Let's disengage from the polarizing rhetoric

Let's disengage from the polarizing rhetoric

By Gil Troy
Canadian Jewish News
July 21, 2005

As Israel's disengagement from Gaza approaches, extremists from both sides dominate the debate. Shrill voices describe a wrenching gamble in absolutist terms, as either good or evil. The fanatics share a clarity I lack, demonizing those who disagree with them and myopically ignoring the risks in both pulling out and staying put.

How can disengagement supporters ignore Palestinian terrorists' feelings of vindication? Hamas' Mahmoud Zahar told the London Times on April 14 that "nobody can deny that if Israel is going to leave the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank that was because of the intifadah, because of the armed struggle, because of the big sacrifices of Hamas for this goal." The day before, WorldNetDaily quoted Zahar's confidential memo vowing that "withdrawal from Gaza is not the end of the story."

After the London bombings, with the West insisting that terrorism does not succeed, does anyone have second thoughts? In a sane, just world, instead of rewarding the Palestinians with $3 billion (US), wouldn't British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush tell Israel, "We understand your desire for clearer boundaries, but please postpone the pullout until we pressure Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to crush terrorism, so the message is clear: zero tolerance toward terror entails zero concessions?"

Leftist venom for "the settlers" is equally unfathomable - they spit out the term like a curse. Remember, Israel entered Gaza after a war of self-defence that was triggered by hostile neighbours - and the hatred remains. Many "peaceniks" can empathize endlessly, sympathize promiscuously, even rationalize Palestinian terror, yet treat fellow Jews contemptuously. Can't we commiserate with the individuals who must uproot their homes, their communities and even their cemeteries, because few doubt what Palestinians would do to Jewish graves left behind?

At the same time, I can't understand how disengagement opponents can claim God says anything about Jewish settlements in Gaza. My Bible says Gaza was Philistine land, while my history books note that even former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin tried to return Gaza to Egypt - an offer Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat shrewdly refused. I cannot abide those who odiously compare the Gaza pullout to Holocaust-era expulsions, equating a sovereign Jewish state's political calculations with Nazi evil. Moreover, I cannot explain how moral democrats can overlook the moral and demographic challenges stemming from controlling 3.5 million Palestinians, even while seeking Israeli security. Finally, can we forget that Israeli government subsidies attracted many individuals to Gaza, and that their sales contracts reserved the government's right to buy them out, if necessary?

Amid the haze, this is what I know.

First, Israel deserves tremendous credit from the world for being the only country in history to offer land legitimately won from a neighbour in self-defence for peace - credit it will never receive.

Second, it's not appropriate for me to proclaim publicly where Israel should draw its borders. People I respect on both sides of the issues have earned the right to hash it out by paying taxes, serving in the army and voting as Israeli citizens.

Third, disengagement supporters should welcome "the settlers" into their new homes enthusiastically, saluting their sacrifices when the government asked them to live on the border, and saluting their sacrifices in leaving their homes.

Fourth, disengagement opponents must echo MK Effie Eitam, hesder yeshiva rabbis and other disengagement critics who nevertheless renounce violence and won't encourage soldiers to disobey orders. Democracy's fundamental social contract provides rights to dissent and responsibilities to obey. Too much Jewish blood has been shed already for Jews to threaten other Jews. We should excommunicate anyone who crosses the line, from overzealous police officers to overzealous zealots.

Finally, even if the headline-seeking and polarizing hysterics of the right, left and media triumph and the debate degenerates, remember that Israel won its latest war. No matter what Hamas says, the disengagement emerged only after Israel crushed the Palestinian Authority, justifiably. Disengagement is part of a broader strategy that seeks clearer boundaries with an effective fence. Israel showed that terrorism kills individuals, but can unite a nation. The Palestinians expected Israel to crack, never anticipating Israelis' disciplined ferocity, tactical creativity, and social solidarity.

Israelis have provided a model for New Yorkers, Londoners and others targeted by Jihadists. Israel can now demonstrate how citizens can disagree vehemently but not violently, democratically but not destructively, all the while remaining patriotic as their government seeks complicated answers to confounding questions.

Gil Troy is Professor of History at McGill University, and the author of Why I Am A Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today, and, most recently, Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s.

Comment on this article using the "Post Reply" button