Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip
Israel's unilateral disengagement plan (Hebrew: תוכנית ההתנתקות (the official name) or תוכנית ההנתקות), also known as the "disengagement plan," "Gaza Pull-Out plan," and "Gaza Expulsion plan" (by its opponents) was a proposal by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, adopted by the government and enacted in August 2005, to remove all permanent Israeli civilian presence in the Gaza Strip and from part of the northern West Bank (also known as Samaria).
Plan description
The Gaza Strip contained 22 civilian Israeli settlements, and the area to be evacuated in the West Bank contained four, as follows:
| In the Gaza Strip (all 22 settlements): | |||
| In the West Bank (4 settlements): | |||
These areas also contained numerous Israel Defense Forces (IDF) installations. Sharon has said that the disengagement is designed to improve Israel's security and international status, in the absence of political negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. About 9000 Israeli residents within Gaza were given until the night of Tuesday August 16, 2005 to leave the area or face eviction [1].
Under the disengagement plan adopted on June 6, 2004, the IDF will remain on the Gaza-Egypt border and may engage in further house demolitions to widen a 'buffer zone' there (Art 6). Israel will continue to control Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace, and reserves the right to undertake military operations at will (Art 3.1). Gaza will also remain dependent on Israeli water, communication, electricity, and sewage networks (Art 8); existing customs arrangements with Israel — whereby imports from Israel to Gaza are not taxed, exports from Gaza to Israel are taxed, and Israel collects customs duties on foreign products entering Gaza — will remain in force and the Israeli currency will continue to be used (Art 10).
For these reasons, and because the Palestinian Authority in Gaza does not seem to have sufficient control of the area at this time, foreign observers such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and various legal experts have argued that the disengagement will not end Israel's legal responsibility as an occupying power in Gaza. Nevertheless, Israel has recently decided to cede control of the Egypt-Gaza border to Egypt [2], and thus it is unclear if these observations are still correct.
Chronology
Political
Ariel Sharon first announced his plan at the 2004 Herzlia Conference, sponsored by the Institute for Policy and Strategy. Failing to gain public support from senior ministers, Sharon agreed that the Likud party would hold a referendum on the plan in advance of an Israeli cabinet vote. The referendum was held on May 2, 2004 and ended with 65% of the voters against the disengagement plan, despite most polls showing approximately 55% of Likud members supporting the plan before the referendum.
Commentators and the press described the rejection of the plan as a blow to Sharon. Sharon himself announced that he accepted the Likud referendum results and would take time to consider his steps. He ordered Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz to create an amended plan which Likud voters could accept.
On June 6, 2004, Sharon's government approved an amended disengagement plan, but with the reservation that the dismantling of each settlement should be voted separately. The plan was approved with a 14-7 majority after the National Union ministers and cabinet members Avigdor Liberman and Binyamin Elon were sacked, and a compromise offer by Likud's cabinet member Tzipi Livni was achieved.
Following the approval of the plan, it was decided to close the industrial zone and move its factories to development towns such as Ashkelon, Dimona, Yeruham, and Sederot. This was claimed by some news sources to be for security reasons, possibly due to what a senior Palestinian security official admits to tens of Israeli soldiers and officers meeting their deaths in suicide bombings, shooting and Qassam rocket attacks there. Nevertheless, the Israeli Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor, Ehud Olmert, stated at the time that it was part of Israel's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip [3]. It caused a considerable increase in unemployment in the Gaza Strip.
As a result of the passing of the plan (in principle), two NRP (Mafdal) ministers, Effie Eitam and Yitzhak Levy, resigned, leaving the government with a minority in the Knesset. Later, the entire faction quit after their calls to hold a national referendum were ignored.
Sharon's pushing through this plan alienated many of his supporters on the right and garnered him unusual support from the left-wing in Israel. The right believes that Sharon has ignored the mandate he was elected on, and has instead adopted the platform of his Labor opponent, Amram Mitzna, who was overwhelmingly defeated when he campaigned on a similar disengagement plan. At that time, Sharon referred to Gaza communities such as Netzarim as "no different than Tel Aviv". Many on both sides remain skeptical of his will to carry out a withdrawal beyond Gaza and the northern West Bank. Sharon had a majority for the plan in the government but not within his own party. This forced him to seek a National Unity government, which was established in January 2005. Opponents of the plan, and some ministers, such as Benjamin Netanyahu and former minister Natan Sharansky, have called on Sharon to hold a national referendum to prove that he has a mandate.
