To interview any of the commentators contact the IMEU at 510-451-2600 or info@imeu.net

One year ago today, Israel began its unilateral disengagement from Gaza, removing 8,500 settlers from 21 settlements in Gaza and 500 from four small settlements in the West Bank. The IMEU asked several prominent Palestinians to share what they thought of the disengagement when it was occurring, their view of the situation in Gaza today, and how it compares to what they expected to occur.

Commentators Abed al Salaam Abu Askar is Director of the Gaza Media Center. Diana Buttu was the lead legal advisor to the Palestinian technical team during disengagement. Laila El-Haddad is an Aljazeera.net journalist from Gaza City who is currently in the U.S. Jess Ghannam is an expert on mental health issues in Gaza and Chief of Medical Psychology at the University of California, San Francisco. Nadia Hijab is a Senior Fellow at the Washington D.C.-based Institute for Palestine Studies. Ussama Makdisi is a professor at Rice University.

What was your view of the Gaza disengagement when it was occurring?

Abed al Salaam Abu Askar

Israel evacuated Gaza because it did not serve its strategic objectives. Gaza was a major military and economic drain on Israel as it needed thousands of soldiers to "protect" a small number of settlers. The term "disengagement" is a misnomer because it implies that Israeli control over the Palestinians has ended. Yet Israel continues to control the Gaza Strip through its borders and crossing points, the movement of people and airspace. This is part of Israel's long-term strategy - that in exchange for evacuating from 5 percent of occupied Palestinian territory, it retains control over more than 45 percent of the West Bank.

Diana Buttu

Obviously, I was happy that the colonization of the Gaza Strip finally came to an end. That said, the Gaza disengagement was a three-part plan: (1) the evacuation of all Israeli colonies from the Gaza Strip and four small colonies in the West Bank; (2) the ongoing colonization of the West Bank and construction of the Wall and (3) the continued control over the Gaza Strip, including virtually all border crossings, Palestinian airspace and territorial waters. In effect, Israel aimed to isolate Gaza while at the same time getting credit for evacuating settlers. These latter aspects were completely ignored by the media and the international community.

Laila El-Haddad

As most Palestinians, I had hoped for the best, but feared the worst, for I saw the obvious shortcomings of the much-lauded Disengagement Plan. Even then, many of us warned the world that if something was not done to safeguard Palestinian rights and access for people and goods, Gaza - and whatever shred remained of the peace process - would be doomed. Instead, the world went on to declare Ariel Sharon a "brave man of peace" for "withdrawing" from Gaza, without a second thought to the consequences.

Jess Ghannam

When the unilateral Gaza disengagement plan was announced there were two kinds of reactions. On the one hand, Palestinians were deeply skeptical of the Israeli attempt to unilaterally decide the fate of the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza. Many perceived this Plan as a cover for a more sinister design that the Israeli Government had to further extend and colonize the West Bank with illegal settlements and the completion of the Annexation Wall. On the other hand, the reality of illegal Israeli settlers being removed from stolen Palestinian land was welcomed. Most of the illegal Israeli settlers were occupying the most fertile land in Gaza and returning this land back to the Palestinians was hoped to facilitate the creation of jobs and agricultural infrastructure.

Nadia Hijab

The Gaza disengagement could bring neither peace nor security because Israel made it very clear it intended to maintain control over access to Gaza from air, sea, and land. Moreover, it refused to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians over the withdrawal, which it carried out unilaterally. As the weeks progressed, not even all the power of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was able to accomplish something as simple as rescue the season's harvest for export.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his successor Ehud Olmert also made clear that the Gaza withdrawal was intended to arrive at a final settlement in the West Bank - also unilateral - based on Sharon's exchange of letters with President George Bush in April 2004: no withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, no return for Palestinian refugees, no equality for Palestinians in Israel.

Ussama Makdisi

My view was basically the same as it is today. It was just part of the longstanding Israeli plan to continue it's colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to keep the Palestinians confined to heavily populated areas like Gaza and a few towns in the West Bank. It's basically an Israeli attempt to impose on the Palestinians a unilateral solution. To impose the bounds of what the Israelis might permit to become a Palestinian state. A Gaza that is completely isolated from the West Bank, the Arab world, and the wider world.

The U.S. and Western press celebrated the disengagement as great move for peace. But anyone who understands Israel's objectives knows it has everything to do with Israeli hubris and was an attempt to solve the problem unilaterally without engaging the Palestinians. It is exactly the same thing the Israelis did in Lebanon.

How would you describe the situation a year later?

