From the top of one of the hills in Homesh, one can see things clearly: the coast to the west, skyscrapers in Tel Aviv and the smokestacks of the Hadera power plant; to the north, Nazareth, to the south, Ariel; eastwards, the Gilad Mountains in Jordan. And below, the ruins of the homes of Jews who once lived in this community.
The area of Homesh is, therefore, of major strategic importance to Israel's security.
What is obvious to most Israelis now is that the proposed "two-state solution," based on the establishment of a terrorist-based Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, leads to the "final solution" - the end of Israel. So, returning to and rebuilding Homesh, and strengthening Jewish communities throughout Judea and Samaria, are vital to Israeli security.
Those who say that efforts to rebuild Homesh are "anti-democratic" would have to prove this by a clear mandate, such as a referendum. That it may violate Israeli law is also debatable, since "the law" depends on whatever the regional military commander decides; and he is subordinate to the Minister of Defense. Clearly, Israel's government today, according to all polls, does not represent the people.
Returning to Homesh, therefore, is a symbol of popular outrage and resistance against corrupt political leaders who have not only failed us, but have betrayed us.
Returning to Homesh is a symbol of popular outrage against corrupt political leaders.
For those politicians who have not resigned in disgrace, been indicted or thrown in jail, their purpose seems to be to remain in power, regardless of what anyone thinks. That is not only a sign of their doom, but a rape of Israeli politics, our political-judicial system - perhaps even of all of Israel, as well.
That an Israeli army and police would refuse to allow food and water to Jews camped out at Homesh is also a disgrace. The government's decision is certainly legal, but is it moral or just?
And now the true dimensions of the disaster that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wrought can be seen - as if any further proof is needed after what was done to the Jews of Gush Katif. There was no reason to destroy the communities in the Shomron (Samaria) or anywhere else.
The policy of unilateral withdrawal - part of the "two-state (final) solution" - is lethal; on that, nearly all Israelis agree. It only strengthens terrorists. Allowing Palestinian terrorists (whether from Hamas or Fatah) to occupy a strategically critical place like Homesh is suicidal. And not allowing Jews to return and rebuild their homes is a national disgrace.
The proposed "two-state solution" has no popular support, no Knesset approval, and it makes no rational sense - especially when Israel is under attack by the same people who will constitute that second state.
If the return to Homesh is wrong, then living in all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is wrong - and perhaps in the entire State of Israel itself.
Yet, as Professor Bernard Lewis and many others have noted, we already have a "two-state solution" - in Israel and Jordan. That is the only rational policy today.
The area of Homesh is, therefore, of major strategic importance to Israel's security.
What is obvious to most Israelis now is that the proposed "two-state solution," based on the establishment of a terrorist-based Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, leads to the "final solution" - the end of Israel. So, returning to and rebuilding Homesh, and strengthening Jewish communities throughout Judea and Samaria, are vital to Israeli security.
Those who say that efforts to rebuild Homesh are "anti-democratic" would have to prove this by a clear mandate, such as a referendum. That it may violate Israeli law is also debatable, since "the law" depends on whatever the regional military commander decides; and he is subordinate to the Minister of Defense. Clearly, Israel's government today, according to all polls, does not represent the people.
Returning to Homesh, therefore, is a symbol of popular outrage and resistance against corrupt political leaders who have not only failed us, but have betrayed us.
Returning to Homesh is a symbol of popular outrage against corrupt political leaders.
For those politicians who have not resigned in disgrace, been indicted or thrown in jail, their purpose seems to be to remain in power, regardless of what anyone thinks. That is not only a sign of their doom, but a rape of Israeli politics, our political-judicial system - perhaps even of all of Israel, as well.
That an Israeli army and police would refuse to allow food and water to Jews camped out at Homesh is also a disgrace. The government's decision is certainly legal, but is it moral or just?
And now the true dimensions of the disaster that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wrought can be seen - as if any further proof is needed after what was done to the Jews of Gush Katif. There was no reason to destroy the communities in the Shomron (Samaria) or anywhere else.
The policy of unilateral withdrawal - part of the "two-state (final) solution" - is lethal; on that, nearly all Israelis agree. It only strengthens terrorists. Allowing Palestinian terrorists (whether from Hamas or Fatah) to occupy a strategically critical place like Homesh is suicidal. And not allowing Jews to return and rebuild their homes is a national disgrace.
The proposed "two-state solution" has no popular support, no Knesset approval, and it makes no rational sense - especially when Israel is under attack by the same people who will constitute that second state.
If the return to Homesh is wrong, then living in all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is wrong - and perhaps in the entire State of Israel itself.
Yet, as Professor Bernard Lewis and many others have noted, we already have a "two-state solution" - in Israel and Jordan. That is the only rational policy today.