‘Instead of hope, Palestinians were back in prison': How Israel's withdrawal from Gaza 20 years ago went sour
Israel
's 2005 withdrawal from the
Gaza Strip
has, for
Palestinians
, been overshadowed by last week's Knesset approval to extend Israeli control in the strip.
Israel already holds 75 per cent of Gaza.
Under the plan, it will reoccupy Gaza City
and an area on the coast near Rafah in the south where half of the 2.3 million displaced Palestinians have settled in tent camps.
The
United Nations
has warned that this campaign, which could last until October, could have 'catastrophic consequences'.
I was there two decades ago when Palestinians marked Israel's planned withdrawal by decking Omar Mukhtar Street, Gaza City's main thoroughfare, with red, black, green and white flags.
READ MORE
Referred to as 'disengagement', Israel's withdrawal was engineered by Ariel Sharon, then prime minister, who sought to focus on expanding Jewish settlement of the West Bank. His rival,
Binyamin Netanyahu
, who was finance minister, opposed the Gaza plan and resigned from the government.
Hamas
responded to the announcement of the withdrawal by holding a prayer meeting at a mosque and staging a small flag-waving rally on the steps of the media office.
Hamas spokesman Ismail Haniyeh said Israel's withdrawal from the Strip after 38 years of occupation was a 'victory for God and the resistance'.
He said this was the 'first step in the liberation of the homeland. Gaza is not first and last'.
He said 'the occupation will not end' until Israel staged a complete and comprehensive withdrawal 'from all Palestinian territory captured in 1967″.
Also speaking at the time, Palestinian president
Mahmoud Abbas
called the disengagement a 'historical moment, as Israel is leaving settlements for the first time since the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict'.
However, Gazan legislator Rawiya Shawwa told me: 'Nothing will improve unless we have economic development. For this we need freedom to travel and trade and control over our resources.' And Palestinian deputy prime minister Nabil Shaath warned: 'Israel retains control by land, sea and air.'
On August 15th, 2005, Israel's army issued evacuation orders to the 8,000 Israelis living in 21 settlements who were promised compensation if they vacated voluntarily. Those who resisted were evicted forcibly and by September 12th all residential and public buildings had been demolished.
Flag-bearing Palestinians flocked to the settlements, firing shots into the air and detonating fireworks.
Celebrations were muted as the
Palestinian Authority
had designated October 15th for popular rejoicing. By that time Palestinians had hoped they would have regained control over their lives, land, and sea.
Restricted to five nautical miles from the coast, fisherman said they must be able to cast their nets further out where fish were plentiful. A plan was put forward to allow fishermen to move five nautical miles from the coast, expand the small port, restock the sea with fish and build a new fish market. None of this happened.
One of the first steps to create optimism among Palestinians was the removal of Israeli army checkpoints which had slowed traffic and caused jams along the main north-south road, forcing Palestinians to divert to a rough track above the coast.
After showing me the route, gynaecologist Omar Ferwana said his patients in the south would be able to drive directly to Gaza City instead of risking arrest with the detour.
Ferwana, his wife Sabah, daughter Aya and five grandchildren were killed in an Israeli air strike on October 15th, 2023.
Before leaving, settlers destroyed scores of greenhouses which were meant to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority.
United States Jewish donors, led by former World Bank head James Wolfensohn, had raised funds to buy remaining greenhouses to promote economic advancement in the Strip.
However, due to the authority's failure to impose order after the Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian farmers looted pumps and other equipment from the greenhouses.
But their structures survived and $20 million (€17m) was invested to restore production and resume exports of vegetables and fruit.
But this was slowed by Palestinian mismanagement, US interference and then blocked by Israel, citing security concerns.
