A frustrating event that left a feeling that it was all for nothing - by Mati Tuchfeld

..."If the disengagement from Gaza contributed anything to history, it did so by proving that terrorism has nothing to do with the settlement enterprise, but there was no such advantage in northern Samaria. There was no advantage to this eviction. None. Zero. Nothing has changed for the better there. It had no added value to security or to anything else. It was a frustrating event that left a feeling that it was all for nothing."

Mati Tuchfeld..
Israel Hayom..
16 June '17..

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yair Naveh retired from the Israel Defense Forces nearly three years ago. His last role was as IDF deputy chief of staff, but he is most remembered for his role as the GOC Central Command who was involved in the disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

In the unilateral disengagement from the coastal enclave, Israel evicted Gush Katif, a bloc of 17 communities in southern Gaza, and pulled back to its 1967 border with the Gaza Strip. It also evicted four secluded settlements in northern Samaria. The disengagement, during which 8,600 Israelis lost their homes, remains highly controversial to this day, as many believe it is directly linked to the increased terrorist activity and rocket fire emanating from Gaza since then.

As head of Central Command, Naveh oversaw the eviction of the northern Samaria communities of Kadim, Ganim, Homesh and Sa-Nur. The operation was far smaller and less dramatic than in Gush Katif, but Naveh's membership in the national-religious sector presented him with a personal challenge.

Twelve years on, as a group of coalition lawmakers plan to introduce legislation that would allow the residents of the four Samaria settlements evicted in 2005 to re-establish their communities, Naveh says the unilateral disengagement from Gaza was a mistake, telling Israel Hayom that reality has proved the move failed to generate any security or diplomatic advantage for Israel.

He also believes that Israel should seriously consider turning back the clock for two of the Samarian settlements, Homesh, northwest of Nablus, and Sa-Nur, northwest of Jenin, as repopulating them could serve Israel's security interests.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

“A-Dawla ma’ana” – the government is with us.

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
22 November '12..

When the blood-curdling battle cry exhorting the masses to slaughter the Jews, “Itbach al-Yahud,” was first shouted on April 4, 1920, by Arab marauders rampaging through the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City, it was accompanied by another mantra: “A-Dawla ma’ana” – the government is with us.

That was the first brazen reverberation of the trust that Jews can be attacked with impunity, that no deterrence exists. It was since oft-chanted during the perpetration of other atrocities during the British Mandate era masterminded by infamous Jerusalem mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, most notably the hideous Hebron massacre of 1929.

In a broad sense, that same premise endures and it has spurred Hamas and its assorted Gazan cohorts – all Husseini’s avid torchbearers – to escalate their rocket fire, ambushes and other assorted provocations.

Their confidence was buoyed by a confluence of conditions. Foremost was the seeming Israeli toleration for the random rocketing of an ever-expanding sphere of population centers. Our prolonged inaction had lent the impression of powerlessness and, in our region apparent weakness only invites intensifying aggression.

But there was much more than the Arab misinterpretation of our Western-minded moderation and inclination to delude ourselves that if we overlook sporadic barrages from Gaza, its homicidal ardor will somehow dissipate.

Added to the Gazan perception that Israel has lost its mojo, is the rise of Muslim Brotherhood hegemony in Egypt. For Hamas this means that the biggest Arab state has its back. Hamas is itself a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, boasting the identical ideological DNA as the new Cairo regime.

There is no underestimating the boost afforded Hamas by the conviction that it has whom to rely on, that it can always expect reinforcement via its border with Egypt and that Israel will fear upsetting its rickety peace with the transformed Egypt.That means a freer hand for Gaza to indulge in mischief.

The upheaval in Cairo, moreover, didn’t spring spontaneously in a vacuum. Not only did US President Barack Obama not maintain so much as an aloof detachment, but he to a great measure enabled the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, no bedfellow of Hamas.

Obama’s reelection is grasped throughout the Arab world as Israel’s misfortune. Freed from the fear of the voter, last-term president Obama will be tougher on Israel, Hamas believes, and concurrently the softest-ever in his attitude to Islamist radicals. Such readings of the situation crucially raised Gaza’s chutzpah quotient.

The upshot is a latter-day version of a-Dawla ma’ana. Gaza felt that no restrictive authority stood in its way. The proverbial Dawla – the powers which didn’t hamper Hamas – included the newly fraternal Egypt, the presumably pliant Washington and, up until recently, a hesitant Israel.

