This is NOT what Democracy looks like
In an expansion of the racist rhetoric and legislation put out by Avidgor Lieberman of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, it has been announced that in the coming week the party plans to present legislation to the Knesset to ban the marking of al Nakba, or “the Catastrophe”, the term designated by the Arab community in Israel and Palestine for the destruction and expulsion experienced leading up to and during the war in 1948 when Israel declared its independence. It is no coincidence that this announcement comes today, May 15, the Gregorian date of Israel’s independence which is annually commemorated by Arab communities and those in solidarity with them.
According to the Reuters report anyone caught participating in the commemoration of al Nakba will be arrested and sentenced to a three-year jail term.
During the campaign in February Lieberman made himself internationally known by demanding that any citizen of Israel who votes in future elections must submit to a “loyalty pledge,” which the 20% Arab minority claimed was leveled specifically at them to deny their right to vote. In addition, considering the Netanyahu administration has been cold, if not outright hostile, towards the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, this type of legislation does not bode well for encouraging peaceful coexistence.
What Lieberman is attempting to do here is to not only undermine peoples’ right to freedom of expression, but even their basic human right to freedom of thought. Freedoms such as these are at the core of democratic society. To infringe on the ability to freely express one’s opinion is, itself, undermining democratic institutions. Between the demand for loyalty pledges and the banning the ability of a minority population to remember their experience and their history, Lieberman is aiding the further erosion of any moral upper-hand the Jewish state may have at one time held. Legislation such as this further entrenches the cultural mindset of occupation, and brings that worldview from the territories deeper into Israel proper.
Amidst illegal housing evictions in East Jerusalem, settlement expansion in the occupied territories inside and outside of settlement blocs, a government coalition that denies the right to a Palestinian state while demanding the recognition of a Jewish one, and now parliamentary legislation dictating how people remember their personal narrative, the future for Israeli democracy looks bleak.
OOOOH, I can’t wait. Let them arrest me!
This is astonishing. This is a country steadily losing respect for its own laws.
yes, let’s blame lieberman for actually identifying the elephant in the living room. the dude is brave, if sometimes over the line. how would americans react to fellow citizens MOURNING independence day rather than celebrating it? certainly israel has dropped the ball on figuring out whether to integrate or alienate its arab citizens, but it’s a tough ol’ world out there, and lieberman is saying, dude, either you are with me or you’re against me. decide. want to fight for equal rights? go for it. but if you want to engage jewish israelis in the fight along side of you (which is absolutely necessary), then show them that you are, in fact, israeli. loyal, on the inside, and not trying to destroy israel as a jewish state.
calling a man a racist who has a political issue (not racial – he has a druze on his list) with an (allegedly) hostile ethnic minority borders on demagoguery. call spades spades, and stop the populism.
btw, he feels the same way about the ultra-orthos, i think, but coalition politics blocks that direction. but if you champion separation of “church” and state, lieberman is your man.
“During the campaign in February Lieberman made himself internationally known by demanding that any citizen of Israel who votes in future elections must submit to a “loyalty pledge,””
If this passed, how many people would be illegible to vote, outside of the natioanal-religious community? And, if the pledge is to the state of Israel, not the Land, there might not be anybody voting.
how would americans react to fellow citizens MOURNING independence day rather than celebrating it?
Not by passing a law sentencing people to three years in prison for doing it.
American Indian groups hold demonstrations of mourning associated with national holidays, not so much Independence Day (they don’t want the British back either) but on Thanksgiving and Columbus Day. Somehow, the nation has not been destroyed by this.
Interesting point about American Independence Day and Native Americans. Would this analogy lend itself to recognized and Israeli-federalized Palestinian reservations?
Palestine in Israel = Native Americans in the US?
Actually, I say this is exactly what democracy IS. Democracy can’t be measured by a single frame. It is a process. Someone submits legistlations, then the parliament votes on it, and the Supreme Court might overrule it.
Thus far, this legistlation has not breached any democratic standards or freedom because it’s not on the books yet. Nobody even voted on it yet.
If democracy is the way to protect “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, I’m sure anti-abortion activists would argue that democracy has failed them in that regard. It is all about how people interpret it.
ktoret
druze is a religion, not an ethnicity or race.
You better explain that to the Druzim, because they seem to be under the wrong impression that they are a ethnic group.
“how would americans react to fellow citizens MOURNING independence day rather than celebrating it?”
most americans would react badly. it would be immensely unpopular. however, remember that we’ve never even managed to pass anti-flag burning legislation. we haven’t even made neo-nazis illegal.
