The problem is that there is a segment of the population that does not believe in realpolitik and in objective practicality in political decisions, but believes rather that if Jews are tough at all costs, and do what (they believe) G-d wants us to do, which is something like fight on behalf of Israel against all odds because we are in the times of final redemption, treat the Palestinians like the Sheva Amim because that’s G-d’s will, and take G-d’s revenge against our enemies, then we will undoubtedly be successful, contra to all common sense, because G-d will be on our side and the days of the third temple are almost upon us.
This is very similar to the extremists in late Bayit Sheni who believed in fighting the Romans at all costs, believing in all certainty that if we did so, and fought G-d’s battle no matter the cost, then he will certainly come to our aid and save us, because the final redemption was just around the corner.
Ultimately this approach destroyed the temple, killed millions of Jews in the most brutal way, ejected us from most of Israel, and brought untold generations of trauma and suffering on the Jewish people. History and common sense teach that this is a terribly wrong approach.
This is a completely inaccurate reading of your opponents, and it behooves you to understand their position, if only to argue against them more successfully.
Those in favor of reconquest of Gaza view the realpolitik of the past 20 years to be a colossal failure: it brought upon Israel's central cities a rain of rockets, a loss of personal security, and arm-twisting from the governments of the world. It led ddirectly to the events of 7 October. In fact, the bill of sale for the disengagement included a veritable Garden of Eden of peace, tranquility and economic flourishing which in retrospect is so fantastical that it is positively messianic in nature. Again, because it is so ludicrous: the left (along with their turn-coat Sharon who betrayed his voters by any measure of political integrity) made messianic promises of peace and prosperity that literally blew up in our faces, cost us dearly in lives, staggeringly in money, and unforgivingly in security.
They see the return to Gaza as an admission of all the above, and the honest reassessment that the Disengagement was a failure. Recall that the US did not pressure Israel into it, it was strictly an Israeli suggestion. A rational actor walks back their failures, and doubling down on failures is the sign of lunacy. And yet, the architects of that failure now, in an effort to hide their guilt for a monumental error, claim irrationally that this is the only rational way forward! The temerity is breathtaking.
The call for a return to Gaza is far from the approach that destroyed the temple. Not every suggestion that is slightly less peaceful in the short term than your opinion is extremist and can be compared to the Sicarii. This black-and-white thinking is not helpful to planning Israel's policy, it just closes down an avenue of legitimate thought with panic and ad-hominem. A significant segment of Israel's population (make no mistake, this is no fringe element or even mostly the religious right) sees this as a legitimate and reasonable potential way forward, and will lead to lasting security and stability.
You can disagree all you want - but don't mischaracterize your adversary's position, and don't make silly comparisons.
It is legitimate and rational to consider reversal seriously. Rejecting it outright and then fumbling to come up with moral, political, legal reasons it is wrong - that is irrational. It may be the only hope forward, and to close ourselves to it instead of developing arguments in its support, even if only as a potential course of action, is dangerous. The extremist action was leaving Gaza on the unrealistic promises of the secular messianism that we were fed. It rightly shocked the world. We should not hold ourselves bound by our terrible mistakes, and commit to doubling-down on them.
An example of that was the Iran nuclear deal. Killing the deal let Iran go off to the races to get nuclear weapons, AFTER getting the bribes that got it to agree to inspections.
Mevaseretzion, my original comment was not referring to people who want to take a calculatedly tougher position against Palestinians for thoughtful reasons, believing that in many cases that stronger positions against the enemy yield better results. There’s room for that and in many cases it’s right (for example, I believe the US should currently take a stronger position against Iran). I was talking instead about a large portion of the far right whose beliefs are influenced by quasi-messianic ideas and very literal readings of many parts of Tanach as instructions for modern day Israel, including ideas about killing foreign nations and driving them out of Israel and taking exacting revenge against G-d’s enemies for the glory of G-d and Israel. These factions are no longer as small as they used to be, and are turning into a huge problem for Israel, as they were in late ancient times.
Religious Jews read the Torah's commandments as binding. The literal readings you refer to are codified by Maimonides, declared operative by Nachmanides, and there really is no rishon who reads these verses non-bindingly. As an orthodox Jew, I am bound by halakha and these "readings...as instructions" are a guide to my thinking and actions.
However, the curious situation we find ourselves in is one where transfer, establishment of sovereignty and settlement are not only halakhically desirable and morally defensible, but also practically defensible responses to the catastrophic dead-end to which Israel's left's policies have led, as I explained above.
Exactly proving my point. If we are finding these positions among online readers of Rationalist Judaism, how much more so many times over are they present among other segments of the population.
I’m not even getting into the halachic question of whether rules about kibbush and Sheva Amim and milchemet mitzva and others are applicable today, which is very debatable; I’m just pointing out that these views are gaining more and more traction and adherents, which over time will make us more and more similar in many ways to fundamentalist Muslims and other such groups, only with different sources for our beliefs, and this will ultimately redound very negatively for Israel’s future.
Sounds like imagined danger of seeming like a fundamentalist Muslim is enough for you to hesitate about halkha itself, because I don't think they are debatable. Tell me which rishon says the category of milhemet mitzvah (eg. עזרת ישראל מיד כל צר שבא עליהם) is inapplicable today, I know of not one. If indeed the weight of halakhic literature supports these issues as being relevant, will your fear of "sounding Muslim" still trump your fealty to halakha?
Saying these halakhot make us more like fundamentalist Muslims is only possible if you ignore the very real contextual and practical differences between a peace loving country and religion like Israel and Judaism, and a convert-by-the-sword religion and culture like funamentalist Islam. It is only possible if you are blind to the basic difference between offensive and defensive postures. I don't think we have the luxury of worrying about people who ignore those differences.
is defined by the Rambam as when we're attacked. He didn't make it up, nor did he derive it using some דיוק. It's straight from the ירושלמי. Given that the בבלי doesn't argue, how is it debatable?
"Sheva Amim"
Does anyone, except the Arabs claims they still exist today?
True, but in the times of the Roman wars we were very far from the year 6000 and many sages correctly opined that it was much too early for the geulah. There's a much stronger argument now for that line of thinking in 5784, after the beginning of kibbutz galuyot, for better or worse. Worth noting that Rabbi Akiva still supported bar Kochba.
Well, actually....yes i do. It's mainstream Judaism to believe Moshiach will not come by that time? Who disagrees? If the year 6000 comes and goes with no moshiach or geulah, would Judaism not have a major problem? I would have thought so.
It isn't universal: look at the Rambam end of hilchos teshuvah perek cheis with Raavad and Frankel's mafte'ach as a start. Off the top of my head, also the Rashba has a long teshuvah about the Rambam's shitah on this.
No, because as the Acharonim on hil teshuvah 8:8 point out, it's clear from moreh nevuchim what the Rambam holds: see beer eliezer, ben yedid, maaseh nissim, and avodas hamelech. See also teshuvos Rashba 1:9, Meiri intro to Avos ד"ה והיה זה אמנם and Abarbanel mifalos elokim 7:3.
"Transfer" is propaganda-speak for "ethnic cleansing".
The folks who want to "transfer" Gaza residents, or "repopulate" Gaza with Israelis, need to read Articles 47 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel voluntarily signed and ratified. Both are banned, as is annexation. These violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the main reasons why Israel is considered a pariah by much of the world. :( That Hamas wants to do even worse to Jews, and that the accusations of "Apartheid" or "Genocide" against Israel are lies, is not seen as justification for violating a treaty that Israel is a party to.
Incorrect. The reason Israel is considered a pariah by much of the world is, quite simply, because much of the world is anti-Semitic. They are very happy to watch Israel wrestle with the dangers of a genocidal enemy on all its borders, while taking away from Israel the right to the very actions they would (and have!) committed when faced by similar threats.
There is no country in the world which would not annex territory from which offensive wars of annihilation were repeatedly launched at them. I know the feeling that Europeans and Americans feel, safely finger-shaking at Israel from behind a shield of military power that solidified itself committing these very acts. I also lived in the US once, and I too have felt the detached smugness of moral paternalism, aware of (and hoping quietly that no one else would remember) that my own security, safety, and armed supremacy is based on far more violent and aggressive military action than Israel has ever taken.
You really think that annexing Gaza and the West Bank is going to end anti-Semitism and terrorism? You are delusional. Remember that annexation means making all the inhabitants of the annexed area into full citizens of the annexing power.
Who said this would end anti-Semitism? That is an age-old problem, one which our tradition explains and one which I doubt anyone will end any time soon. In fact, part of the delusion of secular Zionism was that they could end it - while those who see it in historiographic, ideological terms were much more realistic about its unabating nature.