The well-meaning Wolfensohn plan was scrapped and revenue-generating exports were blocked. 'Instead of hope, the Palestinians saw that they were put back in prison,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
13 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir confronts long-imprisoned Palestinian leader in cell
A video widely circulated on Friday shows Israel's far-right national security minister berating a Palestinian leader face-to-face inside a prison, saying anyone who acts against the country will be 'wiped out'. Marwan Barghouti is serving five life sentences after being convicted of involvement in attacks at the height of the Palestinian uprising, or intifada, in the early 2000s. Polls consistently show he is the most popular Palestinian leader. Anyone who murders children, who murders women, we will wipe them out He has rarely been seen since his arrest more than two decades ago. It was unclear when the video was taken, but it shows national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, known for staging provocative encounters with Palestinians, telling Barghouti that he will 'not win'. 'Anyone who murders children, who murders women, we will wipe them out,' Mr Ben-Gvir said. Mr Ben-Gvir's spokesman confirmed the visit and the video's authenticity, but denied that the minister was threatening Barghouti. Barghouti, now in his mid-60s, was a senior leader in President Mahmoud Abbas's secular Fatah movement during the intifada. Many Palestinians see him as a natural successor to the ageing and unpopular leader of the Palestinian Authority, which administers parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Israel considers him a terrorist and has shown no sign it would release him. Perhaps a part of me does not want to acknowledge everything that your face and body shows, and what you and the prisoners have been through Hamas has demanded his release in exchange for hostages taken in the October 7 2023 attack that triggered the war in the Gaza Strip. In a Facebook post, Barghouti's wife said she could not recognise her husband, who appeared frail in the video. Still, she said after watching the video, he remained connected to the Palestinian people. 'Perhaps a part of me does not want to acknowledge everything that your face and body shows, and what you and the prisoners have been through,' wrote Fadwa Al Barghouthi, who spells their last name differently in English. Israeli officials say they have reduced the conditions under which Palestinians are held to the bare minimum allowed under Israeli and international law. Many detainees released as part of a ceasefire in Gaza earlier this year appeared gaunt and ill, and some were taken for immediate medical treatment.
Irish Times
13 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Can you have too much democracy?
The withdrawal of Mairead McGuinness from the presidential election campaign has injected a sudden jolt of uncertainty into what had been a pretty lethargic slow bicycle race. Although names, some familiar ( Tony Holohan ), others less so ( Gareth Sheridan ), flitted across the late-summer skies this week, the reality remains that the prospect of a 2011- or 2018-style gaggle of Independent nominees with no official links to an established party looks very unlikely. Fine Gael has a well-stocked bench from which to pluck a replacement, with Seán Kelly and Frances Fitzgerald the front-runners. Fianna Fáil is still widely expected to put forward its own candidate. With Labour, the Social Democrats and People Before Profit all committed to Catherine Connolly – and Sinn Féin likely to back either Connolly or one of its own– the door is already shut to any outsider seeking the necessary 20 votes from the Oireachtas. That leaves the alternative route: securing nominations from four local authorities. Virgin Media's Gavan Reilly crunched the numbers before McGuinness's withdrawal and concluded that only 11 of the State's 31 councils could mathematically nominate an Independent. If Fianna Fáil does nominate someone, that number drops to zero. Nothing that happened this week changes this equation. That realisation has prompted an outbreak of wailing and gnashing from the political margins. Conor McGregor has threatened a court challenge to the rules – a novel legal gambit, since it would require arguing that part of the Constitution is, in some mysterious way, unconstitutional. Independent Senator Sharon Keogan took to X to warn darkly that 'this government will be pulled down if this is allowed to happen ... The people of Ireland will not stand for this'. READ MORE In her replies, councillors were branded 'traitors', with one poster declaring 'It's time for them to go, and we don't need elections to get rid of them'. But many others poured scorn on Keogan's complaint, pointing out that elected politicians are entitled to make their own decisions. That is, after all, how representative democracy works. Beneath the outrage is a recurring refrain: let the people decide. That's the logic of direct democracy – the belief that the public should bypass elected representatives and vote directly on laws, policies and leaders. The idea is superficially attractive. It is also not new, harking back to ancient Athens. But it has gained some momentum in recent years. In theory, there is no reason why it should belong to any particular ideology. But in Europe, direct democracy has become associated with the populist right, embraced by Germany's Alternative für Deutschland, France's Rassemblement National and Italy's Lega. Their calls for plebiscites tend to focus on flashpoint issues – immigration, national sovereignty, hostility to supranational bodies – rather than any wholesale reform of political systems. The framing is familiar and often effective: 'the