Which is not the same as "some greenhouses were looted". My image and recollection is more like everything got looted. I mean if only very little were looted it wouldn't be a "blow to efforts"?
Also see this story about the guy who paid for most it: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/nyregion/how-old-friends-o...
I'm sure those greenhouses could have been used for export or for local consumption if the Palestinians plotted a different course after Israel withdrew. There wouldn't be a blockage on Gaza either. The whole point wrt/ to Gaza is that once Israel left their next actions were looting of greenhouses (all or some, doesn't matter) followed by an endless stream of attacks against Israel (and the excuses don't really matter either, "they started" isn't a good enough reason for shelling Sderot e.g. unless you're a 3 year old).
- at time of withdrawal settlers were required to depart
- settlers wanted more money to leave greenhouses behind
- didn't get it from Israeli government, started demolishing
- Western philanthropists purchased remaining greenhouses and donated
- When Israelis withdrew, some greenhouses were looted
- some remained in operation, until inability to export produce through checkpoint to Israeli made them unviable
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/world/middleeast/israeli-s...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9331863/ns/world_news-mideast_n_af...