Israel's recent move to pull out of the Gaza strip was a confusing situation for me to evaluate, as a distant, non-Jewish American. Of course I'm an avid supporter of Israel, but at the same time I know there is a serious Palestinian need. I don't trust the Palestinian leadership at all, but there are legitimately needy people there that have nothing to do with the Palestinian government or the terrorist activity. Nonetheless, I hated to see Israel giving up territory to people who despise them and want nothing but their total destruction. It didn't seem very logical to me. But the problem has gone on so long that perhaps some new tactic is what is necessary.
These were my vague thoughts - a bit wishy washy. But recently my thoughts took a slightly different bent. I thought of the incredible spirit of those settlers who were willing to risk everything - their lives, their children's lives, their livelihood - and go to live in the middle of hostile territory. I thought of their vision, their purpose, that amazing drive to fulfill their destiny. I found myself wanting to emulate their spirit in my own life. They are heroes. And they are watching as their own nation - the people for whose future they were laying down their lives - turns against them. Their mission has seemingly failed. They weren't even defeated by enemies, but by friends. Their sorrow at this time must be overwhelming.
Recently I was listening to a broadcast on the Internet. A man who had lived in one of these settlements was talking about the devastation of leaving - and yet the prevailing Jewish spirit that was refusing to be defeated. Even as the settlers knew they would have to give up the protests and leave (not wanting to jeopardize their children with violent resistance) they were dancing and singing the revered Jewish song of unity. The man spoke of his faith in a God who who would take this devastation and make something good come from it.
I tend to think the pullout is a bad idea - it is a concession to outside pressure and a seeming concession to terrorist activity - but political issues aside, the human story there is heartbreaking. I honor those men and women for their vision. And I'm believing for a day when they will see that vision realized beyond what they could ever imagine.
19 comments:
Nicely balanced perspective, Andrea.
Wow. Way to tackle such a deep issue on your blog! I'm duly impressed!
I'm pretty opposed to disengagement, though I can never be black and white about it because it's so confusing. Part of my carnal side wants it to backfire big-time, just to show all the idiots in power (unfortunately that includes Condoleeza Rice this time) how unwise it is. I mean, we're talking about creating serious security issues for Israel and the world in order to throw the Palestinians a bone. Grrr.
But politics aside, I can't imagine having the Dublin police and NH national guard knock on my door and force me to leave my HOME because we're giving the Monadnock region to Massachusetts. I mean, this is where I live! All my stuff is here! I have no place to go! Watching those families on the news was heart-breaking.
And isn't it odd that much of the outside pressure seems to be coming from the Bush administration?
Anyway, the whole uprooting of Jews reminds me of Fiddler on the Roof. Seems like their wandering continues...
Re: the original post
Personally I would go a good deal further in supporting disengagement, but I feel mixed feelings myself.
On one level I still think Palestine would be much better off if the UN had gone with a one-state plan back in '47 that gave citizenship rights to both Jews and Palestinians.
On the other hand, we can hardly turn back the clock now, and the current Israeli government would never be willing to grant citizenship to the people whose homes they are uprooting in the name of security. In such a case I do support the two state model, and at least allowing the Palestinian people to have some rule over the crowded ghettos that the Zionists have pushed them into. (The ironic similarities between Gaza and Warsaw continue to grow).
Re: Asaphat's response
Serious security issues? Sharon knows quite well that having settlements in Gaza is a security nightmare. At least now he can wall Gaza off and starve the inhabitants with impunity.
As for your analogy, wouldn't your situation be exactly the same of the Palestinians in Gaza? The settlers have no legal rights to the land there at all, most of them are Americans or Russians who have about as much claim to Gaza as a South-American Inca has to your home in NH (by virtue of early American Indian habitations there).
Re: redsoxwinthisyear's post
Well the current administration's stance makes very good sense. The US is trying to simultaneously encourage democracy in the Middle East, while trying to make up for our past foreign policy embarrasments in the region. Putting pressure on Israel to respect human rights and international law is absolutely necessary if we want any of the neighboring countries (like Syria or Lebanon) to do the same.
As for Fiddler on the Roof, I personally see much more similarity between the Jews of Anatevka and the Palestinians who are being forced out of their homes around Ma'ale Adummim.