people' versus 'the elite', with referendums as the battering ram against parliamentary compromise. At the risk of inviting accusations of elitism, it is worth asking: can you have too much democracy? Plebiscites have a bad reputation in many European countries because of their enthusiastic adoption in the 1930s by fascist regimes, which used national ballots to stamp out dissent and reinforce loyalty to a dictatorial leader. But Ireland is one of Europe's most referendum-happy nations, with all constitutional amendments requiring approval by popular vote. That safeguard is justifiably popular but is not without its pitfalls. For example, Ireland signed up years ago to the EU's Unified Patent Court Agreement – a relatively uncontentious piece of European legal housekeeping – but ratification still requires a referendum. Successive governments have kicked the can down the road, worried that a dry, technical proposal could be hijacked as a proxy battle over something else entirely: Europe, housing, Gaza, whatever happens to be in the firing line at the time. Imagine multiplying that risk a hundredfold by introducing full-scale direct democracy. Not every democratic reform produces better outcomes. The American system of party primaries was created after the turmoil of the 1960s to take power away from party bosses and give it to voters. Instead, it has spawned a money-saturated, hyper-partisan faction fight dominated by small, ideologically unrepresentative groups. The achievement of universal suffrage in the 19th and 20th centuries was a story of gradual – and occasionally dramatic – expansion of the franchise, from property-owning men to almost all adults. Today, debates about lowering the voting age to 16 still surface from time to time. But in most mature democracies, the boundaries have been set for decades. What has changed is the growing unease about whether the institutions themselves are still fit for purpose. That unease comes in many forms: frustration at the State's inability to tackle glaring problems; suspicion about the influence of special interest groups; a scepticism about the daily compromises of politics that curdles into cynicism. International surveys show rising disillusionment, especially among the young and the economically insecure, with sizeable numbers saying they would prefer a 'strong leader' unconstrained by parliaments or elections. That impulse exists here too, though Ireland is still far from any existential threat to the system. It will take more than a single Senator or a few hundred anonymous X accounts to 'pull down' Irish democracy. But complacency would be a mistake. For their part, our political leaders have shown little appetite for institutional change, even in modest doses. The main parties' refusal to consider mild reforms of the Seanad or to cede more power to local government speaks volumes about their priorities. It is true that neither issue particularly excites the public, but both matter for the health and accountability of the system. For a time, Ireland's citizens' assemblies seemed to offer a promising model, credited with helping to break political deadlocks on same-sex marriage and abortion. Yet their stock has fallen sharply since the emphatic public rejection of last year's family and care amendments. Rather than reflecting on what went wrong, there now seems to be a reluctance to revisit the format or adapt it to new challenges. All such debates are of course complicated by everyone's tendency to favour whatever system they think is most likely to deliver their preferred outcome. In many countries, the populist surge has driven political institutions into a defensive crouch, wary of self-criticism and hostile to structural reform. The paradox is that this rigidity feeds the discontent it fears. When voters believe the system cannot or will not change, they become more willing to gamble on candidates who promise to blow it up entirely. Ireland is not there yet. But as the presidential election draws closer – and the chorus of excluded hopefuls continues shouting from the sidelines – it's worth remembering that how we choose our political representatives is not a fixed law of nature. It is a human invention. Like all inventions, it can be improved. Or neglected, possibly at our peril.
Irish Independent
15 minutes ago
- Irish Independent
Independent Meath councillor breaks Palestine Action ban
Navan councillor Alan Lawes went to Newry on Thursday to attend the weekly Palestinian support and displayed t-shirts and posters supporting Palestine Action. Speaking to the Irish Independent before the protest, Navan councillor Alan Lawes said: 'I think it is now up to the older generation and politicians like myself to stand up.' The 62-year-old councillor added: 'We've gone through two years of protest, two years of condemning the continued atrocious actions against Palestinians, and it has gotten worse.' 'Our actions are in solidarity with the peaceful protesters arrested in London at the weekend in a disgraceful attempt to muzzle voices opposing the Israeli genocide.' Over the weekend, London's police officers arrested 522 people for breaching anti-terror laws by supporting the recently proscribed group Palestine Action, a group outlawed on July 5. Many of the people arrested were in their 70s. 'Our intention is to expose the hypocrisy of Kier Starmer's British Government in banning a non-violent direct action protest group while also supplying weapons to slaughter children in Gaza,' Cllr Lawes said Cllr Lawes has been active for years in supporting the people of Palestine and has organised local community protests to highlight the killings in Gaza. He has now called for an immediate ceasefire and has criticised what he called 'the deliberate starvation of children, women and men in Gaza.'