If all Israelis would have to take the loyalty pledge, then HOW precisely is this in any way discriminatory towards Israeli Arabs…?
If this one group is reluctant to take the pledge, then surely that in and of itself is a concern.
It’s astonishing to me that you support so passionately the creation of a Palestinian state. Have you never heard of Jordan…? You know, that country that takes up 82% of what WAS Palestine and which was created specifically AS a Palestinian Arab nation…?
Lieberman is starting to remind me of Kahane, in the best way. All he is doing is stating the obvious, which everyone knows but no one wants to admit – Arab Israelis don’t want to live in a Jewish state, and will forever stand in perpetual opposition to the existence of such a state. They will stand in vocal opposition when they’re 20%, and violent opposition when they’re 50%.
The comparison to Native Americans is not valid – they’re what, 1% of America? The correct comparison is the Hispanic American community, which is 15% of the US population. We already have many communities and congressmen pushing laws about only English being taught in schools. And we’re talking about a completely peaceful population of people, who work hard to integrate into American life. Imagine if 45 million Hispanic Americans quietly wished to destroy the United States and take back the SouthWest through demographics or open civil warfare. You better believe we Americans would be passing one law after another to disenfranchise their ability to do so.
Is what Lieberman proposing the best way to integrate Arab Israelis? No, it isn’t, but you can’t blame him for daring to state the obvious.
The best way to integrate the Arabs in Israel is to take away funding for their Arabic schools, and the same should be done for every other community, including religious Jews. You don’t build a country with sectarian education systems that raise children to learn utterly conflicting histories and perspectives. If someone wants to fund a private religious school, and teach whatever they want in it, so be it. Otherwise, it should be a standardized secular curriculum.
Imagine if 45 million Hispanic Americans quietly wished to destroy the United States and take back the SouthWest through demographics or open civil warfare. You better believe we Americans would be passing one law after another to disenfranchise their ability to do so.
You obviously don’t live in Arizona.
Just to extend the analogy, imagine if cousins of those 45 million Hispanic Americans had spent the last forty years in open warfare against the United States, blowing up American malls and buses full of civilians.
We would not be having this conversation.
This analogy game doesn’t hold water. The circumstances are so completely different. MAYBE it would work better if the Hispanic population in America was held under a systematic military occupation rather than having been completely integrated into the political structure. When America conquered the west those people that did not move to Reservations were given full and equal rights. Now, you won’t find me defending hardly any course of action America has taken historically (or contemporaneously) but this analogy is completely hollow.
I think I titled the post wrong, because as Michael W points out, this actually IS the democratic process in action (and hopefully this legislation will not pass or be stricken down by the courts). My issue is in the concept of legislating thought and opinion.
It’s not a democracy unless you’re allowed to commit treason.
“Lieberman is starting to remind me of Kahane, in the best way. All he is doing is stating the obvious, which everyone knows but no one wants to admit – Arab Israelis don’t want to live in a Jewish state, and will forever stand in perpetual opposition to the existence of such a state.”
Why, then do you advocate a policy that will, even according to the most farfetched of optimistic theories, leave us with a state that is 45% Palestinian this generation?…and who knows what the future will hold?
Love him or hate him, at least Kahane was honest, unlike today’s Right.
@formermuslim,
Treason is interpreted differently by different people. If an American congressman openly states that he wished Al-Qaida to have a nuclear bomb, that would probably regarded as treason and that congressman would be kicked out of office by Congress. But if a Knesset member openly states that he or she wants Iran to have the bomb, it might make a news headline, but no action would be taken to remove that Knesset member from office.
And yes, that did happen in Israel. Here is the link:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238423651844&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Why, then do you advocate a policy that will, even according to the most farfetched of optimistic theories, leave us with a state that is 45% Palestinian this generation?
And you would turn half the country over to Islamist terrorists, who foam at the mouth that we would give them mortar positions within range of Tel Aviv. You know my position better than that, Jonathan. Must we demagogue one another?
It’s not a democracy unless you’re allowed to commit treason.
Plenty of people committed treason in the Soviet Union. Colorful language doesn’t change the fact that, in every country, treason is punishable by death.
That absolutely is your position.
What you say is my position too, no doubt.
Meaning, I would turn over half the Land to the Palestinians, despite all of the security risks involved.
In that case, I’d have to say you did not actually read my position, or did not understand it. Please give it another try.
