No, writes Shmuel Even. Ten years after Israel evacuated troops and civilians from Gaza, the area remains a source of terror attacks, and Israel continues to be condemned for defending itself (article begins on p. 75):

The withdrawal from the Gaza Strip created a new reality that contributed to the Hamas takeover, a steep rise in weapons smuggling, the strengthening of terrorism, and the ensuing cycle of escalation. [T]he terrorism in the West Bank (and from there to Israel) can serve as a partial standard for comparison, [since no disengagement took place there]. The West Bank saw a steep drop in the number of terrorist attacks and Israeli casualties, following the security measures taken [there] and the end of the intifada. . . . [By contrast], the force of terrorism from Gaza and [Israeli involvement in] military operations intensified.

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.