Monday, August 15, 2005
Gaza
It seems the latest fad has been alarmist posts on the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The Jewish blogs are up in arms. Aaron, L-Dem, Jack's Shack, Barbara, Aidel, EN, Bec, and Olah Chadasha have all dedicated significant space to this pressing issue. And I'm not one to lie low on such a hot button issue. Especially since I disagree with all of them.
Don't get me wrong. Their points are relevant. But if there's a reason to be upset over the disengagement plan, it's not the tragedy, but the injustice. After all, Jewish soldiers aren't evicting Jewish settlers out of hate. They're doing so because a democracy has spoken. I don't know whether the people are right, but I am in no place to judge. However, the injustice is that a principle of a free society is being violated. In my mind, every person in the world has the right to live freely, wherever one pleases. The creation of a Judenrein state in Gaza violates that principle. I'm not saying that Jews must live there, just to make a point. But forcefully evacuating them violates their right.
What would I propose? The Israeli army should just leave. Just pack up it's bags. Tell the settlers that they'll receive no further Israeli protection. The settlers would be free to go or stay. That is their freedom. And the public could go on with it's plans, without the expense and wasted time of the prime-time drama unfolding.
Of course, the benefit of this strategic move would be clear. Without facing the media frenzy generated by the soldier-on-settler conflict, most of the settlers would simply pack up and leave. A tear jerking photo op opposite a brotherly soldier is infinitely more attractive to a settler than actually toughing it out with the Palestinians.
Now some settlers would stay. And I think that's great. Their ideology is obviously the stuff of heroes. The test of whether they end up protected by the wings of the Palestinians or snuffed out in minutes would demonstrate a real test in front of the world of the peace-living capabilities of these neighbors.
But if there is no freedom...
Don't get me wrong. Their points are relevant. But if there's a reason to be upset over the disengagement plan, it's not the tragedy, but the injustice. After all, Jewish soldiers aren't evicting Jewish settlers out of hate. They're doing so because a democracy has spoken. I don't know whether the people are right, but I am in no place to judge. However, the injustice is that a principle of a free society is being violated. In my mind, every person in the world has the right to live freely, wherever one pleases. The creation of a Judenrein state in Gaza violates that principle. I'm not saying that Jews must live there, just to make a point. But forcefully evacuating them violates their right.
What would I propose? The Israeli army should just leave. Just pack up it's bags. Tell the settlers that they'll receive no further Israeli protection. The settlers would be free to go or stay. That is their freedom. And the public could go on with it's plans, without the expense and wasted time of the prime-time drama unfolding.
Of course, the benefit of this strategic move would be clear. Without facing the media frenzy generated by the soldier-on-settler conflict, most of the settlers would simply pack up and leave. A tear jerking photo op opposite a brotherly soldier is infinitely more attractive to a settler than actually toughing it out with the Palestinians.
Now some settlers would stay. And I think that's great. Their ideology is obviously the stuff of heroes. The test of whether they end up protected by the wings of the Palestinians or snuffed out in minutes would demonstrate a real test in front of the world of the peace-living capabilities of these neighbors.
But if there is no freedom...
# posted by Josh : Monday, August 15, 2005
Comments:
<< Home
Josh,
It is a nice sentiment but completely unreasonable and impractical. A democracy has a social obligation and responsibility to protect its citizenry, sometimes at their own expense.
It is a nice sentiment but completely unreasonable and impractical. A democracy has a social obligation and responsibility to protect its citizenry, sometimes at their own expense.
Josh, I blogged about the same solution (maybe I got it from you during our "chavrusa"). The one thing I disagree on is that the people in Gaza are not being evacuated because they are Jewish. They are being withdrawn because they are Israeli. Big difference. Although the PA has made it illegal to sell land to a Jew (not Israeli) so maybe your thought stands....
agreed, "After all, Jewish soldiers aren't evicting Jewish settlers out of hate." i hope that my blog didn't make it seem that this was the case. it's just terrible to see it come to brother moving brother off the land, that doesn't mean that i don't think it breaks the hearts of both the idf (i know it does) and the folks they're moving. you're right, a democracy has spoken, unfortunately, these weren't the words many of us wanted to hear.
Jack - "A democracy has a social obligation and responsibility to protect its citizenry, sometimes at their own expense."
The problem seems to be that the settlers are more attached to the land than the country. Since their own country voted to kick them out of their houses, I can imagine why. Perhaps they should line up and apply for Palestinian citizenship.
Either way, you seem to be pointing out that the settlers are the problem, not the victims.
The problem seems to be that the settlers are more attached to the land than the country. Since their own country voted to kick them out of their houses, I can imagine why. Perhaps they should line up and apply for Palestinian citizenship.
Either way, you seem to be pointing out that the settlers are the problem, not the victims.
Erica - Why is it that no matter what you say, I have a grin on my face as I read it?
For fairness sake, I should advertise that I don't consider myself a "religious zionist" in the classical sense. The fact is, my only attachment is to the land. As far as the government, it's just a question of who is the guardian of the Holy Land at any given time. This could be a whole post to itself, but I think this might be enough for you to understand where I differ on the disengagement plan.
Post a Comment
For fairness sake, I should advertise that I don't consider myself a "religious zionist" in the classical sense. The fact is, my only attachment is to the land. As far as the government, it's just a question of who is the guardian of the Holy Land at any given time. This could be a whole post to itself, but I think this might be enough for you to understand where I differ on the disengagement plan.
<< Home