Abed al Salaam Abu Askar

The evacuation from Gaza allowed Palestinians internal freedom of movement, and for the first time in close to 40 years, the chance to regain their land. Despite this, Israel achieved its goals of indirect control over the Palestinians through the closure of Gaza's borders whenever it chooses. For example, Al-Muntar (Karni) crossing point (which is the sole crossing point for goods) has been closed for 6 out of past 11 months. In addition, Israel undermined the greenhouse project by blocking the export of produce from the Gaza Strip, just as it has blocked the removal of the rubble from its settlements. As a result, it is virtually impossible to carry out any development projects on these lands.

Diana Buttu

The situation in the Gaza Strip is precisely as I had predicted: Israel has completely isolated it from the rest of the world. Goods enter and exit only with Israeli permission; foreigners are not allowed to enter without Israeli permission; Israel continues to militarily invade; Israel maintains complete control over Palestinian airspace and territorial waters and the economy of the Gaza Strip has significantly dropped owing to the lack of investment certainty, the lack of jobs and unfulfilled promises by the international donor community.

Laila El-Haddad

Gaza has come to resemble little more than the largest, highest-security open-air prison on earth.

It has become apparent - long before Hamas was elected into power - that the Israeli occupation of Gaza had not ended. It had just become more sophisticated and entrenched: Gaza's skies, borders, air, travel permit system, and birth registration process all remained under Israeli control.

Jess Ghannam

For Palestinians the unilateral Gaza disengagement plan has been catastrophic. One year after the Gaza disengagement plan has left Palestinians living in Gaza with one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world today. The Gaza disengagement plan has in reality become the Gaza prison plan. Gaza has become a large open-air prison where the guards have been removed from the inside of the prison to the perimeter. Gaza is completely occupied and cut-off from the world and because there are no settlers in Gaza now, the Israeli military has free reign to shell, bomb, and destroy civil infrastructure and extra-judicially assassinate Palestinian civilians.

There are food and medicine shortages as the Government of Israel continues to impose sanctions on all supplies coming into Gaza. There are no functioning hospitals and clinics and Palestinians civil servants have not been paid in over 4 months because Israel refuses to release money owed the Palestinian Authority. Israel is denying medicine and food to come into Gaza and literally, Palestinians are starving to death and dying from denial of medicine. It is a humanitarian disaster and the world is watching while Palestinians are dying.

Nadia Hijab

In July 2006, 151 Palestinians were killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza, the majority civilian - the highest total since October 2004. Gaza has been on the brink of humanitarian disaster for weeks, without sufficient power, food, medicine, or other essential supplies, and UN relief agencies estimate that 70% of the 1.4 million people now rely on emergency assistance.

These desperate conditions have been overshadowed by Israel's war in Lebanon and the humanitarian crisis caused by Israel's destruction of the infrastructure in that country. The US administration focuses primarily on Palestinian attacks rather than on Israel's siege. For example, Hamas and other guerrilla groups captured an Israeli soldier and killed two others on June 25 after Israel kidnapped two brothers - both civilians - and killed a family on the Gaza beach during the week. The beach attack led Hamas to suspend a ceasefire it had observed unilaterally for 16 months.

Ussama Makdisi

Much worse. Since then, Gaza has been under a continuous state of siege and massive Israeli bombardments. The Israelis are destroying what little infrastructure there was. Halutz has openly declared Israel's plan to hurt the Palestinian people, just like with Lebanon. The world's silence is astonishing. It's actually pretty depressing but fully in line with any realistic assessment of what the Gaza disengagement was about, which had nothing to do with peace and everything to do with Israeli colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

How is this different or similar from what you expected and why?

Abed al Salaam Abu Askar

I do not believe that current situation differs fundamentally from what I had expected a year ago. However, what I did not expect was the lack of proper use of the lands evacuated by the settlers. Until now, there have been no projects developed or started on these lands. Similarly, I did not expect that Gaza's industrial zones would not be properly used. Had they been properly administered thousands of jobs would have been created for Palestinians. What I least expected was the continuation of the Israeli army's attacks in the Gaza Strip, its ongoing killing of Palestinians as well as its continued demolition of Palestinian homes.

Diana Buttu

The international community has proven itself unwilling to pressure Israel to abide by international law and put an end to Israel's colonization and occupation over Palestinians and their territory. Instead, it has demonstrated that while it is good at making promises to the Palestinians, it is bad at fulfilling them. Moreover, Israel, as expected, used its "credit" for evacuating from the Gaza Strip for continuing the colonization of the West Bank. All of this was, sadly, expected.

