|
|
Sept. 9, 2005
Disengagement stirs debate
Community representatives provide their differing views.
MONIKA ULLMANN
Yossi Darr opened his presentation by talking about how frustrated
and sad he felt about not being in Israel while historic events
like the Gaza disengagement were taking place.
Darr was talking at an event organized by Young Israel of Richmond
last Sunday night. The shaliach (Israeli emissary) for the
Jewish National Fund, Pacific Region, was one of three speakers
offering three distinct visions of what this historic event means
to Jews everywhere.
Darr said he had spoken with many different people and had concluded
that the disengagement, "was not a concession to anyone –
it was done for the good of Israel." Though he added that the
outcome remained to be seen, the theme of his presentation was that
Gaza was a thorn in the side of Israeli unity and, as such, had
to be dealt with.
Using a series of maps, Darr demonstrated the ancient Jewish presence
in Gaza, showing that there was only one short period, from 1948
to 1967, when Gaza was not in Jewish hands, a situation that ended
with the Six Day War. Darr said that the Gaza Strip had acted as
a relatively effective buffer zone between Egypt and Israel through
the Israeli presence in the region. This changed between 2000 and
2005, he said, when "terrible friction" between the 80,000
settlers and the 1.3 million-strong Arab population made life very
difficult.
"We have made some mistakes in defending the settlers with
soldiers," acknowledged Darr, adding that Israel has always
been strong in a defensive position aimed at outside enemies, but
is weakened by inside dissension and stagnation. He pointed out
that there was dissension over the future of the Gaza settlements
and that this was exacerbated by the unequal birth rate. On average,
Arab couples have between five and six children, while Israelis
have only between two and three. With the Arabs reproducing nearly
twice as fast as the Israeli minority, the demographic implications
were clear.
However controversial it may be, Darr defended the disengagement
as necessary because it represents a strategically smart move aimed
at concentrating resources.
"By pulling out, we are taking from them a strategic tool that
they used to undermine Israeli unity," he explained. Palestinians
now have to deal with the region and manage it and all its problems.
He acknowledged that for many settlers, it was a "repeat trauma"
of leaving behind homes that were proud achievements and represented
years of labor. But he defended Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's
decision, saying that he had to think of what was best for the state
of Israel.
Darr concluded with slides showing emotional images of settlers
weeping and hugging as they left Gaza behind, but in the last slide,
all facing in the same direction.
"These pictures speak for themselves; finally we are looking
in the same direction," he concluded. The other two speakers,
while agreeing that the disengagement was necessary, nevertheless
raised some objections.
Shaun Sacks, a 25-year-old member of the Israeli military who is
in Vancouver working with the Ohel Ya'akov Community Kollel, was
clearly impassioned, though he admitted that he had no special "expertise."
He saw the use of the military in Gaza against the settlers as unnecessary,
even shameful. He had spent three years in the army, including many
months in Gaza.
"We have wasted millions, the cost has been too high,"
he said. "I'm not talking about the Gaza Strip, I'm talking
about the state of Israel. I'm not disagreeing with the disengagement,
but why did it have to happen so quickly?" He made a strong
case for a different, less "militarized" withdrawal that
was gradual in nature.
"Nine thousand Jewish settlers against 50,000 soldiers –
why did they do that?" he asked. "Why not give just one
settlement and see what happens? This did anything but unite the
Jews."
There was prolonged applause at the end of his presentation.
The final speaker, Rabbi Andrew Rosenblatt, spiritual leader of
Schara Tzedeck Synagogue, began by promising to be "non-political,"
but then stated that criticizing the state of Israel was tantamount
to undermining a democratically elected government. He then asked
the audience what they believed to be the greatest threat to Israel.
Answers ranged from the United Nations through Arabs, internal dissent
and apathy to "spiritual malaise."
Rosenblatt pointed out that Darr's demographic point about the unequal
birth rate between Isrealis and Arabs was in fact the greatest threat.
Rosenblatt said that ensuring a Jewish majority over the next 20
years was of prime importance, along with stopping the loss of population
through emigration. There are currently some 800,000 expatriates
and the number is growing, he said.
As Rosenblatt saw it, a return to the "spirit of the Torah"
as exemplified by religious Zionism is a way out of the dissension
plaguing modern Israel.
"The Torah offers happiness beyond pleasure," he told
the audience. "It is incumbent on us to share our Torah vision
with other Israelis. This is your job."
Monika Ullmann is a freelance writer and editor living
in Vancouver.
^TOP
|
|
