Order Code RS22000
December 8, 2004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Israel’s Proposal to Withdraw from Gaza
Clyde R. Mark
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
In December 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed that Israel
withdraw its 7,500 settlers and 21 settlements from the Gaza Strip. President Bush has
endorsed the plan, which is not part of the “Road Map” peace plan. Most Israelis
support Sharon’s proposal, but some Israelis oppose withdrawing from Gaza for
religious or nationalist reasons. Opponents in the Likud-led coalition cabinet have quit
the government rather than vote for the plan, leaving Sharon with a minority
government. The report will be updated as needed.
Background: the Gaza Strip
The Gaza Strip is 140 square miles (362 square kilometers), about twice the size of
Washington, D.C., with a population of approximately 7,500 Israeli Jews living in 21
settlements and 1,325,000 Palestinian Arabs. The Gaza area was occupied by Egyptian
forces at the end of the 1948-1949 war. From 1949 to 1967, Egypt administered but did
not claim the territory. Israel occupied the Gaza Strip during the 1967 war and
administered the area until the 1994 agreement recognized Palestinian sovereignty over
70% of the strip.
Shortly after the 1967 conflict, Israeli civilian settlers began establishing settlements
in the West Bank, the Sinai, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip. The future of West
Bank and Gaza settlements is supposed to be a subject of final negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians.1 The Israeli military used force to remove some of the Israeli settlers
from the Sinai settlements in 1982 when Israel withdrew in accordance with the 1978
Camp David Agreement and the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt.
Israeli settlers want to remain in Gaza for two primary reasons; either they are
seeking the economic and personal advantages of less expensive housing, living space,
and a pleasant setting for their homes and businesses, or they believe that Gaza is a part
1 Declaration of Principles, Article V, Number 3. September 13, 1993.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
of traditional Israel and they are fulfilling a religious and historical duty by claiming the
land for a Jewish state.
Sharon Proposal
In early December 2003, Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that Israel
would give up its Gaza settlements.2 On December 18, 2003, Sharon stated if the
Palestinians were not meeting their commitments as outlined in the “Road Map” peace
proposal,3 Israel would disengage unilaterally from the Palestinians “within a few
months.” Sharon said Israel would reduce the number of settlements in predominantly
Palestinian areas and would relax some of the restrictions on Palestinian movement in the
occupied territories. In mid-January 2004, Sharon said he would present his
disengagement plan to the Israeli parliament (Knesset) for a vote, and in early February
said the plan would call for withdrawing from 17 of the 21 settlements in Gaza4 and from
four small settlements in the northern West Bank.
The proposal has not remained static. Sharon apparently decided against retaining
the three or four northern Gaza settlements, and added them to the 17 settlements to be
abandoned. At first, all buildings and infrastructure were to be left intact for use by the
Palestinians, then the plan changed to leaving only the official buildings and destroying
houses. The original plan called for a one-phase withdrawal beginning in June 2004, but
the plan changed to a four-stage withdrawal spaced out over one year. That later changed
to a phased plan beginning in September 2005. More recently, the plan appears to start
the withdrawal process in the near future, ending in September 2005, when the Israeli
military or police would use force to remove any remaining settlers. Israel published an
official version of the Sharon proposal on April 18, 2004 and a revised version on June
6, 2004.5
The official Israeli government document states that areas of the West Bank will
become part of Israel, including Israeli population centers, towns, villages, security areas,
and places of special interest. The last presumably could include Jewish religious and
historical sites, such as Joseph’s tomb in Nablus. The official version also states that
Israel will retain control over the air space over Gaza, control over the Gaza sea coast, and
control over the boundary between Gaza and Egypt (the so-called Philadelphi road).
2 King, Laura, “Aide’s Views Roil Sharon Camp,” Los Angeles Times, December 8, 2003.
3 The “Road Map,” created by the “Quartet” of the European Union, Russia, the United Nations,
and the United States, based on President George W. Bush’s 24 June 2002 speech, called for a
three-phase plan over four years to lead to final negotiations. See [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/
ps/2003/20062.htm].
4 Anderson, John Ward, “Sharon Says He Wants Plan to Remove Gaza Settlements,” Washington
Post, February 3, 2004.
5 [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/Revised+Disengageme
nt+Plan+6-June-2004.htm].
CRS-3
Why Withdraw from Gaza?