Could you provide the link to this, as I honestly can’t remember reading it (you gave a general summary the other day,) but where is the original? Did you use to post under a different name?
🙁 it would take ages to find it.
I’ll just remind you by filling in the blanks to my position as you stated it.
1) End occupation.
2) Annex the WB on a 50 year timeline.
3) Settle the WB, integrate economics, infrastructure, civil service, etc.
4) Open the borders to allow out-migration for those who wish.
What does annexing the West Bank over 50 years entail?
Ok. So, I stand corrected. What you propose above will lead us to creating a country with an unsustainable future as a vibrant homeland for Jews, a place in which most of us wouldn’t want to live.
What you propose above will lead us to creating a country with an unsustainable future as a vibrant homeland for Jews
Said by the person who wants to subject Israel to incessant attack and bombardment, international ridicule, sanctions the moment we fight back and the resulting brain drain, capital flight and finally starvation, invasion and destruction. That’s the glorious future you’re promising us?
What does annexing the West Bank over 50 years entail?
You really didn’t read it in my comment weeks ago? I had paragraphs of details. I described in detail integrating the WB into Israel proper. It would entail points 3 and 4. It would not include national voting rights for WB Palestinians, aside from local and regional representation, until possibly the end of the process, on a flexible timeline – at least 50 years from annexation.
You admit, willingly, that giving land to the Arabs, abandoning our cities, will invite further and more ferocious attack, from which it will be infinitely MORE difficult to defend ourselves. And this is not science fiction – we have seen it play out in real life. Whereas Gush Katif was bombed by rockets and mortars, now that there is no Gush Katif, the rest of our cities are laid bare before the enemy.
And it is not just a matter of military strategy. The political pressure, too, is increased. Who in Europe or America was pressuring Israel about Gush Katif in 2002? Once we evacuated, it set a precedent – what city will we evacuate next? Why aren’t we evacuating faster? Can’t we evacuate even more places? And what has happened in the meantime? The Arabs attack us with more brazenness, with more confidence. We left Gush Katif to escape pressure. We now have more political pressure and more military pressure!
And what will be the result of evacuating the WB? The same! They will stop fighting for land and will start fighting to “return the refugees”. The rockets will launch at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem until we agree to let all the refugees back. The entire process will start all over – Abbas will condemn the terrorists, and America will urge us to talk to the political wing, but not the military wing, etc.
And when we fight back against the rockets and mortars, the political pressure from Europe will begin – you evacuated from everywhere, but you did not let any refugees back. Just let a few refugees back to show your good will. So we will let a few hundred thousand refugees back, and they will launch more rockets, and we will fight back, and Europe will say, you already let a few refugees in, so let the rest back in! After all, the right of return of refugees is ALSO enshrined in international law, and look how terrible their lives are in exile, and you are occupying their homes, and their land. And what will we do then, Jonathan? Will we resist the pressure then, when we did not resist it now?
Do we trust that the Europeans and the Americans will remember how gracious we were to give back the land, or will they pressure us as if we never gave a thing away? What does Sinai and Lebanon and Hebron and Gush Katif show us? Every retreat creates more war, more pressure, more retreat. So why should it stop with a return to 67. All that is needed on the Arab side is the will to fight us, and we will be pressured to retreat.
This is the future you want for us, Jonathan? Do you doubt that it will play out exactly this way? The fact is, you have no plan to protect Jewish life, and you admit it. Your immediate concern is with political survival. I’m showing you how you can’t take one apart from the other. The Arabs will always find a reason to keep fighting, so long as people like you keep giving them a reason to fight.
But what to do with the Palestinians? Let’s get everything out on the table – you couldn’t care less about the Palestinians. After all, if you care so little for Jewish life, it follows that you care even less for non-Jewish life. Your only concern is Jewish sovereignty. You can’t figure out a way to maintain Jewish sovereignty without killing or expelling the Palestinians, or killing or expelling the Jews.
So let’s approach this with pragmatism. If it’s the vote you fear, let’s take away the vote. After all, how can Israel expect to absorb, overnight, 4 million people hostile to its existence, a majority of whom recently voted for an organization sworn to destroy Israel, and give them a choice whether Israel should continue to exist. It’s silly to even suggest such a thing. So let’s not do it overnight. After all, who said it had to be done overnight?
Set a timeline for integration, and give the Arabs resident status in the meantime. I propose 50 years, enough for two generations of Arabs to grow without an Israeli boot on their necks, but with Israeli books in their backpacks.
