, the ministers said the pronouncements by Netanyahu and his ministers were "a blatant and dangerous violation" of international law. "They also constitute a direct threat to Arab national security, to the sovereignty of states, and to regional and international peace and security," said the statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency, or SPA. (Developing story)

Microsoft launches probe after Israeli mass surveillance claims
Microsoft launches probe after Israeli mass surveillance claims

Arab News

time12 hours ago

  • Arab News

Microsoft launches probe after Israeli mass surveillance claims

LONDON: Microsoft has opened an external investigation into allegations that a top Israeli military intelligence unit used its cloud technology to carry out mass surveillance of Palestinians. The probe follows a joint report by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Hebrew-language outlet Local Call. According to the report, Israel's Unit 8200 spy agency, the rough equivalent of the US National Security Agency, used Microsoft's Azure cloud service to store a vast archive of phone calls intercepted and recorded from Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The joint media report also revealed extensive ties between Microsoft's Israel office and the spy unit — a finding that prompted alarm among the tech giant's US executives who feared that Israel-based employees might have concealed information about the nature of their work with Unit 8200. Microsoft's Israel office, as part of its work with the unit, created a custom, segregated suite within the Azure platform in order to store the archive of intercepted phone calls. Unit 8200 chiefs aimed to use the surveillance project to record 'millions of calls per hour' across the Palestinian territories. In a statement, Microsoft said 'using Azure for the storage of data files of phone calls obtained through broad or mass surveillance of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank' would be prohibited under its terms of service. The tech giant appointed lawyers from US firm Covington & Burling to oversee the inquiry. It is the second external probe initiated by Microsoft in relation to its ties with the Israeli military. The first, conducted earlier this year, found 'no evidence to date' that the Israel Defense Forces had broken Microsoft's terms of service or used the Azure cloud service 'to target or harm people' in Gaza. However, the latest investigation will expand on the previous one, with Microsoft agreeing 'that The Guardian's recent report raises additional and precise allegations that merit a full and urgent review.' Pressure is also mounting within Microsoft through an employee-led campaign group, No Azure for Apartheid. The group, which is accusing the tech giant of 'complicity in genocide and apartheid,' has called for Microsoft to cut all ties with the Israeli military. Sources within Microsoft told The Guardian that the company's leadership was scrambling to assess Azure data. They are reportedly concerned about information revealed by Unit 8200 sources for the joint media report, which alleged that the data was used to identify targets for strikes in Gaza. Microsoft pledged to 'share with the public the factual findings that result from' the external review, a statement said.

All at sea: UK sends wrong signal on Gulf naval role
All at sea: UK sends wrong signal on Gulf naval role

Arab News

time13 hours ago

  • Arab News

All at sea: UK sends wrong signal on Gulf naval role

The British government recently announced that HMS Lancaster, a Royal Navy frigate permanently based in the Gulf, will return to the UK for scrapping by the end of the year. This will leave the UK without a permanent forward-based destroyer or frigate in the Gulf for the first time in many years. The decision comes at a bad time, given the fragile state of maritime security in the region. The removal of Britain's last warship from the Gulf, despite these realities, is reminiscent of US President Joe Biden's 2013 decision to withdraw all American tanks from Europe for the first time since the Second World War — only to see Russia invade Ukraine the following year. The Gulf region matters to the UK for many reasons. Britain's ties with the Gulf states stretch back decades, and in some cases centuries. The first recorded instance of the Royal Navy entering the Gulf occurred in 1620, when the East India Company sought to dislodge Portuguese influence from the region. Economically, the Gulf is one of the UK's most important trading regions outside Europe and North America, with billions in goods and services exchanged each year. British companies are heavily involved in the energy, finance, and defense sectors, while Gulf investment plays a major role in the UK economy, from infrastructure projects to property and technology ventures. Security cooperation has been just as important. Many Gulf countries have served alongside British forces in joint operations, whether in counter-piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa, counter-terrorism missions in the wider Middle East, or maritime security cooperation in the Gulf itself. These shared missions have built strong operational ties and mutual trust between the UK and its Gulf partners, strengthening both regional stability and the global commons. Gulf investment plays a major role in the British economy Luke Coffey The UK military continues to play a significant role in training and, in some cases, equipping the armed forces of the region, fostering close professional bonds among senior officers. The Royal Navy, in particular, holds a special place, with the UK ranking second only to the US in terms of foreign naval influence in the Gulf. The UK has also reduced its mine countermeasures vessels in the region, a vital asset given Iran's repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. A Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship traditionally stationed in the Gulf has also been brought home, with no plans for its return. The Labour government's own 2025 Strategic Defense Review, a document it describes as a 'root-and-branch' analysis of Britain's national security and armed forces, runs to 144 pages, but devotes only about half a page to the Gulf. It does highlight, though concisely, the importance of the region, stating: 'The Middle East is significant to UK security and prosperity due to its position as an artery of global trade and its role in global energy supplies. The UK's footprint in the region and increased investment in strategic defense partnerships supports the government's economic growth agenda.' If Prime Minister Keir Starmer truly sees the Gulf as a geopolitical priority, his first year in government has done little to prove it. By contrast, when the Conservatives returned to power in 2010 after 13 years in opposition, David Cameron moved quickly to elevate relations with the region. He immediately launched the Gulf Initiative, a cross-government effort to deepen relationships with the Gulf Cooperation Council states. This paid off handsomely. In 2011 alone, UK exports to Gulf countries exceeded those to India, Russia, and Mexico combined. By contrast, under Starmer there has been no comparable deepening of relations, apart from the approaching completion of a GCC–UK free trade agreement — an effort that began under the previous Conservative government. The removal of HMS Lancaster from the Gulf and its scrapping by the end of this year is part of a wider maritime crunch facing the Royal Navy. Once Lancaster leaves service, the fleet will be reduced to just six destroyers and six frigates — the lowest number in modern history. This downsizing comes at a time when global shipping volumes are increasing and the threats to maritime trade are growing. For a globally engaged, free-trading island nation such as Britain, these choices are difficult to reconcile with its strategic posture. Under Starmer there has been no deepening of relations Luke Coffey In the 2025 Strategic Defense Review, Starmer reaffirmed that the UK would pursue a 'NATO-first' policy — an approach that makes sense. Yet this does not mean Britain can neglect other key regions, particularly the Middle East. In recent years, NATO has moved to strengthen ties with the Gulf states and expand cooperation on issues such as maritime security, counter-terrorism, and regional stability. One of NATO's strengths is that different member states bring different contributions to the table. Since Britain is a global power with global interests, its reach and capabilities help NATO act more effectively beyond the Euro-Atlantic area. The UK's decision to scale back its naval presence in the Gulf runs counter to this dynamic, undermining one of the most significant ways Britain can contribute to NATO's efforts in the Middle East. Britain cannot afford to send the wrong message to friends or foes about its staying power in strategically vital regions. The Gulf is not only a hub of global commerce and energy but also a testing ground for Britain's ability to project influence and safeguard the rules-based order beyond Europe. If the UK truly intends to be a global power with global interests, then maintaining a credible, visible, and capable naval presence in the Gulf must remain a priority — not an afterthought. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store