Posted on 05/18/2004 9:07:28 PM PDT by yonif
'Disengagement operates on the principle that Israel must suit its own convenience first, withdrawing from territory that has become a strategic liability, while consolidating control over territory that remains an asset" is Bret Stephens's reasoned, if at times tortuous, description of why he changed his mind and today supports withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
The Jerusalem Post's editor explains, in two long articles, that he did not reach this conclusion easily. "I'd rather Israel seize its chances, on its own terms, than wait for winds to blow fair in Ramallah or Iraq or Brussels or Turtle Bay." Stephens has lost hope in the Palestinians and the world at large but trusts the Israeli Left "to hold some nationally agreed line in the sand." He concludes, "Land may be a form of security, but a Zionist consensus that won't crack under moral stress is a better one."
Stephens demands a Zionist consensus but does not define its meaning. A consensus definition was coined by Chaim Weizmann, who spoke about "synthetic Zionism," a synthesis of political and settlement activity.
For Stephens, Zionism is only political; settlement per se is not of value. He chides the Jewish residents in Gaza: "The settlers must also take into account the sacrifices the rest of Israel have made on their behalf – the soldiers who defend them, the tax money that subsidizes them."
It doesn't occur to him that many people in "the rest of Israel" laid their lives on the line knowingly for securing the settlements. Destroying settlements would be sacrilege to their memory. He does not consider that many of us would be extremely upset if our tax money were wasted on dismantling settlements instead of affirming the right of Jews to live in Eretz Yisrael.
Stephens, as many others, including President George W. Bush, believe "that Palestinians are entitled to live under a government of their own choosing – provided they respect the rights of their Israeli neighbors to the same." How will we know that the Palestinians "respect the rights of their Israeli neighbors"?
Jews lived in Gaza for centuries until expelled in the 1929 riots and in 1948; Kfar Darom was overrun by the Egyptian army. We have a moral and legal right to live there. Abandoning Kfar Darom is a major step toward allowing the Palestinians the luxury of having their own state without respecting our rights. The right of Jews to live wherever they please (legally, without usurping that which belongs to others) is the litmus test of Palestinian and Arab intentions. Israeli initiatives implying that parts of this world are Judenrein are a sure sign of the hostility of the Palestinian state-to-be.
BUT LAND is not mere security, it is the affirmation that the Jewish people have the same rights as any other people in this world. Taking the land away from the Jews is the antithesis of Zionism, for it implies that we will never be a normal people. Even when territory becomes a strategic liability (which the Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip is not), the utmost effort should be made to keep it.
Stephens is for disengagement because "I want to have as little to do with the Palestinians as possible."
He wants Israel to retain control over borders but concedes that Israel "might be pressured into relinquishing control over the (Gaza) Strip's ports of entry."
But then logic is replaced by wishful thinking. He claims that "withdrawal would mean Palestinians could no longer wage war against Israeli civilians at which they're so expert. If they chose to fight, it would be on terms that overwhelmingly favor Israel."
How will Israel defend itself against an onslaught of missiles from Gaza to Ashkelon and Sderot? Only by reentering Gaza as it did tragically last week. But by then, this Gaza would be armed with sophisticated weapons and more deadly land mines. The cost we paid last week for defending Green Line Israel would be a relative pittance. A short review of the danger of a Palestinian state is also in order. Stephens writes, "I have zero confidence there's a light at the end of the international tunnel."
I concur. Today's deep enmity implies that a Palestinian state would be hostile to Israel, ruled by an oppressive dictatorial regime that will allow the "right of return" to "Palestine" (as conceded by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in his talks in Washington).
The difficult demographic problems of today will worsen. The Palestinian state will be densely populated, impoverished, and angry. Its leadership will blame Israel for all the misery it inflicts on its own population. The Arab world will mount an international campaign, fueled by oil, against the rich Israeli state that has usurped Arab homes in Jaffa, Ramle, and Jerusalem. Israel will remain a pariah state in the world, having lost not only the esteem of righteous gentiles for its folly but worse, it will have lost its self-esteem. This will not be the "Zionist consensus that won't crack under moral stress."
The only way we can "disengage" is by dismantling Israel. Nay, with present anti-Semitic levels in the world, the only possible real disengagement is to abandon our Jewishness.
As long as the world is dependent on Arab oil, and as long as immoral, corrupt Arab regimes are tolerated, Israel will be engaged by a hostile Muslim Arab world. As explained by Hebrew University's Islamist expert Prof. Moshe Sharon, Israel's very existence is an intolerable affront to Islam.
