Where is the line between legitimate protest and illegitimate havoc-wreaking? Not a simple question. If you believe, as I do, that the withdrawal from Azza will bring only harm and that, moreover, the process by which it has been carried out is not only flawed but corrupt (the individuals involved most directly in the decision-making process all have direct or indirect financial interests in the withdrawal), you might be inclined to push the boundary pretty far out there. But that would be a mistake.

This week's events in Sderot and Ofakim generated lots of positive energy. This is what many people didn't like about them. I think such positive energy has a very important galvanizing effect and it will serve us well in the future.

There were some memorable moments. Natan Sharansky was so moved that he was put in mind of occasions in Soviet prisons when he'd sing hinei mah tov umah na'im to keep up morale. He asked the crowd to sing it and then suddenly realized that they were waiting for him to lead the singing (he had the mike, after all). Faced with no choice, he began to sing. What can I say? In Soviet prisons, you do what you have to do but the other prisoners must have begged to be put into solitary. Conveniently, Ariel Zilber was on hand to take over the singing. Unfortunately, Rav Druckman spoke shortly after Sharansky and came to the very not-inevitable conclusion that every speaker had to sing. Suffice it to say that compared to Rav Druckman, Sharansky is Freddy Mercury.

Anyway, all that was good clean fun and, I believe, helpful in the long- term, even if not decisive in the short term. I think that large masses of people going down to Gush Katif is also legitimate. That's exactly how people should express themselves in a democracy. Where, then, is the line?

There are two criteria. First, the objective must always be to get the government to change its decisions (or to resign), rather than to prevent it from carrying out its decisions. There is a fine, but critical, line, for example, between: 1. the army reporting to the government that low morale and over-extension are such that it would be advisable for the government to reconsider the mission it has assigned to the army, and 2. the army trying and failing to carry out its mission due to insurrection and sabotage.

Second, we should not win the battle in order to lose the war. I am astounded by the amount of long-term damage people are willing to inflict on the country and its institutions and citizens, all for some dubious short-term advantage. Perhaps some of these are Shabak provocations. But let's not delude ourselves. I personally know otherwise-normal people who are responsible for some outright insane statements and actions. (In at least two of these cases, the right-wing press has made claims that these were Shabak provocations, but I know for a fact that this was not the case. I'm not referring to the ninjas on the road, which I believe was simply a fabrication.)

I'm convinced that some of the destructive attitude comes from a sense of alienation informed by a misunderstanding of the amount of power that our community really has. Let me explain this with a fable. A wealthy man raised two sons on his estate, one a biological son and the other a stepson. The stepson was exceedingly loyal to the father, praising him profusely on every occasion and catering to his every whim. As the boys grew into adolescence, they began asserting themselves in the manner that teenagers are wont to do. The father grew increasingly intolerant of the stepson's antics but indulged the biological son. As the father grew old, the stepson began to realize that, despite his abiding loyalty to the father, he was likely to be shunned in the will. He grew bitter and began to do damage to the estate.

One day a wise old man saw him cutting down a tree. He explained to the bewildered man that this was the only way he could express his anger and disappointment. The wise old man said to him: Foolish one, you are chopping down your own trees. Can't you see that your brother is a dissolute, gambling, drinking, womanizing bum? Your father may treat you poorly but there is no one here to take over this estate but you. You'd be well-advised to take good care of it.