The tyranny of disengagement

Berl Katznelson, a labor-Zionist leader of the pre-state period, once wrote, "A movement that is called upon to cede any of its rights or any of its hopes owes it to itself to know clearly why and what it is ceding, and if its senses are healthy it will feel the concessions painfully, and even if they are necessary, it will feel them deeply."

Colonel (res.) Ze'ev Drori, a member of Kibbutz Hatzerim and the commander of the Givati infantry brigade at the time of the evacuation of Yamit in northern Sinai in 1982, wrote after the evacuation that, even though he accepted the government's decision in principle, the activity of the Movement to Stop the Withdrawal was, in his view, obligatory. "The thought that it would have been possible, without those people [the protesters], to evacuate part of the Land of Israel quietly and without protest, is maddening. If I had lived in the Yamit District, if I had built my home there and had children there, I would have behaved like them: I would not have left voluntarily."

What Katznelson and Drori understood in different periods was completely missed by the majority of the cabinet ministers and Knesset members, who last week approved, on first reading, one of the most disgraceful laws in the history of Israel.

The harsh jail terms this law inflicts on opponents of the evacuation - every opponent, not just those who resist with violence - are more suited to totalitarian states, not to a state that purports to be a democracy. Under the law, demonstrators against the disengagement plan can be sent to prison for three years, a fine amounting to a quarter of the compensation payment can be imposed on anyone who doesn't volunteer to hand over the keys to his home, all the property of the evacuees that will be left behind can be nationalized without compensation, children can be placed in detention, and anyone who tries to get to the Gush Katif settlement bloc after the area is declared a closed military zone can also be placed behind bars.

The shortcomings of the disengagement plan are legion. Its genesis lies in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's dictatorial behavior and his blatant disregard for the position of the majority of his cabinet ministers, the majority of the MKs in his party, the majority of the members of the Likud Central Committee and the party's rank and file.

Moreover, it is a reasonable assumption that if two ballot boxes were placed in the Knesset, one reflecting the formal vote of MKs, the other their personal view, we would see a considerable reduction in the strength of the supporters of the disengagement plan and perhaps even a slim majority for its opponents.

Equally peculiar is the ostensible change in the opinion of the defense minister, the chief of staff, the director of Military Intelligence and other officials in the defense establishment, who moved from quiet opposition to the plan to quiet support for it. None of them is putting forward a realistic solution to the expected upgrading of the terrorists' capability after the "disengagement," a development that is pointed to by security experts such as Major General (res.) Yaakov Amidror. Nor is any of them saying anything - at least not for public consumption - about the fact that the terrorists understand this "disengagement" to be our flight and their victory, in the same way they interpreted the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

To all these flaws of the disengagement - and others that show it is precisely the opponents of disengagement who are advancing rational arguments, whereas those around Sharon are demonstrating messianic behavior - has now been added the ban on opposing the evacuation. There is no point mincing words: It will be our misfortune as a public and as a people, and it will be our woe as a state, if this evacuation goes through quietly and submissively. It will be a mark of shame for the evacuees, but mainly for the Israeli society, if people do not stand up and cry out against the attempt to displace people from their homes and from part of the national home (the Land of Israel).

The reaction to the loss of parts of the Land of Israel must be to weep and rend our garments, not necessarily in the halakhic sense, but above all in the psychological sense. What those who find it difficult to mourn the displacement show above all is their alienation vis-a-vis this land and vis-a-vis some of their brethren.

Even those who support disengagement in its present format and who think it is a wonderful plan should therefore feel pained and ensure the right of the evacuees to oppose the evacuation, even after the decision has been made. That is a legitimate part of the democratic right of protest. This protest must have clear limits - no one must lift a hand or take up arms against the evacuating force - but the right of an individual to refuse to accede to a soldier or a policeman who tries to remove him from his home has to be understood and accepted.

If evacuation is fated to happen, then the optimal situation for which Israeli society must strive is for the evacuees and their supporters to make life difficult but tolerable for the Israel Defense Forces and the police. Scenes of soldiers and police dragging passive resisters from their homes and evacuating furniture and domestic appliances are something that the Israeli Jewish society can tolerate in order to restore to the evacuees and to itself at least a modicum of honor.

Minister Natan Sharansky, who opposes the disengagement plan, described the evacuation-compensation law passed last week on first reading as worse than the laws of the old Soviet regime. But one need not belong to the camp of the disengagement opponents to understand that imposing lengthy prison terms on those who refuse to be expelled from their home is to wreak havoc on the democratic game.