Laila El-Haddad

A year on, the situation is even worse than expected.

The intoxicating sense of freedom we felt during the days after the last of the Israeli settlers departed dissipated nearly as quickly as it has descended upon us. And though internal barriers and checkpoints were lifted, there existed a larger, seemingly impermeable barrier surrounding every aspect of our lives. Many of us underestimated how suffocating the effects of this post-disengagement, invisible occupation would be.

Israel continued to impose an even more extensive blanket travel ban to the West Bank and Jerusalem on over 90 percent of Palestinians in Gaza, and particularly on those between 16 and 35 years of age, this time claiming through its high courts that it is "no longer responsible" for Gaza or its residents. This extends to the sick and to university students wishing to study in the West Bank. Read her full response here.

Jess Ghannam

Sadly, this not different from what we expected. The reason is clear and obvious: the interests of Israel are to expand and extend the occupation of Palestine in every way and at every moment. The interests of Israel are to have as much Palestinian land as possible without having any Palestinians on it. If we understand the simple truth that Israel is an occupier with the sole intention to create facts on the ground that promote the extension of an illegal occupation then what we observe in Gaza today makes sense. Israel does not want peace, it wants land and land without Palestinians.

Nadia Hijab

The only difference is in the scale of the Israeli attacks. I don't think anyone could have foreseen a year ago that Israel would have responded so massively to the Hamas and Hizbullah capture of prisoners in June and July to secure the release of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. I believe the completely disproportionate Israeli response was an attempt to extinguish the last possibilities of resistance by Hamas and the far stronger Hizbullah to its plans to annex most of the West Bank, as per the Bush-Sharon exchange of letters in 2004.

Ussama Makdisi

The situation now is exactly what any realistic observer of the situation on the ground would have expected. Anyone would have to come to the conclusion that the Israelis are not interested in striking a peace deal with the Palestinians that meet any of the Palestinians' aspirations. The Israelis see the Palestinians only as a problem, as a demographic threat, as opposed to a people. They have chosen the path of colonization, violence, brutality, of crushing the Palestinians. This will only lead to further conflict, as the Palestinians will resist their subjugation.

Abed al Salaam Abu Askar (top)

What was your view of the Gaza disengagement when it was occurring?

Israel evacuated Gaza because it did not serve its strategic objectives. Gaza was a major military and economic drain on Israel as it needed thousands of soldiers to "protect" a small number of settlers. The term "disengagement" is a misnomer because it implies that Israeli control over the Palestinians has ended. Yet Israel continues to control the Gaza Strip through its borders and crossing points, the movement of people and airspace. This is part of Israel's long-term strategy - that in exchange for evacuating from 5 percent of occupied Palestinian territory, it retains control over more than 45 percent of the West Bank.

How would you describe the situation a year later?

The evacuation from Gaza allowed Palestinians internal freedom of movement, and for the first time in close to 40 years, the chance to regain their land. Despite this, Israel achieved its goals of indirect control over the Palestinians through the closure of Gaza's borders whenever it chooses. For example, Al-Muntar (Karni) crossing point (which is the sole crossing point for goods) has been closed for 6 out of past 11 months. In addition, Israel undermined the greenhouse project by blocking the export of produce from the Gaza Strip, just as it has blocked the removal of the rubble from its settlements. As a result, it is virtually impossible to carry out any development projects on these lands.

How is this different or similar from what you expected and why?

I do not believe that current situation differs fundamentally from what I had expected a year ago. However, what I did not expect was the lack of proper use of the lands evacuated by the settlers. Until now, there have been no projects developed or started on these lands. Similarly, I did not expect that Gaza's industrial zones would not be properly used. Had they been properly administered thousands of jobs would have been created for Palestinians. What I least expected was the continuation of the Israeli army's attacks in the Gaza Strip, its ongoing killing of Palestinians as well as its continued demolition of Palestinian homes.

Diana Buttu (top)

What was your view of the Gaza disengagement when it was occurring?

Obviously, I was happy that the colonization of the Gaza Strip finally came to an end. That said, the Gaza disengagement was a three-part plan: (1) the evacuation of all Israeli colonies from the Gaza Strip and four small colonies in the West Bank; (2) the ongoing colonization of the West Bank and construction of the Wall and (3) the continued control over the Gaza Strip, including virtually all border crossings, Palestinian airspace and territorial waters. In effect, Israel aimed to isolate Gaza while at the same time getting credit for evacuating settlers. These latter aspects were completely ignored by the media and the international community.

