Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip

Israel's unilateral disengagement plan (also known as the " disengagement plan ", " Gaza Pull-Out plan " תוכנית ההינתקות and " Gaza Expulsion plan " by its opponents. ) is a proposal by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to remove all permanent Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip and from what Israel refers to as northern Samaria (part of what is known as the West Bank to the Palestinians , the UN , and most of the international community). The Gaza Strip contains 21 civilian Israeli settlements , and the area to be evacuated in Samaria contains four; these areas also contain numerous IDF installations. Sharon says the plan is designed to improve Israel's security and international status, in the absence of political negotiations to end the conflict. Bush endorsed the plan, saying: As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 . In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949 . (emphasis added) However, in his May 26, 2005 joint press conference with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas , in the Rose Garden , President Bush stated his expectations vis-a-vis the Roadmap Plan as follows: Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations . While initially President Bush stated that "a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" would be an "unrealistic" "outcome of the final status negotiations", the most recent position is that "changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to." Essentially, a Palestinian demand that Israel withdraw to the 1949 lines would become "the position of the United States". The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen , announced the European Union's disapproval of the plan, saying it "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 Disengagemnt plan as part of the Road Map for Peace . Under the disengagement plan [1] as adopted on 6 June 2004 (see below), 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).

Those Israeli citizens that refused to accept government compensation packages and voluntarily vacate their homes prior to the August 15, 2005 deadline, were evicted by Israeli security forces over a period of several days. The eviction of all residents, demolition of the residential buildings and evacuation of associated security personnel from the Gaza Strip was completed by September 12, 2005. The eviction and dismantlement of the four settlements in the northern West Bank was completed ten days later.

Four small settlements in the northern West Bank were also evacuated. Israeli-Palestinian coordination effort, 2005 The disengagement was proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon , adopted by the government on June 6, 2004 and enacted in August 2005. Those Israeli citizens who refused to accept government compensation packages and voluntarily vacate their homes prior to the August 15, 2005 deadline, were evicted by Israeli security forces over a period of several days. The eviction of all residents, demolition of the residential buildings and evacuation of associated security personnel from the Gaza Strip was completed by September 12, 2005. The eviction and dismantlement of the four settlements in the northern West Bank was completed ten days later.

Map of the Gaza Strip in May 2005, a few months prior to the Israeli withdrawal. The major settlement blocs were the blue-shaded regions of this map. 2005 withdrawal of Israeli personnel Primary concerns Final borders Israeli settlements Palestinian enclaves Jewish state Palestinian political violence Palestinian refugees Security concerns Status of Jerusalem Zionist political violence Secondary concerns Israeli West Bank barrier Places of worship Fatah–Hamas conflict Water Electricity International brokers The "Quartet" ( United Nations United States European Union Russia ) Arab League Egypt Jordan United Kingdom France Proposals One-state solution : Isratin Elon Peace Plan Two-state solution : Fahd Plan Allon Plan Arab Peace Initiative Geneva Initiative Lieberman Plan Israeli Peace Initiative Palestinian Prisoners' Document Trump Peace Plan Three-state solution Israeli unilateral plans: Hafrada Disengagement Realignment Others Palestinian Emirates Plan Projects / groups / NGOs Peace-orientated projects Israeli–Palestinian economic peace efforts Valley of Peace Middle East economic integration Alliance for Middle East Peace Peres Center for Peace v t e The Israeli disengagement from Gaza ( ) was the unilateral dismantling in 2005 of the 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and the evacuation of Israeli settlers and army from inside the Gaza Strip . The disengagement was proposed in 2003 by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon , adopted by the government in June 2004, and approved by the Knesset in February 2005 as the Disengagement Plan Implementation Law . It was implemented in August 2005 and completed in September 2005. The settlers who refused to accept government compensation packages and voluntarily vacate their homes prior to the 15 August 2005 deadline were evicted by Israeli security forces over a period of several days. The eviction of all residents, demolition of the residential buildings and evacuation of associated security personnel from the Gaza Strip was completed by 12 September 2005. The eviction and dismantlement of the four settlements in the northern West Bank was completed ten days later. 8,000 Jewish settlers from the 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip were relocated. The settlers received an average of more than US$200,000 in compensation per family. The United Nations , international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel . This is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars. Following the withdrawal, Israel has continued to maintain direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings, it maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities. The Israeli Economy from the Foundation of the State through the 21st Century . Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2010 . Israel claims it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip, maintaining that it is neither a State nor a territory occupied or controlled by Israel, but rather it has 'sui generis' status. Pursuant to the Disengagement Plan, Israel dismantled all military institutions and settlements in Gaza and there is no longer a permanent Israeli military or civilian presence in the territory. However the Plan also provided that Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip as well as maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border, and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will. Israel continues to control six of Gaza's seven land crossings, its maritime borders and airspace and the movement of goods and persons in and out of the territory. Egypt controls one of Gaza's land crossings. Gaza is also dependent on Israel for water, electricity, telecommunications and other utilities, currency, issuing IDs, and permits to enter and leave the territory. Israel also has sole control of the Palestinian Population Registry through which the Israeli Army regulates who is classified as a Palestinian and who is a Gazan or West Banker. Since 2000 aside from a limited number of exceptions Israel has refused to add people to the Palestinian Population Registry. It is this direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza that has led the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a significant number of legal commentators, to reject the argument that Gaza is no longer occupied. * Scobbie, Iain (2012). International Law and the Classification of Conflicts . Even after the accession to power of Hamas, Israel's claim that it no longer occupies Gaza has not been accepted by UN bodies, most States, nor the majority of academic commentators because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points including the effective control it exerted over the Rafah crossing until at least May 2011, its control of Gaza's maritime zones and airspace which constitute what Aronson terms the 'security envelope' around Gaza, as well as its ability to intervene forcibly at will in Gaza. * Gawerc, Michelle (2012). While Israel withdrew from the immediate territory, it remained in control of all access to and from Gaza through the border crossings, as well as through the coastline and the airspace. In addition, Gaza was dependent upon Israel for water, electricity sewage communication networks and for its trade (Gisha 2007. In other words, while Israel maintained that its occupation of Gaza ended with its unilateral disengagement Palestinians – as well as many human right organizations and international bodies – argued that Gaza was by all intents and purposes still occupied. In Caplan, Richard (ed.). Exit Strategies and State Building .

