Chapter Fourteen | The price of disengagement 194 195 For those who lived in Gush Ka�f for decades, the evacua�on ended a chapter of life, and they had great difficulty seeing how to go from there.21 For the farmers, separa�on from their land was difficult, not only because the land was their source of income but also because of their strong connec�on to it, to which they clung with absolute faith despite the danger it posed to their lives. The feeling that the Israeli public viewed the disengagement as moving into another house rather than the elimina�on of people's life work and the fact that rou�ne life con�nued na�onwide and almost no one cared about the results of the evacua�on le� them beaten and in pain. The feeling that they were forgo�en and of no interest to anyone added to their pain and hurt their image.22 They felt they were presented as violent people who opposed peace rather than pioneers who had long stood at the forefront of the state and guarded its borders. Prior to the disengagement, all the needs of Gush Ka�f residents were met within the Gaza Strip without going outside: employment, society, faith and even recrea�on and shopping. This exacerbated their physical and mental hardships and the feeling of aliena�on that emerged when they had to meet these needs in the big city. They realized that they had actually lost almost everything. "To this day, no one understands the true magnitude of the injus�ce done to us. To this day, something in me is dead, missing. Only when we return there - it will be filled", said Efrat Zimmerman of Ka�f.23 All these were also joined by the feeling of failure, a feeling that did not arise as a prac�cal possibility during the struggle because of the great faith and the hope for miracles. The resona�ng struggle, the small successes along the way, and the great faith and support gave the se�lers a sense of victory, a feeling familiar to them from different areas of their lives in Gush Ka�f. Emo�ons of regret were mixed with longing for the life before the disengagement, which prevented many from finding peace in the present. People could not find it in their hearts to forgive themselves and those who executed the deporta�on - for the failure and the pain that ensued. That pain manifested as anger towards various players: some directed their rage against the struggle HQ for their limp protest, for being overly gentle and not bringing about a happy ending; others directed their wrath at the rabbis who promised "it shall not happen," and disappointed them. Some were enraged at their se�lement leadership, who did not organize a good place for the future, and others were offended by the members who le� the community. "The children and youth were angry at their parents, whose struggle failed, for how they chose to leave their homes, and maybe for not doing enough." 24 Thus, a long process of grief, loss and trauma began, which was accompanied by crying, feelings of emp�ness, deep inner distress, lethargy, inability to func�on at the most superficial level and physical pains, mainly headaches and stomach aches. Having been forcefully evacuated without prior prepara�on and proper grief processing a�er the fact added to their tribula�ons and hindered their future rehabilita�on.25 Many felt that life had come to a halt and that it was necessary to start over. The disappointment in themselves and those around them weighed on everything. The mental treatment was not easy. The evacuees demanded psychologists with similar worldviews regarding faith, values, and poli�cs. As a result, too much burden was placed on the caregivers from Gush Ka�f and interfered with providing quick treatment for others.26 The failure of the Zionist-halachic se�lement venture seriously injured the evacuees' halachic and Zionist fantasy, leading to a loss of their sense of con�nuity and control over their lives, and was perceived by them as a danger to the con�nued existence of the state.27 The evacuees' dissa�sfac�on with the state's treatment of them increased their feelings of anger and frustra�on, which had many significant na�onal consequences, star�ng with leaving the country, qui�ng military service, becoming alienated from the state, its symbols and ins�tu�ons, and ending with dissocia�on from the Israeli iden�ty and Zionist values they grew up on.28 Many felt that their most basic human rights had been violated, despite their feeling of charging before the camp and sacrificing a lot for the people of Israel. The government they voted for took them out of their homes, which led them to lose faith and security and feel betrayed and exploited. The forced and swi� evacua�on ra�led their worldview about the decency of human beings, especially Jews. They lost their pride and sense of belonging, of being part of something big - a region, an army or a country. I lost my very essence", said Rachel Tobi.29 The na�onal indifference to their situa�on generated mistrust in humans, which manifested, in extreme cases, in leaving Israel, sort of a reverse disengagement.30 Having undergone terrorist a�acks and security tension increases the risk of magnified mental injuries because the evacua�on was trauma�c. And when the family was a second or third genera�on to the Holocaust, the risk was even higher because of the inevitable comparison between the two periods.31 "The disengagement incorporated physical and spiritual disintegra�on of key values, insult, humilia�on and betrayal by the very state they nurtured and for which they lived and educated their children. The uproo�ng created an iden�ty crisis," Dr. Yossi Vilan from Sha'anan College in Haifa wrote.32 Loss of livelihood and its consequences Since many evacuees had worked and earned their living within Gush Ka�f, the financial damage they suffered has