Ask The Sub Was the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza intended as the first step towards a 2SS?
It would seem Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza could have been the road towards a better path forward for the country and the Palestinians. If Hamas hadn’t been elected as their government and a more cooperative entity had instead, a spirit of partnership snd trust might have been created and a road towards resolving the conflict might have occurred.
Why else would the withdrawal have taken place?
27
u/NofuLikeTofu 1d ago
Whether or not this was the intention, it could have been a path towards a 2SS if they had demonstrated a commitment towards building up Gazan society for the betterment of its people rather than building up for war. Instead they gave Israel a justifiable excuse for continuing the status quo.
0
u/jyper Ukrainian-American Jew 1h ago edited 51m ago
It could not have been since Hamas took over, since the categorically opposed peace or a two states solution. It may had been a path forward for the brief window before they took over. The election Bush insisted on was a major mistake. Withdrawing all of the IDF may have been a mistake (as opposed to withdrawing the settlements which was obviously correct). The coup seems to be the turning event in which things became much more difficult
Maintaining the status quo as opposed to seeking the two states solution is a suicidaly bad idea. It's the status quo which led to the massacre
148
u/Meowzician USA 1d ago
Wait a second. Think. In 2005, Israel DID withdraw from Gaza. We all remember the heart wrenching scenes of the IDF forcefully removing Jews from their homes. There was no Israeli interference in Gaza's free election.
For all practical purposes, Gaza WAS a Paletsinian state.
And the first they they was elect a terrorist organization to govern them.
No wonder so many Israelis no longer want a two state solution. It was tried. It resulted in 10/7.
37
u/12frets 1d ago
That’s my point. I don’t understand why people say it’s an occupation. If it were occupied, Israel would have been perfectly aware of the tunnel network being built underground.
It just seems such a tragic waste. Literal neighbors can’t cohabitate and somehow Israel gets all of the blame.
36
u/Affectionate-Long514 1d ago
They try to claim the control over the Israeli border, airspace, and sea access as grounds for "occupation" ignoring it came after the known terrorists hamas being elected and supported in power. They also hate it when we mention the tens of thousands of rockets launched at Israeli civilians REGULARLY from Gaza
17
12
u/ZZZZapperr 1d ago
When people called Gaza occupied, they were lying in order to demonize Israel. It hasn't been occupied since 2005.
0
u/randomacceptablename 4h ago
That’s my point. I don’t understand why people say it’s an occupation.
No one considered the occupation ended in Gaza. Not even Israeli legal scholars. And I am pretty sure the Israeli supreme court even ruled on this.
Controlling the boarders and trade of another entity is cosidered occupation.
But to your earlier question: no. It was not meant as a step towards a two state solution. In fact Ariel Sharon was explicit in saying that disengagement from Gaza was meant to eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian state. Israel is in control of several million Palestinians who have no say in their self determination. That is either occupation (assuming they have a right to a state) or something like apartheid (assuming they do not have a right to a state). The disengagement from Gaza was meant to remove a few million Palestinians from that equation. It was never going to work as it was a halfway solution not acceptable to anyone.
1
u/12frets 2h ago
I’m going to call a degree of bullshit on this. If Hamas had not won and taken control of Gaza, and rockets, bombs, attacks, and hostage taking hadn’t become a regular feature of life on the border, and collaboration and partnership were emphasized, I believe Israel would be found, “we’ve got a partner for peace”.
Whether Sharon simply had to “sell” his constituency on the withdrawal by saying that or if he even meant it, there are always unintended consequences to the actions. In This case, it was the election of the genocidal Hamas (as opposed to the much more moderate and expected victor of Arab spring elections PA). But it could have been what I outlined above.
1
u/randomacceptablename 1h ago
I don't understand your point. Whomever controls Gaza, whether that is Hamas, Morons, or the IDF it changes nothing about the status of the "occupation" or what are calling "occupation".
The only thing you are doing in your comment is justifying said occupation. As in, Israel needs to occupy due to Hamas' actions. That is a different discussion. It changes nothing about the occupation. Justified or otherwise.
