Two decades ago, Israel withdrew from Gaza. It has become a cautionary tale

Spanish philosopher George Santayana warned that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This is particularly poignant as we mark this week 20 years since Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza began – a painful, high-risk effort to offer Palestinians autonomy and a foundation for peace.

Two decades ago, when Israel withdrew its soldiers and dismantled settlements in Gaza, prime minister Ariel Sharon proclaimed: “Now it is the Palestinians’ turn to prove their desire for peace.” Gaza was handed over not as a reward, but as a test.

That test was failed.

Rather than build functioning institutions, Hamas turned Gaza into a fortress of terror. Rocket attacks on Israel surged, aid was diverted to fund tunnels and weapons, and children were indoctrinated with hatred.

Gaza did not become the prototype for a Palestinian state. It has become the cautionary tale.

In 2005, the international community hailed Israel’s withdrawal as a bold gesture. But hindsight reveals the flaw: autonomy was granted before the foundations of self-governance were in place. Today, with the Australian government’s announcement that it will recognise a Palestinian state, we risk making the same mistake again.

The parallels are hard to ignore. Then, as now, the world was impatient for action. But history has shown that in the Middle East, there are no shortcuts. Bold gestures are not a substitute for the hard work of peacemaking and institution-building. If Gaza proved the dangers of transferring control without credible governance, recognising a Palestinian state now, before the necessary reforms, would guarantee those failures are repeated and entrenched.

Simply replacing Hamas with the unreformed Palestinian Authority (PA) - an entity plagued by corruption, weak institutions, and a “pay for slay” terrorism reward system – will not set Palestinians up for success.

While the PA has made promising statements – including condemning the October 7 attacks, calling for Hamas’ disarmament and committing to reforms – these must be judged by actions, not words. Without tangible reforms to improve transparency, end incitement and strengthen the rule of law, talk of statehood remains hollow. Elections alone do not create a democracy.

In Gaza, elections elevated extremists because the safeguards for democratic governance were missing. The result was not freedom but repression. True leadership demands that the hard work of reforming Palestinian governance and dismantling terrorist infrastructure is done before recognition is even considered.

For decades, Palestinian leaders have defined their struggle through opposition to Israel’s existence, rather than by committing to statehood through coexistence. Recognising a Palestinian state now, before dismantling Hamas, before the return of hostages and before PA reform, would repeat the disengagement error on a much larger scale.

Just weeks ago, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia wouldn’t recognise a Palestinian state imminently. The only thing that has changed in that time is Hamas has become more entrenched. The irony is that Hamas walked away from ceasefire negotiations not because of Israeli intransigence but because, as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recognised, it was emboldened by France’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. Pressuring Israel while emboldening Hamas is unjust and strategically reckless.

Recognition must not be based on punishing Israel. The corollary is that it rewards Hamas for its deliberate strategy of embedding itself in civilian infrastructure, putting civilians at risk and hoarding food to generate international pressure on Israel.

Australia and the West’s discourse fails to confront this reality. Across the Middle East, Arab states are condemning Hamas and demanding Palestinian leadership that can coexist with Israel. Meanwhile, in Australia, the loudest voices in the debate are from the extremes on both the left and the right, united not by a vision for peace but by a refusal to condemn terror and a deep hostility to Israel’s existence.

If we allow the extremes to dominate the debate, we forfeit the possibility of a two-state solution. They are not interested in reform or coexistence; they seek Israel’s elimination.

We must reclaim the centre with a principled stance that supports Palestinian statehood as an eventual, necessary outcome, but one rooted in peace, recognition and reform. Any sustainable solution must include Israel. Imposing Palestinian statehood on Israel, a nation fighting for its survival against those who seek its destruction, is both unrealistic and irresponsible.

This is not a call to abandon hope. It is a call to learn from history.

We all aspire to a future where a secure Israel lives alongside a peaceful Palestinian state. But that future cannot be built on fantasies or moral shortcuts. It must be grounded in facts, history and principle. If the Gaza disengagement taught us anything, it is this: territorial control without institutional reform leads not to peace but to bloodshed.

Recognition may be the light on the hill – but it cannot be offered to those who haven’t yet climbed the mountain. If Palestinian statehood is inevitable, then let us do the hard work to ensure it succeeds.

Jeremy Leibler is president of the Zionist Federation of Australia.