As for terror - I don't think we can end terrorism at large, but we can certainly eliminate terror against us from Gaza if we depopulate it of the hostile inhabitants currently residing there.
As for your final sentence, transfer of the hostile elements of the current population is what is being suggested.
The United States annexed about a third of Mexico in 1848. Armed Mexicans who were fighting and killing Americans just a year earlier still became US citizens, and subject to US law. There were some big changes as a result, one of which was that religions other than the Roman Catholic Church became legal. (This would happen in what was left of Mexico in 1857.) The only way the Mexicans could avoid that was to move to what was left of Mexico. Most of the Mexicans in what is now California seem to have moved south, but most of the Mexicans in what is now Texas seem to have stayed (and their descendents still dominate life in south Texas; they are known as Tejanos). That is what is required in an annexation. You don't have to like it, but that is the definition of annexation.
I think you were the one to bring up annexation, not I. I think you are using that term to try to ignore what it is many in Israel are suggesting. First and foremost, the suggestion is the transfer of the hostile Arab population out of Gaza. This is sepcifically so that they are no longer a threat to Israel as they have been up until now.
After that, if there is a largely depopulated area (which, by the way, is halakhically considered part of Israel), it is reasonable for Israel to annex that depopulated area, and allow its development by Israeli citizens at large.
I care about the people of Gaza the way I would have cared about the people of Georgia and South Carolina while Sherman was marching through. The Confederates got the war they wanted and suffered the consequences. FWIW some of my ancesters were South Carolina Confederates.
Nevertheless the State of Israel is still bound by international law in the treaties it signed and ratified.
And to call ethnic cleansing "merciful" is monstrous. Within the lifetimes of many of us there have been huge numbers of Jews were victims of it. To suggest that is to lower yourself to the level of the Nazis and the evil Arabs. And it adds ammunition to the anti-Semites who see us as the same or worse as Hamas.
The entire population didn’t celebrate the attack. Moreover what happened on 7-Oct isn’t even being shown to Gazans. They are being told by the Arabic language media that this was a military operation only. Nothing about the rape and killing of unarmed civilians including children.
Since you mention Mein Kampf, do you believe that all Germans in Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate Jews? Was the solution there to displace all Germans to an island or to defeat and replace the leaders?
Why do you still care about the Geneva Convention, when the body that promulgated those laws has lost all moral standing and now judges you at the Hague for causing October 7th?
No, you're not allowed to throw around the words "Geneva Convention" while demonstrating a clear lack of knowledge that the way you are describing them is an *interpretation* made specifically so as to attack Israel, and is of course disputed by serious and learned people.
You can't wave it around, and invoke Nazis, without acknowledging that the custodians of said convention, the ICRC, have revealed themselves (recently, although they did the same in World War II) as amoral if not immoral monsters and anti-Semites.
Need I remind you of what happened in the Hague last week?
That all depends if you're making a moral argument or a pragmatic one.
All these treaties and conventions have had an inadvertent effect of making war cheap for the instigating party. An aggressor can start a war, kill thousands as long as they follow the rules. And if they weaponize the rules, they're certain to find defenders in South Africa or MSNBC. These international laws are the inheritance of bloodthirsty white Europeans who spent the past thousand years killing each other. While Europeans haven't matured morally, they have at least past the toddler stage. The Geneva Convention is a testament to that moral development, stunted as it is. Little kids recognize the rudimentary concepts of rules and fair play, but they also find excuses to find exceptions or apply them incorrectly when it serves their selfish interests.
All of the above is a moral argument. How it fits into realpolitik, and Israeli's reputation among naive but decent people is another matter. I don't know how far Israel will get by using logical and moral arguments.
So the Europeans had their fun and then closed the barn door *just* as the Jews got themselves the power to have some fun of their own. Isn't that con-ven-i-ent.
ART.47.— Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever,of the benefits ofthe present Convention by any change introduced,as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory,nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power,nor by any annexation by the latter ofthe whole or part ofthe occupied territory.
ART. 49.— Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations ofprotected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that ofany other country, occupied or not,are prohibited,regardless oftheir motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation ofa given area ifthe security ofthe population or imperative military reasons so demand.Such evacuations may not involve the displacement ofprotected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons,that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health,safety and nutrition,and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers ofwar unless the security ofthe population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
----------------------------
I am not the one without knowledge here. The language is crystal clear. No annexations. Minimal, and only temporary, transfers of the occupied population. And no settlement of your own population. Period. The Nazis did all of these things. Israel signed and ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention voluntarily. That the ICRC is anti-Semitic is irrelevant.
While I agree with you that the transfer of Palestinians cannot happen any time in the near future because of all the reasons you mentioned, I don't think talking about it or having an event is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I believe that it is good thing for Israel. Here is why.
We are all aware of the pro Palestinian protesters rallying cry "From the river to the sea". They do not accept the right of any Jew living in Israel. There are NO Jews living in Gaza or Palestinian villages/cities. Is it so bad for the world to see how people had enough and no longer want to live with Palestinians? Note that the worlds reaction after Gaza elected Hamas was "The Palestinian people are frustrated."
Politically, I believe this was a "win" for Israel. Biden is under pressure from many in his party and in turn pressures Israel. He took a major political hit from the support he has given Israel which may cost him the election. Because of this event, Netanyahu was able to tell Biden "I am also taking a hit from my coalition by agreeing with you that we will not resettle Gaza"
It goes against the US moral code. Right now it does. But "From the river to the sea does not go against the moral code of many." Why not? The difference is the microphone. There are many people talking, making events, writing pro Palestinian propaganda while the are a lot less of these that are pro Israel. We are being creamed in the public relations war. In the war for hearts and minds. Part of that is the underdog mentality. People like rooting for the underdog - the trampled. I believe a movement saying Gaza is OUR land! We were forcibly removed but now we want it back from the Palestinian occupiers. Such arguments would help swing the underdog pendulum in the opposite direction.
I have great respect for you and everything you write. The point of this post is to show that this is a very complicated topic and that there can be rational reasons for why it may be a good thing. As such, I don't think your friends should be upset at you for thinking how you think. Nor should you be upset at them for how they think.
"I believe a movement saying Gaza is OUR land! We were forcibly removed"
Not so clear. It was never settled by Jews in ancient times. That has halachic implications. There were a few Jews there in early modern times (Ottoman census records have survived).
No. No land on which settlements in occupied territory have been built can be privately owned. Almost all land in the rest of Israel is owned by the Israeli government, the development authority, or the Jewish National Fund. The largest private landowner in Israel is the Orthodox Church. The govermnent control over land is one of Israel's Basic Laws, dating to 1960.
I think so. But when you lease land, and the landowner sells it, you may find your lease canceled, depending on the terms of the lease.
In about four months the daf yomi cycle will get to Bava Batra where we will learn what the Torah says about real estate. In the Land of Israel, you aren't supposed to be able to buy or sell land permanently, outside of certain cities. But there are a lot of details.
“I believe a movement saying Gaza is OUR land! We were forcibly removed but now we want it back from the Palestinian occupiers. Such arguments would help swing the underdog pendulum in the opposite direction.”
Gazas are the underdogs because they are building rockets out of recycled pipes and dud munitions while being blockaded by Israel and Egypt, two countries with a large supply of modern weapons, billions of dollars of which come from the US and which are now being resupplied by the US. In the meantime, Gaza was never part of Israel even after Israel conquered it from Egypt, occupied it and kept it after returning the Sinai. The argument you propose makes Israel look like deranged bullies, not underdogs.
The long range rockets (which are not advanced weapons) are manufactured in Gaza. Some of the anti-tank munitions are smuggled in through the tunnels in parts and others are made in Gaza. You are right that things get smuggled in through the tunnels and some of it comes from Iran. I believe that most of Iran’s help (according to Israel) comes from training and money which is used to then purchase smuggled weapons. Qatar has also been giving them money with Israeli approval. Hamas has been effective at arming themselves to some extent but Israel has an overwhelming advantage. Which of course led to the complacency that allowed 7-Oct to happen. But Hamas are still the underdogs.
Natan, thanks for writing and posting this vital reality check, even though you must have known the kind of response you would get from many in your audience.
In over 60 years of watching our conflict with the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, I’ve come to the disconcerting conclusion that among a number of things the two sides have in common, the worst is a wish-fulfillment type denial of reality. At its deepest level it's characterized by the fantasy that at some point the other side will just give up and go away — *poof!* — and vanish like a bad dream.
You'd think it would be obvious after decades of bloody struggle that such a fantasy will never come true. But judging from the statements of many who have commented ahead of me, it lives on in the subconscious of many who can't or won’t admit it, and shamelessly dominates the frontal cortex of some, both here and at the extreme right of Bibi's cabinet.
