October 20, 2004
Letter from Jerusalem, Oct. 20

Part of this war is with ourselves.

Last night's news featured one interview with well-known a religious grandmother who urged the soldiers in her family and others to refuse any "illegal" orders to remove Jews from their homes in the Land of Israel. The interviewer pressed her on the conception of illegal: what if the decision to remove settlers has the endorsement of the government and the Knesset? Her response was that it could not be legal insofar as it violated Torah.

Then he interviewed a young military reservist, head of an organization that urges soldiers to refuse "illegal" orders to harm innocent Palestinians. When pressed by the interviewer to defend his conception of "illegal," the young man said that it is wrong to risk the lives of soldiers to protect religious settlers in Gaza and the West Bank. He prefers withdrawing from all settlements outside of Israel (he didn't specify just what he meant by that), but it was clear that the grandmother's home was beyond his sense of what is proper.

For a centrist opposed to both positions, It was more than annoying, but great television. It defined our moment. Earlier segments had featured the head of the general staff and the minister of defense saying that rabbis and others who urge soldiers to disobey orders threaten the country and serve the enemy. I thought of the year 70, when anti-Roman Jewish zealots fought with Jews willing to accept Roman culture and Roman rule within Jerusalem, and the Romans waited outside the city until the Jews weakened themselves enough to make the conquest easier.

We have all but smashed the Palestinian intifada. Barbarians who target children, patrons of cafes, discotechs, and restaurants, university students, bus riders, and celebrants of the Passover seder can look around at their cities and orchards and see rubble. They can count among themselves more than three times the casualties they have caused us. Many of their leaders, and even lower echolons are dead or in our prisons. Their political system is a shambles. Much of the international community is tired of their calls for help and offers only lip service. They are now hoping for salvation from a new US president; Arafat has made an overt endorsement of Kerry, which might hurt the Senator more than it helps. (Arafat also expressed support for Saddam Hussein in 1991, and produced the explusion of thousands of Palestinian workers from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.)

No such scorecard will convince all the fanatics, or perhaps any of them, to stop the fighting.

The intifada also provided at least a temporary respite from chronic disputes between religious and secular Israelis about what we can do on Shabbat, the availability of non-kosher food, which rabbis can perform conversions, and other nuances of religious law. With neighbors wanting to kill all Jews, internal fights all but disappeared. Until the prime minister put on the table the issue of withdrawing settlements. The Land of Israel is one of the items in our tribal religion. Now religious zealots are making doctrinal proclamations about real estate.

As in other issues, the Torah is not clear. There are competing definitions of the Land of Israel.

The borders mentioned in a passage from Genesis 15, “from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates” is not precise enough to guide a surveyor. Where on the Euphrates: Baghdad or elsewhere? Is the river of Egypt the Nile, or perhaps only a lesser stream at El Arish? The difference between the two is a matter of 100 kilometers or more along the Mediterranean Sea, depending on the choice from among several Nile outlets. The problem becomes more complex by the 17th chapter of Genesis, when the Lord promises to Abraham “all the land of Canaan” without setting out the boundaries. The 34th chapter of Numbers provides enough clues to keep historians and cartographers busy matching modern places with the lands of ancient peoples. The eastern boundary of the Promised Land indicated here (the east shore of the Chinnereth, perhaps the Sea of Galilee), is far short of the Euphrates as promised in Genesis and somewhat less than what modern Israel has managed to acquire.


There is a vote scheduled in the Knesset next week that is likely to endorse the withdrawal of all settlements in Gaza and a small number in the West Bank. Government ministers and senior military personnel are making the rounds of the rabbis to persuade them of the dangers of religious soldiers urged to disobey orders. It is not easy to neutralize the religious enthusiasm. The outcome will be a test of our sanity. We can survive a bit of internal violence, but it will not be healthy.

Posted by Ira Sharkansky at October 20, 2004 09:52 AM
Comments

An order to forcibly remove somebody from his legally-acquired home, merely because of his race—someone who has broken no law, harmed nobody, and threatens nobody, but rather lives under constant threat from his racist bloodthirsty neighbours—is patently illegal. If a soldier is not entitled to disobey such an order, what sort of order, exactly, is he entitled to disobey?

In the USA such an order would be immediately struck down as unconstitutional, but, more importantly, it would never be given in the first place. When a white mob threatened six little black children peacefully exercising their right to go to school, the President sent the troops in, not to forcibly remove the children but to protect them, using deadly force if necessary.

Imagine that a black family buys a house in an all-white suburb, foolhardily ignoring everyone's advice that it was too dangerous. Imagine that everyone's advice turns out to be right, the first night they find a cross burning on their lawn, the second night there are rocks thrown at their children coming home from school, and by the third night they have to sandbag their windows to keep the bullets out. Is it conceivable that the US government would remove them from their home, or that such a decision, if made, would survive a minute in any court? On the contrary, the neighbours, having been shown to pose a danger to this family, would be enjoined from coming within a reasonable distance of them, even if that meant they had to abandon their own homes.

Posted by: Zev Sero on October 20, 2004 11:19 PM

Your comments are appropriate for the Middle West. As Moshe Arens was fond of saying, the Middle East is not the Middle West.

Posted by: Ira Sharkansky on October 20, 2004 11:24 PM

"Your comments are appropriate for the Middle West. "

Funny how people lose perspective and try to find an 'equivalence' to push their argument.

Like equating the violence engendered by defence with the agressive violence that brought about the defensive action.

Posted by: Cynic on October 21, 2004 08:40 AM

i would not be too quick to knock on an israeli residents view on this issue - it is his life not yours - if he believes that pulling out of an area is right, then you cannot criticize that and if he believes that resisting the pullout is right, you cannot criticize that. Sorry.

Sharon said along time ago, with respect to gaza and the west bank - either we can have south africa or we can have lebanon. There is simply no way to merge the culture of the arabs in the west bank and gaza into anything workable with the jews there. If you annex the area - you own millions of arabs - i know they have no claim to the land at all, but practically, they are there and no jew has the stomach to just declare them second class dhimmi. '

So israel has chosen a lebanon on its border - at worst that means about 20 years of war from the time israel leaves - so another generation of boys who have to die - now, it is possible, and some would say delusional to think that gax a will be quite and will not shott guns over the boarder - i doubt that , but israle unfortunately has learned to live with lebanon to the north. it seemingly will have to do so with one to the south.

and before you blame me, my attitude is against any concessions, and i believe that the arabs have enough land - but i dont get to vote i live out of israel.

Posted by: jannol on October 21, 2004 10:20 AM

You are two for two sir, to use an October favorite. I look forward to your next at bat.

Posted by: Squirrel on October 22, 2004 09:51 AM
New comments may be posted only from the 'Comments' links at the bottom of each entry on the blog home page