On September 14, 2004, the Israeli cabinet approved, by a 9-1 majority, plans to compensate settlers who are due to leave the Gaza Strip, with only Mafdal's Zevulun Orlev opposing. The government's plan for compensation uses a formula that bases actual amounts on location, house size, and number of family members among other factors. Most families receive between U.S. $200,000 and 300,000.
On October 11, 2004, at the opening of the Knesset winter session, Sharon outlined his plan to start legislation for the disengagement in the beginning of November. In a symbolic act, the Knesset voted 53-44 against Sharon's address: the Israeli Labor party voted against, while Mafdal and 10 members of Likud refused to support Sharon in the vote.
On October 26, 2004, the Knesset gave preliminary approval for the plan with 67 for, 45 against, 7 abstentions, and 1 member absent. Netanyahu and three other cabinet ministers from Sharon's ruling Likud government threatened to resign unless Sharon agreed to hold a national referendum on the plan within 14 days.
On November 9, 2004, Netanyahu withdrew his resignation threat, saying "In this new situation [the death of Yasser Arafat], I decided to stay in the government". Following the vote 14 days earlier, and Sharon's subsequent refusal to budge on the referendum issue, the three other cabinet ministers from the Likud party backed down from their threat within days.
On December 30, 2004, Sharon sealed a deal with the Labor Party to form a coalition, with Shimon Peres becoming Vice Premier, restoring the government's majority in the Knesset.
On February 16, 2005, the Knesset finalized and approved the plan with 59 in favor, 40 opposed, 5 abstaining. A proposed amendment to submit the plan to a referendum was rejected (29-72).
On March 28, 2005, the Knesset again rejected a bill to delay the implementation of the disengagement plan by a vote of 72 to 39. The bill was introduced by a group of Likud MKs who wanted to force a referendum on the issue. [4]
On March 17, 2005, the IDF Southern Command issued a military order prohibiting Israeli citizens who do not reside in the Gaza Strip settlements from relocating to that area.
On August 7, 2005, Netanyahu resigned just prior to the cabinet ratification of the first phase of the disengagement plan by a vote of 17 to 5. Netanyahu blamed the Israeli government for moving "blindly along" with the disengagement by not taking into account the expected upsurge in terrorism. He said:
I don't know when terrorism will erupt in full force — my hope is that it won't ever. But I am convinced today that the disengagement will eventually aggravate terrorism instead of reducing it. The security establishment also expects an increase in terrorism. The withdrawal endangers Israel's security, divides its people and set the standards of the withdrawal to the '67 border. [5]
On August 10, 2005, in his first speech before the Knesset following his resignation, Netanyahu spoke of the necessity for Knesset members to oppose the proposed disengagement. He said:
Only we in the Knesset are able to stop this evil. Everything that the Knesset has decided, it is also capable of changing. I am calling on all those who grasp the danger: Gather strength and do the right thing. I don't know if the entire move can be stopped, but it still might be stopped in its initial stages. [Don't] give [the Palestinians] guns, don't give them rockets, don't give them a sea port, and don't give them a huge base for terror." [6]
On August 15, 2005, Sharon said that, while he had hoped Israel could keep the Gaza settlements forever, reality simply intervened. "It is out of strength and not weakness that we are taking this step," he said, repeating his argument that the disengagement plan has given Israel the diplomatic initiative. [7]
On 31 August 2005, the Knesset voted to withdraw from the Gaza-Egypt border and to allow Egyptian deployment of border police along the demilitarized Egyptian side of the border, revising the previously-stated intent to maintain Israeli control of the border.