The idea of moving out the present population of Gaza so Israelis can move in is just as completely fantastical and unrealistic. The world, including Israel's friends, won't allow it. It was good that you said so, even though so many here are unable to digest and comprehend the valid reasons you provided.
In general, these are the same people who believe that Israel, one of the world's smallest nations, will be just fine if it becomes a pariah state like the more self-sufficient South Africa used to be. Or they are the people who think that our endlessly repeating that “God gave us this land!” is actually convincing or meaningful in today's secularized world and counts as a sane argument. (Rather than being Torah-based, our claim to the land should rely on the historical fact of our being the nation Rome forcibly dispossessed.)
Until both sides wake up from their ceaseless dreaming and seriously grapple with reality, we are doomed to repeat the tragic, horrific cycle of death, destruction, mourning, and hatred that brings misery, but never true victory, to both sides.
We are the people who introduced what the secular world calls the Golden Rule. Both Jews and Muslims claim to honor it. How different the world would be if both peoples had striven to apply it from the moment the first modern Zionist came ashore. I guess that's my unreal fantasy.
We've just displaced 2 million people. The time is exactly right to make this displacement permanent. The more you talk about something, the more acceptable it becomes. Every single voice in Israel and diaspora should be calling for the resettlement of this murderous people. No one has any illusions anymore. Educating the world works. Get those PR machines going!
"If you can’t relate to that objection, then try to imagine how you’d feel if a left-wing organization had a new idea for a two-state solution and decided that now would be a good time to celebrate it with a big party."
One can go further - try to imagine how one would feel if a left-wing organization had a party about removing West Bank settlements.
Most Jews in Russia figured that it was time to get rid of the Czar and try something different. Just because something is different doesn't mean that it will be an improvement!
That right-wing nut Joshua with his whole "Torah" that he got from his teacher Moses, who, by the way did not have the guts to actually implement the plan, is going to cause the people of Israel utter ruination with his plan to occupy all of Canaan and forcibly remove the Canaanite and Emorite etc. populations. If only we could show him the light.
This essay perfectly encapsulates the true Jewish problem: not actually being committed in any way to what the Torah demands of us. The ultimate cherry-picking of Jewish observance. Repent now.
You are hitting on a key point here that should be addressed in a full article. There is Theological confusion abound about what Gd wants from us at these moments and moving forward with policy. The Biblical narratives vs the current political reality. As you say, there are a million opinions on what, if any, "inspiration" the Torah's precedents should be for us. Obviously, Gd does not speak to us, but others will say that the Torah is Toras Chaim and supposed to be a model. Maaseh Avos Siman L'Bonim, etc. Isn't that what every parsha drasha does? When we learn Tanach, how much should we copy and how much was just history? This is a big question that needs understanding.
Did he also call for the expulsion of all non-Jews? I am sure he would have loved to see the Crusaders expelled (and that would happen a few decades after his death, thanks to the Mamluks).
We're current engaged in כיבוש הארץ of land that most of the world admit belongs to us. I think it would be advisable to continue in that aspect of the מצוה and worry about the הידורים later.
I was referring to the land surrounding עזה. It's not secure now, and hence we're currently reconquering it. Note whom I was addressing. He's talking about settling Gaza while established & recognized legitimate settlements are not yet secure. Much of the world is insisting on a end to this war that will be inconclusive and will reduce ישוב הארץ in those areas. Resettling Gaza is not a priority now. In fact, such talk and rallies sabotages כיבוש הארץ.
Just a word of advice. Ending an argument with “repent now” makes one sound like a nut yelling on a street corner with a megaphone about the imminent end of the world.
You cannot complain about an "ad-homonym" (sic) attack, when you have been condescendingly pronouncing the will of God and the Torah, without deigning to even give a source. You coyly suggest that you are simply "shocked" and "bewildered" by the ignorance of your fellow Jews. Talk about argumentum ad-hominem.
My comment is serious. Argument to do something by the direct authority of God without regard to politics practicality or morality is a faulty method that resembles the reasoning of Hamas.
Let me guess….youre a member of the Judeans People’s Front, or perhaps the People’s Front of Judea..? Doesn’t really matter both were slaughtered by the Romans…
You are spouting out names of logical fallacies without ever remediating your argument. Other than your personal interpretation of what you believeto be God's messages, what are you basing your argument on?
Actually the permanent ceasefires with Egypt and Jordan continue to hold decades later. The lesson is that Land for Peace works. The withdrawal from Gaza was Land for Nothing. That didn't work.
You haven't find the theory of everything. Let's go through Israel's neighbors and see if your theory works.
Lebanon: Israel is not holding their land. No peace
Syria: Israel annexed the Golan Heights. Relatively peaceful, and better than pre-67
Jordan: What land?
Iraq: Attacked Israel in 1991 despite no land dispute
Iran: Attacks Israel through its proxies despite no land dispute
Qatar: Attacks Israel through its proxies despite no land dispute
PLO: On the record that any land acquired would be use as a base for further attacks. The Palestinian Charter lays claim to the whole region. And PLO activity in the past shows their territorial ambitions extend to Jordan and Lebanon.
" Land for Nothing"
No, that was land for peace. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean you can change the facts.
We have to stop to make wars like gentlemen. Officially, sure it is temporary. Then on the ground, you create the conditions for an unfortunate breach in the Egyptian borders etc. Turkey has become an expert at pretending to control or nor control its border (letting people in or out of Syria to fight the Americans or the Kurds or the Iranians).
Everyone understands what that means and Israeli's culpability; your idea (besides the immorality of it) is completely transparent. Also, Egypt is an ally in the fight against Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. We are not going to do something to their border.
Then you will have to suffer the consequences such as the deaths of innocent israelis AND civilian deaths in Gaza (that the world will continously blame on you and only you).
It was a very stupid event. This was virtue signalling. Useless sloganeering that is counter-productive. This was a solipsistic act that will only antagonize the world. To be sure, the war will allow itself to be antagonized anyway. But we should choose such antagonisms wisely. Right now, the priority must be to win the war on our terms, despite what the world thinks. What we will do with the peace, is a luxury we have yet to achieve.
In order for their silly plan to work, Israel needs to win this war and not end up with the hudna demanded by the UN and State Department. A hudna will indeed turn any notion of resettling Gaza a fantasy. But the gov't is under tremendous pressure from outside forces, as well as domestic forces demanding the gov't accept any deal imposed by Hamas in exchange for the hostages. This well funded pressure group is quite willing to release all the terrorists and restore Hamas to achieve their justified goals. I can't blame the families. But they are wrong. The Shalit deal costs thousands of lives.
Where is the counter-pressure? If BG and his people can muster a crowd of 3000 for a not very popular agenda, why not gather a demonstration several times that size opposing a hostage deal that will make it impossible to resettle Gaza or any community just outside it. There should have several events this size across the country- but in support of finishing the war instead.
The war if fought to its conclusion will eliminate Hamas. The way Hamas fights means that an inadvertent but necessary consequence of the war will be that much of Gaza will be temporarily uninhabitable. This will necessitate a humanitarian emigration of Arabs to a better life elsewhere.
Putting the cart before the horse is counter productive. But Ben Gvir never did have much horse sense.
"(There was also a speech by MK Goldknopf of UTJ, for whom it’s very easy to take a hardline approach with the Palestinians, since his children and community aren’t going to fall in combat.)"
Aside from being a(n obligatory?) tasteless dig at Goldknopf, your comment points up why Gush Emunim types aren't likely to be impressed with your argument. The implication of your statement is that those participating are sacrificing their kids on the altar of Gush Katif. But if you actually bothered to listen to their slogan, you'd know that they believe that רק טרנספר יביא שלום. They just disagree with your prognostications about the fallout from pursuing such a policy. They think that the peace processors and disengagers and 'bitchonistim' are the ones responsible for paving the way towards the carnage on Oct 7th. They may or may not be delusional in that belief, but it's what they believe nonetheless. In order to rebut that, you have to actually explain why that's not a valid read of where we are and how we got here.
As to your emphatic, italicized insistence that, 'It is not going to happen' my guess is that their reply would be that plenty of people thought it was insane to think that the modern state of Israel would come into existence too. Armchair-non-zionist that I am, I hate to quote Herzl, but 'אם תרצו אין זו אגדה.'
We on the other hand have to take small careful steps. The immediate threat is the pressure to provide victory to the crippled Hamas and discredited PA. This threat is being ignored by those rightists at that rally. By skipping over the step of complete military victory, these rightists are implicitly in agreement with the far left who want to end the war now.
" I hate to quote Herzl, but 'אם תרצו אין זו אגדה.'"
Herzl was a pragmatist. He knew that concrete steps to the goal necessarily means temporary deviations from the ideal. He also knew that painful compromise was necessary to keep the various disparate Zionist movements together.
