Channels
Photo: GPO
Ariel Sharon, aka "King Arik" must explain reasons for pullout
Photo: GPO

King Arik and the 7 excuses

Sharon has yet to explain objective of disengagement

Whoever isn’t familiar with the saying “personal democracy” is invited to read the newspapers or surf the web. Whoever doesn’t recognize the saying “democracy is me”, should just go listen or watch the news media.

 

And if there is anyone left who still isn’t sure who runs things around here, stand up and show yourself. Does anyone still believe that the disengagement was a group decision, governmental or security, or that it was just something that landed in the backyard of “a farmer and his sons”?

 

While I’m at it, a short reminder of the definition of a king - in two possible ways: a ruler who enforces discipline amongst his viziers, and weeds out the naysayers from the yes-men; or one who establishes a ruling dynasty.

 

Everyone agrees that Israeli democracy has been badly, if not critically, damaged by the events of the past few months. But you could argue over who has done the most damage: “The king of Israel”, or the national objector’s movement.

 

What happened at Kfar Maimon and Netivot was actually the battle of democracy against democracy. Or, as taken from a passage in the story of David and Goliath “a battle in preparation of the battle”. (Samuel 1, 17:21).

 

If all the decisions about the “disengagement” had been perfectly democratic, by say, a national referendum, or government ratification with a clear coalition majority, is there any doubt that the face of the struggle today would look entirely different?

 

But let’s put aside the “body of the decider” and discuss the “body of the decision”. Let’s do a simple exercise. Ask your next door neighbor, or someone at work or just anyone on the street: what is the goal of the “disengagement” according to its supporters? Please explain!

 

You will receive a plethora of vague, stammering answers. Try and follow them as I grade them below, on a scale of “truth” value as I see it.

 

Seven views of the disengagement

 

Group one holds dear to the idea of “bringing about peace”. But how? They answer faithfully that a new, positive dynamic will develop within the Palestinian camp. Well, anyone who reads commentaries in the newspapers and on the internet knows that that argument was abandoned some time ago. We have no partner on the horizon, not even an unworthy one.

 

Group two believes in “security”. Or in their words: “We will reduce friction between ourselves and the Palestinians and will reduce the risks to our soldiers”. The ongoing Kassam blitz certainly seems to reduce that argument to unreasonable speculation.

 

Group three upholds the impressive argument that the “disengagement” “will help preserve the Jewishness of Israel.” This group adopts the demographic argument and adds a scholarly air to the plan.

 

After recovering from my shock at this argument, I ask myself, a bit embarrassed: Is it a rational deficiency on my part, or is it on the part of those who uphold the argument?

 

And what if the settlers of the Gaza Strip are evacuated and their homes destroyed (and all the more so if their homes are left intact)? Will there be less Palestinians between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan?

 

Theoretically, the land will likely fill up with those who have the “right of return” from all the Arab lands. And are those demographic believers willing to stand by their logic and "trade" the populations of Arab-Israeli town Umm al-Fahm with the residents of Neve Dekalim? I’m all for it!

 

Group four parrots the prime minister’s recent declarations that “we will free up resources to help develop the Galilee and the Negev”. We can all remember when the Lavi fighter project was cancelled in order to free up resources for its “alternatives”.

 

Where’s the Lavi and where are it’s “alternatives” now? Haven’t we had enough of all those promises of economic boons from redirecting resources in the style of: “the kibbutzim versus the development towns”; “development towns versus settlements”; “settlements versus the Negev and the Galilee”; “industry versus subsidies”; “subsidies versus the security fence”; “the security fence versus the Dovrat Commission”, and so on…

 

Shattering dream of 'Greater Israel'

 

Group five lives by the mantra of “disengagement for the sake of disengagement”, the point being to take the settlers down a peg or two and shatter that dream of “Greater Israel”.

 

In this period of Post-Zionism “we must show them the long arm of the government law, and not let them drag us in to unnecessary wars”. I know that there are many who believe in this mantra, but I also know that these are not the reasons of the Prime Minister. This is not the royal reason for the “disengagement”.

 

Group six, quite seriously we must admit, fully supports the “disengagement”, even if we have nothing to gain from it and even if we lose a few security points. Democracy or national unity. Their reasons: The occupation corrupts.

 

A secondary assertion says the Palestinians are right – this is their land and we can make do with the ’67 borders. I don’t agree with the fundamental assertion that the corruption of the occupation is worse than the corruption of the Greek Island affair, involving Prime Minister Sharon. Labor and the left rejected a Knesset debate over government corruption in favor of uprooting a far greater evil, the mother of all corruptions: The flowering of the sands of Gush Katif and “growing lettuce in the settlements,” where for thousands of years no man has settled or planted.

 

Group seven is the last in line, but no one speaks of it out loud. There are improprieties and goings on in the royal family, and for conspiratorial reasons, they are better left unsaid.

 

Which one of these groups do you think the prime minister will join in name only, and which do you think he really believes in?

 

In the Yeshiva world in which I grew up, there’s a common expression that many explanations generally points to a weakness in the argument. No explanation at all – only underscores that. But the law says that “a king will do as he will and there is none to check his hand”. (Maimonides, Laws of Kings 5:3).

 

But the end of that sentence is: “if that is what he needs to do”.

 

Even the all-powerful ruler has a duty to explain whether this is what “he needs to do”. If he doesn’t, then he shouldn’t complain about soldiers refusing orders or standing in his way, be it in small actions or in big.

 

- Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, a rabbi of the settler movement , and head of the Tzomet Institute in Alon Shvut.

 


פרסום ראשון: 07.24.05, 23:46
 new comment
Warning:
This will delete your current comment