David Ben-Gurion, at the 1937 Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland said:
"No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No Jewish body has the authority to do so. Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the right to yield any part of Israel. It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under no conditions can be cancelled. Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny it to future generations. No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the country - the entire country - exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until its full and complete redemption is realised."
David Ben-Gurion made this statement even before the State of Israel was established. However, I feel his strong words are more applicable today than ever before. There have been many arguments made in favour of expelling the Jews out of Gaza. I would like to once and for all spell some of them out and address them as well as I can.
Let it be known right now that Jewish presence in Gaza is not causing the deaths of any soldiers or civilians. This is a myth, meant to blame someone other than the actual terrorists for terrorism. The settlement block of Gush Katif is further away from Gaza City (where 1 of the 1.2 million Arabs of Gaza live) than are major Israeli cities such as S'derot and Ashkelon. Between Gaza and these cities and Gush Katif is the same protection: fences, army and space.
When S'derot is rocketed from northern Gaza and when Gush Katif is rocketed, why is one met with a call to defend and one met with a call to retreat? Is the blood of S'derot residents redder than the blood of the settlers? It is because of the myth that the settlements are at fault - a myth even some Jews choose to pass off as truth. Blaming Israel's security problems on settlements is buying into one of the biggest lies the Palestinians have sold to the world. It is unfortunate that it was bought by many Jews, too.
When any Jewish city is attacked, whether it is Gush Katif or Ashkelon, it is because they are Jewish cities, not because they are settlements. Top army officials have even supported certain settlements, citing security reasons. They argue that having a Jewish presence in areas like Gaza makes it easier for the Israeli army to operate and do their job.
There is also a very widespread belief among the pro-disengagement camp that giving away Gaza and expelling the Jewish residents will cause a US policy change to allow Israel to keep the larger settlement blocks in the West Bank.
First of all, George Bush's implicit stance on the issues raised remains just that - implicit. As Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post pointed out, at no time did Bush explicitly state that Washington's official policy will be that Israel can keep certain settlement blocks. Moreover, this is not the first time that a US president has made such statements. Even Bill Clinton stated that Israel would not be expected to withdraw to its 1948 borders.
And not only is it incorrect to believe that if we give Gaza to the terrorists, then the US will allow us to keep large settlement blocks, it is an insult to any independent country to have a foreign government try to dictate to them where they are or aren't allowed to be in their own homeland. Israel is an independent country, and no country has the right to "allow" her to hold onto parts of her land. It should be irrelevant what the US "allows". And to all those who would jump on that and accuse me of implying we should ignore the world, let it be known that is not what I mean. I was not implying we should ignore the US and be isolated in the global political arena, but rather that we should draw the line when the US violates its mandate and attempts to control our local politics.
Then, there is the demographic argument. Disengagement supporters claim that if we don't pull out of Gaza, Israel will cease to exist as a "Jewish and democratic state". Countless times, I have heard this ridiculous statement, even in more mainstream press like the Jerusalem Post. This argument makes no sense, because the implication is that if we stay in Gaza then we would have to absorb and give full citizenship to all the Arabs living there. Therefore, the argument goes, because we cannot do this, we have to pull out of there and separate ourselves.
First of all, staying in Gaza obviously does not mean we have to give all the Arabs living there citizenship. With that logic, there is a problem with Jewish sovereignty in the Galilee and Negev, because soon enough, the demographic problem will be so bad there that we will have to "disengage" from there, as well. Obviously, one would not apply that logic to the Galilee and Negev; therefore, it should not be applied to Gaza.
As a colleague of mine pointed out to me, Jewish presence in parts of Biblical Israel is no cause or reason alone for Arabs to be unable to live there also. The extent to which a "Jewish presence" causes 'difficulties' for the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza is not due to settlers, to Jews, living there, it is due to their society's and religion's embrace of terrorism. It is due to their savage murder of Israelis. It is their responsibility to take charge of their society. If they didn't kill and murder and steal and hurt us, if their imams didn't call for jihad, if they didn't send 13-year-olds to blow themselves up, then they would have all the same civil liberties that we do. Our right to life, our right to exist as a Jewish People in the Land of Israel, supercedes their 'civil right' to freedom of movement when they abuse that right and become murderers.