It may be a good idea to resettle Gaza. But it has to be done with pragmatic wisdom. When the opportunity presents itself, it should be considered. But now is not the time.
"The immediate threat is the pressure to provide victory to the crippled Hamas and discredited PA."
Huh? The people at that rally are opposed to any ceasefire. They want a complete and utter obliteration of Hamas. You can accuse them of lots of things, but underestimating the threat from Hamas ain't one of them.
"It may be a good idea to resettle Gaza. But it has to be done with pragmatic wisdom. When the opportunity presents itself, it should be considered. But now is not the time."
I don't think they're pushing to do it immediately. My understanding is that they want to have a group of 'Nachshonim' ready to move in as soon as an opportune moment arises.
"Huh? The people at that rally are opposed to any ceasefire."
Indeed. But they're making a public display in support of a policy that will dilute support for Israel. Already, there is global and American pressure to end the war inconclusively. The far right, by overplaying their hand, is playing into that pressure. They should be mounting counter demonstrations against the "hostage deal at any cost" crowd. If that crowd has their way, there will be no secured Gaza to resettle.
", but underestimating the threat from Hamas ain't one of them."
Indeed. But they are underestimating the "threat" (to the extent that the word is appropriate) from those pressure groups who are underestimating the threat from Hamas.
"I don't think they're pushing to do it immediately."
Indeed, they're not insane, unwise. But they are pushing it to be made policy immediately, even if its implementation will be delayed. And they're doing it publicly and brazenly in a fashion that will alienate the Americans and whatever "friends" we have. This when, there are more crucial battles to be fought.
"But they're making a public display in support of a policy that will dilute support for Israel. Already, there is global and American pressure to end the war inconclusively. The far right, by overplaying their hand, is playing into that pressure."
I largely agree with that, but my views and the views of those who share my worldview are irrelevant to the immediate present.
My sense is that Ben Gvir, at least, thinks that Israel can basically do what it feels like as long as it strikes a defiant tone and stops apologizing. He thinks that the more resolute and self assured Israel shows itself, the less the world will bother trying to apply pressure. Now, I tend to think that he's extremely misguided for thinking that, but given his *own* priors, that sort of bombastic rally he participated in was both wise morally *as well as strategically.*
You don't have to vote for any of them, if you're given no other choice. But don't reject the multicolored diversity of nutjobs. You've got cranks, crackpots, kooks, freaks, solipsists, loons, eccentrics, delusional prophets, goon squads, wingnuts, pinkos, moonbats, dingbats, tin foilers, flerfers, bleeding hearts, bleeding brains, kool aid drinkers, red pillers, avant garde luddites, fanatics, zealots, whackos, paranoiacs and dentists.
But sure, go ahead and tell yourself that there's no difference.
The biggest threat to Israel is not the Arabs but the Jews.
The Arabs are a problem but they are mostly outside Israel. It will take time, effort and a tragic loss of life but Israel can handle it.
The Jews are an altogether different threat in terms of arrogance or stupidity or lack of realism - with a resulting existential menace. internal dangers are IMHO worse than external ones.
Note that it was a Jew who murdered Rabin.
Note that the 2nd Temple was destroyed in large part by the (jewish) sicarii who in their extremism in burning the food stocks of a Jerusalem under siege and murdering anyone who would talk peace, brought on the loss of the Temple and the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Jews.
That a Government Minister talks about or implies nuking Gaza, other Ministers talk about expelling the Gazans, Bibi and others talk about Amalek : all of this foolish talk has alienated or reduced Israel's supporters and provided ammubition or fuel for the fire with which Israel's enemies wish to engulf it.
Our enemies are looking ofr ammunition - don't give it them.
All the bravado statements which these people use remind me of the little boy lying in bed alone at night saying: "I am not afraid of the dark" "I am not afraid of the dark" "I am not afraid of the dark".
Israel is dependent upon the USA for support at the UN, for arms and ammunition, aircraft spare parts, financial support etc. Other countries e.g. the EU can provide support for Israel - or opposition. If you don't care who is friendly with you at least don't encourage or increase your enemies.
More foolishness was seen prior to 7 October with the enmity and speech that the right and the left ( almost hatred ?) each poured on the other. By all means disagree - but do it in a menschlich way.
It is some (minimal) compensation that the horrific events of 7 October engendered ahavas yirsroel across all sectors of society - but human nature being what it is, this might dissipate when PG the situation gets better.
Arik Sharon was an outstanding general and hero of Israel and he was a realist. He saw the dangers of Gaza and that holding it would not be worth the cost - the danger of a continual loss of life from occupation, suicide bombers, snipers etc. As we see and he saw, military success in a constrained urban environment is the most difficult situation for an army at war. If Sharon thought it was not good for Israel even in a time of general peace to hold Gaza then who has the stature and experience to contradict him ?
The Gazans need somewhere to live. If Israel can achieve coexistence in peace with an Arab Gaza that surely is a victory ?
Actions speak louder than words but words are easy and they have consequences. All Israeli politicians, members of the Government and generals need to wake up to the reality that Israel is currently a small island in a sea of enmity. It is tough for Jews in the Diaspora, admittedly not (yet ) physically at the level that our Israeli families and friends face - but Jews overseas see a reality that Israelis in Israel may not be aware of. All public figures need to think about the international consequences of their words and not just of their local supporters and the next election.
I am glad we had the opportunity to have this online discussion. I have come to realize that this coming Saturday, refraining from cooking food and the like is basically impractical and really inconvenient, as it has been every week so far, so I have resolved that because of its impracticality and because of all those foreigners who view me as primitive for not driving a car on Saturday, etc., I am going to start to do so. And if some one points out the "Torah" says otherwise, then I just won't deal with that Torah.
The problem is that there is a segment of the population that does not believe in realpolitik and in objective practicality in political decisions, but believes rather that if Jews are tough at all costs, and do what (they believe) G-d wants us to do, which is something like fight on behalf of Israel against all odds because we are in the times of final redemption, treat the Palestinians like the Sheva Amim because that’s G-d’s will, and take G-d’s revenge against our enemies, then we will undoubtedly be successful, contra to all common sense, because G-d will be on our side and the days of the third temple are almost upon us.
This is very similar to the extremists in late Bayit Sheni who believed in fighting the Romans at all costs, believing in all certainty that if we did so, and fought G-d’s battle no matter the cost, then he will certainly come to our aid and save us, because the final redemption was just around the corner.
Ultimately this approach destroyed the temple, killed millions of Jews in the most brutal way, ejected us from most of Israel, and brought untold generations of trauma and suffering on the Jewish people. History and common sense teach that this is a terribly wrong approach.
This is a completely inaccurate reading of your opponents, and it behooves you to understand their position, if only to argue against them more successfully.
Those in favor of reconquest of Gaza view the realpolitik of the past 20 years to be a colossal failure: it brought upon Israel's central cities a rain of rockets, a loss of personal security, and arm-twisting from the governments of the world. It led ddirectly to the events of 7 October. In fact, the bill of sale for the disengagement included a veritable Garden of Eden of peace, tranquility and economic flourishing which in retrospect is so fantastical that it is positively messianic in nature. Again, because it is so ludicrous: the left (along with their turn-coat Sharon who betrayed his voters by any measure of political integrity) made messianic promises of peace and prosperity that literally blew up in our faces, cost us dearly in lives, staggeringly in money, and unforgivingly in security.
They see the return to Gaza as an admission of all the above, and the honest reassessment that the Disengagement was a failure. Recall that the US did not pressure Israel into it, it was strictly an Israeli suggestion. A rational actor walks back their failures, and doubling down on failures is the sign of lunacy. And yet, the architects of that failure now, in an effort to hide their guilt for a monumental error, claim irrationally that this is the only rational way forward! The temerity is breathtaking.
The call for a return to Gaza is far from the approach that destroyed the temple. Not every suggestion that is slightly less peaceful in the short term than your opinion is extremist and can be compared to the Sicarii. This black-and-white thinking is not helpful to planning Israel's policy, it just closes down an avenue of legitimate thought with panic and ad-hominem. A significant segment of Israel's population (make no mistake, this is no fringe element or even mostly the religious right) sees this as a legitimate and reasonable potential way forward, and will lead to lasting security and stability.
You can disagree all you want - but don't mischaracterize your adversary's position, and don't make silly comparisons.
It does not at all logically or necessarily follow that if an action was a mistake, the correct thing to do is to reverse the action.
It is legitimate and rational to consider reversal seriously. Rejecting it outright and then fumbling to come up with moral, political, legal reasons it is wrong - that is irrational. It may be the only hope forward, and to close ourselves to it instead of developing arguments in its support, even if only as a potential course of action, is dangerous. The extremist action was leaving Gaza on the unrealistic promises of the secular messianism that we were fed. It rightly shocked the world. We should not hold ourselves bound by our terrible mistakes, and commit to doubling-down on them.
