Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan ended Israel’s four years of terrorism-induced consensus. During this wrenching debate, each side’s narrative has been eerily one-dimensional. The settlers dismiss the moral and demographic challenges posed by 1.3 million Palestinians surrounding about 8,500 Jews. The pro-disengagement forces ignore the moral victory Palestinian murderers are proclaiming while rationalizing Sharon’s occasional trampling on civil liberties.
Despite the vitriol, most protesters have denounced violence. The ceremonies in at least four Gush Katif villages wherein settlers relinquished their guns to ensure a nonviolent evacuation belong in the Democracy Hall of Fame alongside Martin Luther King canceling his gun permit application in the 1950s.
Still, even if the protesters remain disciplined and avoid violence, Israeli society needs healing. Having Israel’s supposedly nationalistic and patriotic camp beg soldiers to disobey orders, label their democratically elected leader a “dictator” and libel the Jewish state as “Nazi” poisoned the well of goodwill democracies need. Fanatics valuing the land of Israel over the state threaten Israel’s legitimacy. And some Israelis’ insensitivity to Gush Katif’s pain, let alone their disbelief as many religious settlers trusted God to save them from having to pack, demonstrated that Israel’s divisions are not just political and theological but epistemological: Secular and religious Israelis approach reality differently without comprehending how the others think.
Unfortunately, Sharon is no healer. “The Bulldozer” proved better at ramming through his plan than explaining it, especially to his former settler allies. This failure to calm critics typifies a country led too often by former generals and addicted to polarizing, absolutist rhetoric. Many settlers’ inability to understand Sharon’s rationale — or what diplomatic, political, military, moral or social benefits might result — intensified their anguish, illustrating why successful statesmanship requires effective salesmanship.
Critics find Sharon’s policies so unfathomable, they blame this geopolitical gamble on the corruption charges facing him and his sons. Settlers sneer that while Abraham the patriarch was willing to sacrifice his son for the sake of the Jewish people, Arik the prime minister is sacrificing the Jewish people for the sake of his sons. Such cynicism breeds alienated citizens, not the empathy required for reconciliation.
As Religious Zionism mourns the loss of its vision (and one of its secular heroes), as the Zionist pioneers of Gush Katif who made Gaza’s barren deserts bloom mourn the loss of their homes, visionary leadership can turn this trauma triumphal. Secular Zionists should stop treating Religious Zionists as crazy aunts locked in the attic, mobilized when necessary but better ignored. A healthy dialogue requires thank-yous to Religious Zionists for their idealism, patriotism and renunciation of violence despite their fury. Rather than expressing glee over the dismantling of the Gaza settlements, leftist Zionists should find common ground in appreciating the human cost of abandoning cherished homes built with blood, sweat and tears, regardless of the political context. And instead of the polarizing, irreconcilable narratives now festering, we need a unifying storyline.
We should hail the everyday heroes of Gush Katif who followed their democratic leaders’ advice to pioneer outposts and created little diamonds in the sand, tributes to Western ingenuity that ultimately supplied 15 percent of Israel’s agricultural exports. We should salute these same citizens who disagreed virulently but not violently with a different democratically elected government’s decision. We should boast about Israel’s willingness to take risks for peace despite a bloodthirsty enemy. We should emphasize the values uniting Israel during its 57 years of state building, reaffirming our commitment to Judaism and Jewish peoplehood, liberal democracy and national solidarity, pragmatic idealism and self-sacrifice, ethical living and collective, constructive creativity.
Many reporters spent months fomenting fears of civil war. Without denying the unpleasant incidents, Zionist leaders should highlight the noblest moments: the hundreds of thousands of furious “orange” people across Israel demonstrating together peacefully; the fact that once again, Israel became the only country ever to relinquish land in a bid for peace legitimately won from neighbors in a defensive war; the voluntary disarming of settlers and the soldiers removing them; President Moshe Katzav’s eloquent, empathetic call for unity; the American Jewish donors buying Gush Katif’s hothouses to compensate settlers and, hopefully, induce Palestinians to start building their communities rather than trying to destroy Israel.
One settler spokesperson, Eve Harrow, tells of a hot, frustrating evening when protesters blocked moving trucks leaving Gush Katif. Cranky, sweaty, hungry soldiers, settlers and truckers shouted at each other with the staccato viciousness that all too frequently punctuates Israeli life. Suddenly, someone yelled “Mincha.” (afternoon prayer service.........Snooker) Everyone stopped. The religious among the combatants prayed together, then continued arguing after the afternoon prayer. The warring factions also paused for a water break. Such civilized, unifying vignettes have long been the secrets of Israel’s extraordinary success.
Herein lie the seeds for a more inspiring storyline — and if visionary leaders play it right — a revival of Zionist unity and idealism, a final flower flourishing from the debris of Gush Katif.
Gil Troy is a professor of history at McGill University and the author of “Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s” and “Why I Am A Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today.”
