- The Media Line - https://themedialine.org -

The Gaza withdrawal – a human perspective

When discussing the Gaza-withdrawal plan, journalists usually deal with the political issues. We talk about the effects this move will have on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; about the Israeli unity government formed in order to ensure the implementation of the move; and about the political and military control in the Gaza Strip on ‘the day after.’ What we usually do not talk about is the human aspect of this move, and what it means to those who are about to be evacuated.

A poll conducted in mid-December revealed that more than 50 percent of Israelis living in the post-1967 territories will forcefully resist any attempt to evacuate them from their homes. What are their reasons? Taking a step back from politics, can one justify such reasons, on moral grounds?

The Jews living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are beginning to feel the land shaking beneath their feet. With the implementation of the withdrawal plan getting closer, many of them have been engaged in an anti-withdrawal campaign for the past few months, using various means: a human chain beginning in the Gaza Strip and ending in Jerusalem; billboards (“Sharon is splitting the people”); and even the controversial idea of wearing an orange Star of David patch (similar to the yellow patch worn by the Jews in Nazi Germany), which was soon scrapped.

Without taking any political stand, one thing is clear. Whichever word you choose to describe Sharon’s move – withdrawal, evacuation, disengagement – what you are actually talking about is transfer.

‘Transfer’ was one of the most maligned words in Israeli political jargon in the 1990s. Except that the use the far right made of this word at the time was in an entirely different context. They meant the expulsion of Arabs from their homes, into Arab countries. The word ‘transfer’ made people from both the political right and left feel uneasy, even ashamed; for how can you detach a person from their home, and with a wave of a pen sign an order to expel them?

Many Israelis see the Jews living in the post-1967 territories today as radical religious extremists, who endanger not only themselves and their children, but also the soldiers who guard them, and the entire state of Israel. When one of them dies in a terror attack, some Israelis even think, “He brought it upon himself.”

Yet there are ways to consider the matter of these Israeli citizens living in the Palestinian territories other than the above-mentioned simplistic way. The fact is that many of them simply responded to Ariel Sharon’s call back in the 1970s to build communities in those areas. Many of those who did so are now raising their families there. A whole new generation of children was born in these communities, the only place they regard as home. These youngsters are now asking, “Why is Sharon evacuating us from our homes, and detaching us from our friends and schools?”

Evacuated citizens will be compensated. But the questions still remain: Will they be able to find new jobs in a country where over 10 percent are unemployed? Will they be able to preserve their lifestyles?

The dilemma confronting every Israeli prime minister when it comes to dealing with the issue of the post-1967 territories is therefore not only political, but also has ethical and humanitarian aspects. Many elements have to be considered, each of them carrying its own weighty significance: The jammed peace process; the security of soldiers serving in the territories; the security of the Israeli citizens living there; the welfare of the Palestinian citizens; international public opinion; and the voice of a child asking “Why?”

These are all valid elements that not only the prime minister, but also the Israeli public, as well as the international community, has to deal with. It is by no means a clear-cut situation.