An example of that was the Iran nuclear deal. Killing the deal let Iran go off to the races to get nuclear weapons, AFTER getting the bribes that got it to agree to inspections.
Mevaseretzion, my original comment was not referring to people who want to take a calculatedly tougher position against Palestinians for thoughtful reasons, believing that in many cases that stronger positions against the enemy yield better results. There’s room for that and in many cases it’s right (for example, I believe the US should currently take a stronger position against Iran). I was talking instead about a large portion of the far right whose beliefs are influenced by quasi-messianic ideas and very literal readings of many parts of Tanach as instructions for modern day Israel, including ideas about killing foreign nations and driving them out of Israel and taking exacting revenge against G-d’s enemies for the glory of G-d and Israel. These factions are no longer as small as they used to be, and are turning into a huge problem for Israel, as they were in late ancient times.
Religious Jews read the Torah's commandments as binding. The literal readings you refer to are codified by Maimonides, declared operative by Nachmanides, and there really is no rishon who reads these verses non-bindingly. As an orthodox Jew, I am bound by halakha and these "readings...as instructions" are a guide to my thinking and actions.
However, the curious situation we find ourselves in is one where transfer, establishment of sovereignty and settlement are not only halakhically desirable and morally defensible, but also practically defensible responses to the catastrophic dead-end to which Israel's left's policies have led, as I explained above.
Exactly proving my point. If we are finding these positions among online readers of Rationalist Judaism, how much more so many times over are they present among other segments of the population.
I’m not even getting into the halachic question of whether rules about kibbush and Sheva Amim and milchemet mitzva and others are applicable today, which is very debatable; I’m just pointing out that these views are gaining more and more traction and adherents, which over time will make us more and more similar in many ways to fundamentalist Muslims and other such groups, only with different sources for our beliefs, and this will ultimately redound very negatively for Israel’s future.
Sounds like imagined danger of seeming like a fundamentalist Muslim is enough for you to hesitate about halkha itself, because I don't think they are debatable. Tell me which rishon says the category of milhemet mitzvah (eg. עזרת ישראל מיד כל צר שבא עליהם) is inapplicable today, I know of not one. If indeed the weight of halakhic literature supports these issues as being relevant, will your fear of "sounding Muslim" still trump your fealty to halakha?
Saying these halakhot make us more like fundamentalist Muslims is only possible if you ignore the very real contextual and practical differences between a peace loving country and religion like Israel and Judaism, and a convert-by-the-sword religion and culture like funamentalist Islam. It is only possible if you are blind to the basic difference between offensive and defensive postures. I don't think we have the luxury of worrying about people who ignore those differences.
" milchemet mitzva "
is defined by the Rambam as when we're attacked. He didn't make it up, nor did he derive it using some דיוק. It's straight from the ירושלמי. Given that the בבלי doesn't argue, how is it debatable?
"Sheva Amim"
Does anyone, except the Arabs claims they still exist today?
Well said. These people would have voted against the State because it excluded parts of ארץ ישראל.
True, but in the times of the Roman wars we were very far from the year 6000 and many sages correctly opined that it was much too early for the geulah. There's a much stronger argument now for that line of thinking in 5784, after the beginning of kibbutz galuyot, for better or worse. Worth noting that Rabbi Akiva still supported bar Kochba.
And look where it got him….flayed to death…
Nu, all this time i thought R Akiva was flayed to death for teaching Torah publicly
Well, actually....yes i do. It's mainstream Judaism to believe Moshiach will not come by that time? Who disagrees? If the year 6000 comes and goes with no moshiach or geulah, would Judaism not have a major problem? I would have thought so.
It isn't universal: look at the Rambam end of hilchos teshuvah perek cheis with Raavad and Frankel's mafte'ach as a start. Off the top of my head, also the Rashba has a long teshuvah about the Rambam's shitah on this.
Rambam *could be interpreted* to mean something that almost everyone else argues on, not so compelling
No, because as the Acharonim on hil teshuvah 8:8 point out, it's clear from moreh nevuchim what the Rambam holds: see beer eliezer, ben yedid, maaseh nissim, and avodas hamelech. See also teshuvos Rashba 1:9, Meiri intro to Avos ד"ה והיה זה אמנם and Abarbanel mifalos elokim 7:3.
"Transfer" is propaganda-speak for "ethnic cleansing".
The folks who want to "transfer" Gaza residents, or "repopulate" Gaza with Israelis, need to read Articles 47 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel voluntarily signed and ratified. Both are banned, as is annexation. These violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the main reasons why Israel is considered a pariah by much of the world. :( That Hamas wants to do even worse to Jews, and that the accusations of "Apartheid" or "Genocide" against Israel are lies, is not seen as justification for violating a treaty that Israel is a party to.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf
The Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted because Nazi Germany had done all those things.
Incorrect. The reason Israel is considered a pariah by much of the world is, quite simply, because much of the world is anti-Semitic. They are very happy to watch Israel wrestle with the dangers of a genocidal enemy on all its borders, while taking away from Israel the right to the very actions they would (and have!) committed when faced by similar threats.
There is no country in the world which would not annex territory from which offensive wars of annihilation were repeatedly launched at them. I know the feeling that Europeans and Americans feel, safely finger-shaking at Israel from behind a shield of military power that solidified itself committing these very acts. I also lived in the US once, and I too have felt the detached smugness of moral paternalism, aware of (and hoping quietly that no one else would remember) that my own security, safety, and armed supremacy is based on far more violent and aggressive military action than Israel has ever taken.
You really think that annexing Gaza and the West Bank is going to end anti-Semitism and terrorism? You are delusional. Remember that annexation means making all the inhabitants of the annexed area into full citizens of the annexing power.
Who said this would end anti-Semitism? That is an age-old problem, one which our tradition explains and one which I doubt anyone will end any time soon. In fact, part of the delusion of secular Zionism was that they could end it - while those who see it in historiographic, ideological terms were much more realistic about its unabating nature.
As for terror - I don't think we can end terrorism at large, but we can certainly eliminate terror against us from Gaza if we depopulate it of the hostile inhabitants currently residing there.
As for your final sentence, transfer of the hostile elements of the current population is what is being suggested.
The United States annexed about a third of Mexico in 1848. Armed Mexicans who were fighting and killing Americans just a year earlier still became US citizens, and subject to US law. There were some big changes as a result, one of which was that religions other than the Roman Catholic Church became legal. (This would happen in what was left of Mexico in 1857.) The only way the Mexicans could avoid that was to move to what was left of Mexico. Most of the Mexicans in what is now California seem to have moved south, but most of the Mexicans in what is now Texas seem to have stayed (and their descendents still dominate life in south Texas; they are known as Tejanos). That is what is required in an annexation. You don't have to like it, but that is the definition of annexation.
I think you were the one to bring up annexation, not I. I think you are using that term to try to ignore what it is many in Israel are suggesting. First and foremost, the suggestion is the transfer of the hostile Arab population out of Gaza. This is sepcifically so that they are no longer a threat to Israel as they have been up until now.
After that, if there is a largely depopulated area (which, by the way, is halakhically considered part of Israel), it is reasonable for Israel to annex that depopulated area, and allow its development by Israeli citizens at large.
And the people ethnically cleansed will claim, correctly, that they have a right to move back.
After they raped our sisters you still care about these animals? Ethnic cleansing is mercifull.
I care about the people of Gaza the way I would have cared about the people of Georgia and South Carolina while Sherman was marching through. The Confederates got the war they wanted and suffered the consequences. FWIW some of my ancesters were South Carolina Confederates.
Nevertheless the State of Israel is still bound by international law in the treaties it signed and ratified.
And to call ethnic cleansing "merciful" is monstrous. Within the lifetimes of many of us there have been huge numbers of Jews were victims of it. To suggest that is to lower yourself to the level of the Nazis and the evil Arabs. And it adds ammunition to the anti-Semites who see us as the same or worse as Hamas.
The difference is the Nazis were the ones that attacked us. This is self-defense. Whats truly monstrous was the oslo accords and disengagement.
Were the kings and judges of Israel Nazis? They did a lot of that.
The South Carolina Confederates started the war, although you wouldn't know that from listening to Nikki Haley.
And who started a war is irrelevant. The Geneva Conventions still apply. It is literally Nazi-like to ignore them.
Following them is what leads to our soldiers falling in battle. Whos holding gaza to these standards?
The US and UK followed the Geneva Conventions and still won WW2.
The Oslo Accords got us the peace treaty with Jordan. You call that monstrous?
No one is saying that the perpetrators of 7-Oct can’t be removed from Gaza and held to account. The entire population didn’t perpetrate the attack.
