192 193 Chapter Fourteen | The price of disengagement Chapter Fourteen The Price of the Disengagement On Tuesday, the 18th of Av 5765 (08/23/2005), the implementa�on of the disengagement plan from the Gaza Strip was completed, and the last family le� the place. Within one week, approximately 8,600 residents from 21 se�lements in Gush Ka�f were evacuated, elimina�ng a 30-year-old se�lement enterprise. Thousands of residents, most of whom stayed un�l the very end and strongly resisted the evacua�on and the offer of compensa�on, were dispersed in hotels, guest houses and various educa�onal ins�tu�ons across Israel. In just a few days, a whole world of colors, sounds, smells, sights and memories was washed away. The State of Israel unilaterally gave up a flourishing and prosperous region, and the evacuated residents began to pay the price. It was a harsh price for them because their en�re essence was in Gush Ka�f: their homes, se�lements, communi�es, educa�on, livelihood, mission and faith. All their lifelines were severed at once.1 Dealing with such a significant loss demanded many resources and took its toll on individuals, families, the community and even the en�re Israeli society. A�er nearly a decade since the disengagement, some are s�ll paying the price. The loss of place The worst loss was the loss of place. It was not just the loss of a home but a 'place' in its broadest sense - the se�lement, the community, the region and the country as we knew it. A place is the most basic thing for an individual, providing a sense of security and belonging and construc�ng all other levels - the personal, familial and social.2 Gush Ka�f was an integral part of its residents' personal, social, na�onal and religious iden�ty. It was the dream and its realiza�on. Se�ling there carried a na�onal-religious value - some saw it as part of the redemp�on process, and therefore, its loss caused a deeper ri�. Research proves that losing one's place leads to anger, distress, frustra�on, anxiety, grief and depression. Indeed, many residents reported all these and more, o�en exacerbated by addi�onal factors like con�nuous temporariness and aliena�ng a�tude. As a result, 50% of the evacuees sought help from welfare services, and morbidity almost doubled,3 including mental problems.4 In their tes�monies, many of the former residents of Gush Ka�f stated that the loss of place led to a loss of iden�ty, decreased self-confidence and a fear of a�aching to new things lest they would be lost again. "One of my daughters flatly refused to hang pictures in her room in the trailer so she wouldn't have to part with them again," tes�fied Ezra Eldar.5 A Ministry of Economy report issued in July 2013 demonstrated that the loss of place resulted in a significant decrease in self-image, self-worth, the desire to act and accomplish, and the ability to rehabilitate.6 The fact that the living condi�ons in the temporary residences were disrespec�ul and overcrowded and lasted for years also delayed healing and prevented them from freeing themselves from their fears and sense of aliena�on. In many respects, "the rug was pulled from under their feet," and seeing their beloved country and army, which they admired and educated their children to love and honor, leading that move, only doubled the intensity of their pain. In the moments of par�ng, many residents wished to quickly return to Gush Ka�f, the place they had loved so much. The loss of home Another brutal loss was the loss of their homes. It is a place where people belong, where their personal iden��es lie, associated with memories and experiences that were and are no more. A home is not just a physical structure; it mainly represents atmosphere, family, security, stability, love, protec�on and tradi�on. Losing their homes severely damaged the evacuees' personal, mental and financial security. The damage was exacerbated by the �me it took to allocate areas to construct new se�lements and the many years they were forced to live in temporary dwellings. The absence of a permanent home for such a long period of �me deepened the evacuees' sense of aliena�on, distrust and insecurity. As temporariness extended, the sense of impermanence developed into inability, difficul�es adap�ng to innova�ons and change, and a sense of impermanence in life in general. The connec�on the evacuees had to their homes was so profound that even when they did receive the compensa�on money to build their new homes, many could not bring themselves to commence the construc�on process. They needed to tap into their inner resources, some�mes with the help of therapists, to regain a feeling of self-trust and then carry it further to build their new homes. Once construc�on was over, some reported difficulty entering the new houses, feeling a sense of betrayal vis-a-vis their original home in Gush Ka�f and closing the door on the possibility of ever returning to it. Destabilized Community Gush Ka�f's community life was not just unique, it was a source of strength and resilience, se�ng it apart from other communi�es. Community life was characterized by caring, responsibility, solidarity, and advancement. Such communality is not self-evident. Therefore, outsiders could not comprehend the magnitude of the residents' pain over losing their private and regional communi�es, an en�re fabric of life that spanned three genera�ons.7 Dispersing the evacuees across the