Last week in China, I was talking to the father of a Jewish girl who is in the army. She is having real issues with the whole ordeal because the army is equating the Jewish residents with "the enemy." She cries every day because she can't figure out how to be both a good soldier and a good Jew at the same time.
I hope you don't mind me asking you this, but I was wondering whether you would be willing to put a link to my site on yours... My site is seriously lacking in Jewish readership and I could use the increased traffic (and more importantly, the feedback) on topics that I am writing about on the blog, and I don't know how to attract more Jewish readers. I'd appreciate any suggestions you have, and I've enjoyed reading your site since I came onto the blog world in March. Thanks. -Zoe
I'm pro-disengagement and have also run into this referendum argument. What is the proper argument against this? The only one I had was that this is a representative government, therefore the representatives of the people are who come to terms with a decision. Otherwise, there would be no decisions.
I'm looking forward to hearing your views, since you seem to have had a revalation since your 05-Jul post. What was it? I still haven't chosen a side of the fence. Not that I have a right to an opinion, hiding over here in RI.
There are more folks than you might imagine driving around Jerusalem with orange ribbons on their car who are unable to articulate a reasoned opinion as to why they are anti. The fervour seems more contagious than the principle.
Not that it even matters what any of us think- he's going to do it anyway...
CS -
I am very curious as to WHY you didn't find space here to articulate your reasons on being pro-disengagement. I have yet to hear anyone argue that side successfully. I would love to hear what and why you think...
By writing what you're not going to write about, aren't you really writing about those things? Ummm....
I do agree with the point that was made, that there are those both on the right and left who are unable to articulate there points of view on disnegagement and a wholel itany of other issues. We all could gain (whehter for or against a particular policy) from a well reasoned and written take on a position.
I'm not in Israel and not, therefore, in a position to tell anyone what to think, believe, or do. However, I am very troubled by this disengagement business. There's been so much water over the dam that trusting the Palestinians to not take advantage of the situation is something I can't seem to do. Gaza would make such a good beach head for Israel's enemies. Their airport could be used to bring in troops, weapons, etc. And of course, once Gaza was totally in Palestinian hands then other parts of Israel would be in range of the Kassams and so on...
I don't know...this just all really bothers me.
As you know, I'm very pro-disengagement, not only from Gaza but from the West Bank as well. My own argument runs thus:
We can't go on thinking only for the short term. There will soon be the same number of Jews and Arabs between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. There are four possible ways of dealing with the conflict between the two peoples -
1. Forcing the Arabs to leave and become refugees once again (ethnic cleansing). Unlike the Jews in Gaza, they would have no homeland to welcome and compensate them for their lost homes and livelihood. I can't accept this option on moral grounds.
2. Continue the present situation, which if it becomes permanent will in fact be a form of apartheid. On moral grounds, we can't claim to be a democracy when only half the population under our control can vote. On practical grounds, the present situation simply could not last even if we wanted it to; the internal and external pressures on all of us are just too great.
3. A binational state, in which Jews would eventually become a minority. I doubt any of the readers of this blog would support this option.
4. Two states. Things aren't going to get any easier between us and the Palestinians for so long as we control the territories, so we might as well start now.
5. Why not a referendum? Why on earth do Jews (and Israeli Arabs, although there are those that would not include them) have the sole right to vote on an issue that profoundly affects the lives of the millions who do not have the right to vote?
Please note that my argument holds whether most of the Palestinians want peace or not. We are far stronger than they are; any damage they will be able to do to us is minimal compared to the damage that we will be able to cause them in reprisal. We are strong - feeling otherwise is part of the Galut mentality that we must shed if our country is ever to grow up.
As for Palestinian apologies, I feel as you do, but remember that their situation is not a mirror image of ours. We must take into account the extreme power differential - and we really are the ones with the power. That deeply affects the psychology of the issue.