Arens - Unilateral folly

Civilians have now become equal partners with the Israel Defense Forces in the war against Israel's enemies. That is not the way it was supposed to be.

Moshe Arens..
Haaretz..
05 June '12..

It seems that some of our military-men-turned-politicians are suffering from the unilateral withdrawal syndrome. It may be typical of the military mindset: Get it over with! Finish the job! Do something! Do anything! Actually, on some occasions that may be the correct strategy. It usually comes under the heading of "Cutting your losses." But often it may be the wrong way to go.

Two of our illustrious military leaders seem to have been afflicted by this syndrome. One was Ariel Sharon, who peremptorily decided on the unilateral withdrawal from Gush Katif and the forceful uprooting of 8000 Israeli citizens from their homes, in the expectation that the move would ease Israel's defense problems and advance the peace process. The other is the present defense minister, Ehud Barak, who has a long record of espousing unilateral withdrawals in the expectation that therein lay the solution to our problems, or else that this is the way to evade an oncoming tsunami that he thinks he sees approaching on the horizon.

His first opportunity came in 2000, when, as prime minister and defense minister (he insisted on holding both positions ), he decided on the unilateral withdrawal from the south Lebanon security zone, abandoning Israel's ally, the South Lebanon Army, and bringing the Hezbollah terrorists up to the border fence in the north. He expected this move would transform Hezbollah from a terrorist organization into a Lebanese political party that would abandon its policy of launching attacks against Israel, or alternately that Israel, after the retreat, would be able to deter Hezbollah from continuing its terror attacks against Israel. It didn't work.

Sherman - Predicting Gaza: Rabin, Sharon, the Knesset and... well, me

Martin Sherman..
JPost..
22 March '12..

The nightmare stories of the Likud are well known. After all, they promised Katyusha rockets from Gaza as well. For a year, Gaza has been largely under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. There has not been a single Katyusha rocket. Nor will there be any Katyushas. – Yitzhak Rabin, radio interview, July 24, 1995

I am firmly convinced and truly believe that this disengagement... will be appreciated by those near and far, reduce animosity, break through boycotts and sieges and advance us along the path of peace with the Palestinians and our other neighbors. – Ariel Sharon, Knesset address, October 25, 2004

Let me be quite clear as to what this article is and is not about. It is not about whether the unilateral evacuation of Gaza was a success or failure or whether it was a good or bad for Israel. Only the moronic, the myopic or the mendacious could claim it was any but a disastrously debacle. It is not about whether, despite everything, Israel is better off after disengagement. Only the fanatical, the foolish or the fraudulent would suggest it is. Nor is about the precision of my own predictive powers (Well, perhaps just a little. After all what’s the point of being right if you can’t rub it in?)

Scary stuff

It is about the documented lack of judgment of many among the senior Israeli leadership, men and women charged with charting the nation’s destiny, and who were elected to “get it right,” or at least not to get it embarrassingly wrong.

It is about a leadership that seems willing to jettison every shred of prudence and principle to preserve its positions of power and privilege, even if it means defending the most absurd policies; even if the ruinous consequences of their actions were not only eminently foreseeable, but widely foreseen.

The introductory citations by two recent prime ministers, both with rich military backgrounds, are startling in the magnitude of their mistaken assessments.

Amrousi - It's okay to say 'disengagement'

Emily Amroussi
Israel Hayom
28 October '11


http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=733

If I wanted to lose readers, the surest way to do so would be to mention the word “disengagement” in the first paragraph, and most readers would already start turning the page. The most significant domestic Israeli event in our history occurred only six years ago, but it feels like 600. A human story with octopus-like implications, ignored by art and television, a close-to-home trauma swept energetically under the public discourse, a collective shudder. Its direct results are reported as if they were a report about the weather, a force of nature, while the contemporary context has been erased from the regularly scheduled broadcast.

This week, the word slipped into prime time when Gilad Sharon gave an interview abroad marking the publication of his father's biography, but that was a one-off show. Generally, even an offhand mention of the uprooting is enough to kill any interview: Our time is up.