Public reaction
On June 9, 2005, a poll on Israeli Channel 2 showed that public support for the plan had fallen below 50 percent for the first time. [8]
On August 10, 2005, in response to calls from Jewish religious leaders, including former Chief Rabbis Rabbi Avraham Shapira, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, and Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, between 70,000 (police estimate) and 250,000 (organizers' estimate) Jews gathered for a rally centered at the Western Wall in prayer to ask that the planned disengagement be cancelled. The crowds that showed up for the rally overwhelmed the Western Wall's capacity and extended as far as the rest of the Old City and surrounding Jerusalem neighborhoods. The prayer rally was the largest of its kind for over 15 years, since the opposition to the Madrid Conference of 1991. [9][10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
On August 11, 2005, between 150,000 (police estimates) and 300,000 (organizers' estimates) people massed in and around Tel Aviv's Rabin Square for an anti-disengagement rally. Organizers called the event "the largest expression of public protest ever held in Israel." [16] According to a police spokesman, it was one of the largest rallies in recent memory. [17] [18][19] [20]
Plan implementation
On April 8, 2005, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said that Israel should consider not demolishing the evacuated buildings in the Gaza Strip, with the exception of synagogues (due to fears of their potential desecration), since it would be more costly and time consuming. This contrasted with the original plan by the Prime Minister to demolish all vacated buildings.
On May 9, 2005, the beginning of the evacuation of settlements was officially pushed back from July 20 to August 15, so as to not coincide with the Jewish holidays of the Three Weeks and Tisha B'Av, traditionally marking grief and destruction.
On July 13, 2005, Sharon signed the closure order of Gush Katif, making the area a closed military zone. From that point on, only residents who presented Israeli ID cards with their registered address in Gush Katif were permitted to enter. Permits for 24-48 hours were given to select visitors for a few weeks before the entire area was completely sealed off to non-residents. Despite this ban, supporters of Gush Katif managed to sneak in by foot through fields and dirt. Estimates range from a few hundred to a few thousand people were there illegally at this time. At one point, Sharon was ready to send in the border police (Magav) to remove non-residents, but decided against it because the manpower requirement would have been too great.
At midnight between August 14 and August 15, the Kissufim crossing was shut down, and the Gaza Strip became officially closed for entrance by Israelis. This began the last 48 hours of voluntary evacuation.
On August 17, 2005, the first forced evacuation of settlers, as part of the disengagement, started. About 14,000 Israeli soldiers and police prepared to forcibly evacuate settlers. There were scenes of troops dragging screaming settlers from houses and synagogues, but with less violence than expected. [21]
(
Sound clip of settlers chanting "Jews don't expel Jews" ("יהודי לא מגרש יהודי") while protesting the action of the troops.)
On August 19, 2005 The Guardian reported that some settlers had their childen leave their homes with their hands up, or wearing a Star of David badge, to associate the actions of Israel with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. [22]
On August 22, 2005, Netzarim was peacefully evacuated by the Israeli military. [23] This officially marked the end of the 38-year-long Israeli presence on the Gaza Strip, although demolition crews continue to work there, and the official handover is planned to occur some weeks later.
On August 23, 2005, the evacuation of the four West Bank settlements was accomplished; while the residents of Ganim and Kadim, mostly middle-class seculars, have long left their homes, several families and about 2,000 outsiders tried to prevent the evacuation of Sa-Nur and Homesh, who had a larger percent of observant population. Following negotiations, the evacuation was completed relatively peacefully. This ended, according to IDF commander-in-chief Dan Halutz, the first of four stages of disengagement: evacuation of residents, evacuation of civilian property, demolition of houses, and finally relocation of IDF installations. The date for official withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was set to September 10-20.
Positions of foreign governments
U.S. government position
U.S. president George W. Bush endorsed the plan as a positive step towards the Road map for peace. At a joint press conference with Ariel Sharon on April 11, 2005 he said:
I strongly support [Prime Minister Sharon's] courageous initiative to disengage from Gaza and part of the West Bank. The Prime Minister is willing to coordinate the implementation of the disengagement plan with the Palestinians. I urge the Palestinian leadership to accept his offer. By working together, Israelis and Palestinians can lay the groundwork for a peaceful transition. [24]
And in his May 26, 2005 joint press conference welcoming Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to the White House, President Bush said:
The imminent Israeli disengagement from Gaza, parts of the West Bank, presents an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a return to the road map... To help ensure that the Gaza disengagement is a success, the United States will provide to the Palestinian Authority $50 million to be used for new housing and infrastructure projects in the Gaza. [25]
European Union position
Javier Solana, European Union High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), stated on June 10, 2004:
I welcome the Israeli Prime Minister's proposals for disengagement from Gaza. This represents an opportunity to restart the implementation of the Road Map, as endorsed by the UN Security Council.
