Israel-Diaspora disconnect on Gaza

In New York last week, it took some doing for critics of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza to sneak into his appearance before a carefully chosen audience of leaders who could be counted on to cheer decorously at the appropriate moments.

But when Israeli Lt. Col. Lior Lifschitz spoke to a group here in Philadelphia a couple of days later, it took no effort at all for a number of dissenters to be part of the small audience for his talk about the challenges facing the Israeli military.

In Sharon's case, his talk was interrupted by hecklers, who were then dragged out by security. But Lifschitz was forced to listen to the critics and face their questions without the aid of a bouncer.

Lifschitz was at pains to point out that nothing that would happen this summer was actually the army's idea: "The government decided. The army must do it," he said bluntly. "This is democracy."

As for the politics of the move, Lifschitz would not take a side. But he did note that the Gaza settlements were created by government policy, and not by the settlement movement.

"The government put us there. The government can take us out," he said with finality.

When he said that Gaza was "occupied territory," and "didn't belong to us," Lifschitz seemed to be saying that the consensus of the country was that it would be better off without it. In his opinion, the Gaza plan was "not a retreat. It's good for Israel." In his military opinion, it would be easier to protect Israel if the army were on the other side of the border with Gaza rather than inside of it.

Lifschitz was rewarded for coming to speak with a series of stinging queries delivered by members of his audience opposed to Sharon.

Some identified themselves as members of the Zionist Organization of America and politely asked painful questions about the disposition of Jewish graves and homes left behind. Others pointed out that there were legitimate doubts about the benefits to Israel of a unilateral withdrawal, without proof that the Palestinians intended peace or took issue with his use of the term "occupied territory."

But still others were less diplomatic.

One woman questioned the integrity of an army that would follow immoral orders to evict fellow Jews from their homes. Going further, she said she could no longer support an Israel led "by that coward Sharon." The incongruity of an American who had probably never heard a shot fired in anger calling a man a coward who had been wounded numerous times in battle was lost on no one except the person who made the remark.

After another rebuke, Lifschitz snapped back that if the questioner was so sure he was right, then he should "come and vote in Israel."

And that is the crux of the matter.

Israel-Diaspora communication is a bit dicey even at the best of times.

But no matter how passionate American Jews may be about Israel, they are there and we are here. Some of us may oppose settlements. Others may think efforts to revive the peace process are suicidal. But right or wrong, the decision must still be up to them.

Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia. He can be reached at jtobin@jewishexponent.com.

Home