But that still leaves the problem of demographics. Who is to say that in 50 years the Arabs won’t outnumber Jews? Do you know the most effective way of slowing Arab fertility? Educating Arab women. Here’s another breakthrough: how about opening the gates and letting Arabs emigrate?! I just saw a poll that 40% of Palestinian youth would leave if they could. Let’s pay for those plain tickets!
Why are we doing everything possible to INCREASE Arab fertility? We leave them bottled up in WB/Gaza, with almost no opportunity to leave, with no jobs to take up their time, their only permitted activities being radicalization at the local mosque, building Qassams with brother Ahmed and screwing their brains out at home.
Did you know that any Palestinian can receive Jordanian citizenship? They don’t even need to be in Jordan to apply for citizenship, it’s granted even on the request of a relative. Who is to say that in 50 years it will be necessary to give persons with Israeli residency the right to vote? They lived for fifty years without this right, what is so urgent? If they want to vote so badly, why didn’t they go to Jordan all this time?
All these problems can be tackled with pragmatism, but it is all premised on one foundational concept that we should NEVER allow to be challenged – preservation of Jewish life. If we, as Jews, do not stand for ourselves, no one else will. Preserving Jewish life is practically tied – and yes, spiritually also – to the integrity and unity of the Land. Settling the Land is the ONLY way to both destroy Palestinian nationalism, and ensure Jewish life. And for all the do-gooders out there, it is worth mentioning that when Jewish life is assured, non-Jewish life will naturally also be protected.
“Why are we doing everything possible to INCREASE Arab fertility? We leave them bottled up in WB/Gaza, with almost no opportunity to leave,.. ”
That’s why I was so happy that hamas blew up the wall between Egypt and Gaza last summer. I would be surprised if less than a few thousand Gazans have left permanently.
“the resulting brain drain, capital flight and finally starvation, invasion and destruction.”
Actually, that is the natural result of the apartheid/ethnic strife situation that you are inviting.
“It would not include national voting rights for WB Palestinians, aside from local and regional representation, until possibly the end of the process, on a flexible timeline – at least 50 years from annexation.”
In other words, to continue the occupation ad infinitu, but just change the name.
“You admit, willingly, that giving land to the Arabs, abandoning our cities, will invite further and more ferocious attack, from which it will be infinitely MORE difficult to defend ourselves. And this is not science fiction – we have seen it play out in real life. Whereas Gush Katif was bombed by rockets and mortars, now that there is no Gush Katif, the rest of our cities are laid bare before the enemy.”
We will be infinetly MORE able to defend ourselves, because if necessary we will be certain in the justness of our cause, unlike today (for proof, compare IDF effectiveness in 1967 versus 1987.)Plenty of rockets were falling from Gaza before 2004/05, btw. Where do you get your information?
“Who in Europe or America was pressuring Israel about Gush Katif in 2002?”
Do you realize how many people in the Israeli army leadership were PUBLICLY pressuring Israel about leaving Gaza settlements? Even more, Zionism for me means taking our future into our own hands. Apparantly, you are afraid of the Gentiles…I’m not.
“They will stop fighting for land and will start fighting to “return the refugees”.”
Unfortunately, the strategy of the Right is leading us to a realization of the Palestinian right of return, just without any formal agreement. Israel was 13% Arab in 1967. Look now, after all of the mass immigrations. The country is 20% Arab and rising, not including the millions of Palestinians in the territories that we will presumably annex/occupy for another 50 years.
“And when we fight back against the rockets and mortars, the political pressure from Europe will begin – you evacuated from everywhere, but you did not let any refugees back. Just let a few refugees back to show your good will. So we will let a few hundred thousand refugees back, and they will launch more rockets, and we will fight back, and Europe will say, you already let a few refugees in, so let the rest back in! After all, the right of return of refugees is ALSO enshrined in international law, and look how terrible their lives are in exile, and you are occupying their homes, and their land. And what will we do then, Jonathan? Will we resist the pressure then, when we did not resist it now? Do we trust that the Europeans and the Americans will remember how gracious we were to give back the land, or will they pressure us as if we never gave a thing away?”
We most certainly can withstand pressure from others, the past century is a testament to this. Again, I’m not afraid of the Gentiles…apparantly you are. You don’t need to shake with fear in front of the non-Jews, achi.
“The fact is, you have no plan to protect Jewish life, and you admit it.”
