I have a wedding coming up to take place in Manhattan, so for the next two weeks I can't promise a regular blogging schedule (as if I have one). I also cannot be able to assure regular review of comments that my blog receives.
That being so, I have decided to deal with a subject some readers of mine seem to get stuck on which is quite simply disagreements with my position and outlook on issues they don't accept my thinking or rational.
Did you read this, published on Arutz 7? -
"Establishing a new outpost next to an existing community is not the right strategy," according to the committee. Instead, it advises activists to block road intersections and build new communities elsewhere.
If I understand this correctly, this new 'committee' accepts the inevitability of the destruction of caravans or other structures or even whole communities (the reference, though, is to the 'outpost' communities). They acknowledge the greater power of the police and their brutality and the anti-Eretz Yisrael attitude of the Civil Administration and members of the Ministry of Justice. They suggest a reaction of building at another location. A principle, I grasp it, has now been fixed: if a community may suffer damage, it is better to respond somewhere else. Don't fight at the destroyed place but move on. Of course, hopefully, that location will eventually be rebuilt if you succeed in the struggle.
That being so, I asked myself (and I ask you), what is the essential difference between that approach and that of the Yesha Council? The Council has been attempting to preserve large outposts by negotiating over smaller, perhaps insignificant locations for the purpose of strengthening over-all the physical, economic, security and legal presence. Each location on its own merits and the willingness of the residents. It does not negate any achievement but also recognizes exigencies, even if only temporary.
A second issue that is linked with this is the proposal that instead of a defeatist, harmful Yesha Council, the state of "Yehudah" should be pursued. In other words, while we can't really protect a few caravans, we can set up a new state. A state that maybe 3.3% of Israel's Jews support and 3.4% of World Jewry supports (actually, I made up those figures and I guess the numbers are lower). A state that is separated along a north-south axis by Jerusalem and firmly controlled by regular Zionists (to be connected by a bridge? A tunnel?). A state that cannot protect itself (unless we bring back those Jewish Legion dogs). A state which even less than 5% of its residents aren't interested in creating (again, I'm guessing on the numbers).
This state is the most logical response. So they say.
I don't agree. But you probably guessed that.
And so, we have two weeks while I'm gone (or not) to come up with a better idea.
Think about it.
And a big mazal tov to the couple.