For true equality, they need to take responsibility for their actions. 'Noble' liberals such as Yossi Beilin threaten true equality. For them, the belief that Arabs can actually be held responsible for their own society, that Arabs could actually live peacefully with us, is a myth. Therefore, we must separate ourselves from them to ensure 'peace'. We must make sure there aren't too many Arabs in Israel, because, aside from the problem of the vote, who wants to live next to an Arab? That is the 'liberal' thinking in Israel. This double standard, this hypocrisy, is deplorable. For them, the conclusion is that the Jews abandon their Biblical homeland, so they are separated from the Arabs. This should not be. Jews will stay in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Arabs better just get used to it and accept it, and learn how to get along with us. And if they can't, we shouldn't be the ones who have to leave. These 'liberals' are confusing the arsonist with the firefighter.
Ripping Jews out of their homes simply because they are Jewish is discriminatory and racist. It is fascinating that many no longer even feel the need to cloak this discrimination, with many explicitly referring to the need to dismantle "Jewish settlements" and not even bothering to veil the term by referring to them as "Israeli settlements". What bothers many so much about "settlements" isn't the settlements, but it is the idea of, the horror of, having to have a Jewish neighbor.
For the Arabs, this is out of pure hatred; and for others, especially 'leftist' Jews, it is the fear of the empowerment and strength that may be given to the Right and to the religious sectors of Israeli society if Jews are allowed to maintain their roots and attachment to such historic and religiously evocative areas. Michael Freund, a former advisor to Binyamin Netanyahu, stated this point powerfully in his op-ed in the Jerusalem Post on February 4th, 2004. He explained that the desire to expel Jews from Gaza because of their religious or ethnic identity is pure and simple racism. If there were Israeli Jews, Christians and Muslims, or American olim of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim origin, all would be allowed to stay and live in the "Disputed Territories" except for those that are Jewish. The only identifying mark that is of consequence is their religion, and if you are Jewish, then you aren't allowed to live in certain areas.
If Israeli settlers are expelled from Gaza, Israel will not be able to defend herself efficiently, as is pointed out by top army personnel and even by the Chief of Staff himself, Moshe Yaalon. Yaalon came out against the plan for security reasons, claiming that withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will only encourage more terror and make it easier for Arab terrorist groups to perpetrate attacks. Aside from many other top army officials sharing this opinion, the thoughts of the Chief of Staff should make it clear enough that it is completely incorrect that expelling the Jewish residents of Gush Katif would in any way improve Israel's security.
One of the most ridiculous pro-disengagement arguments I have heard is that if Israel pulls out, Hamas and other radical terrorist groups will lose support, because the Arabs will finally want to live in peace, what with the settlements gone. This is nothing more than a pipe dream. Israel has offered to compromise before and give up far more than Sharon is putting on the table now, and that has only resulted in increased terrorism. Additionally, under the Road Map and the Disengagement Plan, the areas destined to be under Palestinian autonomy will be completely demilitarized. Israel would retain control of the air above them, the sea and the land around them. I can think of no better excuse for Hamas and the PA to use after an Israeli withdrawal to continue their terror war against us than the fact that we are controlling everything around them.
Believing such a ridiculous idea - that the Arabs would give up their jihad against Israel after an Israeli withdrawal - shows a complete lack of understanding of the Palestinian Arab culture and their history. Never once in the Arab-Israeli conflict has compromise on the Israeli side been met with Arab acceptance and a decrease in Arab terror; in fact, it has had the exact opposite effect. There has been terrorism by Arabs against Jews before the state was even created, long before the current settlement enterprise. To deny this is denying factual history and ignoring the lessons from the past.
It is wrong to demonize a sector of the nation and blame them for Israel's security problems, when the exact same issue - terrorism - was on the agenda long before 1967. This, too, shows a complete lack of understanding of Israel's history and ignores decades of Arab terror against Jews.
So, let's call a spade a spade. I encourage every Zionist to oppose disengagement with all their might. It is time to direct the blame in the proper direction, and away from innocent settlers, who are the very ones fulfilling the Zionist dream. Any plan that will cause a rift in the nation and is based on rewarding murderers of Jews must be rejected vehemently. Let us stand strong together against division, and in favour of a unified people in our unified land.