The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen (Ireland having Presidency of the EU at the time), announced the European Union's disapproval of the plan's limited scope in that it does not address withdrawal from the entire West Bank. He said that the EU "will not recognize any change to the pre-1967 borders other than those arrived at by agreement between the parties." However, Europe has given tentative backing to the Disengagement plan as part of the Road map for peace.
United Nations position
Kofi Annan, UN_Secretary-General, commended on August 18, 2005 ([26]) what he called Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s "courageous decision" to carry through with the painful process of disengagement, expressed the hope that "both Palestinians and Israelis will exercise restraint in this challenging period", and "believes that a successful disengagement should be the first step towards a resumption of the peace process, in accordance with the Road Map," referring to the plan sponsored by the diplomatic Quartet – UN, European Union, Russia and United States – which calls for a series of parallel steps leading to two states living side-by-side in peace by the end of the year.
Ibrahim Gambari, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, told the Security Council on August 24, 2005 [27]:
Israel has demonstrated that it has the requisite maturity to do what would be required to achieve lasting peace, and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has demonstrated their ability to discharge their mission with carefully calibrated restraint. Prime Minister Sharon should be commended for his determination and courage to carry out the disengagement in the face of forceful and strident internal opposition.
Public opinion about the plan
Palestinian opinions
The Palestinian Authority, in the absence of a final peace settlement, has welcomed any military withdrawal from the territories, but many Palestinian Arabs have objected to the plan, stating that it aims to "bypass" past international agreements, and instead call for an overall withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Their suspicions were further aroused when top Sharon aide Dov Weisglass was quoted in an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz on October 6, 2004 as saying that the disengagement would prevent a Palestinian state for years to come:
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.
This incident has bolstered the position of critics of the plan that Sharon is intentionally trying to scuttle the peace process, an accusation denied by the Prime Minister's camp. [28]
On August 8, 2005, Haaretz quoted a top Palestinian Authority religious cleric, Sheikh Jamal al-Bawatna, the mufti of the Ramallah district, in a fatwa (a religious edict) banning shooting attacks against Israeli security forces and settlements, out of concern they might lead to a postponement of the pullout. According to Haaretz, this is the first time that a Muslim cleric has forbidden shooting at Israeli forces. [29]
On August 15, 2005, scenes of delight took place across the Arab world, following the long-ingrained suspicion that the disengagement would not take place. [30][31]
Israeli opinions
A September 15, 2004 survey published in Maariv showed that:
- 69% supported a general referendum to decide on the plan; 26% thought that approval in the Knesset would be enough.
- If a referendum were to be held, 58% would vote for the disengagement plan, while 29% would vote against it. [32] [33]
Recent polls on support for the plan have consistently shown support for the plan in the 50-60% range, and opposition in the 30-40% range. A June 9, 2005 Dahaf Institute/Yedioth Ahronoth poll showed support for the plan at 53%, and opposition at 38%. [34] A June 17 telephone poll published in Maariv showed 54% of Israel’s Jews supporting the plan. A poll carried out by the Midgam polling company, on June 29 found support at 48% and opposition at 41%, [35] but a Dahaf Institute/Yedioth Ahronot poll of the same day found support at 62% and opposition at 31%. [36] A poll conducted the week of July 17 by the Tel Aviv University Institute for Media, Society, and Politics shows that Israeli approval of the disengagement is at 48%; 43% of the respondents believe that Palestinian terrorism will increase following disengagement, versus 25% who believe that terrorism will decline. [37]
On July 25, 2004, the "Human Chain," a rally of tens of thousands of Israelis to protest against the plan and for a national referendum took place. The protestors formed a human chain from Nisanit (later moved to Erez crossing because of security concerns) in the Gaza Strip to the Western Wall in Jerusalem a distance of 90 km. [38] On October 14, 2004, 100,000 Israelis marched in cities throughout Israel to protest the plan under the slogan "100 cities support Gush Katif and Samaria". [39]
On May 16, 2005, a nonviolent protest was held throughout the country, with the protesters blocking major traffic arteries throughout Israel. The protest was sposored by "HaBayit HaLeumi", and was hailed by them as a success, with over 400 protestors arrested, half of them juveniles. Over 40 intersections throughout the country were blocked, including:
- The entrance to Jerusalem
- Bar Ilan/Shmuel Hanavi Junction in Jerusalem
- Sultans Pool Junction outside the Old City of Jerusalem
- Geha Highway
- Golumb St. corner of Begin Blvd in Jerusalem
On July 18, 2005, another nonviolent protest was held. The protest began in Netivot near Gaza. An independent media organization, WorldNetDaily, estimated that the crowd in Netivot numbered close to 70,000, most of whom walked to Kfar Maimon. [40] The protest march ended July 21 after police prevented protesters from continuing to Gush Katif.
