The idea of transferring the Palestinian population makes me shudder in horror. The idea of Jewish soldiers dragging entire families from their homes, throwing them onto trucks, and evacuating them over the border is so horrible and unethical that I cannot start to imagine it.
The idea also horrifies me when it involves Jews. The idea of evacuating entire communities from the homes and fields for which they cared lovingly despite the Katyusha rockets, uprooting children and young people from their schools, yeshivot, and pre-military training programs, and displacing three generations from their land is terrifying.
However, despite the horrible pain it would cause, I would have considered voting in favor of the Prime Minister's plan had I believed that it would solve the problems of terror, our international isolation, and the heavy burden of running the lives of others.
If only I believed that the disengagement could solve all these problems, as the Prime Minister promises, I would be willing, despite the heartache, to face the horrible reality of evacuating settlements. However, I am certain that the disengagement plan will not accomplish any of these things. It will not bring security or even calm but only more war, bloodshed, and suffering. There is no greater reward for terrorism than success, no greater encouragement than victory.
We are giving the terrorist organizations a chance to operate openly in the Gaza Strip and fulfill their greatest dream -- turning the area judenrein, Jew-free.
We are giving the terrorist organizations a chance to operate openly in the Gaza Strip and to import weapons freely and are fulfilling their greatest dream -- destroying Jewish settlements and turning the area judenrein, Jew-free. Will they have any reason to despair of fighting against us? Won't it give them even more motivation to continue the murderous terror attacks?
I assume that even the Prime Minister does not really think that the disengagement will end terror or even decrease it. He does believe that after we leave the Gaza Strip, we would be able to close the border. The Palestinians will be able to work in Egypt and we, at long last, will be able to wash our hands of what happens there. In short, we'll send Gaza to hell.
He also thinks that as long as the terror continues, we will not be asked to make any further concessions and that the world, seeing the dramatic steps we have taken, will ask nothing more and give us their full support. Doesn't that sound familiar? That is what we thought after the Oslo Accords. That was what we thought during the Camp David era, when Barak offered the Palestinians everything they desired. But it didn't happened.
We withdrew from 40% of the territory and ceased our rule over 98% of the population. In returned, we received exploding buses. The world demanded more. We offered the Palestinians everything, the works, and in return, we received the cruelest terror. The world responded by treating us like lepers and war criminals. Why should the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip be any different?
As long as the Palestinian problem is not solved completely, and the disengagement plan will not solve it, the world will continue to hold Israel solely responsible for the situation that has been created. The world we continue to demand that we, and no one else, take additional steps and make more concessions.
No matter what concessions we make, the terror will continue. The dream that withdrawing from the Gaza Strip will relieve us of responsibility is unfounded. No letter from Bush, as important or precedent setting as it might be, will change this.
I do agree with the Prime Minister on one point. The status quo is not to our benefit. Therefore, we must create change. However, abandoning the field and leaving it to the terrorist organizations will not do it. Change will occur only when we, with the help of the international community, are wise enough to completely transform the government system and the political climate within the Palestinian Authority, giving new forces, which truly desire the prosperity of their people, a chance to reach positions of power.
It will not be easy, as the American experience in Iraq has demonstrated. However, it is definitely possible, especially if the strongest power in the world considers it the only way that the free world can deal with terrorism. What a waste it is that, instead of supporting the United States lead, we are working in exactly the opposite direction. We will run away from the Gaza Strip and leave it in the terrorists' control. You can be sure that they will not grow lettuce there.
As long as the government of the Gaza Strip does not work to move the refugees out of the camps and improve the life of their people; as long as the government there does not consider the industrial areas a means for growth, not a corridor for terror and murder; as long as the government of the Gaza Strip does not use the media and educational system for progress and enlightenment, not brainwashing and fostering hatred; as long at the Palestinian government doesn't change, disengagement will not lead to any positive change.
