Disengagement, Three Years On

There is a concept in Kabbalah that when an engaged couple calls off a wedding, both parties have to ask forgiveness from each other to avoid possible uncomfortable cosmic consequences.

The third anniversary of Israel’s “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip occurs today, August 15th. The question of the disengagement’s advisability has been inexorably tied to many larger issues at the forefront of the Israeli and Middle Eastern scene, so it continues to be debated vigorously inside and outside Israel.

Recently an Israeli soldier anonymously published an open letter apologizing to the former residents of the Gaza Strip for her participation in evacuating the settlers from their homes and ruining their lives. She invited former residents to air their feelings to her via email.

I would posit the soldier has nothing to feel bad about. One might retort the Gaza settlers should apologize to the rest of the Israeli nation for what might be termed as an act of political blackmail. In any case, though, any time for apologies has long passed.

It might be true that there has been incessant political bungling following the disengagement which reflects badly on the execution of the disengagement and its aftermath, but that shouldn’t necessarily reflect on the saliency of the idea that it was carried out in Israel’s best interests and no one else’s. I don’t say this because I am a partisan proponent of the “peace process”. Far from it. I don’t think any legitimate “Palestinian” political or geographic entity exists, certainly not one that entails a state that encompasses two geographically disparate territories. For the record, I would have loved to have seen Israel unilaterally annex the West Bank and Jerusalem after the disengagement, but that would have been a political impossibility. Unfortunately.

However, it just might be that the Arab—or non-Jewish populations—in either respective territory posses some degree of political self-determination. With the Arab population in Gaza outnumbering the Jewish population in Gaza on the order of at least 75 to 1, and the disparate allocation of security and defense resources to protect a civilian population that made up 1/500 of Israel’s population was becoming politically and morally untenable. Additionally, whether or not there was a “demographic time bomb” that truly threatened Israel’s existence as a democracy and a Jewish state, the evacuation took a large chunk of that number out of play, especially since the Gazan birth rate is undoubtedly faster (in spite of the area’s intense economic stresses).

What made the Israeli population and government so angry and unsympathetic toward the Gazans was not just their insistence that their civilian presence was critical, but the impression they gave that said presence was religiously mandated, which only served to add fuel to the fire. Additionally, any argument that the disengagement was a natural consequence of the Oslo process and a stepping stone toward the establishment of either a bi-territorial Palestinian state, a secular “bi-national” Palestinian entity, or worse, an Islamic emirate was rather spurious if not outright disingenuous. Sharon spokesman Dov Weisglas’ slip regarding the cessation of all territorial withdrawal after the Gaza disengagement should have given the lie to both of the Gaza settlers’ purported grievances. The disengagement was not about creating a viable Palestinian entity; it was about Israel unilaterally absolving herself of any responsibility for the administration of the Strip, even if (and probably because) it would render the Strip a political no man’s land.

Irrespective of whether or not the disengagement was a good idea that was bungled, the question remains is Israel better off without having a civilian settlement in the Gaza Strip? I would say that it gives Israel one less headache, though one could credibly assert that is has incurred worse ailments as a result.

I am not unsympathetic to the individuals and families suffering as a result of the forced evacuation, in spite of my absolute opposition to their political stance. However, I think a harsh lesson can be learned by everybody here, as to why expectations of remorse are irrelevant, if not counterproductive:

The government is not your friend, no matter who or where you are.