In 2005, Israel removed every settlement from inside Gaza. It also removed its permanent military forces. The pullout was real, but Israel acted on its own. No Palestinian government signed a peace deal or took on matching duties.
What Israel actually removed
President George W. Bush discussed Ariel Sharon’s plan in an April 14, 2004 letter. He called it a major step. The plan covered all Gaza settlements and several West Bank sites. Israel carried out the Gaza part in 2005. It took down every settlement and withdrew its forces from inside the territory.
The physical steps are clear. Other disputes remain. They concern Gaza’s borders, airspace, sea access, and Israel’s legal duties after the pullout.
Why Gaza does not belong with Egypt or Jordan
The plan included no treaty or mutual recognition. It set no shared arms limits or security system. No sovereign Palestinian state took on matching duties. Israel designed and carried out the move on its own.
Gaza is therefore not a direct test of treaty-based land for peace. It tests a different idea. Can a one-sided pullout reduce conflict without a stable partner or an agreed order after withdrawal?
What followed
Current CRS reporting on Hamas and the National Counterterrorism Center’s Hamas profile cover what came next. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election. It took Gaza from Fatah by force in 2007. Armed groups in Gaza launched rockets at Israel. Israel carried out repeated military operations. Hamas then led the October 7, 2023 attack that opened the current war.
These events shaped Israeli views of the pullout. Many Israelis saw a warning in them. Removing troops and settlers without a strong security plan had left room for an armed group to take power.
What the case does prove
Removing settlers and troops did not create a peace process. The move did not build a stable partner. It did not disarm armed groups. It also failed to create agreed border and security rules.
The category matters. Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 signed treaties with Israel. Oslo set temporary duties through talks. Gaza had none of those forms. Its main lesson concerns a one-sided pullout with no agreed security order.
What the case does not prove
Gaza does not show that every land deal will fail. The treaties with Egypt and Jordan show otherwise. Hamas’s rule also does not make Palestinian civilians responsible for the group. The evidence supports a narrow finding. A pullout with no matching security duties leaves major risks open.
The pullout belongs in the wider record of land decisions. It does not belong in the treaty group. Israel made a large physical withdrawal with no two-sided deal or shared security order. What followed changed Israeli views of risk. It cannot predict the result of every deal built on different terms.