Isaac - I guessed you weren't quite so pro-Zionist as I because of a post on your blog. How annoying of you. It's much nicer when everyone just agrees with me:)
More seriously, I don't think you're giving enough credit to Israel in their efforts with the Palestinians. Granted, some of the Palestinians are innocent civilians trying to survive. But some of them are, indisputably, grave threats to the people of Israel. Therefore, "in the name of security" is a pretty strong name in which to do what they do. They may go overboard sometimes, but they take incredible precautions to uphold human rights, and leave innocent people alone. But they are faced with a grim threat every day, and must defend their own people.
As far as Palestinians being pushed into crowded ghettos, I learned in my Mideast History class (which was quite pro-Palestinian) that the Palestinians in those ghettos are being kept there by their own leaders in an effort to make the world think that they are being opressed by Israel. And the world is buying it, to a large degree. I don't know if that is the case in every circumstance, but it is certainly something to consider.
Israel has given many Palestinians many opportunities. And though the Palestinians are sometimes mistreated, and often inconvenienced, it is a result of the constant threat of terrorism that they pose.
Better results will come only when Abbas, or someone, is able to put a stop to terrorist attacks. No wonder Craig talked about a security risk, considering there will be almost no Israeli presence in an area from which people who hate Israel will be able to launch all kinds of attacks.
As far as the settlers legal right to that land, where did you hear that they are there illegally? Because the debate on legality is still wide open. I found this quote from Dr. Eliav Schochetman, dean of Israel's Sha'arei Mishpat Law School and professor emeritus of Jewish law at Hebrew University in Jerusalem:
"Jews who settled in lands conquered in 1967 didn't settle in other countries, but in internationally recognized homeland... What we see today is that the US, Europe other countries want Jews to get out of the West Bank because they adopted the Arab lie that Jews invaded illegally the lands of the Palestinians. But never in history have we ever had such a thing as Palestinain sovereignty over any part of Palestine."
Whether or not there is legal right to that land (which I think there is), the land was obtained through self-defense. That goes a long way, in my book.
Okay, there are some thoughts. I don't know if I addressed every point you raised, but there's something for starters anyway:)
Okay, just checked, and here's the scoop on the whole legality thing. According to the UN, the Gaza strip is "contested territory" not "occupied."
Also, historically, I'm pretty sure that before this no nation has ever given up land that it aquired in defending against another's attack except Israel, and that was when the Sinai was returned.
Andrea, I'm so impressed! I wanted to write about the disengagement, but had no clue what to say. Thanks for bringing it up!
Isaac, I'd agree with your Inca claim to the US argument, if it weren't for the Bible's clear designation of Gaza as Israelitish property.
However, I question the Israeli right to Gaza, also based on the Bible. (see Zephaniah 2, for instance) They aren't all obeying God at present! Including not treating the sojourner as the homeborn is treated.
But can't we make a distinction between the "Palestinian" people ("Palestine" is a term invented by the Romans in order to deny Jewish claim to the Land) who are victims of their own leaders, and the terrorists?
I'm afraid that Liberal thinking is directing our very conservative President when it comes to this issue. It's extremely naive to think that being nice to a bully will make him be nice, too, but that's my impression of Liberal Mid-East policy.
In my opinion, there's no worse terrorism than the mutilation of spirit that happens when our Enemy deceives people into becoming murderers.
And while my sympathies lie with the Israelis who are leaving their homes, my main desire for them is that this suffering will be profitable for them...that they will repent and turn to God!
Lisa
Bother. Zephaniah 2 goes with the first paragraph of my comment.
Lisa
Regarding the biblical rights to the land:
In broad strokes, my understanding of Scripture is that the descendants of Jacob were given the land (borders described in Numbers 34, inclusive of Gaza, the West Bank, and much of modern Israel), conditional on their keeping the covenant God gave them at Sinai. Israel did not keep the covenant, and was driven out of the land and scattered among the nations (as per Deuteronomy 28).
Israel's rejection of her Messiah, who was to bring the exile to an end further put them under judgement (see for example Luke 19, Matt 21-22).
Eventually Israel will be restored, of course, and the exile will end. There are prophecies of both Israel repenting and returning, and it is debateable which must happen first.
If Israel repents then returns (which has not happened), then the land will rightfully belong to Israel who will dwell peacefully with all non-Israelite inhabitants of the land.
If Israel returns before repenting (this may happen soon but I will reserve judgement) then she is still under judgement and has no right to the land even if her return is fulfilling prophecy.