How would you describe the situation a year later?

The situation in the Gaza Strip is precisely as I had predicted: Israel has completely isolated it from the rest of the world. Goods enter and exit only with Israeli permission; foreigners are not allowed to enter without Israeli permission; Israel continues to militarily invade; Israel maintains complete control over Palestinian airspace and territorial waters and the economy of the Gaza Strip has significantly dropped owing to the lack of investment certainty, the lack of jobs and unfulfilled promises by the international donor community.

How is this different or similar from what you expected and why?

The international community has proven itself unwilling to pressure Israel to abide by international law and put an end to Israel's colonization and occupation over Palestinians and their territory. Instead, it has demonstrated that while it is good at making promises to the Palestinians, it is bad at fulfilling them. Moreover, Israel, as expected, used its "credit" for evacuating from the Gaza Strip for continuing the colonization of the West Bank. All of this was, sadly, expected.

Laila El-Haddad (top)

What was your view of the Gaza disengagement when it was occurring?

As most Palestinians, I had hoped for the best, but feared the worst, for I saw the obvious shortcomings of the much-lauded Disengagement Plan. Even then, many of us warned the world that if something was not done to safeguard Palestinian rights and access for people and goods, Gaza - and whatever shred remained of the peace process - would be doomed. Instead, the world went on to declare Ariel Sharon a "brave man of peace" for "withdrawing" from Gaza, without a second thought to the consequences.

How would you describe the situation a year later?

Gaza has come to resemble little more than the largest, highest-security open-air prison on earth.

It has become apparent - long before Hamas was elected into power - that the Israeli occupation of Gaza had not ended. It had just become more sophisticated and entrenched: Gaza's skies, borders, air, travel permit system, and birth registration process all remained under Israeli control.

How is this different or similar from what you expected and why?

A year on, the situation is even worse than expected.

The intoxicating sense of freedom we felt during the days after the last of the Israeli settlers departed dissipated nearly as quickly as it has descended upon us. And though internal barriers and checkpoints were lifted, there existed a larger, seemingly impermeable barrier surrounding every aspect of our lives. Many of us underestimated how suffocating the effects of this post-disengagement, invisible occupation would be.

Israel continued to impose an even more extensive blanket travel ban to the West Bank and Jerusalem on over 90 percent of Palestinians in Gaza, and particularly on those between 16 and 35 years of age, this time claiming through its high courts that it is "no longer responsible" for Gaza or its residents. This extends to the sick and to university students wishing to study in the West Bank.

Even Palestinian control over the dreaded Rafah Crossing - Gaza's only route to the outside world and the one passage Palestinians hoped would return to them, turned out to be ultimately fictitious, with Israel effectively controlling who uses the crossing (only Palestinian ID card holders have so far been allowed in).

Israel also continued to deny more than 50,000 Palestinians family re-unification permits that would allow Palestinians couples - such as my husband and me - to join each other and travel freely in and out of Gaza. Even the most pessimistic Palestinians assumed this issue would be resolved swiftly after Disengagement, since Gaza was no longer "of concern" to Israel. But it became clear that the Disengagement simply fell into the long-standing Israeli policy of maximizing control while minimizing responsibility.

The lesson is that unilateralism can never succeed at obtaining a just and secure peace for all.

Jess Ghannam (top)

What was your view of the Gaza disengagement when it was occurring?

When the unilateral Gaza disengagement plan was announced there were two kinds of reactions. On the one hand, Palestinians were deeply skeptical of the Israeli attempt to unilaterally decide the fate of the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza. Many perceived this Plan as a cover for a more sinister design that the Israeli Government had to further extend and colonize the West Bank with illegal settlements and the completion of the Annexation Wall. On the other hand, the reality of illegal Israeli settlers being removed from stolen Palestinian land was welcomed. Most of the illegal Israeli settlers were occupying the most fertile land in Gaza and returning this land back to the Palestinians was hoped to facilitate the creation of jobs and agricultural infrastructure.

How would you describe the situation a year later?

For Palestinians the unilateral Gaza disengagement plan has been catastrophic. One year after the Gaza disengagement plan has left Palestinians living in Gaza with one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world today. The Gaza disengagement plan has in reality become the Gaza prison plan. Gaza has become a large open-air prison where the guards have been removed from the inside of the prison to the perimeter. Gaza is completely occupied and cut-off from the world and because there are no settlers in Gaza now, the Israeli military has free reign to shell, bomb, and destroy civil infrastructure and extra-judicially assassinate Palestinian civilians.