"No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No Jewish body has the authority to do so. Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the right to yield any part of Israel. It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under no conditions can be cancelled. Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny it to future generations. No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the country - the entire country - exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until its full and complete redemption is realised."
David Ben-Gurion made this statement even before the State of Israel was established. However, I feel his strong words are more applicable today than ever before. There have been many arguments made in favour of expelling the Jews out of Gaza. I would like to once and for all spell some of them out and address them as well as I can.
Let it be known right now that Jewish presence in Gaza is not causing the deaths of any soldiers or civilians. This is a myth, meant to blame someone other than the actual terrorists for terrorism. The settlement block of Gush Katif is further away from Gaza City (where 1 of the 1.2 million Arabs of Gaza live) than are major Israeli cities such as S'derot and Ashkelon. Between Gaza and these cities and Gush Katif is the same protection: fences, army and space.
When S'derot is rocketed from northern Gaza and when Gush Katif is rocketed, why is one met with a call to defend and one met with a call to retreat? Is the blood of S'derot residents redder than the blood of the settlers? It is because of the myth that the settlements are at fault - a myth even some Jews choose to pass off as truth. Blaming Israel's security problems on settlements is buying into one of the biggest lies the Palestinians have sold to the world. It is unfortunate that it was bought by many Jews, too.
When any Jewish city is attacked, whether it is Gush Katif or Ashkelon, it is because they are Jewish cities, not because they are settlements. Top army officials have even supported certain settlements, citing security reasons. They argue that having a Jewish presence in areas like Gaza makes it easier for the Israeli army to operate and do their job.
There is also a very widespread belief among the pro-disengagement camp that giving away Gaza and expelling the Jewish residents will cause a US policy change to allow Israel to keep the larger settlement blocks in the West Bank.
First of all, George Bush's implicit stance on the issues raised remains just that - implicit. As Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post pointed out, at no time did Bush explicitly state that Washington's official policy will be that Israel can keep certain settlement blocks. Moreover, this is not the first time that a US president has made such statements. Even Bill Clinton stated that Israel would not be expected to withdraw to its 1948 borders.
And not only is it incorrect to believe that if we give Gaza to the terrorists, then the US will allow us to keep large settlement blocks, it is an insult to any independent country to have a foreign government try to dictate to them where they are or aren't allowed to be in their own homeland. Israel is an independent country, and no country has the right to "allow" her to hold onto parts of her land. It should be irrelevant what the US "allows". And to all those who would jump on that and accuse me of implying we should ignore the world, let it be known that is not what I mean. I was not implying we should ignore the US and be isolated in the global political arena, but rather that we should draw the line when the US violates its mandate and attempts to control our local politics.
Then, there is the demographic argument. Disengagement supporters claim that if we don't pull out of Gaza, Israel will cease to exist as a "Jewish and democratic state". Countless times, I have heard this ridiculous statement, even in more mainstream press like the Jerusalem Post. This argument makes no sense, because the implication is that if we stay in Gaza then we would have to absorb and give full citizenship to all the Arabs living there. Therefore, the argument goes, because we cannot do this, we have to pull out of there and separate ourselves.
First of all, staying in Gaza obviously does not mean we have to give all the Arabs living there citizenship. With that logic, there is a problem with Jewish sovereignty in the Galilee and Negev, because soon enough, the demographic problem will be so bad there that we will have to "disengage" from there, as well. Obviously, one would not apply that logic to the Galilee and Negev; therefore, it should not be applied to Gaza.
As a colleague of mine pointed out to me, Jewish presence in parts of Biblical Israel is no cause or reason alone for Arabs to be unable to live there also. The extent to which a "Jewish presence" causes 'difficulties' for the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza is not due to settlers, to Jews, living there, it is due to their society's and religion's embrace of terrorism. It is due to their savage murder of Israelis. It is their responsibility to take charge of their society. If they didn't kill and murder and steal and hurt us, if their imams didn't call for jihad, if they didn't send 13-year-olds to blow themselves up, then they would have all the same civil liberties that we do. Our right to life, our right to exist as a Jewish People in the Land of Israel, supercedes their 'civil right' to freedom of movement when they abuse that right and become murderers.