It may be clear at this point that I see fulfillment of prophecy by a given nation as in no way justifying the actions of said nation or their claims to land. If this were the case one would have to say that Iraq had the best claim to Jerusalem since the capture of that city by Babylon fulfilled numerous prophecies. Furthermore the fact that the atrocities commited by Assyria, Babylon, and Rome were also prophesied (and fulfilled God's purposes in judging Israel) does not mean that they were not sinful, or that they themselves would not be judged as a result.
In any case I see Israel's actions today as possibly fulfilling prophecy, possibly not, but certainly as unjust and sinful, and the whole nation as cursed and under judgement.
Regarding the Palestinian people and government:
A few clarifications may be in order regarding the "Palestinian" people, by which I mean all those people (and their descendants) who lived in and worked the land before Zionism and the rapid influx of Jewish immigration.
I chose the name "Palestinian" since it is the most neutral term available for the region. Israel is of course the name of a man, his descendants, and the land they live in and will one day live in again as well as the name of a modern nation. Given these four meanings it would be confusing if I referred to all the inhabitants of the land as Israelites or Israelis. Ethnically they are of course mixed. Two thousand years have almost passed since Rome destroyed Jerusalem, and a millenium and a half since the caliphs began to rule. Since then many Jews have converted to Islam or Christianity and many more neighboring peoples have migrated into the land. As such it would be difficult to characterize them ethinically besides the obvious fact that they are nearly all children of Abraham according to the flesh. A large proportion also are children of Abraham according to the spirit.
The Palestinian Christian population which begins with the 12 apostles, made up 10% of the population of the country in 1948, and most have had their homes taken by invading Israeli armies.
Most of the people of the land were of course Muslim. Both Christians and Jews (the land was a Christian land before it fell to Islam remember) mostly converted to Islam over the millenia of Muslim rule.
As for the problem of terrorism, I would agree with a recent statement I heard from Shimon Peres. He pointed out that from the beginning the Palestinian people had a choice of how to respond to their oppression (although he did not use that last word) -- they could have chosen "the way of Ghandi or Mandela" (peaceful protest,) or "the way of violence." The fact that many within the community chose the latter has succeeded in nothing but preventing the rest of the world from recognizing their plight.
So yes, I blame the Palestinian leadership over the past 50 years for perpetuating their suffering by foolishness, just as I blame the Israelis for taking their homes in the first place. I consider terrorism as politically ineffective as it is morally offensive.
In such a respect Palestinian terror is rather like the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Tokyo. The wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in order to produce terror (although somewhat more effective in Japan than in Israel) had such an effect on Japan, that even today most Japanese see themselves as victims of the war, and will not apologize for greater atrocities the Japanese Army committed in China or Korea. Similarly the fact that Israeli civilians have been killed (albeit in smaller numbers) has allowed the modern Israeli nation to see itself as victims of terror, thus allowing them to ignore the greater injustices they have wreaked on the previous inhabitants of the homes they live in now.
Isaac Demme you are a nut. I know I'm resorting to name calling instead of actually responding, but I am much too tired for that tonight... Your time will come. Maybe. If I have energy. But meanwhile, suffice it to say that I'm pretty sure you've gone off the deep end at last! Tsk tsk tsk. Southern schools these days...
Okay, Isaac, it's a new day now... no more name calling:)
It appears that you are saying that Israel has no moral/legal/whatever right to exist as a nation. They should never have started in the first place.
If this is what you're saying, it's no wonder we're disagreeing on these issues. I'm not sure it's worth arguing, since I doubt that you are going to change your mind because of anything I write here!
But I'll just say a few things anyway, because I found some unexpected time.
Isaac, Zionists (except for some fringe groups) were ethical through this whole thing. They were law abiding. They only took land that they legally bought, or for which titles were unclear. They didn't take land aggressively or in a hostile way.
The land that the nomadic, non-indigenous Arabic people who lived in the British colony known as Palestine lost in the '48 War [I'm refraining from using the title Palestinians because that is a name that suggests these people were the owners of some previous nation of Palestine, which in fact they never were, since such a sovereignty never existed. Every name is politically loaded these days...] was lost because of a war started by the Arabs against the Jews [who, I would hasten to add, were perfectly willing to go with a two-state solution offered by the UN. This proposition was rejected by the Arab people who would have nothing to do with sharing land with Jews who had rightfully bought that land], in which the Arabs told their fellow Arabs in the land to abandon their homes.
