The Movement for Reform Judaism

This coming week may prove to be the most important in modern Jewish history since the formation of the State of Israel 57 years ago. The evacuation of the Settlements in Gaza could trigger a return to a peace process leading to the establishment of a State of Palestine, as envisaged by the United Nations in 1947, the only true and potentially lasting solution to the Jewish/Arab conflict in the Middle East. However, we should not underestimate just what is happening and the implications for the Israeli people. That the decision to evacuate - or disengage, which seems to be the term used there - is not unanimous was highlighted by the resignation from the Israeli Government by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Finance Minister. Netanyahu, a former Prime Minister and a consummate professional politician, may well be using the circumstances as a means of challenging Ariel Sharon for leadership of the Likud Party. Nevertheless, his departure from the Government will exacerbate an already tense situation. Even those Israelis who are in favour of the pull-out are very aware that it necessitates thousands of Jews leaving behind their homes, their businesses, their schools, their Synagogues - and the Land, which they believe to be a permanent part of their heritage, as promised by God to our ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Of course, there are some - and I was amongst them - who said that the Settlements should never have been set up in the first place, that they were an obstacle to peace, that they were an never going to be viable and would have, at some time, to be removerd. But, you can't turn the clock back; we have to deal with the situation as it is on the ground.

Perhaps a better way of understanding the situation is by looking more closely at the terminology being used and I'm afraid that shortly this will require a short Hebrew lesson; but do bear with me as it could be helpful. 'Disengagement', according to my Websters Dictionary, is 'the act of disengaging or the state of being disengaged', which I don't find terribly useful, but it does give another definition: 'extrication'. That, I think, is precisely what Mr Sharon is attempting to do; to extricate Israel from a position it can no longer, if it ever could, justify or, perhaps more to the point, from the perspective of the pragmatic Prime Minister, it can no longer physically, politically and militarily maintain. Another way of understanding this word and the action it reflects is by looking at its antonym, 'engagement'. This, my dictionary tells me, has no less than seven meanings, but the one we can home in on is 'an entering into or being in battle'. This tends to suggest that 'disengagement' is stopping or leaving a battle; and this is a powerful message for the international community who see Israel as an occupying power. The problem, internally in Israel, with this definition is the implied weakness of an independent, non-negotiated withdrawal, seemingly without anything in return. This is certainly part of the reason for the reluctance of many Israelis for supporting this action. However, this term 'disengagement' and the consequent understanding of the position as discussed is primarily, I would suggest, for external
consumption. Within Israel the Hebrew word hitnateket, is being used. his is a new word, not found in earlier dictionaries, deliberately coined for the purpose, so it has no previous meaning. It is derived from the root natak, which means to remove, drive away, cut off, sever. We can understand immediately, therefore, some of the emotion of the settlers, who regard this decision as they being driven off their land, cut off from their former lives, severed from their historical heritage, removed forcefully - if necessary - by the Israeli army from their homes. And that, for them, is the worst part, the part they find most difficult to understand and to come to terms with. If they were having to uproot, a meaning of nitek, as a result of Palestinian military action or the outcome of a negotiated peace treaty, then perhaps the settlers and their supporters could accept the situation, as distressing and uncomfortable as it might be. But that the Israeli Government is taking unilateral action is what makes it all so surreal. Yet this is precisely what the term hitnateket means.

Hebrew has a number of verb forms, one of which is the reflexive and this is generally denoted by the use of the prefix 'hit', so that the new
word, hitnateket, indicates a self-inflicted removal, a self-imposed severance. The effect of this is to create an even more glaring severance, that between the settlers and the Government, which had once been its backers, both financially and morally. Another meaning of nitek, a disconnection, has occurred between these erstwhile associates, but it's not just a breaking of relations; it goes far beyong that. A further definition of nitek is to revolt against, and that is what some of the leaders, rabbinic and lay, of the settlers movement are threatening; even to the extent of encouraging religious soldiers to disobey their orders and not to physically eject those settlers who refuse to move when the time comes next week. And in some way, bearing in mind the years of hard work put in by the settlers over many years in cultivating the land, building homes and institutions,, and, in their terms, fulfilling the ancient Torah promise of creating a Jewish life in what they regard as part of Eretz Yisra'el, the Land of Israel, it's difficult not to have some sympathy for them. They must be feeling - to put it bluntly - exactly like the one Torah usage of the verb, natuk, castrated! Nevertheless, the plight of the settlers has to be considered within the broader context of Land for Peace and in that regard there are many who think that the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, where the terrorist Hamas group dominates the leadership, cannot be trusted. They believe that moving out of Gaza will just shift the border of terror that much closer to Israel proper. And they may be right. But we don't know and have to find out whether, by giving hope to the Palestinians of a State of their own, the rank and file can take control of their own destinies away from Hamas and other terror groups. Certainly, the Israeli evacuation from most of the territories taken in 1973 in the West Bank will be dependent on a successful and relatively peaceful takeover of Gaza by Palestinian police and army personnel. Without that I don't see Sharon being able to convince the Knesset to leave the West Bank, even if he wanted to. So it is in the best interests of the Palestinians to ensure an effective and peaceful handover in Gaza. The issue is that the Palestinians have a long history of invariably not doing what was in their own best interests. However, that was under the leadership of Yasir Arafat and things may change now. At the very least, they must be given the chance. So a historic week ahead. We can only hope and pray that it proceeds without nitek, revolt, and that it leads to the peace so badly needed by both Israel and the Palestinians, even if they don't always realise it for themselves. Amen.
"

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed