Occupied Jerusalem – About two decades ago, specifically in the summer of 2005, Israel took a decision, described as historic, to decipher the Gaza Strip, as the Israeli army withdrew from inside it, and the Israeli settlements surrounding it were evacuated.
The move was then led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, for reasons that were said to be primarily security, linked to the impossibility of controlling the sector militarily, as well as demographic and religious dimensions.
The declared goal – according to Sharon’s statements at the time – was to reduce contact with the Palestinian population and reduce the cost of the occupation, in an attempt to escape from the “invading burden” that the Israeli security establishment did not stop warning from it since the second intifada.
But what appeared, one day, as if it was a final withdrawal, fading in light of the continuous Israeli war on the Gaza Strip, and puts everyone in front of a new military and political scene, in which Israel gradually returns to the option of full control of the Strip, under the justifications of “Hamas eradication” and “securing the border”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz-ukhnzv4
Vision revenge
In a remarkable development, the mini -security cabinet (cabinet), in a meeting that lasted for more than ten hours, approved the Gaza City occupation plan and expanding military operations in the Strip.
This is not the first time that the idea of occupying Gaza is fully raised, but it is the first that the Israeli government officially recognizes a plan of this kind.
This comes, amid a continuous field escalation, and the increasing votes on the Israeli right that calls for the re -imposition of direct Israeli control over the Strip, and even the displacement of its residents and the establishment of new settlements in it.
The Minister of Finance and the head of the “Religious Zionism” party also promoted in Salail Smotrich, who repeats without equivalent, “Gaza is an integral part of Israel.”
Analysts believe that this vision is no longer exclusive to strict right -wing parties, but rather gradually penetrating into the core of the political decision, driven by a revenge spirit after the battle of “The Flood of Al -Aqsa” and with a security reading, Gaza considers a region that must be “cleared” of threats, even if the price is the suffering of millions of civilians.
From disengagement to chaos
In an article in the newspaper “Haaretz”, entitled “The Prime Minister’s plans to completely occupy the Gaza Strip put Israel on the sure path towards an eternal war,” military analyst Amos Harel regained Sharon’s statements in 2005, when he justified the disengagement of the army’s inability to protect soldiers and settlers inside the Strip.
Today, about twenty years after that decision, Harel says, “The same controversy dates back to the forefront,” but in a completely inverted context, the current government, led by Netanyahu, was sincerely assigned to the plan to prepare for the occupation of Gaza City, and perhaps the entire sector.
According to Harel, the Chief of Staff, Zamir, believes that this plan is “catastrophic”, and warns of its consequences, which threatens to exacerbate the crisis within the military establishment, and raises the possibility of his resignation or even his dismissal, in a move that may lead to dangerous tremors in the ranks of the army.
Harel notes that the dispute between Netanyahu and Zamir is not only related to the military vision, but also starts from the depth of the impasse reached by the Israeli military campaign in the Gaza Strip, which has become the longest in the history of Israel.
Harel believes that the implementation of the plan will require a long wild operation that extends for months, perhaps two years, filling 4-6 combat teams, and hundreds of thousands of reserve soldiers, with a plan to push the population south or outside the sector, which raises wide internal and international criticism.
The summary that Harel alludes, maybe Sharon’s warnings two decades ago as a pre -emptive vision, but today, Israel restores “towards the same trap, this time, with open eyes.”
Commenting on the decision to occupy Gaza .. Deputy in the Belgian Parliament: No one moves a finger to prevent this criminal government pic.twitter.com/ghwgao7uqk
– Al -Jazeera Mubasher (@ajmubasher) August 8, 2025
He studied the postponed oath
Under the title “Deciphering after twenty years, the fatal right error”, ordinary Erbil, director of the “Civil Society Forum”, wrote in the newspaper “Israel Hume” that the disengagement was not motivated by evading the corruption files that were directed against Sharon, as many thought on the right, but rather a political option that Sharon made in the absence of an alternative to which the “National Camp” is collected.
Despite the warnings that were later valid, Erbil says, “The extreme right was wrong to link the decision with the investigation files against Sharon.” The latter did not believe in the “road map”, but rather adopted a unilateral separation plan written by Gilad Sher and Uri Sagi, in the absence of right -wing thought centers that offer an alternative vision.
Erbil believes that after twenty years, large sectors of the Israeli right began to draw lessons from the experience of decompression, and organizations and research institutes that seek to formulate real political alternatives to decision makers were established.
Although the impact of these bodies is still limited until now, their role is manifested in central issues, such as pushing towards the application of sovereignty in the West Bank or offering the idea of “voluntary evacuation” to the residents of the Gaza Strip, as explained by the author.
From Sharon to Smotrich
As for the military analyst Amir Bouhbout, he considered that the sector is actually subject to a repeated siege, inconsistency and widespread destruction, yet armed factions remain active in a war of attrition against Israeli forces, which makes the complete occupation “the collection” in the field.
But it represents a policy of a shift towards the imposition of permanent control, in light of an Israeli division between those who see it as a security and demographic burden, and those who see it “a biblical land” that must be restored.
Bouhbout concludes that Sharon’s statements in 2005 – when he warned against the impossibility of protecting the Israelis while they were in Gaza – is back today to ask the same question: Will Israel reinforced the Strip and drown in the trap from which it came out, or is it proceeding towards a security and politically charged adventure?