In 1993, the song Farewell to Gaza was played on the radio. It expressed the Israeli belief that we had left Gaza behind us. Very quickly, it became clear that we could not leave Gaza the way it was, without it chasing after us. We must learn from our mistakes. Instead of trying to send Gaza to hell, we should try to guide Gaza to genuine, substantive change. If we do not, if we choose to run away or 'disengage,' we will not disengage from terrorism, responsibility, or suffering. We will disengage from only one thing: the opportunity for genuine peace.
(18) Anonymous, November 25, 2005 12:00 AM
International approval
International approval is directly proportionate to the level of compromise on Jewish identity and inversely proportionate to the closeness to truth. It negates Judaism and Israel as a Jewish country.If this is the aim, it cannot be successfully pursued on this land, which has been allocated to the Jewish people from the dawn of civilizations.Paradoxically, represents a strong Jewish identity,demand recognition to Jewish holiness and it will preserve the status quo between Judaism, Islam and Christianity and approval which emanates from acknowledgement of truth will be forthcoming.
(17) Sandy Lassen, August 23, 2005 12:00 AM
I totally agree with Natan Sharnsky. It does no good to give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians if the Palestinian government is not transformed. That is just like handing the land over to the terrorist. The free world would do the Palestinians a lot more good if we would help them transform their government and give them the gift of freedom.
(16) Norman Wand, January 21, 2005 12:00 AM
Moledet has the only humane solution
It is interesting that when the dictator Arafat was offered the opportunity to share Jordanian Rule as Prime minister, he turned it down. This indicates that his followers have no real interest in creating a State for themselves but are agents for the destruction of Israel. This desire for a Judenrein middle east is ruiness to all humanity. But the inability of the Israeli democracy to follow the principles of free speech of Sharansky by challenging and attempting to deny the right of representation by Moledet and the successful denial of this right to Kach is the heart of the problem as why no coherent solution can be found that removes the source of human self destruction which starts with regime change and population choice for only lawful aspirations excluding the right to to obtain territory of Israel of which includes the entire West Bank of the former Transjordan. Whether the world or even Israel recognizes it or not, this is Israeli territory and has been for well over a generation.
(15) fred, May 16, 2004 12:00 AM
Is it realistic to expect to be able to change the PA ?
Sharansky correctly suggests that disengagement will not reduce terror... and the status quo is not good for Israel...and that Israel should try to reform the PA.....is that realistic or just a wishful thinking ? maybe a breakup of Gaza into several smaller jurisdictions would work....because each would be more manageable than the entire Gaza strip.....Israel could "sanitize" each jurisdiction and then find peaceful Palestinians willing to control each jurisdiction under Israel's protection....I think that could work.....it sounds better than all the other plans I've heard so far !!!....and I feel good about the idea.....
(14) raye, May 6, 2004 12:00 AM
JEWS, UNITE111
As long as there are such extreme divided opinions among Jews about the land of Israel, some wanting to give away parts of it at any price, others not wanting to give any quarter, there will be no peace, no end of terror. Much of the outside world seems to be united with the Arabs against leaving Israel at peace, Why can't Jews in and outside of Israel make sholem among themselves so that the outside world can see we are One People and not a fractionalized society.