2005 Israeli government initiative Map of the Gaza Strip in May 2005, a few months prior to the Israeli disengagement, with major settlement blocs denoted by the blue-shaded regions. In 2005, Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip by dismantling all 21 Israeli settlements there. As part of this process, four Israeli settlements in the West Bank were dismantled as well. The disengagement was executed unilaterally: Israeli authorities did not coordinate with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) to facilitate an orderly transfer of administrative power following the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from the Gaza Strip. Since then, the United Nations , many other international humanitarian and legal organizations, and most academic commentators have continued to regard the Gaza Strip as being under Israeli occupation due to Israel's active control over the territory's external affairs , as affirmed by the 2024 International Court of Justice advisory opinion . Historically, according to Article 42 of the Hague Regulations and precedent in international law, it has been generally understood that a territory remains effectively occupied so long as a belligerent's authority is established and exercised over it, even if said belligerent does not have ground forces deployed in the area. Proposed by Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2003 and adopted by the Cabinet in 2004, the strategy was officially approved by the Knesset as the Disengagement Plan Implementation Law in June 2004. A deadline was issued for August 15, 2005, after which the IDF began evicting all Israeli settlers who were refusing to accept government compensation packages in exchange for voluntarily vacating their homes in the Gaza Strip. By September 12, all Israeli residential buildings in the territory had been demolished and the 8,000+ Israeli settlers who inhabited them had been removed. The dismantlement of the four West Bank settlements was completed ten days later. Among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the disengagement was met positively in light of earlier skepticism surrounding Israel's intention to withdraw from the territory. Among Israelis, polls showed support for the disengagement in the 50–60% range and opposition in the 30–40% range. The IDF met heavy resistance and riots while conducting evictions throughout the Gaza Strip settlements. Former and future Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu resigned from Sharon's government in protest. The Gaza Strip disengagement occurred seven months after the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit , which ended the Second Intifada . Israeli officials, historians, and legal analysts cited several motives behind the country's decision to withdraw from the territory, with the two most significant factors being: the unsustainable cost of persistent and intensive fighting with Hamas and other Palestinian militant organizations ; and demographic concerns rooted in the discrepancy between the Israeli birth rate and the Palestinian birth rate , as the latter greatly outpaced the former. According to Sharon, the disengagement plan was aimed at addressing Israel's long-term security challenges by shifting the country's resources to focus on strengthening the areas that "will constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any future agreement " with the Palestinians. Israel's 2005 "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip was not only conducted unilaterally, but deliberately rejected coordination with the PA or an orderly handover of the territory to it. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law – 2010 . Israel claims it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip, maintaining that it is neither a State nor a territory occupied or controlled by Israel, but rather it has 'sui generis' status. Pursuant to the Disengagement Plan, Israel dismantled all military institutions and settlements in Gaza and there is no longer a permanent Israeli military or civilian presence in the territory. However, the Plan also provided that Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip as well as maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border, and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will. Israel continues to control six of Gaza's seven land crossings, its maritime borders and airspace and the movement of goods and persons in and out of the territory. Egypt controls one of Gaza's land crossings. Gaza is also dependent on Israel for water, electricity, telecommunications and other utilities, currency, issuing IDs, and permits to enter and leave the territory. Israel also has sole control of the Palestinian Population Registry through which the Israeli Army regulates who is classified as a Palestinian and who is a Gazan or West Banker. Since 2000 aside from a limited number of exceptions Israel has refused to add people to the Palestinian Population Registry. It is this direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza that has led the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a significant number of legal commentators, to reject the argument that Gaza is no longer occupied. * Scobbie, Iain (2012). International Law and the Classification of Conflicts . Even after the accession to power of Hamas, Israel's claim that it no longer occupies Gaza has not been accepted by UN bodies, most States, nor the majority of academic commentators because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points including the effective control it exerted over the Rafah crossing until at least May 2011, its control of Gaza's maritime zones and airspace which constitute what Aronson terms the 'security envelope' around Gaza, as well as its ability to intervene forcibly at will in Gaza. * Gawerc, Michelle (2012). While Israel withdrew from the immediate territory, it remained in control of all access to and from Gaza through the border crossings, as well as through the coastline and the airspace. In addition, Gaza was dependent upon Israel for water, electricity sewage communication networks and for its trade (Gisha 2007. In other words, while Israel maintained that its occupation of Gaza ended with its unilateral disengagement Palestinians – as well as many human rights organizations and international bodies – argued that Gaza was by all intents and purposes still occupied. However, according to Article 42 of the Hague Regulations (1907), a belligerent has effective control of a territory so long as it has established its authority and has the ability to exercise it, regardless of the continuous presence of ground troops. The Nuremberg Tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), are among the tribunals that have affirmed that a territory remains occupied so long as an army could reestablish physical control of that territory "at any time." Cuyckens, Hanne (2016).