They celebrated it.
The entire population didn’t celebrate the attack. Moreover what happened on 7-Oct isn’t even being shown to Gazans. They are being told by the Arabic language media that this was a military operation only. Nothing about the rape and killing of unarmed civilians including children.
Their civilains spied on us. They read mein kamp on school. How much evidence do you need to realize how much theyd all love to kill you?
Ethnic cleansing won't change that, and neither will moving Jews into Gaza.
Since you mention Mein Kampf, do you believe that all Germans in Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate Jews? Was the solution there to displace all Germans to an island or to defeat and replace the leaders?
Why do you still care about the Geneva Convention, when the body that promulgated those laws has lost all moral standing and now judges you at the Hague for causing October 7th?
Oh. Because in the Plains of Moab we entered into a covenant to keep the Geneva Conventions, even if they supersede the Torah from Sinai.
The Geneva Conventions violate the Torah? Ridiculous! What yeshiva did you attend?
I did not mean that they violate the Torah. I mean that some Jews are expressing more loyalty or fealty to them than the Torah.
Maybe adopting rules of behavior generally accepted is part of Torah as R. Kook called it Natural Law and part of Torah.
True, but when others violate the "natural law" (10/7), perhaps that negates a prior agreement.
So there is no problem with them. Thank you!
No, you're not allowed to throw around the words "Geneva Convention" while demonstrating a clear lack of knowledge that the way you are describing them is an *interpretation* made specifically so as to attack Israel, and is of course disputed by serious and learned people.
You can't wave it around, and invoke Nazis, without acknowledging that the custodians of said convention, the ICRC, have revealed themselves (recently, although they did the same in World War II) as amoral if not immoral monsters and anti-Semites.
Need I remind you of what happened in the Hague last week?
That all depends if you're making a moral argument or a pragmatic one.
All these treaties and conventions have had an inadvertent effect of making war cheap for the instigating party. An aggressor can start a war, kill thousands as long as they follow the rules. And if they weaponize the rules, they're certain to find defenders in South Africa or MSNBC. These international laws are the inheritance of bloodthirsty white Europeans who spent the past thousand years killing each other. While Europeans haven't matured morally, they have at least past the toddler stage. The Geneva Convention is a testament to that moral development, stunted as it is. Little kids recognize the rudimentary concepts of rules and fair play, but they also find excuses to find exceptions or apply them incorrectly when it serves their selfish interests.
All of the above is a moral argument. How it fits into realpolitik, and Israeli's reputation among naive but decent people is another matter. I don't know how far Israel will get by using logical and moral arguments.
So the Europeans had their fun and then closed the barn door *just* as the Jews got themselves the power to have some fun of their own. Isn't that con-ven-i-ent.
Liar.
ART.47.— Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever,of the benefits ofthe present Convention by any change introduced,as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory,nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power,nor by any annexation by the latter ofthe whole or part ofthe occupied territory.
ART. 49.— Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations ofprotected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that ofany other country, occupied or not,are prohibited,regardless oftheir motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation ofa given area ifthe security ofthe population or imperative military reasons so demand.Such evacuations may not involve the displacement ofprotected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons,that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health,safety and nutrition,and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers ofwar unless the security ofthe population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
----------------------------
I am not the one without knowledge here. The language is crystal clear. No annexations. Minimal, and only temporary, transfers of the occupied population. And no settlement of your own population. Period. The Nazis did all of these things. Israel signed and ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention voluntarily. That the ICRC is anti-Semitic is irrelevant.
" The language is crystal clear. "
No it isn't.
Wow, I almost missed the "liar" at the top there. Let's not throw stones from glass houses, *sir*.
While I agree with you that the transfer of Palestinians cannot happen any time in the near future because of all the reasons you mentioned, I don't think talking about it or having an event is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I believe that it is good thing for Israel. Here is why.
We are all aware of the pro Palestinian protesters rallying cry "From the river to the sea". They do not accept the right of any Jew living in Israel. There are NO Jews living in Gaza or Palestinian villages/cities. Is it so bad for the world to see how people had enough and no longer want to live with Palestinians? Note that the worlds reaction after Gaza elected Hamas was "The Palestinian people are frustrated."
Politically, I believe this was a "win" for Israel. Biden is under pressure from many in his party and in turn pressures Israel. He took a major political hit from the support he has given Israel which may cost him the election. Because of this event, Netanyahu was able to tell Biden "I am also taking a hit from my coalition by agreeing with you that we will not resettle Gaza"
It goes against the US moral code. Right now it does. But "From the river to the sea does not go against the moral code of many." Why not? The difference is the microphone. There are many people talking, making events, writing pro Palestinian propaganda while the are a lot less of these that are pro Israel. We are being creamed in the public relations war. In the war for hearts and minds. Part of that is the underdog mentality. People like rooting for the underdog - the trampled. I believe a movement saying Gaza is OUR land! We were forcibly removed but now we want it back from the Palestinian occupiers. Such arguments would help swing the underdog pendulum in the opposite direction.
I have great respect for you and everything you write. The point of this post is to show that this is a very complicated topic and that there can be rational reasons for why it may be a good thing. As such, I don't think your friends should be upset at you for thinking how you think. Nor should you be upset at them for how they think.
"I believe a movement saying Gaza is OUR land! We were forcibly removed"
Not so clear. It was never settled by Jews in ancient times. That has halachic implications. There were a few Jews there in early modern times (Ottoman census records have survived).
Didn't the Gaza settlers own the land they setteled on before the disengagement?
No. No land on which settlements in occupied territory have been built can be privately owned. Almost all land in the rest of Israel is owned by the Israeli government, the development authority, or the Jewish National Fund. The largest private landowner in Israel is the Orthodox Church. The govermnent control over land is one of Israel's Basic Laws, dating to 1960.
I hear ya. They did lease the land?
I think so. But when you lease land, and the landowner sells it, you may find your lease canceled, depending on the terms of the lease.
In about four months the daf yomi cycle will get to Bava Batra where we will learn what the Torah says about real estate. In the Land of Israel, you aren't supposed to be able to buy or sell land permanently, outside of certain cities. But there are a lot of details.
“I believe a movement saying Gaza is OUR land! We were forcibly removed but now we want it back from the Palestinian occupiers. Such arguments would help swing the underdog pendulum in the opposite direction.”
Gazas are the underdogs because they are building rockets out of recycled pipes and dud munitions while being blockaded by Israel and Egypt, two countries with a large supply of modern weapons, billions of dollars of which come from the US and which are now being resupplied by the US. In the meantime, Gaza was never part of Israel even after Israel conquered it from Egypt, occupied it and kept it after returning the Sinai. The argument you propose makes Israel look like deranged bullies, not underdogs.
For the record, Hamas gets billions of dollars of advanced weapons from Iran.
The long range rockets (which are not advanced weapons) are manufactured in Gaza. Some of the anti-tank munitions are smuggled in through the tunnels in parts and others are made in Gaza. You are right that things get smuggled in through the tunnels and some of it comes from Iran. I believe that most of Iran’s help (according to Israel) comes from training and money which is used to then purchase smuggled weapons. Qatar has also been giving them money with Israeli approval. Hamas has been effective at arming themselves to some extent but Israel has an overwhelming advantage. Which of course led to the complacency that allowed 7-Oct to happen. But Hamas are still the underdogs.
They also steal poorly guarded Israeli weapons.
Also the aid from Iran is not billions annually.
No they don’t. Israel doesn’t let that happen.
Israel can't control smuggling under the Egyptian border. Where do you think those long-range rockets and advanced antitank missiles come from?
Natan, thanks for writing and posting this vital reality check, even though you must have known the kind of response you would get from many in your audience.
In over 60 years of watching our conflict with the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, I’ve come to the disconcerting conclusion that among a number of things the two sides have in common, the worst is a wish-fulfillment type denial of reality. At its deepest level it's characterized by the fantasy that at some point the other side will just give up and go away — *poof!* — and vanish like a bad dream.
You'd think it would be obvious after decades of bloody struggle that such a fantasy will never come true. But judging from the statements of many who have commented ahead of me, it lives on in the subconscious of many who can't or won’t admit it, and shamelessly dominates the frontal cortex of some, both here and at the extreme right of Bibi's cabinet.
The idea of moving out the present population of Gaza so Israelis can move in is just as completely fantastical and unrealistic. The world, including Israel's friends, won't allow it. It was good that you said so, even though so many here are unable to digest and comprehend the valid reasons you provided.
In general, these are the same people who believe that Israel, one of the world's smallest nations, will be just fine if it becomes a pariah state like the more self-sufficient South Africa used to be. Or they are the people who think that our endlessly repeating that “God gave us this land!” is actually convincing or meaningful in today's secularized world and counts as a sane argument. (Rather than being Torah-based, our claim to the land should rely on the historical fact of our being the nation Rome forcibly dispossessed.)
