Blood Libel #3 | “Sharon Pulled Out of Gaza to Sabotage the Two-State Solution and Created an "open-air prison" akin to a concentration camp.”
Anti-Zionist:
The 2005 Gaza withdrawal wasn’t about peace — Sharon did it to kill the two-state solution.
Pro-Zionist:
That’s an interesting theory. Can you explain how unilaterally evacuating 8,000 Jews, dismantling settlements, and giving up land was meant to prevent a Palestinian state?
(Let them struggle to rationalize the contradiction.)
Pro-Zionist:
A perfect example of how historical revisionism wrapped in cynicism gets mistaken for insight. The claim that Ariel Sharon pulled out of Gaza in 2005 to prevent a two-state solution is flat-out wrong, both historically and logically.
The truth is:
Ariel Sharon wasn’t a dove — he was a hawkish general. But by 2003–2004, he had accepted that Israel could not govern millions of Palestinians indefinitely.
The Gaza Disengagement Plan was a bold and painful move — not to avoid a Palestinian state, but to create conditions for one by ending direct Israeli control over Gaza.
Sharon removed every last soldier and settler, even exhumed Jewish graves — taking enormous political and personal risk.
If the goal was to kill the two-state solution, why give Palestinians territory without demanding anything in return?
Why do it unilaterally, knowing it would anger his base?
What actually happened:
Hamas seized Gaza in 2007, violently overthrowing the Palestinian Authority.
Since then, Gaza has been turned into a launchpad for terror, not a model for statehood.
This proved to most Israelis that giving up land unilaterally would not bring peace — it would bring rockets.
So no — Sharon didn’t pull out of Gaza to block a two-state solution.
He did it to test whether Palestinians could build something peaceful if given the chance.
They failed the test. And now people blame Israel for locking the door after someone set the house on fire.
Anti-Zionist:
That may be so but he turned Gaza into an open-air prison. It’s basically a concentration camp.
Pro-Zionist:
It’s absurd to compare life in Gaza to life in a concentration camp! Life for Jews in Nazi concentration camps meant systematic starvation, forced labor, torture, and industrialized extermination, with over six million murdered simply for being Jewish.
In contrast, Palestinians in Gaza live under self-rule by Hamas, receive international aid, have access to markets, schools, and hospitals, and their population has grown steadily for decades — making any comparison both historically false and morally obscene.
Let’s be clear:
Gaza receives millions in humanitarian aid, including fuel, food, and medicine — even from Israel. Essential products have always been allowed to pass through.
Israel has no soldiers or civilians in Gaza. Hamas themselves have publicly affirmed that there is no “occupation” of Gaza.
Gaza has luxury malls, beaches, and apartment towers — while Hamas leaders live in Qatar.
The Population of Gaza in 2005 was 1.4 million and has grown to over 2.4 million growing 65% in less than 20 years, despite claims that Israel is committing genocide.
This isn’t a concentration camp. It’s a self-governed territory under the rule of a terrorist group that uses its people as shields and its aid to build terror tunnels.
So since Gaza is governed by Hamas, not Israel if you’re implying that Hamas has imprisoned its own people - On that we can agree!
Anti-Zionist:
But Israel controls the borders and airspace.
Pro-Zionist:
Egypt also borders Gaza — and it enforces an even more stringent blockade. Why do you never mention Egypt? Why doesn’t Egypt open its borders to the Palestinian’s?
Even a simple google search will confirm that the blockade only began after Hamas violently took control of Gaza and started executing an intifada against Israeli civilians. It was a necessary security measure!1 Since Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups have launched twenty-five thousand (25,000) rockets and carried out numerous terror attacks against Israel.2 These attacks have led to thousands of Israeli casualties, widespread trauma, and significant property damage. Israel’s Iron Dome defense system has intercepted many of these rockets, mitigating potential harm. But that doesn’t excuse the actions of the people of Gaza.
They don’t seek peaceful coexistence.
Anti-Zionist:
What Israel is doing is worse than what the Nazis did.
Pro-Zionist:
Did the Nazis ever warn Jews to evacuate before sending them to gas chambers? Did they feed, clothe, employ and medically treat the people they were exterminating?
(Let that land.)
Pro-Zionist:
Comparing Israel to the Nazis isn’t criticism — it’s historical desecration. It minimizes the Holocaust and demonizes Jews by turning them into Nazis.
Here’s what the Nazis did:
Systematically murdered 6 million Jews in death camps.
Turned human beings into ash in industrial ovens.
Here’s what Israel is doing:
Fighting a genocidal terror group that butchered civilians in their homes.
Warning civilians to evacuate before airstrikes.
Delivering aid to enemy territory even during war.
You don’t want justice when you compare Jews to Nazis. You want to strip Jews of their humanity. That’s antisemitism in its most vile form.
BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS
Gaza Disengagement
In August 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew every soldier and civilian from the Gaza Strip, dismantling 21 settlements and forcibly evacuating over 9,000 Jewish residents as part of then–Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s “Disengagement Plan.” No peace agreement was in place. The move was designed to reduce friction, test the possibility of Palestinian self-rule, and send a message that Israel was willing to make painful concessions even in the absence of a partner for peace.
But any hope for peace was quickly extinguished. In January 2006, Hamas—an internationally designated terrorist group committed to Israel’s destruction—won Palestinian elections. By June 2006, Hamas had kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and ramped up rocket fire into Israeli towns. A year later, in June 2007, Hamas launched a bloody coup against the Palestinian Authority, seizing full control of Gaza. From that point on, Gaza became a militarized enclave governed by a jihadist organization with Iranian backing.
As a result, since 2005, Gaza has not been “occupied” by Israel. In fact, the bogus claim that Gaza is “occupied” has even been refuted by Hamas itself.
For decades, the notion that Israel is an occupier has been the rallying cry of the Palestinian people, seemingly an almost a greater raison d'etre for them than an actual pursuit of self-determination, as evidenced by the consistent rejection of every peace offer presented to the Palestinians and the unyielding rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel. While renouncing the language of occupation with respect to Gaza may be perceived as a concession to Israel, al-Zahar is actually demonstrating the strength of his government and boldness in the face of detractors in Gaza who are desperate for an excuse to continue to fight Israel.
The accusation that Gaza is an “open-air prison” is not a neutral description — it is a propaganda phrase. And like most propaganda, it conceals more than it reveals. It implies that the suffering of Gazans is a deliberate Israeli policy of collective punishment rather than the tragic result of a complex, century-long conflict rooted in rejectionism, terrorism, and failed leadership.
At the time of the withdrawal, while Israel retained control over Gaza’s airspace and coastal waters—a common practice for sovereign nations bordering hostile territories—this was not used to restrict the movement of civilian goods. The border crossing at Rafah with Egypt was placed under Palestinian Authority control, monitored by European Union observers in coordination with Israel, per the U.S.-brokered Agreement on Movement and Access. Far from occupying Gaza, Israel physically left, with international praise and guarded optimism.
Only after this violent takeover did Israel and Egypt impose blockades on Gaza, aimed at curbing the flow of weapons and materials used to attack civilians. This sequence is often inverted in anti-Israel narratives, which falsely suggest that Israel’s control over borders and utilities was part of a preexisting siege. In reality, the restrictions were a direct response to Hamas’s aggression, not a continuation of occupation.
Despite this clear timeline, some legal scholars and UN agencies began describing Gaza as “still occupied,” arguing that Israel’s security measures constituted “effective control.” This interpretation is widely disputed. The U.S. State Department, many Western legal experts, and even the Israeli Supreme Court have rejected the idea that a state can be considered an occupier without a permanent military presence on the ground.
This distortion—that Israel withdrew only to keep Gaza under siege—has become one of the most persistent modern blood libels. It ignores the risks Israel took to give Palestinians an opportunity for self-governance and erases the sequence of violence that followed. It allows Hamas to escape accountability while casting Israel as a perpetual aggressor, no matter how many times it disengages. The truth is more complex—but far more morally clear.
This is a war zone.
And yet, despite that reality, Israel continued to provide electricity, water, medical aid, and allowed thousands of Gazans to cross for work or medical treatment — even as Hamas dug terror tunnels and stockpiled weapons. Even now, amidst the current war, Israel allows humanitarian aid into Gaza daily. Would a jailer feed and power a prison run by militants actively trying to kill its citizens?
The Egyptian border with Gaza is also closed most of the time — not because of Israel, but because Egypt doesn’t want Hamas terrorists destabilizing Sinai. Are Egyptian policies also a sign of apartheid? Or are they, too, responding to the real threat Hamas poses?
To call Gaza an open-air prison is to invert cause and effect. It implies Israel imposed these restrictions arbitrarily, rather than reactively — in direct response to Hamas’s takeover and terrorist campaigns.
Let’s put it plainly: There was no blockade before Hamas took over. The blockade is not the cause of Hamas’s behavior — it’s the result.
Why It Matters
The “open-air prison” libel is used to suggest moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel — or worse, to depict Israel as the oppressor and Hamas as the victim. It erases the choices Hamas has made: to choose rockets over roads, martyrdom over medicine, tunnels over textbooks.
It also ignores a basic moral truth: A democracy under siege is not obligated to arm its attackers.
The Truth the “Open-Air Prison” Lie Hides
Israel left Gaza. Hamas filled the vacuum.
Gaza is blockaded because Hamas declared war, not the other way around.
The restrictions are targeted at a hostile regime, not civilians.
Egypt, not just Israel, enforces border controls.
There is no genocide, no racial domination — only a tragic conflict fueled by jihadist ideology.
If Hamas surrendered tomorrow, released the hostages, and disarmed— what would happen?
The blockade would end. Gaza would rebuild. Aid would flow. Peace could begin.
But if Israel stopped defending itself, what would happen?
