A sad anniversary
DrumbumJ asked me to blog about the hitnatkut (withdrawal from Gaza [I hope I got the spelling right this time]), which began the day after Tisha B'Av two years ago, if memory serves me correctly. I've been rather hesitant to do so, as I'm still of two minds about it, wondering, on the one hand, whether any of the territories conquered in the Six-Day War should ever have been settled at all, and on the other hand, whether the settlements were/are necessary for defense.
I will say this much, however: At this time, I am opposed to any further withdrawals, strictly on humanitarian grounds. Two years after the evacuation of Gush Katif/the Gaza settlements, and after the evacuation of several settlements in northern Shomron/Samaria, there are literally thousands of people still living in caravillot/trailers/mobile homes, many not only without permanent homes but unemployed, as well. Children and adults alike still suffer from emotional trauma, resulting in social and school problems and the dissolution of marriages. The government of the State of Israel has proven itself completely incapable of resettling even the current evacauees, who, to the best of my admittedly-limited knowledge, number less than 10,000 people. What makes the Israeli government think that they're capable of resettling additional evacuees when they can't even take care of the ones they've already "created"?
My husband speculates that the military and/or security forces had reason to suspect that Hamas was becoming strong enough to pose an even greater danger to the settlers than it had previously posed, and that that's why the decision to withdraw was made. Allison Kaplan Sommer said something similar here--follow the link in her post, too.
Feel free to agree, disagree, and/or express ambivalence about anything written in this post. The usual rules of this blog apply: I ask only that your comments be phrased in respectful language. This is, after all, the day after we commemorate the destruction of the Bet HaMikdash/Holy Temple, which, according to tradition, was destroyed because of sinat chinam/baseless hatred.
Sigh. That's about as much politics as I can tolerate.
The evacuees remain in my prayers.
I will say this much, however: At this time, I am opposed to any further withdrawals, strictly on humanitarian grounds. Two years after the evacuation of Gush Katif/the Gaza settlements, and after the evacuation of several settlements in northern Shomron/Samaria, there are literally thousands of people still living in caravillot/trailers/mobile homes, many not only without permanent homes but unemployed, as well. Children and adults alike still suffer from emotional trauma, resulting in social and school problems and the dissolution of marriages. The government of the State of Israel has proven itself completely incapable of resettling even the current evacauees, who, to the best of my admittedly-limited knowledge, number less than 10,000 people. What makes the Israeli government think that they're capable of resettling additional evacuees when they can't even take care of the ones they've already "created"?
My husband speculates that the military and/or security forces had reason to suspect that Hamas was becoming strong enough to pose an even greater danger to the settlers than it had previously posed, and that that's why the decision to withdraw was made. Allison Kaplan Sommer said something similar here--follow the link in her post, too.
Feel free to agree, disagree, and/or express ambivalence about anything written in this post. The usual rules of this blog apply: I ask only that your comments be phrased in respectful language. This is, after all, the day after we commemorate the destruction of the Bet HaMikdash/Holy Temple, which, according to tradition, was destroyed because of sinat chinam/baseless hatred.
Sigh. That's about as much politics as I can tolerate.
The evacuees remain in my prayers.
posted by Shira Salamone at 7:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home