Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Post-Disengagement Questions

As some of you may know, I supported (from afar, of course), the Gaza Disengagement in 2005. For a number of reasons, I thought that the idea was good, in theory (but then most things are), and thought that if nothing else, it might demonstrate to the world that Israel was serious about wanting peace. I did not hold much hope about it turning the Palestinian tide, though I had been optimistic that at least it would lead to an improvement in relations.

This has obviously not happened. Mortar attacks on areas bordering Gaza have increased dramatically, and there seems to be little indication from the Palestinian government that the Disengagement has improved Israel's standing in their eyes.

This is very unfortunate, and speaks to Sharon and Olmert's strategic assessment. Even if you believe, as I do, that the Disengagement, in some ways, was necessary, because Israel needs to get used to the idea that it's not going to be able to hold on to all the land it has, that one day, it will need to give the Palestinians large sections of the West Bank, there are still very large problems with what happened here.

The biggest issue, in my view, is the treatment of the evacuees after the Disengagement. The fact that many of them have yet to receive permanent housing almost two years after the fact is simply shameful. Even if you thought the Disengagement was the best thing ever or the most important decision in Israel's Palestinian policy since 67 (whether because it was a necessary step towards achieving peace with the Palestinians, or, in Sharon's view, because it helped put "formaldehyde" on the Road Map and other international pressure), the fact is, that the government has forgotten, deliberately, about thousands of its own citizens. Citizens that it encouraged, economically and politically, to live in Gaza in the first place. It has been pointed out that when Begin organized the withdraw from Sinai, he built homes for the settlers FIRST. Why was this not done? Even if everything had gone the way it has, Israel could at least hold its head high if it had made a place for the Gazans. But it did not. This is a violation of trust. I could justify forcibly evicting the settlers, I could justify crushing their dreams of settling the land, in destroying their homes and livelihood. I could even justify the lack of any real national debate or referendum. It was a bad situation, but I could live with it, especially since I didn't have to look them in the eye. They couldn't stay there any more; that was it.

But shafting them once they were back in their home, being lied to and given the run-around by their own government? That's unacceptable. You can't take them out of Gaza and dump them in a tent village and leave them to their own devices. There is an obligation here. And, yeah, plans take time to implement, etc. But come on. It didn't take this long to build settlements in Gaza or the West Bank. The government's only too happy to give assistance when it's strategically advantageous to them (Ma'alei Adumim, anyone?), but on this, nothing. It's crap. The government has a chance to live up to its promises, get some brownie points, and actually build housing somewhere where they WON'T get yelled at for a change. What's the hold-up? Are you worried the Bedouin will start suicide-bombing because you're taking all the good desert?

Here's an idea: why not house the settlers in kibbutzim? It worked for Elei Sinai. We all know the settlers know about agriculture, and they aren't afraid of hard work. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression for a while that the kibbutzim are mostly dying, largely sustained by donations, tourists and Americans in Israel for a year or a few months who work for free. Surely it would be better for all involved for the former Gazans to live in real homes and recreate communities and lives, and in return they could help sustain the kibbutzim, if only until permanent housing is built for them. No, living in kibbutzim wouldn't be ideal, particularly not when people are so eager to get their lives back on track and have their own homes again. But it would be a job, a roof, and a community. It wouldn't force the Gazans to become criminals.

This isn't a left or a right thing. It isn't a religious or secular thing. It isn't an American or Israeli thing. It's not even a Jewish thing.

This is about integrity and not being a total soulless bastard. This is about keeping the promises you make. Israel gains nothing by lying to itself and everyone around it. At this point no one believes anything from the government, and in part because they're always talking out of both sides of their mouth. Give the settlers homes. Enforce the rule of law. Show you mean what you say.

2 comments:

Daniel Greenfield said...

the secondary purpose of the disengagement was an assault on the national religious base, thus freeing up a center government coalition

everything that has happened since Disengagement has not featured merely neglect, but aggressive obstruction of attempts by outside parties to provide aid... including the sudden imposition of a tax on used clothing donations because they were damaging israel's "used clothing" industry

Uzi Silber said...

i too was an unenthusiastic supporter of hitkatnut. my thinking was along the same lines as yours. and the treatment of good patritoic jews has been mostly shameful. on the macro side, its been a geopolitical disaster for israel, since it enables the primitive hamas and fatah vermin to entertain the illusion (to quote graffiti i once spotted on the side of a tzrif on a kibbutz up north) 'ha'atid shelanu'. and grand illusions is what always sustains their primitive ways and fantasies