Some Jews would go to the Galilee and the Negev to the border areas to do classic Zionist settlement activity. The problem is that in both places there are Arabs, either Bedouins or "regular" Arabs, who won't like having "settlers" around any more than the Arabs in Yesha do. The other Jews, the ex-settlers, will be in the center of the country working and/or learning Torah and where do you think the spiritual energy which went into settlement will go? Into KIRUV. There will be MORE of us all the time. The hareidim are starting to go into the army and the labor force, too. Nobody is going to stop having babies. All those leftists will have myriads of Jews covering Tel Aviv and environs like a blanket offering to help them put on tefillin, give out Shabbat candles on Friday, invite them to shiurim. Those people who want a secular Jewish democratic Israel would get all of this in their faces much more, in addition to the usual reports in the news of clashes between settlers and Arabs and police within the Green Line. Ask your leftist friends and acquaintances whether that is the kind of Israel they want. Add that to the usual issues of insecure borders. Dear G-d, what do the leftists want?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
What Do Leftists Want?
There is a famous quote from Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis, who in despair once asked, "What do women want? Dear G-d, what do women want?" I ask the same thing about leftists. Suppose the state of Israel should withdraw to the pre-Six Day War borders and all the Jews in the yishuvim would have to be in "Little Israel" somewhere, what would happen? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Hashem would do miracles to maintain the existence of Little Israel with the "Palestinian" state on its peculiar borders. But what would Israel look like socially. Where would all these Jews go and what would they (we) do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'm a leftist, and that's exactly what I want. Why do you assume I'm against the free practice of religion?
VP,
There are many who are against the free practice of religion. For example, when students at the Ohel Shem high school wanted to have a minyan to daven mincha, they met with harassment from the school administration, who claimed that outside agitators were at work. If you are not bothered by religious activism in your immediate vicinity, that is fine. I just want to ask you another question: If we are trying to make peace with our neighbors, why does "peace" mean Judenrein in all territories which fall under Arab rule? Arabs are allowed to live under Jewish rule, why not the opposite?
I also want to know what leftists want. They claim to be so politically correct and care for human rights, but when it comes to Jewish rights, they couldn't care less.
I just found this blog by Richard Silverstein and it seems to be a fest of attacking the relgious or the "settler".
Somehow it's not racist to attack settlers, or rabbis, or religiousity.
Can't figure out what planet they fell from.
As to settling the Galil, negev. Many a leftie and even some liberal frummies have said to me " why not settle the Galil and Negev?"
Nothing wrong with that, but why isn't Yariv Kaponheimer leading his Intermarried American for Peace now in building yishuvim in the galil or Negev?
In fact, why was there never a Degania gimel or a daled? Why doesn't the left build settlements inside the green line?
>I just want to ask you another question: If we are trying to make peace with our neighbors, why does "peace" mean Judenrein in all territories which fall under Arab rule? Arabs are allowed to live under Jewish rule, why not the opposite?
If you accept, as the Palestinians, the UN, and most countries in the world do, that Israel has no right to let its civilians populate the West Bank, then each settlement is illegal, and should be removed, or at least compensated for in a mutual agreement. The Palestinians view the settlements as illegal and want them removed. Them and everyone living in them, whom they view as something akin to illegal immigrants. In any case, the Palestinians believe they are not entitled to Palestinian citizenship, and, as they are there illegally, should be deported.
Viewed from such a perspective, it's obvious why Jewish settlements in the West Bank are different from Arab villages in Israel. The Arabs in those villages are citizens of Israel, and have been recognized as such since the Founding. It would be impossible and illegal to kick them out.
If Israel gives the Palestinians East Jerusalem, however, I imagine Israel might insist that those Arabs currently living in EJ not be eligible for citizenship. But there really isn't an Israeli analogue to the situation.
In theory, had the state of Palestine been established in 1948, it would have behooved the Palestinian government to extend the same courtesy to the Jews living there, i.e. let them become citizens.
That's one way of looking at it.
VP, You are assuming that the UN and the world leaders are objective, law abiding , non human rights violating people.
Don't you ever wonder why the San Remo and the Balfour Declaration are just shoved away and not taken into consideration? Those were legal binding actions for the creation of the Jewish State.
Being that no Palestinian state was created in 1947, nor between 1949-1967, it would be fair to say that the Palestinians rejected that they had a claim to the land. They rejected the borders, so how can they turn around and claim them as theirs. Kind of backward.
Then the world goes around and claims that the Palestinians have the right of return. What about the Jewish refugees from Arab countries ? Where are their rights? Should the rights of the Palestinians be compensated more than the Jews. Seems racist and a total human rights violation of the jews if you ask me.