Actually, I’ve written my plan many times: Divide the land between the River and Sea into two political entities: Israel and Palestine. The border should be based on demographics as much as possible, including land swaps and compensation plans. Then, with that clear border, agreed upon by most of the Jewish world, go back to building a strong, vibrant society–like the one that was emerging until the 70’s. And, if God forbid we have to fight more wars, we’ll do so with a vigorous society–see ’67 and ’73 for examples. I admit that there are security risks herein. But, it’s the best way forward.
“After all, if you care so little for Jewish life”
Here we go…anybody who disagrees with the settlement movement cares so little for Jewish life. Aifo habusha!!!!!
“You can’t figure out a way to maintain Jewish sovereignty without killing or expelling the Palestinians, or killing or expelling the Jews”
Correct.
“If it’s the vote you fear, let’s take away the vote. After all, how can Israel expect to absorb, overnight, 4 million people hostile to its existence, a majority of whom recently voted for an organization sworn to destroy Israel, and give them a choice whether Israel should continue to exist. It’s silly to even suggest such a thing. So let’s not do it overnight. After all, who said it had to be done overnight? Set a timeline for integration, and give the Arabs resident status in the meantime. I propose 50 years, enough for two generations of Arabs to grow without an Israeli boot on their necks, but with Israeli books in their backpacks.”
So, 50 years of official apartheid, but we’ll call in annexation. Then, after the Arabs have been properly educated about A.D. Gordon, they can vote????? Where is the Right of Kahane, the honest Right?????
“Who is to say that in 50 years the Arabs won’t outnumber Jews?”
And if they do, what do you propose then? What if it’s only 45% Arab? Another 50 years of enlightened annexation?
“Did you know that any Palestinian can receive Jordanian citizenship?’
Do you know how difficult the Jordanian government has made it for West Bank Palestinians to enter the East Bank, even to visit, since 2000? Most Palestinians can’t even afford the exuberant deposit required to cross that border. If you want an official plan to pay the Palestinians to leave, say so more explicitly…although King Abdullah will never allow a mass Palestinian immigration into Jordan…he’s not insane.
“Who is to say that in 50 years it will be necessary to give persons with Israeli residency the right to vote? They lived for fifty years without this right, what is so urgent?”
There haven’t been problems since ’67, including in Jerusalem, where the Palestinians have residency rights???
Again, will the honest Right please speak up?
“If we, as Jews, do not stand for ourselves, no one else will”
From the source who apparently is scared to death of the Americans and Europeans, from above.
“Preserving Jewish life is practically tied – and yes, spiritually also – to the integrity and unity of the Land.”
Would somebody please explain this to Rav Ovadia Yoseph, Rav Amital, Rav Lichtenstein, almost every Heredi rabbi in the world? Because they very publicly disagree with this idea.
“And for all the do-gooders out there, it is worth mentioning that when Jewish life is assured, non-Jewish life will naturally also be protected.”
Does this mean that those who want to divide the Land our do-gooders? Like the man from Camp David, Ehud Barak. Barak, the commander of Sayeret Matkal, the commander of the Central Command, head of Military Intelligence, Defense Minister, Prime Minitster..what a naive do-gooder he is!!!!
((Does anybody know how to put those quotes in italics, btw?))
((Does anybody know how to put those quotes in italics, btw?))
<i>Like this.</i>
Apparantly, you are afraid of the Gentiles…I’m not.
Sorry I’m on a BB so I can’t respond inlength. I just want to comment that this quote struck me. Your entire thesis is based on fearing gentiles! Arabs are gentiles too, you know. In a Jewish kingdom there is no question that goyem cannot wield political power. There is a specific name for goyem who live in the Land – Ger Toshav. They have permanent residency status and are afforded many rights, but certainly cannot be on a court of law, own land permanently, or otherwise participate in political life. If you truly didn’t care about what goyem think, then you would not care about so called “apartheid” of ruling over 4 million Arabs who are denied the right to vote.
That was my immediate thought. I’ll respond in detail later.
This debate, like so many others over the past 100 years, if not 150 (if not 2000), is flawed because it is arguing about things that are already controlled by laws, without taking those laws into account. Everything above is purely hypothetical and much of it really offensive, regardless of which side one takes in the debate itself – offensive because it assumes that there is no legal process in the State of Israel!
Reading Rambam or another diaspora halakhist’s take on what will happen in the future Jewish Kingdom is an interesting exercise, nothing more. Israeli Jurisprudence has been around for 61 years and every Israeli court document worth its weight begins with the relevant Mishnaic law, follows its halakhic development, and then weighs in with Ottoman and British Mandatory code, then the Israeli declaration of independence, and then 61 years of Israeli tort law. Israeli law regarding the Arab citizens of the country are clear and cannot be overturned without altering many of the basic tenets of the country, known as the Basic Laws – similar to the English Constitution which is not written, but a recognized body of law and jurisprudence.
