The Gaza disengagement – 20 years on
History is not made in isolation; the events of today have deep roots.
What is the background to the current horrific situation facing Israel? Proposed by Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2003 and adopted by the Cabinet in 2004, a strategy was officially approved by the Knesset as the “Disengagement Plan Implementation Law” in June 2004. A deadline was issued for the day after Tisha b’Av, August 15, 2005 (exactly 20 years prior to the dateline of this week’s edition of The AJN), after which the IDF began evicting all Israeli settlers who were refusing to accept government compensation packages in exchange for voluntarily vacating their homes in the Gaza Strip. By September 12, all Israeli residential buildings in the territory had been demolished and the 8000+ Israeli settlers who inhabited them had been removed.
On August 7, Netanyahu resigned just before the cabinet ratification of the first phase of the disengagement plan by a vote of 17 to 5. Netanyahu blamed the Israeli government for moving “blindly along” with the disengagement by not taking into account the expected upsurge in terrorism. On August 10, in his first speech before the Knesset following his resignation from the cabinet, Netanyahu spoke of the necessity for Knesset members to oppose the proposed disengagement: “Only we in the Knesset are able to stop this evil. Everything that the Knesset has decided, it is also capable of changing. I am calling on all those who grasp the danger: Gather strength and do the right thing. I don’t know if the entire move can be stopped, but it still might be stopped in its initial stages. [Don’t] give [the Palestinians] guns, don’t give them rockets, don’t give them a sea port, and don’t give them a huge base for terror.”
But on August 12 The AJN editorialised that even for his supporters it was too little too late. For his supporters it was the courageous decision of a politician with a conscience. For his detractors he was abandoning ship at the very time his presence was most needed.
The debate raged across Israel; left and right propounded their views with force. The AJN datelined August 19 reported in full Sharon’s historic address to the nation headlined “The most difficult and painful step of all”. Sharon said that, while he had hoped Israel could keep the Gaza settlements forever, reality simply intervened. Key extracts of the address included: “We tried to reach agreements with the Palestinians which would move the two peoples forward to the path of peace: these were crushed against a wall of hatred and fanaticism … To a hand offered in peace we will respond with an olive branch … If they choose fire we will respond with fire more severe than ever.”
He emphasised, “It is out of strength and not weakness that we are taking this step,” repeating his argument that the disengagement plan had given Israel the diplomatic initiative. The cost of defence of the settlements was too great and the loss of life intolerable in the long run.
Sadly the hope for neighbourly peace would very quickly prove to be misguided. And as we would learn long before October 7, the era of fatalities associated with Gaza was far from over. The belief that Israel would now be recognised and receive credit for a diplomatic initiative was sadly also doomed. Nevertheless, various articles from Israeli correspondents were indicative of the then broadly felt feelings. One was headed “Anything can happen as disengagement begins” But another spoke of “Open wounds and broken hearts”.
And what were the views here in Australia? To be blunt, wishful thinking here too soon clashed with reality.
The AJN of July 8 ran a front page piece: “Zionist leaders oppose disengagement.” State Zionist Council of Victoria president Danny Lamm stated, “I am totally against disengagement.” Brian Levitan of the NSW Zionist Council described the disengagement as “illegal” and urged people to sign an anti-disengagement petition he had placed online. However ZFA president Ron Weiser criticised his colleagues saying it was “entirely inappropriate for any leader to espouse personal feelings and views other than to express support for the democratic process in Israel”. In early July Isi Leibler wrote that he believed that “at this critical juncture Sharon should face an early election”.
The debate spilled over into Melbourne’s streets when late July saw some 1500 people march through East St Kilda opposed to disengagement. Once disengagement began Israeli journalist Chemi Shalev then resident in Australia feared Jewish terrorism – even potentially murderous. On another occasion (August 26) he bewailed that the Australian media was virtually disinterested in (what was then) last week’s dramatic scenes from Gaza. (how the world has changed).
Chabad was adamantly opposed; after all the late Rebbe’s views on handing over territory were well known. Thirty-two Australian rabbis signed a controversial petition against disengagement that they described as a “suicidal surrender” However that phrase led to expressions of concern at potential encouragement of extremist elements in the community. The AJN editorialised that Chabad must return home “from political activism to rekindling the spirit of Yiddishekeit in Jews dispersed worldwide”. To which Rabbi Elisha Greenbaum responded that “From the tsunami [it was then just after Hurricane Katrina] to Gaza Chabad means love.”
In my own comments (AJN August 18) I noted that Professor Moshe Kaveh, president of Bar Ilan University, suggested that the internal Jewish dispute over disengagement which had now reached its climax marked the most profound strain over the relationship between the democratic state and its religious Zionist partners. And I wondered aloud whether after those events could religion and state be reconciled.
In an article dated September 16 headed: “Gaza the end” Peter Kohn wrote: “Australian Jewish leaders have strongly condemned the razing of Gaza’s synagogues just hours after Israel ended its 38-year occupation. ‘The destruction of the synagogues shows the utmost disrespect for Jews. This was not the work of people who want peace or good relations with their neighbours,’ said ECAJ president Grahame Leonard.”
And now already Dr Ron Weiser seemed to be changing his tune as he added: “What a pity that the Palestinians have once again demonstrated their lack of respect for the religious buildings and symbols of Judaism. These barbaric acts will only cause all people to wonder when Palestinians will realise that the way forward is mutual respect for all religious sites.” Sadly time would soon prove that it wasn’t only religious sites that were the subject of destructive disrespect – it was Judaism per se, Jews and all connected thereto, which were to be the subject of much worse than disrespect.
Yes, on the Israeli side the disengagement went through reasonably peacefully though the images of forced evacuation were heartbreaking as were those of soldiers crying while carrying out their duty. As The AJN reported, in the words of John Howard it was “a gutsy disengagement”. Speaking at a Melbourne testimonial dinner honouring Isadore Magid, former prime minister Bob Hawke stressed that a Palestinian solution was pivotal to winning the war on terror. But once the disengagement actually happened The AJN editorialised that it was “A time to heal” – even as the Palestinians were already facing the test of benefiting from what has been left to them of the settlements (e.g. agricultural facilities such as greenhouses) – or simply destroying all in fits of vindictive rage rather than using it to build their economy and ultimately their state. In the famous words of Abba Eban – the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Whether the writer of that editorial and similar pieces really truly appreciated the pain and suffering of individuals and the nation can be debated. But as we look back, what is our view of its success or otherwise? Perhaps briefly there were less casualties but their hatred of us obviously had not ended. Regrettably there is a direct line from 2005 to our current problems; whether they would have occurred anyway is of course an open question. I leave it to readers to ponder whether what Sharon saw as an experiment was indeed worthwhile in any way, shape or form.
Shabbat shalom,
Yossi
Yossi Aron OAM is The AJN’s
comments