These are the facts of life, and disengagement won't change them. What distinguishes the believer from the atheist is not the messianic belief in a Greater Israel cited by Stephens, but humility. The believer acknowledges that only God is master of the universe; we are not masters of our destiny, personal or national.
I remain an optimist. It is up to us to stay true to our Zionist and Jewish ideals, to be steadfast in the face of cruel adversaries, and continue to do what is right and moral. With the help of the Almighty, this path will lead to a normal Jewish State of Israel.
The writer is a former chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel.
Ping.
So Stand Fast!!
If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me. ~
MikeFromFR ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Warnings ~
As much as I know people will certainly chew me out for this, I have to say what I truly believe, and if I am correct, so do many of the hardliners in the Settlements who are at this time moving with stealth into the neighborhoods around the Temple Mount to protect it because war is surely coming swiftly.
There is no thing in either Gaza, Judea, or Samaria that is as important to Hebrews as their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, husbands, and most of all, the children. No scrap of furniture, no stone or stick is worth one more Hebrew life. Therefore, those residing in outposts and makeshift communities should burn every single thing except themselves and go. Leave no thing for one palestinian to claim except the swift death that will follow when my people have been made safe.
When the time for justice arrives, which can't be soon enough; when HaShem has cleansed Israel of Amalek and the land stands waiting, we will go home. We will rebuild and no one will bomb us, murder our children, scar our psyches, never anymore.
The Land of Israel will belong to Am Yisrael.
Am Yisrael Chai!
Not hardly, idjut.
I am talking about WAR, Piranha. War that my people will not be in the middle of. War that will end the deathwish of the palie savages once and for all. Then, reclamation. NOT surrender. Please don't take me for a fool. Better to find out who the hell you're talking to before you go off on that kind of twisted fishing expedition.
Zionist assertions of having solved the “Jewish question” by “ending exile” have proven a dismal failure. If anything, the Zionist’s claim to having created a safe haven for Jewry is patently false. The truth is that Israel today, whether governed by “doves” or “hawks” is the most dangerous place in the world for Jews. Such was to be expected, as Israel’s very creation was an act of defiance against the Creator’s guidelines. -- Neturei Karta
That NK statement bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything I said or ever have said. EVER! Now shutup or go my own profile page and buy yourself a clue.
I read your profile page. I have trouble reconciling it to what you wrote in post no. 5.
You wrote that because too many Jews are dying in Gaza, Judea and Samaria (what about Kfar Saba, Rishon L'Tzion and Tel Aviv, where Jews are dying as well?), they should level their communities and leave, until the land has been made ready for their return. Apparently, to use your terminology, HaShem has not yet cleansed Israel and made it safe for the Jews.
If that is different from a belief that the Jews are not yet supposed to leave their divinely-imposed exile, I don't see it. Perhaps you'd care to explain it to me.
HaShem is with the IDF, and they cannot fight the war that needs fought in the midst of their own people.What is so hard for you to understand? The palestinians need to be utterly destroyed. Doing it an inch at a time is not fast enough. In these past two and a half years, I have learned that there is no innocence in their whole culture, if indeed there ever was. So there is no fear of doing the Lord's Justice, because there is no soul left there to save.
And I didn't say to leave Israel. I SAID for the Settlers to get to safety. I assume that would be in Israel, away from the major battles, unless they are fighting them also. No way would I tell or ask ANY of my people to leave Israel to the butchers.
On the range, you don't stand next to the targets.
1. Withdrawal.
2. Cluster bombs.
3. Going back ;).
It's easy for me to hold my position from the relative safety of the US, but I couldn't disagree with you more.
Even in the current IDF battles in Gaza, I haven't read anyone suggesting that the Jews in Netzarim or Gush Katif are hindering the IDF's efforts against the Palestinian arabs. To the contrary, the Jews' presence there keeps Rafah from abutting the Mediterranean and leaving the shore exposed to smugglers.
The most flourishing communities in Israel itself once were settlements themselves, and I don't see a logical distinction between them. If you want to pull Jews out of Ariel, why don't you want to pull them out of Kfar Saba so that the IDF can clear Qalqilya?
In any case, you are now talking about moving Settlers during ongoing battles, but your earlier post no. 5 suggests that they leave for an indefinite period to facilitate devine retribution. If they were to do that then, in my opinion, the terrorists will have won.
You have mail
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.