been exacerbated. The rapid evacua�on and the advanced age of many se�lers made it impossible for them to find economic replacement, leaving many families without income. Even if they did find other employment, the evacuees would have to prove themselves anew wherever they went and start all over again. "It was painful, humilia�ng and degrading, especially when you have decades of seniority and experience...," said Shoshana Elnekaveh.33 Despite the government's statement on the eve of the disengagement that "there is a solu�on for every se�ler," the state did not prepare employment solu�ons in advance for those whose work was disrupted, and even later, employment bureaus did not find solu�ons to the unemployment problem. Hence, from being donors and givers, the evacuees became those who needed support, some�mes even disadvantaged.34 The increase in the number of people who returned to the work cycle only started thanks to the resourcefulness of some people who strived to help themselves and the kindness of remarkable individuals who established chari�es and aid organiza�ons to assist them. The main body that supported, helped and significantly improved the evacuees' employment situa�on, returning thousands of people into the workforce and assis�ng in the opening of new businesses, was the 'Ta'asuKa�f' organiza�on. The Inves�ga�on Commi�ee's report of 2010 states, among other things: The state failed in fulfilling its duty and in keeping its promise to treat the evacuees. The loss of employment, the difficulty to return into the work cycle and the resul�ng hardships for the unemployed themselves had, and s�ll have, a decisive effect on the evacuees' ability to rehabilitate. Only the excep�onal care provided by the Ta'asuKa�f associa�on successfully returned many individuals to the workforce. Three years a�er the disengagement - only 20% of the farmers returned to work. Those who returned faced many problems due to the lack of infrastructure in the new territory—water, sewage, drainage, electricity, communica�on and more. Of the 180 business owners in Gush Ka�f, only 80 managed to re-operate their businesses, most of them on a limited scale. The �me period wri�en in the law for establishing an alterna�ve business did not meet the test of reality and lasted longer than expected. Thus, farmers lost growing and marke�ng seasons, and businesses lost customers. Out of 24 planned se�lements, construc�on started in only two points, making it even more difficult for the businesses and preven�ng their opening. In July 2009, only 62.8% of the evacuees were working, compared to 84.8% before the disengagement. Also, the average real wages were about 12% lower than the salary before the disengagement. 72% of the evacuees reported a decline in their economic situa�on a�er the evacua�on, 25% reported a deteriora�on in their health, 43% reported contac�ng the welfare services, 27% reported a loss of self-confidence, and 21% claimed to suffer from depression. Eight years a�er the disengagement, the number of unemployed decreased to 16%, but most of those who worked did not manage to recover their working condi�ons from Gush Ka�f. Out of 390 farmers, 190 received land, and 150 received financial compensa�on and le� the agriculture sector. Some struggled to find a new job because of their age, lack of educa�on, or reluctance to work in anything offered to them.35 Nine years a�er the disengagement, the number of families on welfare was twice that of Gush Ka�f.36 Ronit Balaban is one of the few farmers who moved their farm outside Gush Ka�f and con�nued farming. "When they gave me the replacement plot, no one knew where it was exactly. I was informed about it by fax. Just a month before the deporta�on they laid the water pipe. It was impossible to relocate 750,000 seedlings within one month. I got a place with different soil, far from the house; we experienced much damage during the transi�on, many seedlings died, there were a lot of expenses in the restora�on, and no one really helped."37 Financial loss Addi�onal financial losses joined the economic damage incurred by the loss of the home and livelihood: Temporariness - The transi�on to temporary lodging in the small, cramped trailers forced the residents to part with their previous furniture, store them in warehouses or containers, which also cost money, and purchase new, minimalis�c furniture suitable for the new size and needs. It was quite an expense, some�mes reaching tens of thousands of Shekels. Also, a�er five to eight years of living in trailers, when they wanted to remove their stored equipment from the containers before moving to their new homes, the evacuees discovered that most of it had broken down and was unfit. This, of course, increased the financial loss, on top of the great sadness over the loss of the last memories from their previous houses. A�er legal and poli�cal endeavors, the state added a special clause compensa�ng for this economic damage. But all the damage has not yet been covered, and it is especially difficult to assess the damage in terms of its various psychological consequences. Opening new businesses - Addi�onal financial expenses were incurred when some unemployed individuals decided to open a new business to earn a living and regain their dignity and self-worth. Some�mes, they invested much money and effort, which was not always worthwhile. The compensa�ons Only a�er a lengthy legal ba�le in court did the evacuees receive compensa�on for their homes in the Gaza Strip, which was enough to build a replacement home. The main gap between appropriate compensa�on and the actual compensa�on paid to the evacuees was in the non-monetary damage component, i.e. the compensation for their 'mental distress.'
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=