(13) Dani Miller, May 5, 2004 12:00 AM
going against the word of G-d will never yield peace
If it was enough to be given Israel yet not the Torah and Halacha, the solution would remain the same. Survival against a people bent solely on your destruction for the purpose of possessing your land can only be averted either through a change of their desire or their absolute defeat. Notwithstanding a major miracle to change their desire, something that the Holy One, blessed be He, has not decreed to perform to-date and as such can not be expected to perform in the future (when Bnai Yisrael were commanded to stop each time in the desert they expected and prepared to stop indefinitely), only the latter solution remains. The Infinite Wisdom, blessed be He, commanded the destruction of Amalek, which could not be because they were called by a specific and arbitrary name, how unjust would it be to command the destruction of a people because they happen to be called ‘Amalek’, or any other specific name? It was for a reason, not a name, that we were commanded to destroy them. They were, and always would be, bent on the destruction of Am-Yisrael possesing the same motive of the contemporary enemy. Our failure to fulfill this commandment in ancient times may be reflected in the tragedy today, thousands of years later. Perhaps the name and origin of the foreigners changed, but their nature remained the same. The only thing Am-Yisrael have to decide is, do they want to keep Eretz Yisrael and vanquish her enemy or relinquish her to the foreigners? There are no other solutions, not because we don't pray every day for a peaceful solution, but because in His infinite wisdom, the Holy One, blessed be He, has presented us with no peaceful solution (and as such can not be expected to do so in the future). In trying to get the population to emigrate, the half that don't want the land may leave but the half that want the land, the half that fight, will stay to do so. Trying to improve the life of an irrational enemy and educate his children will take many decades during which time Am-Yisrael will suffer countless more attacks, for a plan that may, like all the others, only empower our enemy with better infrastructure and weapons to turn against us, something that has already been learned through painful experience. As much as the idea of transferring the Palestinian population makes Natan Sharansky shudder in horror, not coincidently because of our own tragedy that can only have occurred through divine decree for a excellent reason hidden from us, we may yet learn to discover that it is really a brave, bold and successful solution. Remove the foreskin from the land and let future generations live in peace. Rebuild the third temple immediately and let the Holy One, blessed be He, fight the battle for His people as He did so in the past.
(12) Howard, May 4, 2004 12:00 AM
Sensible and sound analysis. A few comments:
1. You are right, getting out of Gaza unilaterally, without support from the Palestianians accomplishes little. Place the failures with the Bush administration, whose let them fight ideology has dramatically increased tensions. Withdrawal must come within the context of an overall peace.
2. But note, to those who support toughness, Israel did far better from 1993-1999 while negotiations were continuing, then from 2001-2004.
2. For Devorah, We read about Pesach, and our suffering to develop empathy, to treat the stranger in the land with kindness for we were strangers in the land of Egypt. That may not mean risking our lives and I do not criticize necessary acts of self-preservation; however, to suggest the Torah permits much less commands oppression of people is far off the idea of a holy charitable people that I believe lies at the center of Judaism.
(11) Joshua Lee, May 4, 2004 12:00 AM
Written Torah is not enough, you need the Oral Torah
The Oral Torah explicates the written Torah here. The verse from Bamidbar refers to the seven nations of Caanan. According to the Talmud (and historians) these nations no longer exist because Sancheriv "mixed the peoples." It is a big mistake to quote the Torah about the destructions of specific tribes and make it refer to Ishmaelites.
That having been said I am against the peace process, but our Rabbonim have said that so-called "land for peace" is acceptable if it saves Jewish lives. That having been said our Rabbonim also state that at present land for peace is not doable because it will increase loss of life.
(10) Shaul, May 4, 2004 12:00 AM
A Halachic Perspective to Disengagement
As commendable as all the responses are with their quotes from the Torah, I think it is necessary to give a more Halachic perspective to the issue, if only so that Judaism not be misrepresented by our adversaries, Jewish or not, as a “fundamentalist” or “racist” religion that calls for the unconditional destruction of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel. In contrast to militant Islam, Torah Judaism does not offer simplistic solutions to complex problems based on one-sided quotes of Scriptural verses, but endeavors always to present a balanced, circumspect discussion of divergent opinions before pronouncing a practical, common sense opinion.
What is clear is that the Torah absolutely does not mandate extermination of the present non-Jewish residents of the Land of Israel, as a “literal” reading of the verses quoted by other readers might seem to imply. The reason is very simple; namely, that they are neither from Amalek nor from the seven nations of Canaan who lived in the Land at the time of the Exodus. These are the only peoples whom we are commanded to exterminate, and only in case they refuse to make peace with us, as the Rambam rules explicitly in his Mishne Torah (Laws of Kings and Their Wars 6:4). Since we cannot identify these peoples today, we have no way of carrying out this ruling.