The withdrawal proposal is the subject of Israeli discussions. Some Israelis note that
withdrawing the settlers from Gaza saves the economic and military costs as well as the
politically unpopular image of sending young Israeli soldiers in harm’s way.6 Another
possible reason for the unilateral withdrawal suggested by some is that Israel hopes that
the Palestinians will reciprocate with a peaceful gesture that could lead to serious peace
talks. Others speculated that Israel hoped the United States would respond to the Gaza
withdrawal by acquiescing in Israel’s annexing parts of the West Bank, a goal apparently
realized in part on April 14, 2004 when President Bush said the peace should recognize
the “realities on the ground.” Israeli officials denied that they offered to withdraw from
Gaza in exchange for U.S. approval of Israeli annexation of West Bank settlements.7
On October 6, 2004, Dov Weisglass, an advisor to Prime Minister Sharon, implied
that disengagement was intended to end the peace process. The press quoted Weisglass
as saying: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace
process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian
state, and you prevent a discussion of the refugees, the borders, and Jerusalem.”8
Weisglass continued that disengagement and ending the peace process had the “blessing”
of the U.S. President and the “ratification” of both houses of Congress. But despite the
Weisglass statement, official U.S. policy continues to support the peace process.
Cost
Israel will offer compensation to the settlers, but the amount and the source of the
funds are uncertain. It is estimated that the 1,500 Israeli settler families in Gaza would
receive between $200,000 and $750,000 each to move into Israel.9 The payments would
be compensation for their homes and businesses, but also may include additional funds
for new housing allowances, business and household relocation, or other expenses. In
addition, the Defense Ministry estimates that it will cost more than $200 million to move
the military installations from Gaza to Israel.10 The bill passed by the Knesset on
November 3 will provide $900 million for withdrawing from Gaza.11
6 As many as 3,000 Israeli troops are needed to protect the 7,500 settlers at a cost “tens of
millions of dollars per year.” Hammer, Joshua, “Guns Over Gaza,” Newsweek, April 5, 2004.
7 “Israeli Vice Premier: Not Seeking US OK for Gaza Pullout,” Dow Jones International News,
March 26, 2004. Kessler, Glenn, “U.S. Views Gaza Proposal as Possible Interim Step,”
Washington Post, February 26, 2004.
8 Shavit, Ari, “Top PM Aide: Gaza Plan Aims to Freeze the Peace Process,” Haaretz, October
6, 2004. [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485491.html].
9 Alon, Gideon, “Some Settlers Will Get up to $750,000 in Compensation,” Haaretz, November
2, 2004.
10 Israel Army Says Gaza Pullout to Cost $200 Million, Reuters, 24 June 2004. Farrell, Stephen,
Gaza Settlers Split as Opposition Grows to Sharon Pullout, The Times (London), June 14, 2004.
11 Gaza Withdrawal Plan Takes Step Forward, Agence France Presse, November 3, 2004.
CRS-4
Observers have speculated that Israel will request supplemental aid from the United
States to pay for the retreat from Gaza, and there have been reports in the Israeli press that
Israel requested additional funds. But Israeli embassy spokesmen have stated that Israel
has not requested additional funds, and has no intention of doing so.
Validation
A recurring concern since the Prime Minister announced the withdrawal scheme was
the need for a vote (in the cabinet, the Knesset, or a national referendum) to validate the
Prime Minister’s proposal. In early December 2003, Prime Minister Sharon said that he
would make no concessions on the settlements without a cabinet vote. On January 12,
2004, Prime Minister Sharon said he would submit the withdrawal plan to the Knesset,
presumably for a vote of approval. But no vote was held; perhaps the Prime Minister
feared that a vote against his plan would lead to a vote of no confidence against his
government and new elections. Also, President George W. Bush endorsed the withdrawal
plan during an April 14 meeting and Prime Minister Sharon may have believed that no
further endorsement was necessary. Whatever the case, the Likud Party decided, over
Sharon’s objections, to hold a vote of its 193,000 members. On May 2, 2004, about one
half of the members voted, rejecting the proposal by a margin of 60% to 40%.
On June 7, the cabinet voted 14 to 7 to approve Israeli disengagement from Gaza.
Prior to the cabinet vote, Sharon fired two ministers who were going to vote against him
and replaced them with two ministers who favored the plan. Two more ministers quit
after the vote, and two political parties, representing 13 seats in the Likud-led coalition,
pulled out, leaving Sharon with 55 seats in the 120 seat Knesset. On August 18, the
Likud Party convention voted to support the withdrawal from Gaza. On October 25, the
Knesset voted 67 in favor, 45 opposed, with seven abstentions and one absent, to
authorize the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Shortly after the vote, Finance Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu and three other Ministers said they would resign from the
government unless there were a national referendum on the question of withdrawing from
Gaza. Sharon refused to hold a national referendum, and eventually the Ministers
withdrew their threats to resign. On November 3, the Knesset voted 64 to 44, with nine
abstentions in favor of a first reading of a bill to finance the Gaza withdrawal.12
Reaction to the Proposal
Israel. According to public opinion polls, a majority of Israelis favor the Sharon
proposal for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.13 Opponents include some Israeli
Orthodox Jews who reject the withdrawal proposal because they believe the territories
(Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights) are part of the land of Israel (promised by
God) and may not be surrendered to the Palestinians. Some conservative and nationalist
Israelis want to expand the state for economic or military reasons. The religious and
nationalist Israelis became the core opposition to the Sharon withdrawal proposal. Some,
including a former chief rabbi, claim that Sharon’s surrendering Israeli land (Gaza) is a
