he forgotten disengagement of Israel from all of Gaza (2005).

With all the “reporting” on the issue of Gaza, people tend to forget:
The Israeli Disengagement from Gaza, August/September 2005.

Israel carried out a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, evacuating all 21 Jewish settlements and removing roughly 8,000 to 9,000 Israeli residents.

The hope was, that the Arab population in Gaza would decide their destiny by themselves and hopefully lead to a lasting peace.

• 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip were dismantled during the 2005 withdrawal of the Israeli army and removal of all Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip in the hope to allow the Palestinian autonomy to flourish.
• Over 8,000 Jewish citizens from settlements in the Gaza Strip were relocated.
• The settlement destroyed include: Bedolah, Bnei Atzmon (Atzmona), Dugit, Elei Sinai, Gadid, Gan Or, Ganei Tal, Katif, Kfar Darom, Kfar Yam, Kerem Atzmona, Morag, Neve Dekalim, Netzarim, Netzer Hazani, Nisanit, Pe'at Sadeh, Rafiah Yam, Slav, Shirat Hayam, Tel Katifa.
• All military installations and soldiers were removed from Gaza as well.

*** No Israeli presence in Gaza anymore. ***

When Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005,
the Palestinians had the opportunity to show us what a Two-State Solution would look like.
On October 7, 2023, they showed us.'

The 2005 Gaza disengagement was a unilateral tactical repositioning rather than a foundational step toward a two-state solution, and framing it as a rejected peace overture oversimplifies a complex occupation.

The Narrative of Benevolent Withdrawal

The provided statement frames the 2005 disengagement as a generous peace offering.

The Claim: Israel dismantled 21 settlements, removed over 8,000 residents, and pulled out all military forces to give Palestinians self-determination.
The Implication: The ball was entirely in the Palestinian court, and the events of October 7, 2023, proved that Palestinian autonomy inherently translates to violence rather than peace.
The Framing: This positions Israel as a peace-seeking actor betrayed by unprovoked hostility.

Critical Analysis and Context

A factual review of 2005 reveals that the withdrawal was unilateral, uncoordinated with Palestinian leadership, and designed to serve Israeli strategic interests rather than end control over Gaza. [1, 2]

Unilateral Nature: Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, explicitly stated at the time that the disengagement was meant to "freeze the peace process" and bottle up 1.8 million Palestinians in an effective blockade. It avoided, rather than advanced, negotiated bilateral compromises.
Continued Control: Even after removing internal settlements and ground troops, Israel retained absolute control over Gaza’s airspace, maritime borders, land crossings, population registry, and telecommunications. International bodies and legal experts—including the International Court of Justice—noted that Gaza remained legally occupied because effective external control never ceased. [1, 2]
The Blockade: Following Hamas’s electoral victory and takeover of Gaza in 2007, Israel—alongside Egypt—imposed a strict land, air, and sea blockade, which crippled the local economy and prevented the very "flourishing" of autonomy the withdrawal supposedly aimed to achieve. [1, 2]

Evaluative Assessment

The argument that "Israel left in 2005 and got war in return" relies on a false premise: that the disengagement equaled sovereignty, freedom, and an end to conflict.

While the brutality of the October 7, 2007/2023 attacks against Israeli civilians is indefensible, attributing it to a failed test of Palestinian statehood ignores the reality of an enduring, suffocating blockade and the absence of a genuine political horizon for ending the occupation of Palestinian territories. The 2005 withdrawal reshaped the architecture of control; it did not dismantle it. Official perspectives from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasize security and unilateral necessity, while human rights assessments from organizations like Amnesty International point to the continuous, unyielding confinement of the Strip. [1, 2]

Ultimately, the statement functions as political rhetoric rather than a rigorous historical evaluation. It erases the ongoing dynamics of occupation and blockade, reducing decades of systemic conflict into a simplistic binary of a peace-loving withdrawal met with unwarranted destruction.