Fern's article about Hannukah inspired me to post a part of an essay that I wrote. I hope it will inspire some reflections without being offensive.
So where are we now in the struggle for Jewish freedom? Is our community safe? Does history repeat itself? Can we learn from history and if we don’t, are we doomed to same mistakes as the past? Are the enemies of Judaism learning from their mistakes while we rest on our victories? Are we so afraid of war that we will again sacrifice our freedoms for temporary peace?
These questions need to be analyzed and answered as we struggle for a true lasting peace. Currently the state of Israel is just a few years away from destruction if bold steps are not taken to curb the world’s view that it is Israel that is at fault and Israel should do whatever is necessary to accommodate its sworn enemies. Israel has put up with homicide bombers and yet the world does not want Israel to retaliate. Israel has conducted a pogrom on its own people in the Gaza strip. There are leaders of the Jewish people that want to negotiate a small piece of land for “peace in our time”. There are Jewish leaders that think that Israel would be better off with Sadaam in power then removed. Are these the same leaders that want to negotiate with Iran the way Chamberlain negotiated with the Nazi’s? For Israel to survive they must fight terrorism at every turn, support the ouster of every dictator who advocates the extermination of Israel and support the United States as they are the only country willing to save Israel against the growing number of countries who are so afraid of war that giving up Israel is but a small price to pay.
9 comments:
rob
nicely put.
would you forward the whole essay to my email? llmr42@aol.com
Dad--I sent you an email.
Why does Hannukah's continuing relevence rest in the fact that it is a story about Jewish-freedom rather than freedom full stop? and why ought we literally equate Jewish freedom with Israeli freedom? Why not rather construe the Hannukah story as the story of "a" people fighting "an" instance of colonial oppression--a story to which all people desiring a homeland free from foreign rule can fight to determine their own futures?
Simply put, if Hannukah and the Shoah are to be read as legitimating narratives for the Israeli state, the message we must draw from them is clear: no people should be denied self-determination. Thus, the moral legitimacy of the Israeli state rests on the existence of a free Palestinian state. When that state is established, under a similar legitimating narrative, its moral legitimacy will rest on the continued existence of a free Israeli state.
Lastly, I must object to the use of the word "pogrom" to describe the disengagement from Gaza both for its offensive comparison of the current Israeli government with Tsarist Russia, which any Israeli patriot would not make, and for its offensive comparison of the plight of the Gaza settlers with that of Palestinian people, who were not given the luxury of paid repatriation and minimal force when they were forced from their households in 1948.
ryan
Ryan,
The word pogrom is very relavant, Soldiers forced jewish settlers to abandon their community against their wishes by force. Because they were offered money that makes it OK? I think not. It is this same failure to realize that the Palestinians do not want an independent state along side of Israel they want a state that is devoid of Israel or any of it's Jewish inhabitants. The "Palestinians" have had numerous opportunities to have an independent country but have refused without control of the entire reason and especially the holy city of Jerusalem.
This propaganda that is spewed from the mouths of terroists is the same propaganda that Hitler used when he just wanted to reunite all of traditional Germany under one nation. The Sudentland, The Rhineland, Poland, Fance, Austria, Hungary, Russia.
How much land should we secede to terrorist because they want their own country?
The Palestinains want Jerusalem. Sould the Israeli government just pay the people of Jerusalem to leave and give control of their holy city to the terrorists? How much land should Israel agree to give up to make the "Palestinians and all of their supporters happy?
None! That is how much we should give them! Like my Dad said we have given the "palestinians" numerous different times where they could have had their own land under their own rule next to Israel, but are they satisfied?!?! NO! They don't give a rats patooty whether they get their land or not! The "palestinians" just want there to be no Jews, No Americans, No supporters of a free world!!! It is impossible to reason with those who fail to use reason themselves. I stand by that quote to the day I die.
I agree with Rob and David. I also think that the Israeli's should not have left the Gaza Strip. There is plenty of Arab and Non Israeli land that the Palestinians can occupy.
Marilyn
rob, david, marilyn: paid and minimal forced repatriation was a far better deal than the real pogrom that the palestinians suffered during the nakba of 1948 which included rapes and massacres, or any suffered by jews under the tsar in russia. though we didn't have the word then, what occurred was nothing short of ethnic cleansing. the only phrase for the situation in gaza up to disengagment, where approximately ten thousand jews were given political, legal, and property ownership of the best land and resources in an area where one million arabs live without these in refugee camps and slums is "colonial occupation."
also, i object to the use of quotation marks around palestinians that you used in your post which suggests that they aren't a real people. everyone should. the millions of people living in the west bank and gaza consider themselves a distinctive entity and deserve their own homeland just as much as israelis do (in fact, one of the provisions of israel's UN membership is the existence of a palestinian state). every hawkish zionist i know objects to the use of the word "apartheid" to describe the situation of the palestinians living in israeli occupied territory, but how different is it? denying statehood to the palestinians keeps them in a situation in which they live under a government which they do not recognize as their own without any ability to change it, without any of the rights that the citizens of any democracy should enjoy. (and all this by "users of reason" and "supporters of a free world"). if the israelis want to continue to occupy the lands that rightfully belong to the palestinians, they can give them votes in israeli elections and allow them to vote to determine their own sovereignty, have legal recourse and all the other rights and priveleges of democracy which the israelis are preventing the palestinians from exercising in the name of keeping israel a "jewish" state. i can see where people's opinions lie on the choice between theocracy and democracy.
the palestinians have a right to east jerusalem which is the heart and center of currently-existing palestinian culture, without which any future palestinian state would not stably and viably survive. many of the so-called deals the palestinians have been offered--from the first one, which gave 55% percent of the land to israel, even though jews only owned 6% of it at the time of statehood and composed only 33% of the population (you can find the relevent UN maps that i'm referring to online) to the one barak offered arafat at camp david--fail to recognize this fundamental fact and have been the source of their rejection (more so than the more propagandistically publicized "right of return" that israel offers every non-israeli jew as the bedrock of its constitution).
lastly, i am worried about the strict identification of palestinians and terrorists. i don't need to go on about the word we use for negative stereotypes about entire peoples. i'd like to know whether any of the above posters have ever met a palestinian (a person from the west bank or gaza strip) and thereby how they consider themselves qualified to make claims about what all palestinians think and feel and support not to mention their level of rationality? i also think it is hypocritical to be angry at the government of iran for suggesting that israel should be moved to europe (or anyone who says it should be moved to the united states, which is certainly racist) and then say that there is "plenty of Arab and Non Israeli land that the Palestinians can occupy".
since everyone is "rational" here perhaps they can explain to me any of the above double standards.
Ryan--Lay off the Al Jazeera. :-P
Two questions. What do you call someone who straps explosives to their body and walks into a nightclub or a bus and murders non-combatants with no intent of trying to take out any military installation or personnel?
Why are the palestinians more entitled to the land then the Jews?
Post a Comment