Just as the United Kingdom could not simply revoke the Magna Carta by Royal Decree, neither could any Israeli government simply rewrite the citizenship law – there is a procedure to do so, and it takes a super-majority in the Knesset, which any such proposal is not likely to get any time soon.
If you truly didn’t care about what goyem think, then you would not care about so called “apartheid” of ruling over 4 million Arabs who are denied the right to vote.
Actually, I don’t want Israel to be an apartheid state on apartheid’s own ugly merits, not because of what the Gentiles think. If you don’t care what they think, then maybe you should not use it as a basis of your argument…nor do I want Israel to turn into the former Yugoslavia, btw.
Why didn’t you tell me before, BZ?
offensive because it assumes that there is no legal process in the State of Israel!
What about the two-state idea does not consider the Israeli legal process?
Just as the United Kingdom could not simply revoke the Magna Carta by Royal Decree, neither could any Israeli government simply rewrite the citizenship law – there is a procedure to do so, and it takes a super-majority in the Knesset, which any such proposal is not likely to get any time soon.
That is simply not true. The citizenship law has no special standing and can be emended with a simple majority.
What about ethnically cleansing half a million Jews conforms to Jewish law? If there is one thing I have learned on Jewschool, it is that no law is inviolable when it conflicts with someone’s political interests. We have a law not to surrender a jewish city to our enemies.but who cares, right?
Do you want Israel to be a state run according to Halacha? But, also, you want one standardized secular school system, for everybody?
Again, you better tell Rav Ovadia, because he was talking about giving up parts of the Land a long time ago…but he doesn’t know any Torah, right?
firouz
theoretical halakhah and practical diplomacy are not the same things. we have laws that permit you to steal money from gentiles, would you do it? we have laws that permit you to marry your cousin, would you do it? Plus there are all sorts of aspects of Jewish law that the Israeli political system transgresses.
I’m curious how you think a strictly halakhic approach is going to help bring peace and justice to the region? And if you think Israel’s Muslim neighbors should be ruling their political systems through sharia?
What about ethnically cleansing half a million Jews conforms to Jewish law?
Compensating people to move inside the borders of the State of Israel doesn’t fit the usual definition of “ethnic cleansing”.
The comparison of sharia to halacha is misguided. Yes, the practical ideal IS for all Jews, whether in Israel or in galus, to observe halacha. What did you think all that talk of moshiach was about? Jonathan, please link to me the arguments used to justify abandoning jewish cities to an enemy army. I am heartened that you are swayed by halacha. My only question is, do you believe one should conform halacha to his or her views, or conform one’s views to halacha?
We
Still on the bberry! Frustrating… Justin, peace and justice are progressive dog whistles, but they do jhave real meaning. Jewish law brings true justice, and with justice comes peace. I can explain when I get to computer. Please unload whatever related questions you have in the meantime so I can address them as best I can.
Ju
BZ, compensating people with a gun to their and their children’s temples is nothing short of ethnic cleansing. What would you call it if we did such a thing to israeli arabs? Come on, let’s not play word games.
Jonathan, please link to me the arguments used to justify abandoning jewish cities to an enemy army.
From a one-minute google search, regarding ceding parts of the Land:
Rav Amital: http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2006/02/13/Opinion/A.Man.Who.Dwells.Alone.An.Interview.With.Rav.Yehuda.Amital.Rosh.Yeshiva.Yeshivat-1602202.shtml
Rav Lichtenstien:
http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2006/04/03/Opinion/Religion.And.The.Jewish.State.An.Interview.With.Rav.Aharon.Lichtenstein-1764215.shtml
Rav Ovadia:
http://www.hareidi.org/en/index.php/Ovadia_Yosef
I am heartened that you are swayed by halacha. My only question is, do you believe one should conform halacha to his or her views, or conform one’s views to halacha?
Of course I am influenced by the halacha, although not only.
The point is, though, that ceding the Land is not a black-and-white halachic issue, as there are drastic differences of opinions amongst great halachic authorities.
compensating people with a gun to their and their children’s temples is nothing short of ethnic cleansing.
I love to hear every posters’ opinion, but at some point I have to wonder if Firouz is just making things up about Israel, or if I can take him seriously. When did anything close to this happen?