There are food and medicine shortages as the Government of Israel continues to impose sanctions on all supplies coming into Gaza. There are no functioning hospitals and clinics and Palestinians civil servants have not been paid in over 4 months because Israel refuses to release money owed the Palestinian Authority. Israel is denying medicine and food to come into Gaza and literally, Palestinians are starving to death and dying from denial of medicine. It is a humanitarian disaster and the world is watching while Palestinians are dying.

How is this different or similar from what you expected and why?

Sadly, this not different from what we expected. The reason is clear and obvious: the interests of Israel are to expand and extend the occupation of Palestine in every way and at every moment. The interests of Israel are to have as much Palestinian land as possible without having any Palestinians on it. If we understand the simple truth that Israel is an occupier with the sole intention to create facts on the ground that promote the extension of an illegal occupation then what we observe in Gaza today makes sense. Israel does not want peace, it wants land and land without Palestinians.

Nadia Hijab (top)

What was your view of the Gaza disengagement when it was occurring?

The Gaza disengagement could bring neither peace nor security because Israel made it very clear it intended to maintain control over access to Gaza from air, sea, and land. Moreover, it refused to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians over the withdrawal, which it carried out unilaterally. As the weeks progressed, not even all the power of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was able to accomplish something as simple as rescue the season's harvest for export.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his successor Ehud Olmert also made clear that the Gaza withdrawal was intended to arrive at a final settlement in the West Bank - also unilateral - based on Sharon's exchange of letters with President George Bush in April 2004: no withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, no return for Palestinian refugees, no equality for Palestinians in Israel.

How would you describe the situation a year later?

In July 2006, 151 Palestinians were killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza, the majority civilian - the highest total since October 2004. Gaza has been on the brink of humanitarian disaster for weeks, without sufficient power, food, medicine, or other essential supplies, and UN relief agencies estimate that 70% of the 1.4 million people now rely on emergency assistance.

These desperate conditions have been overshadowed by Israel's war in Lebanon and the humanitarian crisis caused by Israel's destruction of the infrastructure in that country. The US administration focuses primarily on Palestinian attacks rather than on Israel's siege. For example, Hamas and other guerrilla groups captured an Israeli soldier and killed two others on June 25 after Israel kidnapped two brothers - both civilians - and killed a family on the Gaza beach during the week. The beach attack led Hamas to suspend a ceasefire it had observed unilaterally for 16 months.

How is this different or similar from what you expected and why?

The only difference is in the scale of the Israeli attacks. I don't think anyone could have foreseen a year ago that Israel would have responded so massively to the Hamas and Hizbullah capture of prisoners in June and July to secure the release of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. I believe the completely disproportionate Israeli response was an attempt to extinguish the last possibilities of resistance by Hamas and the far stronger Hizbullah to its plans to annex most of the West Bank, as per the Bush-Sharon exchange of letters in 2004.

Ussama Makdisi (top)

What was your view of the Gaza disengagement when it was occurring?

My view was basically is the same as it is today. It was just part of the longstanding Israeli plan to continue it's colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to keep the Palestinians confined to heavily populated areas like Gaza and a few towns in the West Bank. It's basically an Israeli attempt to impose on the Palestinians a unilateral solution. To impose the bounds of what the Israelis might permit to become a Palestinian state. A Gaza that is completely isolated from the West Bank, the Arab world, and the wider world.

The U.S. and Western press celebrated the disengagement as great move for peace. But anyone who understands Israel's objectives knows it has everything to do with Israeli hubris and was an attempt to solve the problem unilaterally without engaging the Palestinians. It is exactly the same thing the Israelis did in Lebanon.

How would you describe the situation a year later?

Much worse. Since then, Gaza has been under a continuous state of siege and massive Israeli bombardments. The Israelis are destroying what little infrastructure there was. Halutz has openly declared Israel's plan to hurt the Palestinian people, just like with Lebanon. The world's silence is astonishing. It's actually pretty depressing but fully in line with any realistic assessment of what the Gaza disengagement was about, which had nothing to do with peace and everything to do with Israeli colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

How is this different or similar from what you expected and why?

The situation now is exactly what any realistic observer of the situation on the ground would have expected. Anyone would have to come to the conclusion that the Israelis are not interested in striking a peace deal with the Palestinians that meet any of the Palestinians' aspirations. The Israelis see the Palestinians only as a problem, as a demographic threat, as opposed to a people. They have chosen the path of colonization, violence, brutality, of crushing the Palestinians. This will only lead to further conflict, as the Palestinians will resist their subjugation.