>Being that no Palestinian state was created in 1947, nor between 1949-1967, it would be fair to say that the Palestinians rejected that they had a claim to the land.
That doesn't follow at all. If I take $500 out of your wallet, and offer to give you $100, and you refuse, does that mean you renounce the right to any of the original $500? Obviously not.
>They rejected the borders, so how can they turn around and claim them as theirs. Kind of backward.
Not sure what you mean to suggest here. Are you saying that because the Palestinian rejected the Green Line in 1947, they have no right to ask for it now? Do you mean to say that the Palestinians would be better off still claiming the entire land of Israel from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. I don't understand. You've succeeded in getting the Palestinians to compromise, and now you want to tell them that because they compromised, they lose?
>Then the world goes around and claims that the Palestinians have the right of return. What about the Jewish refugees from Arab countries ? Where are their rights?
You want to take up their rights, go ahead. The UN has never argued that Jews expelled from Arab countries do not have a right of return. It's just not a particularly prominent issue, because I do not believe that too many Israelis are clamoring to go back to Libya right now. But I'm sure a settlement of claims will be a focal point of the discussions between Israel and those countries, when they meet to open diplomatic relations.
VP,
How can people who were 1/7 of the current population of Israel possibly have owned the full 500 dollars?Especially since most immigrated to the area in the 1900's. Shouldn't they go back to where they came from?
It's obvious that they did not fill the land to the brim.
It's totally ludicrous for them to even think that Jerusalem should be part of their staten when Jews were the majority of that city.
Also, The palestinians have in NO way compromised. On all of their media they do not use the word " Israel", They have Palestine in it's place. The right of return is their way of filling the state of Israel with Palestinians and therefore making Israel and Palestine into Arab states.
They might be looking like they are compromising, but they are not.
>How can people who were 1/7 of the current population of Israel possibly have owned the full 500 dollars?
I'm not sure what you're basing your data on, but it's wrong. In 1890, there were 43,000 Jews in the area, and 432,000 Muslims. In other words, Muslims outnumbered Jews by a factor of 10 to 1. In 1914, there were 94,000 Jews, and 525,000 Muslims, still a large Muslim majority.
>Especially since most immigrated to the area in the 1900's. Shouldn't they go back to where they came from?
Though there has been a consistent Jewish population in the area, up until the 20th century, it was very small. Most of the Jewish population by the start of World War II was a result of the First through Fifth Aliyot (1881-1939). After World War II and and the establishment of the State, even more immigrants came. I hope you wouldn't say that the Jews should go back where they came from.
>On all of their media they do not use the word " Israel", They have Palestine in it's place. The right of return is their way of filling the state of Israel with Palestinians and therefore making Israel and Palestine into Arab states.
Listen, I don't watch all of Palestinian media, and I doubt you do either. In any case, the Palestinian government calls Israel and speaks to Israeli officials and recognizes Israel.
VP, It doesn't matter who was the majority. It matters what was there. There are now well over 7 million people living in the country. But if you must know, they were barely 250,000 in 1882, the population grew in the 1900's. (A History of Israel, howard sachar)
Also, what right did the Muslims have to conquer the area in the first place? Who are they to walk in and colonize land that is not theirs?
No, I won't say that Jews should go back where they came from because they came from ISRAEL.. they are just coming home.. They never gave up ownership.
And yes I do watch Palestinian media all the time on Palwatch.org.. Such hateful things on there that show that the "1967 borders" are a phase in their plan to get all of Israel.
>VP, It doesn't matter who was the majority.
Then why bring it up?
>But if you must know, they were barely 250,000 in 1882, the population grew in the 1900's. (A History of Israel, howard sachar)
Clearly, there's a difference of opinion here, but I don't think anyone argues that there were more Jews than Arabs before 1948.
>Also, what right did the Muslims have to conquer the area in the first place? Who are they to walk in and colonize land that is not theirs?
This is pointless. If you believe that Israel is G-d's land that he gave to the Jews, then reason or arguments or proof don't matter. If you think that a constant minority population for 2000 years numbering in the low thousands is enough to "claim ownership" over a territory forever and ever and anyone else who comes along and populates a place is a conquering trespasser, then fine. Believe what you want. But don't act surprised when nobody else outside of people who share your religious beliefs thinks you're right.
>And yes I do watch Palestinian media all the time on Palwatch.org.. Such hateful things on there that show that the "1967 borders" are a phase in their plan to get all of Israel.
Sure, but you don't watch all of Palestinian media. All you watch are, by definition, programs that have objectionable content.
Post a Comment