Anything said here is said with the understanding that I do not live in Eretz Yisrael nor would I be eligible for military service, so my comments are made at arm's length. Also in no way is anything here intended as being anymore than advocacy for a point of view and no more. Whatever course of action one takes it must be under the guidance of Rabbinic authority.
Jews being uprooted from their homes and communities is hardly a novel historic event. It similarly not unusual that the displaced Jews would cede their homes to their oppressors. Yet the evacuation from Gaza would have Jews carrying out actions previously reserved for Cossack and Storm Troopers is now the mission of the IDF.
Any soldier in any army is trained to promote and defend his or her country. Any soldier is trained to obey orders. Therefore, tasking a soldier to act against his or her countrymen is contrary to a soldier's training. Additionally, if the corps is values based then the moral dilemma is intensified. Overlay, any sense of Jewish history and identity to the mix and the moral conundrum becomes surreal, a Jewish soldier in the Jewish army of the Jewish State, a state founded to offer haven from the insecurity of the diaspora to world Jewry is facing an direct order to put other Jews out of their homes.
Indeed news reports form Israel offer that special units are being formed with non-Jews and Leftists who do not have any moral objections to evicting Jews from their homes.
There are active concerns about potential military mutiny and mass civilian protests. The Sharon government has begun restricting the freedoms of speech, assembly and movement of persons possibly aligned with anti disengagement activities.
Talk is increasing when exactly the area will become a closed military zone, i.e. closed or limited access to media coverage. Without the prying eyes of cameras government agents, police and soldiers can act without restraint.
To argue that the disengagement is the product of a democratically elected government, this rings hollow. No one would deny a sense of betrayal when the fellow who declared "Read my lips--NO NEW TAXES" went ahead and raised them. Sharon a patron of settlements an alternative to the failed approaches of Mr. Barak and Rabin (A'H). Likud party predecessor Heruit was known for its vision of Jewish state on both banks of Jordan. The vote to go ahead with disengagement from Gaza was carried by a coalition combining part of Likud, Labor and Arabs and not the will of the people who elected Mr. Sharon. .
While it is commonplace for political enemies to ally for a joint purpose there is something far more troubling here- the Sharon government wishes to turn on those citizens who previously championed their ideals.
The societal fissures that disengagement has exposed within Eretz Yisrael wounds that may never completely heal.
The effect the planned disengagement has already taken on Israeli society is chilling. It defies logic that at a time the United States is encouraging democracy in the region and positive movement to reform is taking hold an Israeli government should feel compelled to repress its citizens to fulfill Washington's design.
All this would be worth it if of course peace and normal relations would result. However, peace resulting from the abandonment of GAZA is ambiguous at best. Compromise is perceived in the West as a way to resolving conflict to mutual satisfaction. The creativity to think outside the box to craft a conlusion is seen in Arab eyes as a lack of dedication to one's cause and therefore indicative of weakness. Consequently, emboldening the Arab leadership to set the bar even higher.
True, I do not know everything Mr. Sharon and his ministers know but given all there is to lose Is this really a good idea?
Latter
Bennie
No comments:
Post a Comment