I'm now performing one of the unheralded minhagim of Shavuos, namely, not sleeping the night after Shavuos. I'll use the time to go back to the Azza withdrawal business, a topic which I admit has been vastly over-discussed.
To review, I'm opposed to the plan but I think mass insubordination in the military is reckless. What I've found amusing lately is the huge discrepancy between how each side views itself and how it is viewed by the other side.
Some opponents of the withdrawal with whom I've spoken tell me that they are not ideologically opposed to any withdrawal under any circumstances. As pragmatic people, they are opposed to this particular withdrawal as having only downside (I agree). The problem, they say, is that the other side is dominated by goy-appeasing, dati-hating, acculturated lefties who are prepared to make idiotic withdrawals on other people's backs out of pure spite.
Some supporters of the withdrawal say that they are aware of the dangers of the plan and are genuinely pained by the sacrifices that some people are being asked to make but that the withdrawal is justified since it is likely to lead to a lessening of the defense burden and possibly to a break in the diplomatic deadlock (I disagree). The problem, they say, is that the other side is dominated by nut cases who will never agree even to obviously-beneficial retreats because they are in the grip of a messianic ideology that includes the certainty that they have the map of the geulah in their shirt pockets and all the streets on it are one-way.
I'm fairly sure that both sides' moderate self-perception is more accurate than the extreme image it projects onto the other side. But the failure of the government and the press to encourage reasoned public discussion of this topic (because they support the plan and thought they had inertia on their side) has resulted in the over-exposure of the most ideological representatives of each side.
But will it actually happen? While most politicians and commentators regard the withdrawal as utterly inevitable, the interaction of three processes might yet bring it down.
1. The Arabs' ability to screw themselves should never be underestimated. Some terrorist/military action of sufficient scale (chas veshalom) could cause a delay.
2. The police, army and resettlement makhers will wake up and realize that they are hopelessly unprepared to carry out the operation and will request a delay.
3. Such delays will provide craven Likud politicians with just the opportunity to realize that supporting the withdrawal is costing them their political careers and they will turn against it. Since 30 Likud MKs are sufficient to bring down this government, weird stuff might still happen. (The plan also has to get through the cabinet again but it seems unlikely that it can be stopped there since 8 of 21 ministers are from Labor and Sharon can count on his own vote as well as Olmert and Sheetreet, who are completely dead in the Likud in any case. But you never know.)
I'm tired of this topic myself. Next time I hope to discuss the often misunderstood views of the Hazon Ish on the length of the ammah and related arcana.
posted by Ben at 10:32 PM
11 Comments:
I take strong objection to your statement that the opposition to Sharon's plan to destroy Gush Katif is dominated by "nut cases"
and "messianists". I also oppose the plan, and I consider myself a follower of Rav Kook's philosophy. I don't claim to have the roadmap to geulah any more than you do. However, I have noted several historical facts that do point to a certain direction in the actions we Jews need to take (1) the Arabs refuse to recognize any Jewish state of any size. (2) Any concessions made by Israel (e.g. unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, Oslo) lead to a radicalization of the Arabs and to more violence from them (3) Every attack on the Jewish settlement movement since the modern Zionist movement began, whether by the Arabs or by the Jewish anti-Zionists has led to a strengthening of the settlements. For example hundreds of thousands of people have visited Gush Katif since the plan was hatched, large numbers of families have moved there, the yishuv of Sa-Nur in the Shomron had been emptied out by the latest terror war, thangs to Sharon there are hundreds of people living there now. Thus, I draw the conclusion that any removal of Jewish settlements anywhere can only lead to a disaster.
Also, you seem to fall victim to a common American malady "moderatitis". You say "we have to moderate". Someone like Olmert or Brett Stephens (formerly of Jerusalem Post) arbitrarily decides "to settle Gush Katif is extremist" so we have to throw the Jews out, but "to settle Ariel or Gush Etzion is moderate" so it is okay to keep it. All I know is the original Zionists who drained the swamps and buried a lot of their children due to malaria would be considered "extremists" by you, yet look at the marvelous legacy they left us.
I would also like to offer you my sympathy about being "tired of talking about this". I'll bet the people in Gush Katif are even more tired of it than you are. Of course, in the 1930's, all the Jews in Europe must have been really burnt out speculating about what Hitler and the Nazis had in mind. Well, as you stated, on to more important things!
