GAZA/WEST BANK: One year after Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, people on both sides are asking what the 'disengagement' actually achieved

It has been one year since Israel closed the Iron gates of Kisofim, a settlement which was the last to be evacuated on September 12, 2005. One year after the withdrawal, Tuesday (September 12) hopes are dim as Gaza continues to deteriorate economically and politically increasing the frustration of Gaza residents and tightening the siege on the people and the goods travelling into and out of Gaza. Unilateralism, a policy that won the present Israeli government its power, is increasingly earning a reputation for not being effective after seemingly failing in Gaza and Lebanon, analysts say. "Gaza, they will not have any excuse to continue the conflict, at least not the military one. So they might do it (fight occupation) in the West Bank, but it did not work," Israeli journalist and analyst, Danny Rubenstien explains the logic behind the one-sided withdrawal to Reuters. A year since the Israeli withdrawal most will agree that the situation has deteriorated but many differ on the causes of the false hope. "Israel left Gaza but did not leave it alone because they imposed severe siege which caused severe deterioration in the economical situation and increased the frustration which encouraged further extremism and violence," Palestinian analyst Ghassan AlKhatib explains. After the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the Islamic Militant group, Hamas, decided to join the political process by running for elections in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Hamas won a majority of the seats in the PLC and was asked to form a government, putting an era of corruption tainted Fatah rule to an end and creating a bi-polar democratic system in the Palestinian Authority. The world refused to deal with the elected Hamas government until they recognize the Jewish state, recognize former agreements signed by the authority and do away with the destruction of Israel as an element on their charter. Some will argue that the Hamas-led government is what brought about the siege on Gaza, while others cite the siege existence before Hamas won elections and blame Israel for attempting to undermine any effort to move forward in Gaza. "The total outcome of the Israeli withdrawal is deterioration in the economic and political situation for Gazans and the Palestinians. Disintegration between the West Bank and Gaza, without any improvement in the political or security situation for Israel," AlKhatib explains. "(Israel thought) The response for the Israeli occupation or steps in the West Bank will be only limited in the West Bank and not in Gaza but it did not work," Rubenstien explains, citing continued attacks on Israel as a reason for possible failure. All Palestinian factions with the exception of Islamic Jihad, have largely abided by a truce agreement forged in Cairo in order to give the political side room to move the process forward. Islamic Jihad continued with their rocket fire onto Israel, while Israel's artillery repeatedly fired shells onto Gaza, often targeting what they call militants through airstrikes which have caused civilian casualties. The latest development came on June 25th, when militants abducted an Israeli army soldier, Corporal Gilat Shalid, deployed on the border with Gaza with an Israeli artillery unit. Israel launched a large air and ground offensive in an effort to bring Corporal Shalid home, an effort that caused the death of 210 Palestinians, about half of them civilians, over the past three months. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas on Tuesday (September 12) poured cold water on any hopes a new Palestinian unity government might seek peace talks with Israel. Israel and the United States have responded sceptically to the planned unity coalition, agreed by Haniyeh and President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday as a way to lift a Western aid boycott imposed on the Hamas-led government in March. The European Union has been more positive, believing it could re-energise the Middle East peace process. Asked by Reuters if the new administration would negotiate with the Jewish state, Haniyeh said: "No. Negotiations have to do with the PLO and not with the government." Previous peace talks with Israel have been conducted by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which until the Hamas militant movement took power was seen as having the same interests as the government. In a move that might help ease tensions, an Israeli military judge ordered the release of 21 Hamas officials detained in raids after a soldier was abducted by gunmen in the Gaza Strip in June, an army spokesman said. Analysts cautiously view the Palestinian unity government as a step in the right direction, saying that one would need to wait and see if the new government can provide a way out of the current political stalemate particularly in Gaza and in the rest of the Palestinian territories. Unilateralism was recently abandoned by the current Ehud Olmert led Israeli government, which was elected on the one-sided withdrawals platform after a war with Lebanon raised more questions regarding the unilateral policy. "Unilatralism is based on mistrust you don't trust the other side, Israel said we don't trust you the Palestinians, we don't want to deal with you, we ignore you so we can do whatever we like in Gaza. I think that was now, in retrospect, one may say it was a huge mistake," Rubenstien concludes. "It didn't work, because their way of handling Gaza after the withdrawal increased the security problems for Israel and economic deterioration was perceived as an Israeli responsibility by the international community," Alkhatib agrees.

ITN Source | September 12, 2006

Tags:. .coalition. .reputation. .deployed. .concludes. .abbas