Not only that, but we have no Halachic basis to wage war even against these peoples in the hypothetical event that we should find them today. Thus the Rambam rules clearly that even “commanded war” (Milhemet Mitzva), such as that which the Torah prescribes against Amalek and the Canaanites, can only be waged by a king appointed by the Sanhedrin, the religious court of seventy-one sages (Book of Mitzvot, Introduction; Laws of Kings 1:3 and 5:1). Since we have neither the Sanhedrin nor a king, it follows that we simply cannot wage war today, even that which is mandated by the Torah. In our day, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has ruled similarly in almost as many words (Tehumin, Vol. 10, 5749, p. 43), although other authorities have voiced differing opinions (for example, see R. Shaul Yisraeli, op. cit., pp. 48-61).
If, indeed, we have no formal Halachic basis for waging war, what does the Torah tell us to do if we are attacked? The Rambam (Laws of Shabbat 2:23) and the Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 329:6) nevertheless rule that if enemies threaten Jewish lives, then it is a Mitzva to go out and fight them, and even to violate the Shabbat, in order to save Jewish lives. Not only that, but even if the enemy threatens only Jewish property in a border city, we are still required to violate the Shabbat in order to protect our interests (ibid.). That this ruling applies even in the absence of a king and the Sanhedrin, and even outside the Land of Israel, is clear from the Talmudic source (Eruvin 45a) in which Naharde’a in Babylonia is cited as an example of a border city.
We have seen that even in the absence of a formal mandate to wage war, and even when Jewish lives are not in danger, it is still a Mitzva, even on Shabbat and outside of Israel, to fight the enemies who threaten us. But in the Land of Israel, there is another, more peaceful option open to us, which is likewise permitted on the Shabbat.
This option is the Mitzva of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (settling the Land of Israel). The Rambam (Laws of Shabbat 6:11) and the Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 306:11) both rule that it is permissible on Shabbat to buy a house in the Land of Israel from a non-Jew and instruct him to write a deed, even though for us writing is a forbidden labor on Shabbat and as such our Rabbis forbade us to tell even a non-Jew to do it for us on Shabbat. In the case of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael, however, they relaxed their prohibition in order to encourage us to settle the Land.
This, I submit, is a more peaceful means to solve the conflict. Of course, perhaps the Arabs are not willing to sell their houses to us and move elsewhere? This isn’t so clear. Recent reports tell us that they are not as connected to their land as they would like us to believe. Many thousands of them have left to find jobs elsewhere in the Middle East, and whole villages have been found virtually deserted. A recent Palestinian poll found that close to half the population would be willing to emigrate to the West if they were given jobs, housing, and adequate financial means. Not only Herzl in his day, but also eminent Americans such as Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt in their day, all proposed emigration of the Arab population as the only truly humane solution to the conflict. The real question in my mind is, are we ready to foot the bill?
(9) Peter Grenadier, May 3, 2004 12:00 AM
Stand your ground
Don't give up an inch of the Gaza. When you have thugs and hate filled murderer's hanging around your home, do you say, sit in my front yard if you'll just be nice? The closer they get, the more damage they can and WILL do.
Look you know that much of the Arab world wants you to cease to exist. Stand your ground.
Prime Minister Sharon, I hope is only toying with the US - but of course I don't know
(8) Andy, May 3, 2004 12:00 AM
Devorah's response?
Devora,
Pinky brought up some points worth noting . It would be interesting to read your response.
(7) Pinky, April 30, 2004 12:00 AM
Devora Should Look Further Into the Torah...
As Devora Chaya quotes from Bamidbar where we are told that we should drive all inhabitants from The Land, she forgets other relevant teachings from the Toirah.
We are told in Devarim, Perek Chuf (chapter 20) that when we go to war with nations that do not border us, if we make peace with them, they may serve us as slaves, but if we do not make peace with them, we are to slay all the males. However, the Toirah goes on, (Possukim/ verses 15-16) "Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes."