Dear Mr. Kochba,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'm certain that your important activities on behalf of Eretz Yisrael don't leave you adequate time to read blogs too carefully, so you can be forgiven for confusing words I put in the mouths of over-wrought leftists with my own views. As it happens my point was precisely that most opponents of the withdrawal are not nut-cases and messianists. In fact, I myself am strongly opposed for pretty much the reasons you enumerate. (If you'll forgive the observation, there are some nuts opposed to the withdrawal and they're usually identifiable by their tendency to attack those one millimeter to their left rather than the legions of opponents way to their left.)
As for tiring of the topic, I find talking about breathing tedious as well even though it's a worthwhile activity. The relevant issue is whether I have anything useful to add to the discussion. If you're typical of my audience, I doubt that anything I say is likely to prove useful.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ben,
Please forgive me for misunderstanding what you wrote, but your point is rather subtle and I missed it. I do recall in the past you criticized Rav Kook followers for thinking they had the roadmap to geulah so I thought you were saying the same thing here.
I stand by what I said about you (and many other Americans) feeling they have to be "moderate" and thus being at pains to distance yourselves from "the extremists" rather than dealing with the issues at hand.
Regarding the "tiredness" matter, I would very much like to hear what you think. I agree with much of what you say on "Torah issues" and since we are in the midst of the biggest internal ideological crisis
since the creation of the state, I am continually testing my beliefs regarding the efficacy and morality of things like road blockings, seruv pekudah (refusal to carry out orders), relationship to the state (which I view as basically as having an illegitimate gov't-something like a military junta which overthrew a democratically elected gov't). These questions are troubling me a lot and my kids and wife are forced to hear endless discussions about these things, particularly around the shabbat table. So as far as I am concerned, you can keep talking about it!
Bar,
Moderation is no vice, though it often eludes me. Under my other name, I'm an active member of one of Israel's most subversive far-right groups. I am proud of this and hope to discuss it in some detail eventually.
As for civil disobedience and refusal of military orders, one needs to think about such things in a clear-headed way. It is illogical and pointless to ask whether breaking the law is illegal. It is by definition; arguing this point is a dead end. The question you have to ask yourself is whether the system is worth upholding even when it is wrong. The answer to that question depends on how much you value the system of government we have, or equivalently, how much you fear anarchy, how much damage to the system is likely to be caused by the proposed forms of subversion and how much such subversion is likely to achieve in terms of immediate political objectives (i.e. stopping the withdrawal). My feeling is that civil disobedience is the best bet to slow the withdrawal process and turn around enough waffling politicians to postpone it forever. But care must be taken not to cause a popular backlash which will have a boomerang effect. The price of this in terms of the internal coherence of Israeli society will be high but probably not intolerable since the hard-core left is unsalvagable anyway. Military disobedience (of an overt kind) is almost surely exceedingly destructive. To destroy the army, it's enough to destroy the army's confidence in its own ability to carry out its missions. If the withdrawal fails due to insurrection, God save us all.
If your having a debate have it at Haredi Forums http://haredi.siteburg.com/forum/
Oysvurf,
I'm rushing before Shabbos so will just make two quick comments:
1. I know both people you mentioned personally and the views you attribute to them do not properly reflect their overall positions on the issues.
2. The analogy between Zionism and insurrection (yes, both were once unpopular) is silly.
Shabbat Shalom,
Ben
At the risk of being jumped upon, and with great trepidation, considering that I have not yet moved to Israel (as my name indicates), I have a feeling that you are distorting the code of the IDF when you say:
"the ethical code of the IDF clearly instructs a soldier not to engage with a civilian that is not defined as an enemy and represents no danger to the solider - irrespective of the orders received. "
The question is, what does it mean to "engage?" Is the army not allowed to arrest protesters who pose it no threat, but are blocking the roads? (and answering that that is the job of the police is dodging the question. the IDF code is clearly not saying "refuse any order that is really the job of the police, not the IDF") Is the army not allowed to physically move a person who stands in front of their tank, even if that person constitutes no direct threat (for example, if they are in a non-combat situation). I could come up with hundreds of other examples, but 2 will suffice. With all due respect, that is patently ridiculous. If you are going to refuse orders - and I respect that decision and have no right to offer my opinion on the matter one way or the other - at least don't make the spurious claim that the IDF code told you to. Chotamo shel HKBH emet.
http://www.seruv.co.il/
Thank you for the fascinating post, one of your few I can understand! (This is a reflection of my knowledge, not of your writing.) The comments are also enlightening.
Tangentially, of the many unheralded minhagim that deserve to remain so, the one you cite tops my list.
Post a Comment
<< Home