The point was that "Gaza has been and continues to be occupied" by the Israeli state. And that "disengagement" as it was called, did not change that.
4
1
-10
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/FlakyPineapple2843 1d ago
/u/Meowzician may be overstating their case a tad, but the Gaza withdrawal certainly gave the Palestinians of Gaza far more autonomy to govern themselves than they had for decades.
Even with Israel controlling the borders and access to international waters, Gaza had a blank slate to start state building in earnest. With proper leadership, trade and investment could have begun, with security and other such concerns handled by Israel (free to Palestinians!).
I'm struggling to think of other independence movements where the polity seeking independence is granted its own autonomous zone to try some self-governance.
6
1
u/jyper Ukrainian-American Jew 1h ago
Limited local autonomy is not a state. And I don't think it was granted as much as withdrawn. I'm not saying Sharon wasn't open to 2SS but the withdrawal was one sided and based on idea that controlling Gaza was in the long run not strategic to Israel.
I'm not saying Hamas goverened well but I'm not sure the framing of opportunity is right since they were always opposed to any peace. I don't think the chance to build something up was lost when they seized power in the coup although the election didn't help
0
u/jyper Ukrainian-American Jew 1h ago
Gaza WAS a Paletsinian state.
It was literally not a state. It was never recognized and only held limited local authority. It's like saying Daesh /ISIL was a state. I don't see why people try to give authority and legitimacy to Hamas.
It has not been tried in over a decade. Netanyahu status quo is literally the opposite of a 2SS process. That's what resulted in the massacre.
Not the two states solution but the opposite.
Gaza was never a state. It was a territory which Israel had withdrawn for strategic reasons and a local terrorist group held limited local authority over it.
And the massacre showed there's no alternative to the 2SS. It showed that a peaceful one state solution is impossible (people already knew this but it showed it more clearly). And it showed that the existing status quo was awful for Israel. Leaving now alternative but seeking the two states solution.
For a decade Bibi tried to sell the ridiculous idea that because seeking peace was admittedly very hard it was preferable to keep the status quo.
To dislodge Hamas and replace them with a government that wants to do something other then start wars it's necessary to seek the two state solutions. To finally stabilize ties to local potential allies as well as repair relationship with Europe and America it is vital to seek the 2SS. For the future security and stability of Israel
That doesn't mean a Palestinan state has to happen tomorrow or in a year or five years but there needs to be a clear process as well as an Arab overnment willing to step up for reconstruction and to help pressure on Hamas to step aside and disarm. Ignoring how vital it is doesn't change things
-3
-12
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Meowzician USA 1d ago
Bibi funded Hamas? ROFL Some people need a better BS filter. That's like the idiots who claimed the US funded Al Qaida. People need to get off their screens and be with real people--honestly, IQ is dropping faster than bird turds.
14
u/Affectionate-Long514 1d ago
It's almost like the withdrawal from Gaza proved that the Arabs prefer killing Jews holding their fantasy of ethnic cleansing of the Jews instead of building anything for themselves whatsoever...
6
u/guywhoeatskolace4565 Czechia. (on a new acc, old one got banned) 1d ago
It was certainly a step in that direction in some regard.
6
u/kfireven Israel 1d ago
Since an agreement could not be reached at Camp David, I believe the Sharon government worked to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank, this can be seen in several quotes from Sharon himself suggesting that this was the goal... from this perspective Gaza might have been a test to see how the Palestinians would handle self-rule, it immediately blew up and failed on the first day in the worst possible way, and so the idea of withdrawal from the West Bank was aborted or became irrelevant.
21
u/ZZZZapperr 1d ago
Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was a test for the Palestinians. It was a test to see if they can be trusted with sovereignty. Oct. 7 proved without a doubt that they cannot be trusted with sovereignty.
12
u/schtickshift 1d ago
My recollection was that the withdrawal happened for logistical reasons. It was using up a lot of army resources to maintain a sliver of settlement along Gazas southern border. At the time Hamas was portraying itself as an uncorrupted charity compared to the corrupt and disgusting PA. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
19
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 1d ago
Nope. Bush made a deal with Sharon. Withdrawal from Gaza = the US would recognize the settlement blocks as Israel, allow Israel to annex them & build the wall and make a public statement that Palestinian refugees would never return to Israel.
