Why Is Israel Pulling Out Settlers From Gaza
An Israel disengagement from Gaza and west bank was a plan initiated from the year 2005 by withdrawing the Israelis from those two settlements and dismantling the Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip and the other four settlements in the west bank region. It was a move proposed by the then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2003 and approved by their government in 2004. In 2005 the government enacted it into law. The process involved the use of the army to evict all those who refused to vacate the settlement on the given deadline date of August 15, 2005, after the government agreed to extend a compensation package to them.
Why did Israel conquer the settlements in the first place?-
That question in my view could best explain why the Israeli army commander was faced with a lot of challenges when executing his duties of evicting the Jews from Gaza and the West Bank. Many of the Israeli settlers might have refused to move away from the two settlements because of their legal claim of occupying those regions. That is, they consider them their right acquired areas whereby they saw no reason for abandoning those two sectors.
After taking control of the two territories from Egypt during the Six-Day War of 1967, Israeli-led by their leaders such as Sharon stated that building settlements in those areas would make them achieve many goals as a state. One among those goals was that, by building settlements in those regions, the Jewish population would increase in those territories which could in turn warrant occupation of those lands for good. Regarding such arguments from those Israeli political leaders, it is maybe the reason that prompted the settlers not to move out of Gaza and west bank willingly since they might have thought that those areas had become their real home that, anybody trying to remove them is their enemy including their army. That considered those who were born in those regions and had since called those areas their ancestral homes since 1967.
To support such arguments, viewing of those settlements as a security buffer zones against the future invasions of their Palestinians enemies after the invasion of those areas would have prompted resistance across the whole Jewish communities living in and outside the two regions. That explains their thought that could have meant a security threat on the side of Israel as nobody would ensure them their safety posed by their Palestinian’s enemies.
After reaching a truce 1993, both the Palestinian and Israeli government come to an agreement whereby some Israeli pulled out of most populated areas within Gaza strip leaving them to a military installation. Such moves also saw the Palestinians start occupying those regions left by the Jewish and over a period decided to impose their self-rule in those areas a move which might have led to internal war between Israeli Jewish and Pakistani Arabs. What followed are the numerous suicide bombings by the Arabs to Israelis prompting the collapse of the second peace talks in 2002 and the persistence struggle by those two opposing communities. That made it hard for the military to execute their duties efficiently as the frequent suicide bombings and the emergence of Palestinians terror groups fighting the control of the west bank and Gaza strip.
What could have made it harder for the commander of the Israel army to carry out his duties to the maximum, lies with the faith of the then commander major general Gershon Hacohen. Gershon comes from a family of national religious rabbis and himself a believer; he was tapped to head the mission precisely because of his deep ties to the settlement movement, thus the hard decision to act humanly or follow commands as an army officer.
Are there other major sticking points between Israel and the Palestinian authority that are complicating the pullout.
That could be the second reason which made the Israeli commander eviction strategy cumbersome. Whether there will exist a link between Gaza strip and west bank, remains unresolved issues by the two sides that are, the Israel and Palestinian authorities. The problem saw the two sides laxity in the implementation of such agreements making the commander at crossroads with both his side and those of the Palestinians.
The Oslo peace accords in 1990 described a safe passage between the two territories of but by the time of removal of the Jewish was never have been implemented. That on its side could not make the commander act actually as his government on its side was viewing such a move as a means of compromising the security of the Israelites. That is, the passageway was to serve as a business link to Gaza which might have led to free movements of Arab insurgents into Israel if they were allowed to cross and occupy the deserted Gaza and West Bank settlements.
The move by the by the Palestinian authority to have their airport rehabilitated, the sea port opening and the clear policy on the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza, could have also slowed down the commander’s removal action plan in Gaza. Because of the reported incidences of suicide bombings and the rise of militia groups in the Gaza and West bank, people, and goods movement would also have meant free entry of Arabs into the Israeli territories. That could have increased the continued Islamic raid into Israel, a move which the dedicated Christian commander Gershom could not have wanted.