Pointing out cause and effect is a basic expression of journalistic work, but in the six years of rocket fire from the Gaza Strip they have simply "fallen in Israeli territory." Even during Operation Cast Lead (the Israeli air and ground operation against Gaza in 2008 to 2009), the word was hardly pronounced explicitly. Only 10 months have passed between our flight from there and Gilad Shalit's being smuggled in there -- but shhhh. Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad said in an interview this week that the disengagement helped keep Shalit “well-hidden.” Hamad has yet to understand the size of the mistake: Razi (Barkai, a well-known radio talk show host) might stop calling.

I consulted the Internet, the ultimate chronicle. The number of pages dealing with Gilad Shalit is exactly 10 times the number of pages that mention the disengagement. Putting aside the fact that we are talking about one Israeli who was removed from his home, compared to 8,500 Israelis who were removed from their homes (both he and them went sent by the state), and that Shalit’s suffering was infinitely greater, the disturbing thing is the blurring of the causal link between the two. Hands on our ears and our eyes: We don't want to know.

This Failure Will Not Happen Again

Yisrael Medad
My Right Word
15 June '10

It won't because there will never be another disengagement, withdrawal or convergence. God-willing and a little help from man.

Inquiry panel: State turned Gaza evacuees into refugees in their homeland

A commission of inquiry into the state's handling of Gush Katif and northern Samaria evacuees offered harsh criticism of the bureaucracy, delays and poor planning by the authorities since the 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

The report concluded that all the issues still facing those the report called "refugees in the homeland" must be resolved by the end of 2011.

...The report, which spans 488 pages, was submitted to the authorities on Tuesday.

...The report's harshest criticism was directed at the failure to build public institutions in the communities to which the evacuees were relocated..."The commission believes that the delay in the construction of the public institutions is unbecoming, and in certain cases a complete failure for which the government is responsible," the report continued.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

A Rhetorical Commitment from the Words-Matter Administration

Rick Richman
Contentions/Commentary
23 March '10

Hillary Clinton’s AIPAC speech ended with a rhetorical flourish, reaching back to David Ben-Gurion to list the Israeli leaders who made “difficult but clear-eyed choices to pursue peace” by giving up land. Her final paragraph was an exhortation to continue this “tradition”:

For the state to flourish, this generation of Israelis must also take up the tradition and do what seems too dangerous, too hard, and too risky. And of this they can be absolutely sure: the United States and the American people will stand with you. We will share the risks and we will shoulder the burdens, as we face the future together.

It is extraordinary for a nation to advise another to do what seems “too dangerous, too hard, and too risky” — in reliance upon a promise of the first nation to “stand with” it and “share the risks” from far away.

Sometimes what seems too dangerous, too hard, and too risky is in fact too dangerous, hard, and risky. And sometimes you cannot be absolutely sure the United States will stand with you — ask Poland, Georgia, and the Czech Republic.

Or ask Ariel Sharon (if you could) about the Gaza disengagement, in which Israel turned over half the putative Palestinian state in one of those difficult but clear-eyed choices to pursue peace. As Bret Stephens notes in his column, the disengagement was done in exchange for a letter, signed by the president of the United States, containing explicit assurances (described in the letter as the “steadfast commitment” of the United States) about the positions the U.S. would take on (a) defensible borders and (b) the major Israeli settlements necessary to defend them. The commitment given in exchange for Israel’s dangerous, hard, and risky action proved inoperative (or “unenforceable,” as Hillary might say). This is not a tradition that any nation would want to repeat.

(Read full post)
.

Between Conscientious Objection and Anarchy

Moshe Feiglin

Manhigut Yehudit
14 Cheshvan, 5770

Translated from the Hebrew article on the NRG website

When the recent conscientious objection letter of high school students was publicized, I wrote a press release in support of their right to refuse – even though the conscientious objectors were from the left side of the political spectrum. When the Shimshon soldiers from the right side of the political spectrum announced that they would not carry out orders to expel Jews from their homes, I once again wrote a press release in their support. Obviously, my heart is with the Shimshon soldiers and not with the conscientious objectors of the left. But in principle, I support every act of conscientious objection.

The only problem is that the Shimshon soldiers - who, in my opinion, performed an indispensable service for the IDF and the State of Israel – did not receive serious punishment. Twenty days in prison is not intimidating. They should have received at least 200 days.

Confused? Let's make some order of this issue.