Sara
The extreme pathology of Palestinian society is simply a mirror of the wider Islamic barbarity that has openly stated that it wants to undermine western civilization. Islam is not compatable with democracy, they say it loud and clear. And this is a war between democracy and Islamo-facism. Israel is the whipping boy. And the Israeli/Palestinin conflict is merely a cog in a much wider conflict. To sit around apologizing to a bunch of whining people with endlessly shifting grievences, well I'm very sorry, it might assuage your liberal guilt, but the geopolitics involoved will not be solved by any workshops nor by retreating from any territories -- for most Arabs believe that all of Israel is occupied. This is painful to hear, but sometimes peace is not an option.
For some posts about this topic look on my blog. I am anti-disengagement.
The case for a referendum is very simple. Sharon and the Likud ran on an anti-disengagement platform in the last election. Amram Mitzna and Labor's platform was unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Labor was trounced 40-19 and therefore for Sharon to now adopt there position which was trounced in the election is a travesty of democracy. In addition, Sharon lost a referendum in his own party. Remember, there Prime Minister is not directly elected, he represents his party. More then 55% of Sharon's party voted against disengagement, for him to buck this is anit-democratic as well.
I dont feel that we should permanently stay in Gaza as we are, but I am very anti-disengagement. The only thing we have been promised in exchange for this is increased terror. Hamas has been elected to run half of Gaza. How can this be good? This is a plan that needs to take years, if not at least a decade, to be properly done. Not something forced on the people, without a vote, firing all dissenters and bribing people to agree, etc (I'm sure you've heard it all). Land and opportunity have to be given to the Jews being kicked out, so they can leave their farms in Gaza and go to their new farms, decisive strikes have to be done to lower the power of Hamas and other terrorist organizations, Jewish and Arab children all have to be taught about the country next to them, and a billion other things have to be thought out. Then we can seperate in peace.
well said David.
CS - I do recognize all the points that you have made. While I would see it something to symbolically tear kriyah over, I would not be against giving away the Gaza Strip for security. But not at this risk of such dissention within the Israeli public. I would have run an awareness program, spoken to each of the yishuvim, come out of the meetings with an area they could design and call their own, and given them a few years to build up the new neighborhoods before throwing them out of their homes, and their land, telling them their opinion doesn't count, trashing their patriotism, and crushing their children's ideals... these are just a few of the reasons I'm against the current situation of destroy to conquer.
Also, are we all just ignoring the beduins who live within Gush Katif who are going to be slaughtered like our allies we abandoned in Lebanon?
Sarah,
Great post! Preterition is one of my favorite rhetorical devices too. Heh.
I'm pro-disengagement too. I live over here in comfy Oregon, so it's maybe too easy for me to take that position. And one glance at the big map of Israel that I keep on the wall gives a pretty clear idea of why many reasonable Israelis think the idea is insane: Gaza is big, and the West Bank (Yehuda/Shomron if you like) is HUGE. I can't blame Israelis for freaking out over the idea.
The only way it makes sense is if - and I believe this is the case - there is going to be a major strategic shift in the Mideast as a whole. As long as the regimes in Tehran, Damascus, and (formerly) Baghdad were calling the shots, they were seeing to it that they made conditions for peace impossible. Every time the Israelis and Palestinians got near a new agreement, bombs would start going off and body parts would start flying and much of the Israeli public would say "what in the world are we doing negotiating with these people?" Which is exactly what the terrorists wanted.
When the IRI and the Syrian Ba'ath are no longer controlling events, then the picture will be very different. I don't believe the Israeli/Palestinian problem will, or can, be solved in Ramallah and Jerusalem. No combination of clauses in a treaty or lines on a map is going to fix what's wrong. Only regime change throughout the Middle East will do that. As Michael Ledeen likes to say, "Faster, please."
Sometimes its hard arguing against something that seems so obvious. to the oranges, it's obvious to stay forever. To the blues, its obvious to leave. As someone pro-disengagment, i find it hard to raise the issue at the shabbos table as well. That's why blogging is so wonderful.
Commenting by HaloScan