country led to the disintegra�on of their familiar communi�es. Families were separated from their neighbors, and children were separated from their friends. The state offered individual solu�ons, failing to comprehend that communal se�lements had to receive communal solu�ons. It failed to realize that the community served as an anchor for rehabilita�on, a resource of support, the heart, the life and the content. The state would have facilitated the evacua�on if it had done so and taken care of alterna�ve se�lements.8 "Community was our only point of sanity amidst all the chaos. The promise that we would stay together comforted us. It was our source of strength," said Doron Ben Shlomi from the Residents' Commi�ee.9 The demand for a communal solu�on began by exer�ng pressure, like the City of Faith of Atzmona residents near Ne�vot, and the tent encampment of residents of the northern region, near Kibbutz Yad Mordechai. Of all Gush Ka�f communi�es, only Ganei Tal remained intact. Its residents arrived together at the Hefetz Haim guest house, moved together to temporary residences in Yad Binyamin, and from there, to their new se�lement. Communi�es of other se�lements were split. Within each community, groups were formed, each pulling in a different direc�on, and it was difficult for them to reach an agreement regarding the place of permanent residence. There were also groups from different communi�es that united and established new communi�es Studies conducted a�er the disengagement indicated that the loss of community led to the loss of belonging and security, two key elements for rehabilita�on and healing.10 Community is an important and ac�ve factor in rehabilita�on and cons�tutes a basic human need.11 Therefore, the evacuees' struggle for a communal solu�on was just and effec�ve, and rehabilita�on began thanks to it. Separa�on from the parent community was difficult and painful, even for those who opted for it. "The ri� in the se�lement also drove a split within families. Children were angry with their parents, asking why they did not join the rest, and it was necessary to do community work within each group, connect between youth and adults, and start over, with new ideals," said Tova Eliyahu.12 Researcher Yair Sheleg, who witnessed the situa�on before the evacua�on, explained the complexity of the situa�on in his books: It is a triple trauma: The personal destruc�on of one's private home, the destruc�on of their community and the ideological destruc�on of being evacuated from a region within the Land of Israel. The personal and ideological destruc�on could not be prevented because the evacua�on led to them, but the communal destruc�on could be avoided. All researchers agree that restoring the community and preserving familiar living condi�ons to the extent possible are cri�cal elements for dealing with the trauma. From the start, the evic�on-compensa�on law spoke of financial compensa�on, not alterna�ve se�lements. Even when such rese�lement was discussed, the inten�on was communal reloca�on to exis�ng se�lements rather than establishing new ones. Only later, given the pressure exerted by the newly established legal forum and the interven�on of academics, the government began to rehabilitate the evacuees communally.13 A study conducted by the Ministry of Health also highlighted the importance of community to the well-being of the evacuees. It a�ributed the decline in their health to the loss or disintegra�on of their communi�es.14 Family During the evacua�on, all family members were at home, and together, they reached their first des�na�on: a hotel, a guest house or another temporary solu�on. As most families had children, and the accommoda�ons were booked by 'The Sela Directorate' at the last minute before the disengagement, arranging adjoining rooms for the whole family was impossible. Therefore, family members were sca�ered between rooms on the same floor, different wings and some�mes even different floors. Small children were given separate hotel rooms from their parents, and the parents had to leave their doors open to enable their children to reach their rooms at night, although foreigners and tourists were accommodated on the same floors.15 Maintaining a family rou�ne proved extremely difficult when cohesiveness was lost when it was most needed. Even when a family did get several adjoining rooms, the fact that each room had a separate door and there was no shared space for the family to gather while maintaining their privacy, seriously hurt everyone.16 Some parents lost their authority, and some children did whatever they wanted - especially given the extended stay in the same place.17 The situa�on some�mes destabilized the family unit, causing quarrels, disappointments, and much pain.18 "Staying in a hotel broke up families; the lack of privacy, marital in�macy, work, and educa�on damaged the respect for the parents and undermined the en�re family structure," emphasized A�orney Yossi Fuchs in his tes�mony before the Inves�ga�ve Commi�ee.19 The grieving process A�er ini�al acclima�za�on in the new place, the evacuees began to realize that their struggle had failed, and the loss was monumental. They had lost their homes, livelihoods, communi�es and an en�re region. Some were haunted by images of their destroyed homes, making it difficult for them to get back on track. 20
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=