BZ, compensating people with a gun to their and their children’s temples is nothing short of ethnic cleansing.
Were any guns involved in the Gush Katif evacuation?
What would you call it if we did such a thing to israeli arabs?
Eminent domain.
Jonathan, I dug long and hard to find this for you.
Jonathan: And, to be clear, I absolutely do think that forcing Jews out of their homes at the point of a gun is acceptable–let there be no confusion about that…
I would plant a big kiss on your cheek, but alas, time and space doth protest.
In other news, during my exhaustive search, I found a few places where you responded to me and I did not see due to comment floods. Here, for example.
As we had a rare moment of agreement in understanding each other’s position – check the bottom of that comment thread, where I earned a rare, “Fair enough Firouz” – let’s start all new discussions concerning retreat from Jewish land from where we left off.
BZ,
Very interesting point. Using such logic, what would stop ANY government from claiming eminent domain to pursue a policy of ethnic cleansing? After all, so long as individuals are compensated at market rates, your implied point is that anything goes.
For example, suppose tomorrow China unveils a policy of transferring millions of Tibetans out of Tibet and to the coastal cities, invoking eminent domain. Naturally, China would compensate the Tibetans for their homes, businesses and temples, and then, using eminent domain, settling millions of Han Chinese in their place. To make the comparison complete, let’s say that these Tibetans would have a choice to either accept government money and leave peaceably, or reject money and be dragged “out of their homes at the point of a gun”, which we’ve already established is acceptable to some here.
Is this what you propose be acceptable? Would we in the West treat is as acceptable behavior by a government?
I’ve never heard of eminent domain being used to justify mass expulsion of people, under the threat of force if they do not comply – usually tyrants who practice such policies don’t bother with legalisms – so I’ll let you, apparently more expert at the arguments for and against, to bear the receiving end of my “what ifs”.
Jonathan, I have an honest curiosity for halachic rulings that allow Jews to relinquish cities to our enemies. I’ve never heard of such a thing being permissible. I checked the links you provided, but while allusions are made to such positions in a general, background way, I was more interested in the actual legal argument.
The only one I saw mentioned, again, in a brief sense, was pikuash nefesh – preservation of life. However, by itself, it could mean anything. To preserve Jewish life maybe all Jews should move to America, instead of fighting a war with Arabs. There is other halacha, that focuses pikuash nefesh in a specific direction.
For example, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 329:6
When there is a [Jewish] city close to the border, then, even if [enemies mount an attack, although they] come only for the purpose of [taking] straw and stubble, we should [take up arms] and desecrate the Sabbath because of them. For [if we do not prevent their coming] they may conquer the city, and from there the [rest of the] land will be easy for them to conquer.
In other words, to protect Jewish life, we are instructed to attack those who don’t even pose an immediate threat – in other words, we look at capability, not immediate intent, because capability drives intent. The source for this, btw, is Tractate Eruvin 45a, regarding a city in Babylonia, so this law is valid for any Jewish city, not just one in Israel.
That’s more of what I was looking for. Pikuach nefesh by itself can be used to justify anything. You need to support the argument and drive it in a certain direction.
Is this the same Rabbi Ovadia Yosef that you referenced, who in 2001 supposedly urged the annihilation of Arabs, reportedly calling them “evil and damnable”? Leave it to BBC to make sure the whole world heard his reported remarks, when Hamas says nothing less at every sermon in Gaza.
Just to note, I read through the other two links you provided, of Rabbis Lichtenstien and Amital. It was interesting how they synthesize politics and halacha, a certain give and take. I must admit, I am not familiar with such a give and take on halachik issues. It may have merit – certainly I know that in the case of kashrus, for example, there may be many practical demands for temporary lenience – but I think such an approach also exposes fundamental inconsistencies that linger without satisfaction.
I need to think about this more carefully before I respond further. If you have links to articles or sources more treasured than what would be uncovered by a one minute google search, and which further the point you were trying to make, please forward them to me. Halachik arguments would be preferable.
“so this law is valid for any Jewish city, not just one in Israel.”
Even Kiriyas Joel?
I don’t get how Firouz thinks demarcating borders will be threatening to Jewish life, but patriating Arabs against their will wouldn’t be.
Here’s the big question: Are you willing to give up a Jewish state in order to save Jewish life? The Demographic Bomb is ticking.
em: You must watch a lot of Lou Dobbs, don’t you?
Are you willing to give up a Jewish state in order to save Jewish life?
A straw argument that creates a false choice.
