It's not the longest word in the English language, but antidisengagementism is a pretty fun word to type. And it's even more fun to observe. Yesterday I hopped into the van with Rav Natan, his wife Ruti, and five of their ten children (we met up with two more later) to drive to Ofakim, in the Southwest of Israel, to protest the impending disengagement of the Gaza Strip. "Disengagement" is a mild sounding term, and refers more to the relation between Israel and Palestine. From the perspective of the Jews living in Gaza (most of them in the region called Gush Katif) and their supporters, the more accurate term is "expulsion."
Regardless of how you hold on the issue of vacating Gaza, giving land to the Palestinians, etc., what I have realized, is that people being forced to leave their homes with little warning (a few months?) and no say in the matter (democracy?) is just that: people being forced to leave their homes. And so it ain't so nice.
Leave out the fact that Gush Katif is a gorgeous strip of beachfront turf that this small community of Jews has nicely cultivated over the past few decades. That's aesthetics, and maybe muddies up clear analysis of the issues. What is worth considering is the following:
- Ariel Sharon is the guy who encouraged the settlements back in the day, and who was most recently elected by viciously condemning the idea of disengagement.
- This is not so much of a move towards peace as a literal disengagement: let's get the hell out of here, then keep building a giant wall between us and them and just be done with it.
- Expelling people from their homes is fascist, whether it's Jews or Palestinians. A friend of mine who is against the settlements laments (as do many Israelis) that her friends and relatives risk/lose their lives in the army to defend these settlers, because any "religious nut" who wants to put a trailer on a hilltop gets immediate military protection. One one hand, this policy of the government is perhaps confusing. The government might say, "if you want to go settle this hilltop against official policy, go ahead, but you're on your own." In cases where it is official policy to build (as it has been with Sharon in the past), well then the problem is the government, not the settlers.
On the other hand (I just don't know enough about the real details of the security situation to give a real analysis of this), many people maintain that the settlements help the security situation in Israel, because the Jews living in the settlements end up being the targets of attack more than people living in Israel Proper.
Rav Natan suggests that a truly democratic process would let the Jewish settlers know that this land is being handed over to the Palestinians, and then give them the choice of what to do. A tough choice it would be, but at least a choice. Just as there are Arab citizens of the State of Israel, why couldn't there be Jewish citizens of the Palestinian State? At the moment, of course, this is more theoretical than practical, because Jewish settlers left without military protection probably wouldn't be too safe-- and so we end up with a situation like the one we have. Rock and a hard place.
So anyhow, as I mentioned in a previous post, thousands and thousands (millions?) of Israelis are against the disengagement, and are garbed in orange, the official anti-disengagement color, jack-knifing the summer wardrobes of scores of pro-disengagement Israelis. Two days ago there was a giant rally in a town called Sderot, and the fun continued yesterday in Ofakim. This has gone on quite a bit here, so the actual rally i will deal with in a later post.
By the way, friends, this was my first attempt ever ever to ever say anything in writing about politics, a topic which terrifies me, because I never see how you can make a assertion without disenfranchising some element of the whole picture. So if i missed a point, or said something incomplete or ill-informed, be gentle. Guide me, but be gentle. Feel free to engage in active debate, if you so desire.
4 comments:
Maybe-- stay tuned for Al-Jazeera tomorrow, in which even the Arabs suggest that this move is meaningless....
That's the point- so many people are so desperate for peace that ANY action is seen as for the good.
"well," says fat, money-laundering politician, "by feeding these 30,000 babies to a family of starving anacondas, we demonstrate our willingness to make sacrifice to the higher good."
Huh. A lot of virgins were wasted in this way...
If one were to look at your blog site from its conception until now, with pictures of Arafat's tomb in Ramallah to you holding an orange flag at the anti-disengagement rally, i think you would get a lot of puzzled faces. but knowing who you are--it all makes sense :) i respect your willingness and desire to go to the "heart" of this conflict and see it for yourself, developing your own opinions, influenced not by politics, but my sound moral commitments--to understand how everyone suffers in this matter. our palestinian brothers lose their homes in demolition tactics under the israeli occupation and at the same time jewish settlers, once supported by the israeli government to cultivate a greater israel, are expelled from their homes. everyone seems to suffer for this abstract thing we call peace. and i think you see that with great compassion.
as for the politics (i will be gentle). the one thing i don't understand from the orange demonstrators is what is the alternative? i mean, when MLK protested racist and fascist tactics of the U.S. gov't it was clear that it was a protest, but also intended to pave the way towards new legislation to support equality. with protesting the disengagement, i am not hearing any other alternative, other than saying 'this is not fair'-which it isn't. i think it is fair to say the government doesn't have much of a choice on this one, if it is to preserve israel's identity as a jewish democratic state, it cannot afford to occupy millions of palestinians. that being said, the israeli gov't could say that it has made a mistake in supporting settlement policies and now given arafat's death, abu mazen's willingness to find a reasonable solution, world political support, etc. israel sees this as in her best interests and is sorry that this comes at a great cost to the settlers. but what can the settlers offer as a response? i mean with respect to engaging in some sort of meaningful negotiations with the palestinians and keeping the settlements at the same time. if the answer is, mixed with the sort of religious dogma on par with the rebbe's "it is good for the non-jew not to hold the land of israel so that he may live" that will not pass muster to the eyes of the world or the majority of secular israelis...
so what do they propose?
Stu,
Zero Mostel was signing autographs.....BURT
Yeah, Craig, the Rebbe's comment is pretty wild, right? Plus, the sign in Arabic-- "Hey Arabs! Obey the Noachide laws, and then the Moshiach (me..) will come, and you'll be better off anyway!!!"
As far as alternative--- alternative to what? How is this a move towards peace? It seems much more like a move of exasperation: let's just get out of here and to hell with it... What is the PEACE PLAN in this?? And if you're going to do something like this to your own people, do it DEMOCRATICALLY-- Rav Natan points out that in Israel, a leader can call for elections at any time. Okay then, Sharon should call an election, and if he is elected, then he has a mandate-- but he was most recently elected on an ANTI-DISENGAGEMENT platform, and has switched his politics since.
How would America feel if George W. Bush became a gay-loving Reform Jew in the middle of his second term (WIth God's Help, Please Lord)...????
And yes burt, that guy was singing "If I was a rich man.."
Post a Comment