Until both sides wake up from their ceaseless dreaming and seriously grapple with reality, we are doomed to repeat the tragic, horrific cycle of death, destruction, mourning, and hatred that brings misery, but never true victory, to both sides.
We are the people who introduced what the secular world calls the Golden Rule. Both Jews and Muslims claim to honor it. How different the world would be if both peoples had striven to apply it from the moment the first modern Zionist came ashore. I guess that's my unreal fantasy.
Quite shocking propaganda here!
We've just displaced 2 million people. The time is exactly right to make this displacement permanent. The more you talk about something, the more acceptable it becomes. Every single voice in Israel and diaspora should be calling for the resettlement of this murderous people. No one has any illusions anymore. Educating the world works. Get those PR machines going!
Ethnic cleansing doesn't apply to a people attacking you! Cut out that nonsense a clear distinction can be made.
Actually it applies to all wars. Read the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Okay, so where would you move them to?
Calling for ethnic cleansing is disastrous PR.
One of the other 20 Arab countries that should love their fellow Muslims and take them in.
Rabbi Slifkin, this article is pure gold.
Yes. 100% Golden Calf.
"If you can’t relate to that objection, then try to imagine how you’d feel if a left-wing organization had a new idea for a two-state solution and decided that now would be a good time to celebrate it with a big party."
One can go further - try to imagine how one would feel if a left-wing organization had a party about removing West Bank settlements.
Incomparable. One would be doubling-down on a failed policy that brought 7 Oct upon us, while the other is trying something different.
It wasn't the lack of settlements that brought October 7. It was the lack of IDF in Gaza, as well as the shocking lack of IDF guarding the border.
Most Jews in Russia figured that it was time to get rid of the Czar and try something different. Just because something is different doesn't mean that it will be an improvement!
That right-wing nut Joshua with his whole "Torah" that he got from his teacher Moses, who, by the way did not have the guts to actually implement the plan, is going to cause the people of Israel utter ruination with his plan to occupy all of Canaan and forcibly remove the Canaanite and Emorite etc. populations. If only we could show him the light.
This essay perfectly encapsulates the true Jewish problem: not actually being committed in any way to what the Torah demands of us. The ultimate cherry-picking of Jewish observance. Repent now.
God told you to resettle Gaza and transfer the Palestinians out? Strange that most rabbis missed that message.
Indeed. "Most Rabbis" ignore explicit sections of the Torah and Talmud. The problem is endemic.
That is borderline if not actual apikoros.
You are hitting on a key point here that should be addressed in a full article. There is Theological confusion abound about what Gd wants from us at these moments and moving forward with policy. The Biblical narratives vs the current political reality. As you say, there are a million opinions on what, if any, "inspiration" the Torah's precedents should be for us. Obviously, Gd does not speak to us, but others will say that the Torah is Toras Chaim and supposed to be a model. Maaseh Avos Siman L'Bonim, etc. Isn't that what every parsha drasha does? When we learn Tanach, how much should we copy and how much was just history? This is a big question that needs understanding.
כיבוש הארץ is an obligation at least acc to רמבן. Sounds violent
Ah, so we'll do something that from any other perspective is insane, because "there's one Rishon who holds that way"
The early zionists were just as crazy. They fought the british empire!
Ben Gurion: ""We shall fight the War as if there was no White Paper, and the White Paper, as if there was no War.""
I like the lechi and etzel. Not much of a labor zionist, personally
Not just one Rishon. It's the straight meaning of the Tanach and Talmud.
The straight reading of both the Talmud and Jewish history is that zealotry is a bad idea and is what caused both the churban and the galus romi.
And that the deliberate following of the Torah in a sober manner for the sake of avoiding more holocaust-days in obligatory.
Did he also call for the expulsion of all non-Jews? I am sure he would have loved to see the Crusaders expelled (and that would happen a few decades after his death, thanks to the Mamluks).
We're current engaged in כיבוש הארץ of land that most of the world admit belongs to us. I think it would be advisable to continue in that aspect of the מצוה and worry about the הידורים later.
Actually, not a single government says that Gaza belongs to us - including Israel's government.
I was referring to the land surrounding עזה. It's not secure now, and hence we're currently reconquering it. Note whom I was addressing. He's talking about settling Gaza while established & recognized legitimate settlements are not yet secure. Much of the world is insisting on a end to this war that will be inconclusive and will reduce ישוב הארץ in those areas. Resettling Gaza is not a priority now. In fact, such talk and rallies sabotages כיבוש הארץ.
SO?
So your claim about "land that most of the world admit belongs to us" is false.
So you are an anti-Zionist who opposes the positions of the government of the State of Israel?
Just a word of advice. Ending an argument with “repent now” makes one sound like a nut yelling on a street corner with a megaphone about the imminent end of the world.
If you can't argue the point, stick to the ad-homonym approach.
You cannot complain about an "ad-homonym" (sic) attack, when you have been condescendingly pronouncing the will of God and the Torah, without deigning to even give a source. You coyly suggest that you are simply "shocked" and "bewildered" by the ignorance of your fellow Jews. Talk about argumentum ad-hominem.
My comment is serious. Argument to do something by the direct authority of God without regard to politics practicality or morality is a faulty method that resembles the reasoning of Hamas.
Also the faulty reasoning of the Zealots who lost us the second Temple. I fear that history might repeat here.
and now you jumped to reductio ad hitlerum. Your next response should include a straw man or some whataboutism.
Let me guess….youre a member of the Judeans People’s Front, or perhaps the People’s Front of Judea..? Doesn’t really matter both were slaughtered by the Romans…
You are spouting out names of logical fallacies without ever remediating your argument. Other than your personal interpretation of what you believeto be God's messages, what are you basing your argument on?
It is really surprising to write that when 2m gazans have just been displaced next to the Egyptian border. And the world did not do much to stop us.
It is because we claim to be displacing them temporarily and it is the US opinion that counts at this moment. Permanent transfers won't hold.
"Permanent transfers won't hold."
But temporary transfers will. Indefinitely.
On the other hand, "permanent ceasefires" don't.
Actually the permanent ceasefires with Egypt and Jordan continue to hold decades later. The lesson is that Land for Peace works. The withdrawal from Gaza was Land for Nothing. That didn't work.
You haven't find the theory of everything. Let's go through Israel's neighbors and see if your theory works.
Lebanon: Israel is not holding their land. No peace
Syria: Israel annexed the Golan Heights. Relatively peaceful, and better than pre-67
Jordan: What land?
Iraq: Attacked Israel in 1991 despite no land dispute
Iran: Attacks Israel through its proxies despite no land dispute
Qatar: Attacks Israel through its proxies despite no land dispute
PLO: On the record that any land acquired would be use as a base for further attacks. The Palestinian Charter lays claim to the whole region. And PLO activity in the past shows their territorial ambitions extend to Jordan and Lebanon.
" Land for Nothing"
No, that was land for peace. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean you can change the facts.
Hilarious that you call Syria peaceful. Or that you you think that the withdrawal from Gaza was land for peace. I am not the fact impaired one.
Exactly. There was no accord, no plan, no step-by-step process. It's as if Sharon actually wanted it to be a disaster.
No they won’t either. Moreover no one is going to accept a “temporary” transfer to Egypt (including Egypt). They understand what that is about.
We have to stop to make wars like gentlemen. Officially, sure it is temporary. Then on the ground, you create the conditions for an unfortunate breach in the Egyptian borders etc. Turkey has become an expert at pretending to control or nor control its border (letting people in or out of Syria to fight the Americans or the Kurds or the Iranians).
Everyone understands what that means and Israeli's culpability; your idea (besides the immorality of it) is completely transparent. Also, Egypt is an ally in the fight against Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. We are not going to do something to their border.
Then you will have to suffer the consequences such as the deaths of innocent israelis AND civilian deaths in Gaza (that the world will continously blame on you and only you).
It was a very stupid event. This was virtue signalling. Useless sloganeering that is counter-productive. This was a solipsistic act that will only antagonize the world. To be sure, the war will allow itself to be antagonized anyway. But we should choose such antagonisms wisely. Right now, the priority must be to win the war on our terms, despite what the world thinks. What we will do with the peace, is a luxury we have yet to achieve.
In order for their silly plan to work, Israel needs to win this war and not end up with the hudna demanded by the UN and State Department. A hudna will indeed turn any notion of resettling Gaza a fantasy. But the gov't is under tremendous pressure from outside forces, as well as domestic forces demanding the gov't accept any deal imposed by Hamas in exchange for the hostages. This well funded pressure group is quite willing to release all the terrorists and restore Hamas to achieve their justified goals. I can't blame the families. But they are wrong. The Shalit deal costs thousands of lives.
Where is the counter-pressure? If BG and his people can muster a crowd of 3000 for a not very popular agenda, why not gather a demonstration several times that size opposing a hostage deal that will make it impossible to resettle Gaza or any community just outside it. There should have several events this size across the country- but in support of finishing the war instead.
The war if fought to its conclusion will eliminate Hamas. The way Hamas fights means that an inadvertent but necessary consequence of the war will be that much of Gaza will be temporarily uninhabitable. This will necessitate a humanitarian emigration of Arabs to a better life elsewhere.
Putting the cart before the horse is counter productive. But Ben Gvir never did have much horse sense.
No, it was vice signalling.
Well done, courageous column.
Thanks for moral clarity, intellectual honesty, and simple political reality. Your loud and clear voice is desperately needed
"(There was also a speech by MK Goldknopf of UTJ, for whom it’s very easy to take a hardline approach with the Palestinians, since his children and community aren’t going to fall in combat.)"
Aside from being a(n obligatory?) tasteless dig at Goldknopf, your comment points up why Gush Emunim types aren't likely to be impressed with your argument. The implication of your statement is that those participating are sacrificing their kids on the altar of Gush Katif. But if you actually bothered to listen to their slogan, you'd know that they believe that רק טרנספר יביא שלום. They just disagree with your prognostications about the fallout from pursuing such a policy. They think that the peace processors and disengagers and 'bitchonistim' are the ones responsible for paving the way towards the carnage on Oct 7th. They may or may not be delusional in that belief, but it's what they believe nonetheless. In order to rebut that, you have to actually explain why that's not a valid read of where we are and how we got here.
As to your emphatic, italicized insistence that, 'It is not going to happen' my guess is that their reply would be that plenty of people thought it was insane to think that the modern state of Israel would come into existence too. Armchair-non-zionist that I am, I hate to quote Herzl, but 'אם תרצו אין זו אגדה.'
There's plenty of delusion to go around. The left aren't the sole heirs to messianic syndromes.
קוֹל דּוֹדִי הִנֵּה זֶה בָּא מְדַלֵּג עַל הֶהָרִים מְקַפֵּץ עַל הַגְּבָעוֹת
We on the other hand have to take small careful steps. The immediate threat is the pressure to provide victory to the crippled Hamas and discredited PA. This threat is being ignored by those rightists at that rally. By skipping over the step of complete military victory, these rightists are implicitly in agreement with the far left who want to end the war now.
" I hate to quote Herzl, but 'אם תרצו אין זו אגדה.'"
Herzl was a pragmatist. He knew that concrete steps to the goal necessarily means temporary deviations from the ideal. He also knew that painful compromise was necessary to keep the various disparate Zionist movements together.
It may be a good idea to resettle Gaza. But it has to be done with pragmatic wisdom. When the opportunity presents itself, it should be considered. But now is not the time.
"The immediate threat is the pressure to provide victory to the crippled Hamas and discredited PA."
Huh? The people at that rally are opposed to any ceasefire. They want a complete and utter obliteration of Hamas. You can accuse them of lots of things, but underestimating the threat from Hamas ain't one of them.
"It may be a good idea to resettle Gaza. But it has to be done with pragmatic wisdom. When the opportunity presents itself, it should be considered. But now is not the time."
I don't think they're pushing to do it immediately. My understanding is that they want to have a group of 'Nachshonim' ready to move in as soon as an opportune moment arises.
See here at 7 minute mark: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skix1b8cp
"Huh? The people at that rally are opposed to any ceasefire."
Indeed. But they're making a public display in support of a policy that will dilute support for Israel. Already, there is global and American pressure to end the war inconclusively. The far right, by overplaying their hand, is playing into that pressure. They should be mounting counter demonstrations against the "hostage deal at any cost" crowd. If that crowd has their way, there will be no secured Gaza to resettle.
", but underestimating the threat from Hamas ain't one of them."
Indeed. But they are underestimating the "threat" (to the extent that the word is appropriate) from those pressure groups who are underestimating the threat from Hamas.
"I don't think they're pushing to do it immediately."
Indeed, they're not insane, unwise. But they are pushing it to be made policy immediately, even if its implementation will be delayed. And they're doing it publicly and brazenly in a fashion that will alienate the Americans and whatever "friends" we have. This when, there are more crucial battles to be fought.
"But they're making a public display in support of a policy that will dilute support for Israel. Already, there is global and American pressure to end the war inconclusively. The far right, by overplaying their hand, is playing into that pressure."
I largely agree with that, but my views and the views of those who share my worldview are irrelevant to the immediate present.
My sense is that Ben Gvir, at least, thinks that Israel can basically do what it feels like as long as it strikes a defiant tone and stops apologizing. He thinks that the more resolute and self assured Israel shows itself, the less the world will bother trying to apply pressure. Now, I tend to think that he's extremely misguided for thinking that, but given his *own* priors, that sort of bombastic rally he participated in was both wise morally *as well as strategically.*
In both the United States and Israel, there appears to be no real difference between the nutty far left and the nutty far right.
You don't have to vote for any of them, if you're given no other choice. But don't reject the multicolored diversity of nutjobs. You've got cranks, crackpots, kooks, freaks, solipsists, loons, eccentrics, delusional prophets, goon squads, wingnuts, pinkos, moonbats, dingbats, tin foilers, flerfers, bleeding hearts, bleeding brains, kool aid drinkers, red pillers, avant garde luddites, fanatics, zealots, whackos, paranoiacs and dentists.
But sure, go ahead and tell yourself that there's no difference.
You did make me laugh.
The biggest threat to Israel is not the Arabs but the Jews.
The Arabs are a problem but they are mostly outside Israel. It will take time, effort and a tragic loss of life but Israel can handle it.
The Jews are an altogether different threat in terms of arrogance or stupidity or lack of realism - with a resulting existential menace. internal dangers are IMHO worse than external ones.
Note that it was a Jew who murdered Rabin.
Note that the 2nd Temple was destroyed in large part by the (jewish) sicarii who in their extremism in burning the food stocks of a Jerusalem under siege and murdering anyone who would talk peace, brought on the loss of the Temple and the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Jews.
That a Government Minister talks about or implies nuking Gaza, other Ministers talk about expelling the Gazans, Bibi and others talk about Amalek : all of this foolish talk has alienated or reduced Israel's supporters and provided ammubition or fuel for the fire with which Israel's enemies wish to engulf it.
Our enemies are looking ofr ammunition - don't give it them.
All the bravado statements which these people use remind me of the little boy lying in bed alone at night saying: "I am not afraid of the dark" "I am not afraid of the dark" "I am not afraid of the dark".
Israel is dependent upon the USA for support at the UN, for arms and ammunition, aircraft spare parts, financial support etc. Other countries e.g. the EU can provide support for Israel - or opposition. If you don't care who is friendly with you at least don't encourage or increase your enemies.
More foolishness was seen prior to 7 October with the enmity and speech that the right and the left ( almost hatred ?) each poured on the other. By all means disagree - but do it in a menschlich way.
It is some (minimal) compensation that the horrific events of 7 October engendered ahavas yirsroel across all sectors of society - but human nature being what it is, this might dissipate when PG the situation gets better.
Arik Sharon was an outstanding general and hero of Israel and he was a realist. He saw the dangers of Gaza and that holding it would not be worth the cost - the danger of a continual loss of life from occupation, suicide bombers, snipers etc. As we see and he saw, military success in a constrained urban environment is the most difficult situation for an army at war. If Sharon thought it was not good for Israel even in a time of general peace to hold Gaza then who has the stature and experience to contradict him ?
The Gazans need somewhere to live. If Israel can achieve coexistence in peace with an Arab Gaza that surely is a victory ?
Actions speak louder than words but words are easy and they have consequences. All Israeli politicians, members of the Government and generals need to wake up to the reality that Israel is currently a small island in a sea of enmity. It is tough for Jews in the Diaspora, admittedly not (yet ) physically at the level that our Israeli families and friends face - but Jews overseas see a reality that Israelis in Israel may not be aware of. All public figures need to think about the international consequences of their words and not just of their local supporters and the next election.
I am glad we had the opportunity to have this online discussion. I have come to realize that this coming Saturday, refraining from cooking food and the like is basically impractical and really inconvenient, as it has been every week so far, so I have resolved that because of its impracticality and because of all those foreigners who view me as primitive for not driving a car on Saturday, etc., I am going to start to do so. And if some one points out the "Torah" says otherwise, then I just won't deal with that Torah.
Because, as the author has pointed out, the Torah may INFORM me, but it does not DIRECT me.
Thank you for writing this.