Indeed, if we are to truly adopt a literalist approach to the Toirah, we must set aside our Western liberalism and truly embrace the ways of other nations throughout history. Did the Mongols show mercy to the Arabs during conquest in the Middle Ages? Did the Crusaders worry about "public relations"? Did the Germans care about some Western perception of "human rights"?
No, Devorah Chaya, if we are to adopt literally the ways of the Toirah, we mustn't subscribe to your halfway solutions. We have all the knowledge and strength -- and moral right -- to truly apply literal Toirah teachings.
Why, I bet that somewhere in Yad Vashem we can dig up some old construction plans for "factories" that we can build in Gush Katif that would help us fulfill the Commandment and rid Gaza (and later Yehuda and Shomron) of the menace once and for all.
Anything less is a halfway solution, rather than a final one.
(6) Tamara, April 30, 2004 12:00 AM
I back Sharon
If Hamas gains control of Gaza, the Palestinians will expect them to make their lives better. They will expect water, electricity and economic opportunities. Hamas will quickly lose its luster and will either step up and change or fade away.
Prime Minister Sharon would never put Israel in danger. He is eliminating the terrorist leaders, and if this plan is implemented would still maintain security on the borders, of course. But IDF soldiers wouldn't have to lose their lives guarding settlements in Gaza.
(5) Devora Chaya, April 29, 2004 12:00 AM
Someone Please Give Mr. Sharansky a Bible
"If only I believed that the disengagement could solve all these problems, as the Prime Minister promises, I would be willing, despite the heartache, to face the horrible reality of evacuating settlements."
This article is not worthy of the Aish website. We are bound by a covenant with very clear guidelines. The lack of a willingness to submit ourselves to those guidelines is the root of our problems. Nowhere in this article does Mr. Sharansky quote a Torah source. Instead he appeals to humanism, logic, pragmatism, realism, moral relativism. While I have no doubt his intentions are well-meant, one who does not make Torah Law both his ruler and his measure will have nothing worthwhile to say.
"But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that ye let remain of them be as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein ye dwell." (Bamidbar 33:55)
(4) Emily, April 29, 2004 12:00 AM
good article, but devorah
Devorah, not all people live by the torah, while I believe in torah, its not the law, so for him to use logic is perfectly fine, torah isnt the law of the world..I lived in Israel for a long time, and while torah is theoretically the law there, it leaves many hoopholes, I dont believe you can prove everything with the torah, espiecially when we are not dealing with our own kind anyway
(3) Andrew Gelbman, April 29, 2004 12:00 AM
Devora Chaya is RIGHT!
Moreover, the scripture tells us "therefore thus saith the Lord G-D: Surely in the fire of My jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the nations, and against all Edom, that have appointed My land unto themselves for a possession with the joy of all their heart, with disdain of soul, to cast it out for a prey;" Ezekiel 36:5
and if that's not clear enough, "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever." DEUT 23:6 (23:7).
Instead of retreating from our enemies, or seeking to "negotiate" with a band of killers who demand the death of every Jew everywhere, we should concern ourselves with achieving victory over them. After they are defeated, and the Land liberated, then and only then can we even consider "discussions".
(2) Sara, April 29, 2004 12:00 AM
Amein! To Devorah Chaya's quote of the following:
But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that ye let remain of them be as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein ye dwell." (Bamidbar 33:55)
(1) alan, April 29, 2004 12:00 AM
half a plan
A whole plan would be to evacuate the Isreali Settlers to the west bank and the west bank Arabs to Gaza and shut the flow of water to Gaza The brackish water which is in the water table of Gaza cannot sustain the Arab population and they would leave on their own. Peace is easy to acheive if you have the fortitude to do what is necessary. As for the UN, European Union They are already pay the Arabs to kill us, what more could they do that they aren't doing already?