For true equality, they need to take responsibility for their actions. 'Noble' liberals such as Yossi Beilin threaten true equality. For them, the belief that Arabs can actually be held responsible for their own society, that Arabs could actually live peacefully with us, is a myth. Therefore, we must separate ourselves from them to ensure 'peace'. We must make sure there aren't too many Arabs in Israel, because, aside from the problem of the vote, who wants to live next to an Arab? That is the 'liberal' thinking in Israel. This double standard, this hypocrisy, is deplorable. For them, the conclusion is that the Jews abandon their Biblical homeland, so they are separated from the Arabs. This should not be. Jews will stay in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Arabs better just get used to it and accept it, and learn how to get along with us. And if they can't, we shouldn't be the ones who have to leave. These 'liberals' are confusing the arsonist with the firefighter.
Ripping Jews out of their homes simply because they are Jewish is discriminatory and racist. It is fascinating that many no longer even feel the need to cloak this discrimination, with many explicitly referring to the need to dismantle "Jewish settlements" and not even bothering to veil the term by referring to them as "Israeli settlements". What bothers many so much about "settlements" isn't the settlements, but it is the idea of, the horror of, having to have a Jewish neighbor.
For the Arabs, this is out of pure hatred; and for others, especially 'leftist' Jews, it is the fear of the empowerment and strength that may be given to the Right and to the religious sectors of Israeli society if Jews are allowed to maintain their roots and attachment to such historic and religiously evocative areas. Michael Freund, a former advisor to Binyamin Netanyahu, stated this point powerfully in his op-ed in the Jerusalem Post on February 4th, 2004. He explained that the desire to expel Jews from Gaza because of their religious or ethnic identity is pure and simple racism. If there were Israeli Jews, Christians and Muslims, or American olim of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim origin, all would be allowed to stay and live in the "Disputed Territories" except for those that are Jewish. The only identifying mark that is of consequence is their religion, and if you are Jewish, then you aren't allowed to live in certain areas.
If Israeli settlers are expelled from Gaza, Israel will not be able to defend herself efficiently, as is pointed out by top army personnel and even by the Chief of Staff himself, Moshe Yaalon. Yaalon came out against the plan for security reasons, claiming that withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will only encourage more terror and make it easier for Arab terrorist groups to perpetrate attacks. Aside from many other top army officials sharing this opinion, the thoughts of the Chief of Staff should make it clear enough that it is completely incorrect that expelling the Jewish residents of Gush Katif would in any way improve Israel's security.
One of the most ridiculous pro-disengagement arguments I have heard is that if Israel pulls out, Hamas and other radical terrorist groups will lose support, because the Arabs will finally want to live in peace, what with the settlements gone. This is nothing more than a pipe dream. Israel has offered to compromise before and give up far more than Sharon is putting on the table now, and that has only resulted in increased terrorism. Additionally, under the Road Map and the Disengagement Plan, the areas destined to be under Palestinian autonomy will be completely demilitarized. Israel would retain control of the air above them, the sea and the land around them. I can think of no better excuse for Hamas and the PA to use after an Israeli withdrawal to continue their terror war against us than the fact that we are controlling everything around them.
Believing such a ridiculous idea - that the Arabs would give up their jihad against Israel after an Israeli withdrawal - shows a complete lack of understanding of the Palestinian Arab culture and their history. Never once in the Arab-Israeli conflict has compromise on the Israeli side been met with Arab acceptance and a decrease in Arab terror; in fact, it has had the exact opposite effect. There has been terrorism by Arabs against Jews before the state was even created, long before the current settlement enterprise. To deny this is denying factual history and ignoring the lessons from the past.
It is wrong to demonize a sector of the nation and blame them for Israel's security problems, when the exact same issue - terrorism - was on the agenda long before 1967. This, too, shows a complete lack of understanding of Israel's history and ignores decades of Arab terror against Jews.
So, let's call a spade a spade. I encourage every Zionist to oppose disengagement with all their might. It is time to direct the blame in the proper direction, and away from innocent settlers, who are the very ones fulfilling the Zionist dream. Any plan that will cause a rift in the nation and is based on rewarding murderers of Jews must be rejected vehemently. Let us stand strong together against division, and in favour of a unified people in our unified land.