By Reuven Koret
December 26, 2004
I am a "settler." True, I work in the bosom of Tel Aviv and live in its suburbs. But as a younger man, I had the unforgettably intensive experience of living in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem -- all of which, make no mistake, is considered "occupied territory" by most of the world. (Not just the Old City, but the New City as well. A child born in Jerusalem is not considered by the United States to be born in Israel. The State Department considers Jerusalem to be an International City, not an Israeli one.)
President Bush last week signed another in a long line of six-month waivers to postpone the Congressionally-mandated move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv. The number of countries with embassies in our capital can be counted on less than half the fingers on one hand. (I reserve one finger to express my feelings for those who decline to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.) The City of David is the living symbol of Israel's failure over 56 years to achieve international recognition for its sovereignty. Much of the world considers all of Israel to be "occupied territory," and all of its Jewish citizens occupiers. Settlers. Thus, as an Israeli citizen, I am a "Jewish settler." And proud of it.
The six-pointed Magen David is perhaps the most enduring representation of Jewishness. It adorns the Israeli flag. It appears on every synagogue. It hangs around the neck of many a proud Jew. It is to Judaism what the cross is to Christianity or the crescent is to Muslims. It is the symbol of our nationhood, our peoplehood.
So when the residents of Gush Katif decided to create orange badges in that shape, and wear them, I wondered: what's the big deal? I am not being disingenuous here. The initiators of the campaign were suggesting an association with the yellow Shields of David that the Germans forced the Jews to wear to single them for discrimination, for deportation and, eventually, for destruction. The residents of Gaza and northern Samaria are indeed the objects of discrimination and deportation, their communities slated for destruction -- except those parts which may be handed over, intact, to Israel's enemies.
No one is equating Sharon with Hitler, or the IDF and Israeli police with the German Nazis of their collaborators. No one is saying that the disengagement process will lead to Death Camps -- although the reality is that government is preparing mass detention camps, and the process it is driving with demonic fervor will almost certainly result in needless deaths. The conscientious objectors are making a statement that what the Sharon government has arrogated to do--expelling thousands of citizens and eliminating whole communities is an act unprecedented in a democracy, certainly in recent decades, and not an act that can or should be accepted quietly or with equanimity.
In 2003 Ariel Sharon ran against, and flattened by a 2:1 margin, Amnon Mitzna and the Labor party, which had adopted the platform of "unilateral disengagement." And then, less than a year later, he adopted that platform, in diametrical opposition to the platform of the Likud party which selected him as its leader.
The opponents of disengagement tried everything to stop it. They rejected it in the Central Committee. They rejected in a party-wide vote of all Likud voters. One hundred thousand created a human chain, holding hands from Gaza to Jerusalem. In the government, those who opposed disengagement were fired.
In the government decision, there were a number of conditions for the Disengagement Bill's passage: Israel would retain control of the airport and seaport, and keep control over the Philadelphi route along the border of Israel and Egypt to prevent weapons smuggling. Israel would authorize "evacuation" (another odious euphemism for expulsion) in four distinct steps, re-evaluating each next step in light of the previous one.
All of these restraints seem to be evaporating with each passing day. The government appears willing to let Palestinian mortars and rockets "soften up" the communities with unanswered attacks with no serious response. It's not that the army can't do anything. The government has "tied its hands," as a senior officer of the Southern Command said this weekend. There are rumblings of discontent and extreme frustration in the army, and the police force. Thousands of soldiers are signing petitions of refusal to expel fellow Jews.
We see that the Jews of Gaza and northern Samaria are the canaries in the coal mine for all of Judea and Samaria, at least for those communities east of the security fence, and ultimately for Jerusalem. If the expulsion of these 8000-plus Jews goes smoothly and without fuss, it is just a matter of time before the government of Israel, compelled by foreign forces, turns its attention to the rest of the unfenced-in "West Bank."
The struggle in contemporary Israel is between those who wish to maintain and protect Israel's character as a Jewish State and those who wish to water-down the distinctively Jewish nature of the nation--starting with its flag adorned with the blue Magen David and its anthem, which speaks of "the two thousand year longing of the Jewish soul." While advocates of disengagement speak about the need to maintain the demographic balance of Jews and Arabs, and to preserve Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic state," the argument does not really hold up on close examination. Will Israel also flee from other areas -- the Galilee, the Negev, parts of Jerusalem and the coastal plain -- in which Jews are a minority? Apparently so. That is the precedent being set.
To acknowledge Israel as a Jewish State is not in any way to invalidate the rights or contributions of those non-Jews -- Christians, Arabs, and Druze who are loyal citizens of the state. Many have proudly risked and often given their lives in service to their nation. Israel is, and always has been, a nation which recognizes and welcomes its special roles as a spiritual and historical nexus of the three monotheistic faiths, and as a world center of spiritual longings, truly a Holy Land with the Jewish people -- not the UN or the Pope, heaven forbid -- as its custodian.
Wearing the Orange Star is a mark of strength, not of victimhood. To wear it is to affirm that Jews today will not be quietly deported and their properties destroyed as those once forced to wear the yellow star were. The Israelis who live in Gaza and Samaria are not defenseless chattel, or cattle, to be herded at the will and whim of the powers that be. The powers will need to contend with those of us who, though not living in the areas slated for destruction and expulsion, identify with the struggle of our brothers and sister there and will lend it our unequivocal and energetic support.
No one has any illusion that civilian protesters will be able immediately to prevent the armed forces from carrying out the government's orders. But the very act of protesting, and resisting non-violently, is the right thing to do, to express our outrage and revulsion at this trampling of human rights and violation Jewish values. And to make it clear that Jews will not be evicted from our Land without a sustained non-violent struggle.
The conscientious objectors may lose some battles, but we will ultimately win the war to make Israel what it was created and destined to be: a Jewish nation with Jewish values. Let us look upon the Orange Star and wear it proudly, not only as a sign of protest and helplessness, but as a symbol of undiminished hope, a prospect for a brighter future with a different government worthy to defend its people, and its country, with the power of the Shield of David.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
