|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
on israelis vs. settlers |
Current rating: 0 |
by haaretz via gehrig
(No verified email address) |
20 Sep 2004
|
|
"...living within the borders of the Land of Israel are two different Jewish peoples, harboring incompatible interests - the Israeli people, and the Settler people." |
A head, not a tail
By Doron Rosenblum
"There aren't a lot of things in my life that I can say I would be prepared to die for in order that they not happen," said Pinchas Wallerstein, chairman of the Benjamin Regional Council, this week, "but I would undoubtedly be willing to risk my life, and even sit in jail, in order to prevent an evacuation."
You could dismiss this sort of statement as melodramatic provocation, albeit somewhat comical (notice the "even" - "even sit in jail" - after the speaker had already been "prepared to die"), were it not for the very consequential actions that went along with this rhetoric. Will the settlers reap the profits from the cash cow that has been so very good to them for decades on end, and sacrifice Israeli solidarity for the sake of their settlement fetish? Or are we merely facing yet another round in the psychological war in which the settlers once again work themselves into a trance of threats, hysteria, hare-brained "rabbinic legal rulings," verbal terror et al, which terrify even the perpetrators themselves?
In spite of their enduring propaganda success in waving the "civil war" card - as if we all belonged to the same civil corpus, and are only divided on how to fulfill our common goals - the behavior of the settlers actually gives the opposite impression: that living within the borders of the Land of Israel are two different Jewish peoples, harboring incompatible interests - the Israeli people, and the Settler people.
While the Israeli people is interested in living its life in peace and quiet, and plods with dull apathy between its troubles and fears, and the "reality" of TV prattle programming, the Settler people (at least per its leaders) exists in an entirely different "reality": perpetually enlisted, in a feverish state of hyper-awareness, fixated by an ever-dizzying fanaticism over a single-minded obsession - annexation of the territories, that idee fixe for which they are prepared to sacrifice everything, but everything, especially the normalization-seeking interests of the Israeli people. It is the people which the settlers' rabbis have kidnapped and expropriated to themselves through one of their lunatic "halakhic rulings" or "manifestos," and in whose name they have declared eternal war against all of the Arabs ("nation versus nation").
This quasi-parasitic and quasi-patronizing attitude has been going on for years with sympathetic winks from the army and the government. The Yesha Council Republic is capable of moving mountains and hilltops, in every sense: it founds settlements, paves roads, maps out fences, is in effect the sovereign in the territories. But because this republic is by its essence parasitic, and is neither willing nor capable of bearing alone the burden of the effects of its policies and visions, not only does it use the resources, army and economy of its Israeli neighbor, but it also casts on the Israelis the full burden of the diplomatic, security and economic repercussions of its actions. In their persona as proxies of the metaphysical "People of Israel," the settler leaders are themselves exempt from any and all responsibility as accessories to the crime.
How much longer? How much further? Owing mainly to the feeblemindedness and feeblespiritedness of most Israelis, this anomalous situation could go on for ever; the past 30-odd years provides ready evidence of this. However, the very election as prime minister of Ariel Sharon - the architect of the settlement wedge, a founding father of the Yesha Council Republic - is a source of dissonance: for the first time he was obliged to contend as an Israeli with the results of his actions as a Settler. Sharon seems to be struggling mainly with his own self-determination: Is he still considered a member of the Settler people, or has he joined the Israeli people? Some people believe that the "disengagement plan" is proof that he has decided to throw his lot in with the latter, but skepticism is by all means permissible.
Were it not for the repeated electoral defeats of the parties of annexation and the Settlers, one might have considered a Machiavellian solution: to impress the Settler leaders into service as the leaders of Israel, thereby forcing them to bear - like Sharon in his latter days - all of the constraints that derive from that bizarre, exotic thing called "responsibility." If the mighty Sharon has fallen, what will the Wallersteins do if they are forced to grow up from their childish games of hide-and-seek out there in the hills? But as they would not withstand this punishment, a simpler solution suggests itself: that Israel use the "disengagement" as a springboard for disengagement not only from the Palestinians, but also to shake loose its parasites, its destroyers, the ravagers of its dream of normalcy.
If we didn't know Sharon better, we might have wished him at the start of this new year that Israel will succeed to reinvent itself; that the "disengagement" might symbolize a re-declaration of the State of Israel as it was intended to be: a normal country, with defined borders. Anyone who accepts its principles and wishes to join it, will be welcomed as a brother; anyone who doesn't can have the pleasure of fighting Amalek alone - "nation against nation," Wallerstein and rabbis versus imams. But Israel will be discharged from having to share in their punishment and their dictates. Not only on Rosh Hashanah, but all year long, Israelis should be wishing each other: May you be a head, not a tail.
© 2004, Haaretz
@%< |
See also:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/478096.html
|
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