Another October 7th. Another slaughter. And eventually, no Israel at all.
That’s the moral difference. That’s the truth behind the lie.
Gaza Disengagement Shifted Israeli Politics
Here is a short companion breakdown of how the disengagement shifted Israeli political thinking across the spectrum? That’s a key piece of context for understanding how Gaza radicalized Israeli voters — not the other way around.
Before the Disengagement:
Many Israelis believed in the Oslo vision: that land-for-peace was viable.
The left and center pushed for a two-state solution, assuming that if Israel ended “occupation,” peace would follow.
Even Ariel Sharon — a right-wing figure — shocked the world by embracing unilateral withdrawal in Gaza, framing it as a step toward strengthening Israel’s democracy and international legitimacy.
What Israel Did:
Evacuated all 21 settlements in Gaza.
Removed over 8,000 Jewish residents, often by force — many of whom were never properly resettled.
Dismantled synagogues, military outposts, and infrastructure, even leaving greenhouses to help jumpstart Gaza’s economy.
Left Gaza entirely — no soldiers, no civilians, no claim to sovereignty.
What Happened Next:
In 2006, Hamas won elections in Gaza.
In 2007, Hamas violently overthrew the Palestinian Authority, threw political opponents off rooftops, and began using Gaza as a base for terrorism.
Thousands of rockets and missiles have been launched into Israeli towns since then.
Hamas has diverted international aid to build terror tunnels, not schools or hospitals.
How It Changed Israeli Views:
Many Israelis — especially in the center and left — realized that withdrawing from land does not guarantee peace.
The political left lost credibility. Voters who once believed in peace through negotiation shifted rightward, not out of ideology, but out of disillusionment and self-preservation.
Even centrist leaders like Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid began adopting more cautious or hawkish positions on security.
Today, Israeli politics are shaped not by racism or expansionism, but by the lived trauma of the Gaza experiment.
Bottom Line:
Israel tried unilateral withdrawal.
It got rockets, not reconciliation.
That’s not a justification for occupation — it’s a sobering lesson about who its partners are.
So when critics say “Israel moved to the right,” what they ignore is:
The Palestinian leadership moved to violence — and Israeli voters followed reality.
Again, conflating causation and correlation. Israeli politics have shifted because of real threats, repeated terror attacks, intifadas, and wars — not out of hatred but out of a defensive survival instinct. The far left collapsed not because of bigotry, but because their peace offers were met with violence and rejection.
The Gaza Trap.
As we explore the “truth” we must be able to face some uncomfortable truths ourselves. This article, entitled “The Gaza Trap”, is one of those articles that is a tough read. Tomas Pueyo presents one of the most thoughtful discussion of the "Palestinian Narrative" that I've read. There are some scary statistics contained in the article that terrify me including verification of my concern that the residents of Gaza have been radicalized to a point that peace is unlikely to ever be possible.
But, no matter how upset you are - and as you can tell from my opinions - I'm beside myself with grief and righteous indignation for what's going on in Israel and around the world. I'm scared for my children and for your children and for the free world! I am unmoved in my feeling that Radical Islam is dangerous and immoral and is a threat to free society.
In the end, if we are going to find a way through this challenging moment in history, we must find our humanity. We must find a way to understand each other in order to heal. Anyone calling for the destruction of the state of Israel is immoral and has barbaric ambitions and antisemitic beliefs. Just as I would only want to be judged as a human for how I comport myself that is how I expect us to treat others. So for anyone that seeks peace and human understanding... it's important to study this issue in all its complexity and from all sides so that reasonable people can come to a compromise that will lead to peace.
Footnotes:
A UN-commissioned panel—known as the Palmer Commission— concluded in 2011 that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza was a legitimate security measure and complied with international law. It found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza was legal under international law as a legitimate security measure to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas, with whom Israel was in an armed conflict. The report stated:
Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.
Here’s a summary of major incidents:
2005–2007: Post-Disengagement Escalation
September 2005 – May 2007: Approximately 2,700 rockets were fired into Israel, killing 4 civilians and injuring 75 others.
2008–2009: Operation Cast Lead
December 2008 – January 2009: In response to ongoing rocket fire, Israel launched a military operation; during this period, Hamas fired hundreds of rockets into Israeli territory.
2012: Operation Pillar of Defense
November 2012: Over 1,456 rockets were launched at Israel, including attacks on major cities like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
2014: Operation Protective Edge
July–August 2014: More than 4,500 rockets were fired into Israel, leading to a 50-day conflict.
2021: Operation Guardian of the Walls
May 2021: Over 4,369 rockets were launched towards Israeli cities, including Sderot, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Jerusalem.
2023: October 7 Attacks and Subsequent Conflict
October 7, 2023: Hamas initiated a large-scale attack, firing over 5,000 rockets and infiltrating Israeli territory, resulting in significant casualties.
October–November 2023: The total number of rockets launched exceeded 10,500, with a portion failing and landing within Gaza.