The main claim against the conscientious objectors is that their refusal will lead to anarchy, threatening the very foundations of the State. Today I refuse to obey my orders, tomorrow you refuse to obey your orders and chaos ensues.
(Read in full)
.

Gush Katif: Picking Up The Pieces

by Rivka Zahava

Four years after the disengagement, many families are still without work.

This week marks the four year anniversary of the Gush Katif disengagement in which 1700 families, 9000 people, were uprooted from their homes. Some of these families had spent 30 years building their homes, farms and businesses and were forced to leave them to the awaiting bulldozers. They were shepherded into hotels where there innumerable needs had been unforeseen.

The communities of Israel sped to their aid, sending food, laundering services and social workers. Rabbis were sent to the front to assess the needs of the evacuated families and try to bring some order to the chaotic hotel lobbies. They were meant to provide leadership and guidance, spiritually, emotionally and practically.

Rabbi Yosef Zvi Rimon, rabbi of Alon Shvut South, went and immediately set to work, answering questions in Jewish law and advising people in their individual circumstances. He brought the volunteers of his community to jump in and see what needed to be done. But his eyes and heart were looking deeper than the immediate crisis.
"What will these people do when their savings are wiped out?"

He saw men who had lived productive lives, now dormant in hotel lobbies. Entrepreneur women who had supported their families, now bereft of their prosperous business. There were children who were going to need food and clothing way beyond this stage of emergency. He asked himself and those around him, "What will these people do when their savings are wiped out?"

Rabbi Rimon began his work by sending men out to trade courses. Yehuda Gross had previously owned a framing shop in Neve Dekalim. Rabbi Rimon sent Yehuda to a training course for locksmiths. Eventually, with the help of Rabbi Rimon, he was able to re-open his shop in Nitzan, a caravan park for Gush Katif evacuees. There he has combined his framing and locksmith profession and provides both services from under one roof.

Rabbi Rimon believed that with proper support, every one of the evacuees could become once again a financially self-sufficient, contributing member of Israeli society. And so JobKatif was born.

Margalit is a widow with two teenaged children. Following the disengagement she was bedridden with severe depression. JobKatif sent an employment counselor to work with her at home. After three months of counseling she found a job at a supermarket as a cashier. Margalit thrived in her position, winning the employee of the month award several times. After a year, she realized she wanted a job upgrade and enrolled in a course to help her define direction. She continues to support her family through her job at the supermarket while she moves towards the next stage of her career.

JobKatif is the only body that has been making re-employment of evacuees its goal. This non-profit organization has been monitoring the employment status of the evacuees and works to see to it that the victims are given an opportunity to once again stand on their own two feet financially. The families are assigned a one-on-one counselor to work them through the process of starting over. The first and biggest obstacle is usually the crushed spirit with which these people are found. JobKatif starts their work with each family and sensitively helps them overcome their fears, helping them look towards a future. They help them make the decision of what direction to start in. Some evacuees need to start from scratch, deciding on a new profession and acquiring the proper training. Others will be able to find employment, but need the help of the counselor to seek the right position. Some want to open businesses and need professional business advising. The advisors work with them day in and day out, from the planning stages until the business is open and secure, with the owner standing on his own two feet.

JobKatif found jobs for more than 1500 citizens and has helped open 160 businesses across Israel.

Of the 1700 families, 85% worked inside Gush Katif, of which 70% were self employed either in agriculture or other private businesses. JobKatif found jobs for more than 1500 citizens and has helped open 160 businesses across Israel. Today, 21% of the evacuees are still unemployed and still have no way of providing for their families what they once had -- financial stability.

Moshe and Miri have five children. Miri is a teacher. Moshe began a home improvement business after the disengagement but the delay in building homes has stunted businesses growth. Employment counselors helped Miri find her job. A business counselor has been working with Moshe since he first had his idea for a business. JobKatif has assisted the couple in securing a business loan and a grant for start up and referred Moshe to a marketing course which helped him network with others. Business is slowly building through word of mouth. Moshe works part time to up the family's income while his business grows.

Moshe and Miri are on the track to success. The couple feels that they are working together and can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Visit www.jobkatif.org.il to learn more about JobKatif.
To find out what you can do in your neighborhood to help JobKatif find employment for former Gush Katif residents, please contact: Beth Shapiro at (631) 791-5556 or 054-330-5941 or email info@jobkatif.org
.