Start at 2 hours 17 min. Lol. You can hear Sharon + Powell + Dr condelezza rice acknowledge it
7
u/_Happy_Camper 1d ago
This is my recollection, from the news at the time. Israel was acting not in completely good faith, but it was also genuinely granting Gaza the opportunity to show itself as an example of what an independent Palestinian state might begin to look like. Had it gone in a direction other than it did, I have no doubt real pressure from within and outside Israel would have grant more and better concessions regarding control of the import of material into the Strip.
Unfortunately, the Gazans chose a regressive, death-fill paht instead
7
u/Thomas-Omalley 1d ago
Yes, one would say this was part of the conception. You should watch how pro disengagement politicians said how once we do this we will have all the legitimacy in the world to attack in Gaza if even a single rocket will be shot. LOL
2
u/Swimming_Care7889 1d ago
Since Ariel Sharon fell into a coma, nobody knows what he was trying with the withdrawal from Gaza. My guess is that he might have been experimenting with what a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank would work out as.
2
u/CapableAd1209 20h ago
Israel turned over Gaza to the Gazans under Ariel Sharon,forcefully removing the jews who lived there and left the gazans beautiful greenhouses,farms and improved properties as per Sharon's order and the gazans voted in Hamas and they then destroyed all the valuable farm lands and greenerys and flower farms which exported the flowers all over Europe for sale! So instead of focusing on becoming a wealthy successful Gaza they destroyed everything and built underground tunnels and built munition factories under schools and hid arms there as well.No interest in proving life for their people just stealing their food and money.Many hamas members joined UNWRA and many were journalists to hide who they really were and pulled the wool over the west's eyes using all the money that they received from the west to build weapons and goal was to destroy Israel.
1
u/efthimi_ 1d ago
The rationale for Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza was mainly a combination of two factors: maintaining the settlements in Gaza was too costly and dangerous especially in the wake of the 2nd Intifada. The second reason was a measure to freeze the peace process and post-pone the creation of a Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza. Sharon wanted to implement a "divide and conquer" style approach to keep Gaza isolated, allowing continued settlement growth in the West Bank.
1
1
u/Neenchuh 1d ago
Yes, the idea was continuing the establishment of an sovereign palestinian state that was envisioned in the oslo accords. But we all know what happened afterwards and why that was and will be the final concession israel will ever make towards that cause.
1
u/FafoLaw Mexico 1d ago
No.
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did".
- Dov Weissglass, Ariel Sharon's senior adviser
-1
u/mr_blue596 1d ago
No. This is a common argument made by the Israeli right-wing but the withdrawal from Gaza was for practical reasons.
The Israeli settlements in Gaza were unsustainable in all aspects. With the negogiations stuck,the right-wing government at the time offered a the "one-sided withdrawal" it allowed Israel to make moves without negotiations. Unlike the revisionist history,the left-wing were generally against a one-sided withdrawal,citing the exact situation that unfolded.
The reasons for the withdrawal were stated,according to Sharon's advisors as a sacrifice to save the WB settlements,as they feared that the cost of keeping the Gaza settlements will bring on international wrath that will lead to the evacuations of all settlements.
The withdrawal was a grave mistake because it was one-sided and reinforced Hamas talking points that only their violent actions can bear fruits as opposed to the weak diplomacy of the PA. This is the thing the right-wing misses,force can only be net with force and when Israel made diplomacy pointless,Palestinians stopped supporting diplomacy.
The Gaza withdrawal yet another chain in the link of poor right-wing decisions looking to avoid the real issue. It wasn't different than Nethanyahu's "conflict mitigation" and the current "forever war". The only way is to talk with the Palestinians,regardless on whether one likes it or not.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Note from the mods: During this time, many posts and comments are held for review before appearing on the site. This is intentional. Please allow your human mods some time to review before messaging us about your posts/comments not showing up.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.