The Demographic Bomb is ticking.
With some fear mongering thrown in to prevent you from thinking too deeply.
em: You must watch a lot of Lou Dobbs, don’t you?
No. All I meant by that is that there is some significant percentage of the population here that genuinely believes Mexican immigrants “quietly wish to destroy the United States and take back the SouthWest through demographics or open civil warfare.” Firouz’s hypothetical sounded like it could have been written by one of the folks who comment on our local newspaper’s Web site in complete seriousness as a description of our current situation, and he would have been given the thumbs up by 50 other people. And it has resulted in a whole slew of discriminatory laws aimed at the Hispanic population So far, no one has tried to ban the public expression of ideas, though I would bet money that if you were to propose banning the public display of the Mexican flag, there would be a ton of support for that.
If Firouz lived here, he wouldn’t put that out there as some “imagine if” hypothetical because it would sound like completely mainstream political rhetoric. That’s all I meant.
Firouz, let’s call a spade a spade. You know of no Judaism other than the Rebbe-cult, and you hash and rehash the pseudohalakhic arguments of your cult without respect for other opinions. Lubavitch is not the be-all, end-all of Torah, and you are not here to “answer” questions. Your opinion is valued, but not the fact that you do not value ours.
(and BTW, it was your teven-vekash argument that gave you away, since nobody would come to it on their own).
I would plant a big kiss on your cheek, but alas, time and space doth protest.
I’m shomrei negia, Firouz…unless you happen to be that Mizrachi singer from the “What Jews Look Like” video–would somebody please get me her number!!!
It should be obvious that I never went to Yale Law, so I’m not a skilled logician, but how does my writing this in a posting:
And, to be clear, I absolutely do think that forcing Jews out of their homes at the point of a gun is acceptable–let there be no confusion about that…
Demonstrate that anything similar to this ever happened in Israel:
compensating people with a gun to their and their children’s temples is nothing short of ethnic cleansing.
Let’s get to the real point, though. It’s not just Firouz, too much of the Right is attempting to paint this argument in terms that those who are against the settlement movement want to see Israeli soldiers bursting into settlments in the middle of the night, dragging innocent settlers out of their homes with loaded guns drawn.
Come on, chevrei. The settlers aren’t crying because they will have to leave their homes (to move to other homes in the Land of Israel, with hundreds of thousands of sheckels in their pockets as compensation.)
They are crying because, by moving in this context, they will be giving up an important ethos on which they believe wholeheartedly, and in doing so, they believe, the Jewish people will be endangered gravely.
If this were some type of national project to which the settlers agreed–say a national highway through Judea and Samaria…and the government said they had to move, they would do so eagerly…and, knowing that community as we do, we know that they wouldn’t even take compensation if they believed that building that highway is for the good of Klal Yisrael.
We all know that the vast majority of people physically injured in the 1982 and 2005 evacuations were Israeli police/soldiers–the police didn’t come close to using guns.
And we all know that this generation of the settlers’ leadership would never allow their followers to use drastic violence against the police either.
But, if in some future day, the freely-elected Israeli government, backed by the will of the people, sends in the police to remove settlers and, God forbid, the settlers attempt to use deadly force…then 100% I absolutely do think that forcing Jews out of their homes at the point of a gun is acceptable–let there be no confusion about that
Firouz, don’t look to me as a learned person who can lead you to the best halachic sources. I’m most certainly not.
By citing these rabbis, I was attempting to point out that it isn’t a black and white halachic issue. Maybe you just think these rabbis are wrong. Fine. Rabbis make mistakes like the rest of us. But, in attempting to present it as black and white halacha that Israel can never relinquish parts of Judea and Samaria, you are trying to mislead us.
I mentioned these three rabbis for a reason.
Rav Ovadia has one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Torah mind in our time, IMHO.
Rav Amital is greatly responsible for the national-Religious world today, through designing the Hesder model to starting Yeshivat HaGush, where he educated most of today’s settler leaders.
Rav Licthenstein is another brilliant Torah scholar, son-in-law of Rav Solevitchik.
These rabbis can all be wrong about this issue, no doubt…but it’s a demonstration that Chabad shlichim don’t always have the monopoly on truth (although they do many amazing mitvot in our communities, IMHO.)
Chabad shlichim don’t always have the monopoly on truth (although they do many amazing mitvot in our communities, IMHO.)
So does the Salvation Army, and we don’t hold by their halakhic opinions, do we?
lieberman’s proposed legislation was passed by a preliminary panel today
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087792.html