The Disengagement Plan from a Historical-Philosophical Perspective

It is only on rare occasions that individuals sense the movement of history beneath their feet. Usually, such a feeling is felt at an historical crossroads. It appears that our own day, in which the implementation of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan is imminent, may turn out to be such an intersection since it brings into relief a fundamental dispute concerning the character of Jewish existence and the basic needs for Jewish survival over the past two hundred years.

By matter of course, the public debate regarding the disengagement plan reflects the political language that has taken shape in the State of Israel during the past thirty-seven years. The impressive IDF victory in the Six-Day War, Israeli control over the most ancient of Biblical lands, and the settlement project beyond the political borders of the pre-1967 era placed the territories conquered in 1967 at the center of Israeli political discourse. Initially, the question was a practical one: How long will Israel retain possession of the territories, and in exchange for what, if anything, would it relinquish them? However, given the course of Jewish history in the distant and more recent past, there was no chance that this would remain merely a practical question, and it very quickly became an ethical issue of the first order. Indeed, implementation of the disengagement plan and its aftermath will probably put an end to one of the two ways that has been suggested to make use of our collective Jewish life in the State of Israel in order to deal with the problems of Jewish existence in modern times. In order to properly assess the implications and challenges likely to follow, we would therefore do well if we view the disengagement plan from such a historical-philosophical perspective.

Already at the onset of the encounter between Judaism and modern culture at the turn of the 19 th century, the Jewish people was confronted with a double challenge: How ought the Jewish people conceive of itself during this period, and how – in the face of threats facing its very existence – could the people guarantee its survival? From its inception, the Zionist movement included a wide variety of worldviews, each of which addressed differently the question as to what image the Jewish people should assume in the new period. There was, however, general agreement that the establishment of an independent Jewish commonwealth in Israel was a necessary condition for the rejuvenation of Jewish life in general. Indeed, the precise meaning of this assumption was left open to debate. The intensity of debate has deepened with time and today it threatens our ability to continue on into the future as one. The vigorous religious opposition to the disengagement plan is rooted in a sincere and deep – albeit zealous – belief that Jewish control over all parts of the Land of Israel is necessary as the fundamental component in contemporary Jewish identity and culture, while the majority – which supports the disengagement plan – has adopted a more pragmatic approach. According to this position, it is important for the State of Israel to withdraw from much, if not all of the occupied territories in order to create a defendable border, in order to assure a Jewish majority in the country, and in order to turn its attention toward the fortification of our continued existence in the simplest and most banal sense.

Let us be precise about this: We have before us, on the one hand, a midrashic approach that interprets the activism characteristic of Zionist endeavor in its own unique way. The rhetoric of the religious right which considers the continued control of all parts of the Land of Israel to be identical with loyalty to the Jewish foundations of modern Israel reflects a fundamentalist approach that considers the renewal of Jewish life in Israel to be but a direct continuation of Jewish life in the time of the Bible. This position ignores the modern and real-politic secular foundations of contemporary Zionism. In contrast to this is the approach that emphasizes the existential, practical needs of the people in the short-term, while largely ignoring the formative power of the myth linking past to present.

In my humble opinion, it is absolutely necessary to relinquish territory for the sake of improving the ability of the state to bear responsibility for the continued survival of the Jewish people. But we must not define Jewish existence in the State of Israel in merely practical terms. It is imperative that we give meaning to the practical step of giving up land as a part of our struggle for existence in such a manner that will once again join our collective life in the present with our memories of the distant Jewish past. No, it is not control over all parts of the Land of Israel that constitutes the essence of Zionism. Rather, the essence of Zionism is embodied in the following questions: How might we deal with the social and ethical failures that have surfaced in our society in recent years? How shall we build our society in the State of Israel from this day onward? How shall we treat the stranger, the indigent, the widow and the orphan living in our midst? I fervently pray that from now on, we will base the connection between our lives in the present and the Jewish life we recall through our heritage going back to the Land of Israel in ancient days, on the adoption and cultivation of the prophetic vision regarding the creation of a moral and just society before God. Those who are truly interested in creating an authentic connection with the Jewish past must recall that the prophets of Israel posed the challenge of individual morality and social justice as the sole justification for Jewish life in the Jewish homeland.

Professor Yossi Turner is a professor of Jewish Thought and Philosophy at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies

Photo: Disengagement Process at Gush Katif, 2005. By: Jo Malcolm, KKL’s Photos Archive.