That may have been the single most confusing sentence I've ever written. But I wanted to stress the politics here, I guess.
The point is that the Jews were justifiable all along the line. They acted with the law at every step. They were willing to comply to the compromise set up by the British and the UN.
The Arab people, however, were unwilling to abide by anything lawful from start to finish. They could have had a state in '48 if they had wanted one. But instead they chose war. And in that war they told their own people to abandon their homes and flee so they could annihilate the Jews. Israel did nothing wrong in '48 - she only defended herself.
You're overlooking, or reinterpreting some key historical facts, it seems to me.
Oh ya, and what is up with calling the 12 apostles Palestinian Christians? Like I said, every title is political, and calling the disciples Palestinians is unnecessarily inflammatory, in my opinion. It is enough to say that they were Jewish Christians.
As far as comparing today's Palestinian terrorists with the US dropping the atom bomb - ay ay ay. The US actions were part of a long war, a war which began because of Japanese aggression. The a-bombs were part of war. Palestinian terrorism was not a part of warfare. And they have been the aggressors every time. The US bomb brought an end to the war. The Palestinian terror has been nothing but wrong every time. There isn’t a comparison there. That’s like saying the US is like Hitler for their actions in Iraq. Please tell me you don’t think that, too. Oy Vay.
Okay, there are some thoughts. And a wicked long comment. I’m sure I didn’t respond to everything – but at least I got at some root issues, I think. Now how about you realize the wisdom behind all that I say and quickly decide to agree?!
You see, I was only able to respond to this because my principal (bless his heart) cancelled teacher training today. But in the future I won't have time to respond, so you just can't not agree anymore:)
I won't try to keep arguing here (although this is an important topic and I may continue it on my blog at some point).
I would, however, like to clarify my position somewhat.
I am not entirely opposed to Zionism, and definitely not opposed to the Jewish state.
Also none of my comments are directed at the legal issues involved, but simply the moral aspect.
I have no objection to Jews living in Israel -- they have done so continuously since the time of Joshua, both religious Jews and Jews who converted to Christianity and Islam who are no longer called Jews but Palestinians.
Palestine has never been a sovereign nation, but it has been a region, a culture, an ethnic group, and a province in every empire that has ruled the region, including the Romans, the Byzantines, the various Caliphates, the Turks, and lastly the British. Every one of those provinces was known as Palestine, and every one of those provinces respected the rights of Jews, Christians, and Moslems to live there.
If I had been in the UN in 1947 I would not have argued for one sovereign nation that would have given rights to all Palestinians, regarless of religious or subcultural distinctions. What happened, however, was a plan that established two sovereign states, one for those who follow the Jewish religion, and one for everyone else. Two wars later, the Jewish state had conquered all the lands initially given to the Palestinian state. Although I would never have wished either for a separate Jewish state or a separate Palestinian state I do accept the fact that all diplomacy since '47 has been conducted with the assumption of two sovereign states, even though this is a Zionist plan that was never accepted by Palestinians. It would be impossible to turn back the clock on this one.
My comments are directed entirely at the morality of keeping homes and lands taken by military conquest. I do believe that it is immoral to drive people out of their homes, and then blame it on them because they are angry about it afterwards.
I am not suggesting that Israel pander to terror, they should stand firm against the terrorists and do the right thing (including returning Gaza) while fighting terrorists and ignoring terrorist demands.
I do not believe that Israelis have any more biblical right to the land than Palestinians. Both people groups can claim genetic descent from ancient Israel (although both are of mixed descent in the present). Both people groups are for the most part enslaved to false religions that reject Jesus. Both groups will live in the land after they repent according to biblical prophecy.
Thats all I'm saying. Israel should disengage from Gaza because it is not only politically and militarily expedient, but also because it is morally right. Whether or not their military conquest in '67 was legal is irrelevant to these points.
Shabbat Salaam!
Okay, apparently you aren't QUITE as far out in left field as I thought:) I still disagree with some things, of course, but at least I'm not quite as fearful for your eternal soul...
I guess I mis-read some of what you wrote. Phew. But I would just point out again that the land Israel took was in self-defense, and that historically land like that has never been returned. But I already said that. I won't keep going:)
And hey, here on my blog I say:
Shabbat Shalom!
Hahaha! "A nut!" Hahahaha. That's pretty much all I have to say...except it's been a good debate from the sidelines, with lots of good points from both sides, though there's no question which side I'm still on!
Post a Comment