Does Ehud Olmert even know what that word actually means? At least "disengagement" conveyed a hint of information about the action intended. Maybe it's just a bad translation into English (although my Alcalay does translate "hitkansut" as "meeting, convergence.") In Hebrew, it also has overtones of "ingathering," which it does not so much in English. When we say that people will "converge" on one place, it's usually in the sense of a swarm or a temporary episode (like Woodstock or the old new-age "Harmonic Convergence"). I do notice that Random House includes in its definitions "a net flow of air into a given region" (in this case, maybe, hot stinky air) or a tendency toward a common result or conclusion.
In the latter vein, Ari Shavit has recently pointed out a phenomenon that is a bit odd. In their opposition to Olmert's "convergence" plan, many elements of the right and the left are united.
Criticism over the convergence plan originates primarily from either the right or left. That's why it's easy to label it an anachronistic expression of hawkish messianism or dovish naivete. The criticism coming from the center is more infuriating, because it is not so easy to label. Therefore, when anyone committed to dividing the country claims that convergence is not the right way to do it - he's accused of zigzagging. Kadima's promoters claim that it is impossible for anyone who wants to end the occupation and understands there is no Palestinian partner to criticize the major unilateral withdrawal. It is impossible for anyone who supported the disengagement to oppose convergence.
But it is quite possible.
Shavit, of course, believes that "[a]s far as Israel and the Israelis are concerned, the disengagement was a tremendous success." Which gives us some idea of how deeply some people are capable of burying their heads in the sand. Further to his left, however, and much further to his right, dawn breaks. And a different sort of convergence is happening.
Some 247 days after they were evacuated from their homes in the Gaza settlement of Elei Sinai, about 35 families are still living in their protest tent in Kibbutz Yad Mordechai, south of Ashkelon. Without any reinforced rooms, without walls to protect them, only canvas and nylon sheets and the sound of IDF shelling in the background.
[ . . . ]
Their guest, Colonel (res.) Shaul Arieli, used to be the brigade commander of their zone when they still lived in their community. Now he visits them as a Meretz activist and as a member of the Council for Peace and Security's management.
The meeting held Monday is emotionally charged. As far as they are concerned, he is a leftist representing everything that caused their eviction. He views them as citizens paying an unnecessary price, on the way to peace which may still be reached if we just do the right thing, if we only give one more chance.
And yet, they have found some common ground. And not only on the "convergence," but on the "disengagement" as well.
Colonel Arieli is personally familiar with Barbi and his friends, who gathered around the table in the middle of the tent encampment. Since serving as commander of the Northern Brigade, he has stood in front of them and heard their claims.
"I am the last one you should complain to," he tells them. "I warned, and the things are written in many of my publications, that a partial and unilateral withdrawal, like the disengagement, would bring Hamas to power. We warned that the fire would be resumed here."
"The disengagement, in the Israeli government's original decision, is a step in itself which does not depend on other steps that have to be taken to solve the entire Palestinian-Israeli problem. It's a mistake you paid a personal heavy price for, which bears no benefit for the State of Israel," Arieli says.
Arieli, though a member of Israel's mainstream hard left, I guess, isn't having any epiphany here. He's held this view for a long time. No one listened. No one is listening now.
Later, when they all go up to an observation post between the two walls delimiting the community of Nativ Haasara from the south and preventing Palestinian fire into the Israeli neighbors' homes, Arieli tries to organize his thoughts.
"Sharon's disengagement plan and Ehud Olmert's convergence plan are a mistake. This is not the way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," he says, facing the smoke and dust following IDF's artillery fire toward Bei Hanoun.
"Also new Prime Minister Olmert's plan will lead to the same result, firing of Qassams and Grads at Israel. But them the front won't only be here in the south, it will also encircle the State of Israel's eastern border," he adds.
Arieli says plenty more that I find naive and even dangerous. But that's not the point. These Israeli refugees, homeless for well over six months as a result of actions this man carried out at the behest of his superiors, sit down with him and discuss the points on which they agree, try to find a meeting point and work toward a better future, together. This is the sort of convergence that has a chance of saving that future, of saving Israel from those who would tear it apart from inside. I wish them well.
Shabbat Shalom.