12 Knesset bills are read and voted on three times before passage.
13 Plett, Barbara, “Israeli Settlers’ Extreme Devotion,” BBC News, October 1, 2004. Pollak, Eli
and Yisrael Medad, “The Polling Game,” Jerusalem Post, 8 August 2004.
CRS-5
crime under Jewish law punishable by death, a point that reminded many of the 1995
assassination of then Prime Minister Yitzhaq Rabin.14 The threat of violence against the
Prime Minister and the prospect of settler armed resistance to removal from Gaza appear
to be a cause for concern among many Israelis.15 Israelis remember the 1982 withdrawal
from Sinai and the confrontation between the settlers and the IDF, and fear that the Gaza
withdrawal will create more Israeli v. Israeli violence.
Palestinians. For the most part, Palestinians accepted the Sharon plan, but only
because they saw the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a first step to full Israeli withdrawal
from all the territories occupied since 1967. Most Palestinians distrust Sharon and the
Israelis and do not believe that Israel will adhere to the timetable, and most Palestinians
are concerned that Israel’s unilateral steps will bypass the peace process.
United States. One early U.S. reaction to the Sharon proposal was to seek
“concrete steps” that would conform to the Israeli commitments to follow the “Road
Map” outlined by President Bush in June 2002 and adopted by the “quartet” in
November.16 The United States approved the Israeli disengagement plan, but sought
Palestinian assurances that the Palestinians could maintain order during the transition.
The fear, according to press reports, was that Hamas or other Islamic militants would
seize control of Gaza as the Israelis withdrew and stop the peace process.17
President Bush endorsed the Sharon proposal at his April 14, 2004 White House
meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister, calling the withdrawal plan “bold and
courageous.” The President also repeated that Israel had a right to defend itself, and
added that Israel would continue to control the air space over Gaza, the territorial waters
around Gaza, and the land bridge between Gaza and the West Bank, that the Palestinian
refugees should be settled in the Palestinian areas, and not in Israel, and that the peace
should recognize the “realities on the ground,” which many interpreted as a U.S. approval
of Israel annexing parts of the West Bank. According to some observers, the President’s
14 April statement appeared to change the U.S. positions that a solution to the refugee
problem, future boundaries of Palestine, and the future of settlements should be
negotiated. According to press reports, Secretary of State Colin Powell telephoned Arab
leaders after the April 14 statements to reiterate that the United States favored
negotiations, and did not endorse a particular outcome to talks, and that the Sharon
proposal would result in the Palestinians regaining part of their territory.18
14 Gorenberg, Gershom, “Reasonable Doubt,” Jerusalem Report, August 23, 2004. See also The
Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in the Jewish Virtual Library, [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.
org/jsource/History/rabinass.html].
15 Blanche, Ed, “The Enemy Within ... ,” The Middle East, issue number 350, November 2004.
16 Zacharia, Janine, “Washington Wants ‘Concrete Steps’,” Jerusalem Post, February 3, 2004.
17 Kessler, Glenn, “U.S. Seeks Safeguards for Israel’s Gaza Pullout,” Washington Post, February
18, 2004.
18 “Powell Working to Placate Arab Leaders,” Dow Jones Newswire, April 16, 2004.
CRS-6
Next Steps
The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza may meet its September 2005 schedule, but could
be delayed if Sharon’s minority government falls, and Israel opts for early elections.
Palestinian militants may view the pending Israeli withdrawal as a sign of weakness
and increase their attacks on Israeli targets, triggering more Israeli retaliation and
prolonged warfare. Or, in an opposite vein, a new Palestinian President elected on
January 9, 2005, may take actions, such as collecting weapons or moving against terrorist
groups, that would serve as the response sought by Israel as preliminary to reopening
negotiations.
The Bush Administration may maintain its present low profile, or seek a more active
role in peace negotiations, either through a direct U.S. engagement or by encouraging
others, such as the EU, Egypt, or the U.N., to engage in the peace process.
Congress may consider or be asked to consider additional foreign assistance to fund
the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, direct funding for the Palestinian Authority19, or U.S.
endorsement of an international presence in Gaza.
19 Entous, Adam, “Bush Plans to Give Aid to Palestinians - Sources,” Reuters, November 18,
2004.