On August 2, 2005 another protest against disengagement began in Sederot with approximately 50,000 attendees.
A widely publicized weeklong show of support for the disengagement attracted only tens of supporters. The supporters drove in a caravan through Israel, ending in Jerusalem. According to the organizer, there were at most seventy cars involved. [41]
Those advocating suspension or cancellation of the plan have often quoted one or more of these arguments:
- The religious approach maintains that Eretz Israel was promised to the Jews by God, and that no government has the authority to waive this inalienable right. In their view, inhabiting all of the land of Israel is one of the most important mitzvot.
- The political approach, owing much to existing right-wing ideology, claims that the areas to be evacuated constitute Israeli territory as legitimately as Tel Aviv or Haifa, and that relocating settlers is illegal and violates their human rights. Some have gone as far as labelling it a war crime. In the wake of the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit of February 2005, some have claimed that now that there is a negotiation partner on the Palestinian side, the plan has become redundant.
- The military approach says that the plan is disastrous to Israeli security — not only will prevention of Qassam rockets and other attacks from Gaza become nearly impossible after the withdrawal, but implementation of the plan will be an important moral victory for Hamas and other organizations, and will encourage them to continue executing terrorist attacks against Israel.
Orange ribbons in Israel symbolize opposition to the disengagement; it is the color of the flag of the Gush Katif Regional Council, as well as being reminiscent of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Blue ribbons (sometimes blue-and-white ribbons) symbolize support for the disengagement and are intended to invoke the Israeli flag.
American opinions
Recent polls in the U.S. about the question of the Gaza pullout have produced varied results. A recent poll commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League, and conducted by the Marttila Communications Group from June 19–23, 2005 among 2200 American adults, found that 71% of respondents felt that the Disengagement Plan is closer to a "bold step that would advance the Peace Process" than to a "capitulation to terrorist violence," while 12% felt that the plan is more of a "capitulation" than a "bold step".
A poll commissioned by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), and conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on June 26 - 27, 2005, with a sample of 1,000 American adults, showed U.S. opposition to the proposed disengagement. Respondents, by a margin of 4 to 1 (63% to 16%) opposed "Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from a section of Gaza and northern Samaria and forcing 10,000 Israeli Jews from their homes and businesses" and by a margin of 2.5 to 1 (53% to 21)%, agreed with the statement that "this Gaza Plan sends a message that Arab terrorism is being rewarded".
Morton Klein, President of the ZOA, criticized the ADL commissioned poll, stating that the question in the poll was not whether or not respondents agreed with the Disengagement Plan, but was a subjective characterization of primary motives behind it: whether Israeli politicians are acting more for the sake of capitulating to terrorism or for the sake of continuing the road map. The ADL, in turn, criticized the ZOA commissioned poll, calling its wording "loaded."
External links
- PM Sharon's Statement on the Day of the Implementation of the Disengagement Plan from the Prime Minister's Office
- Ariel Sharon's Disengagement Plan and President Bush's letter accepting it at MidEastWeb for Coexistence
- Map of disengagement plan showing settlements to be evacuated at MidEastWeb for Coexistence
- "The 3-days 'Kfar Maimon Siege' Anti Gaza Pullout demonstrators" (photo gallery by Eyal Dor-Ofer)
- Pictures of the Mass Prayer Rally against the disengagement plan at the Western Wall in Jerusalem
- Pictures of the Mass Rally in Tel Aviv against the disengagement plan
- U.S. Jews Divided on Pullout (FOX News)
- Gaza withdrawal is a defeat for Israel, says PA foreign minister by Khaled Abu Toameh, published in The Jerusalem Post August 21, 2005
- IDF to disinter 48 Gaza graves by Arieh O'Sullivan, published in The Jerusalem Post August 25, 2005
- Gaza and Victory? by Joey Tartakovsky assistant editor of the Claremont Review of Books published on Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers blog
- Anti-pullout signs posted at Yad Vashem by Etgar Lefkovits, published in the Jerusalem Post September 1, 2005