Monday, July 25, 2005

I have seen the enemy, part 2

I had not intended to post on this subject again so soon, but given that my previous entry has clearly irked some people whose writing I greatly respect and enjoy, I felt it necessary to provide a response, part two, if you will.

As you've probably already ascertained, I am generally against the settlements, and believe, for the most part, that they are an obstacle to any future permanent agreements with the Palestinians. I do, however, believe that it is possible to reach a compromise under certain circumstances that would allow Israel to retain control over areas like Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, etc., in exchange for land elsewhere that could go to the Palestinians (not unlike the agreements we have with Jordan). As I've mentioned in a previous entry, I know that it must be difficult for people to be forced to leave their homes and livelihoods, everything they have worked to build for so many years. If I were in that position, I would like to think that I would do as asked, with great sorrow, perhaps, but believing that I was doing it for the greater good, that such a request would not be made of me if it were not so incredibly important for the future of the state that I live in and love (warts and all). I would like to think that you would not see me arguing with or screaming at soldiers, poor kids who have the misfortune of being the wrong age at the wrong time. You would not see me trying to make life difficult for my fellow Israelis by blocking roads as they try to get home to their children after a long day at work, and you would certainly not see me compare the disengagement to the Holocaust.

My problems are not with each and every individual settler, and indeed, I have had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of a number of people in various settlements. They are among the finest people I know, and I enjoy their company immensely. And of course, I realize that not everyone waving an orange ribbon is running out to attack police officers. In fact, I would like to think that the majority are not. On the flip side, however, I know I am not alone in being horrified at what I've seen on television - the disgusting treatment of our police officers and soldiers being verbally - and sometimes even physically - attack by anti-disengagement supporters of all ages. My husband (who is nowhere near me politically) and I were aghast to watch a young girl who could not have been older than 12 letting go with a non-stop verbal tirade against a soldier. We didn't know whether to laugh or cry at such a spectacle.

People talk about the violence that the police are using against these people. What about the violence that these people are perpetrating against the police and the soldiers? How on earth can parents allow their children to attend and often bring their children to events where there is even the slightest chance for violence? What are parents teaching their children if the children think it's okay to abuse those who are serving in our country's military? Who are their role models? Suddenly, instead of our sons and daughters defending Israel against her enemies, they are being forced to fend off women and children. Our police force, struggling to keep our country safe even at the best of times, are being pushed to the brink of despair and exhaustion by these protestors, unable to the jobs that they were hired to do.

And these are just the protests that we see. The countless stories that I've heard about people whose cars have been vandalized simply for having a blue ribbon tied around the antenna, blue ribbons being removed from house gates, etc. Given that Israel is a democracy, it seems that an awful lot of people are trying to stifle the rights of the pro-disengagement folks.

I can respect the right of the anti-disengagement community to protest what is happening. Truly, I can. What I cannot respect or accept are the tactics being used by some in battle. Instead of directing their anger at the government, many members of this community are fighting dirty, unnecessarily tying up the police force and the military and wreaking havoc on the daily lives of Israeli citizens who might otherwise have supported them. To those of you who support and participate in these tactics, you are battling the wrong foes. You are your own worst enemy (and some would say this about me, I'm quite sure), and no good can possibly come of your actions. To those of you who are simply against the disengagement, yet you have chosen to take the high road this Summer, you have my respect for your positions, and my sympathy for your losses.

33 comments:

He said...

I'm with you on this one, She.
It's such an emotional subject and I can understand the responses to the last post.

What made me laugh was the commenter who presumed you were from Tel Aviv (they failed to read your commuting post). I guess all of us living in Tel Aviv are lefties who spit and curse and get their children to tear down orange ribbons upon sight (ah no, sorry, the exploitation of innocent children is copyrighted by the orangers). And don't forget the piercings and wild orgies we throw every weekend...

Personally, I don't see the religious association with Gaza. I do see an association with previous governments who promoted settling there, no problem. Dare I mention that some of these 'settlers' saw the opportunity to live in Gaza as an opportunity to upgrade their quality of life, rather than for Zionist reasons?

RA said...

hmmm...

Seems like you are again into the same mantra of lands for peace / agreement etc...

As I already commented before, this is the middle east - whether you like it or not. Peace is just a short term phase before war here. A time to re-arm. Read the history of this area...
And we are indeed in fight with arab muslims (fanatic ones) not the swiss army or any other democracy. The agreements they sign upon do not worth even the ink they are written with (the paper is much more expensive).

It was proven in the last 10 years since the "Oslo disaster" that they (the ones who signed) are not heading for peace. Still, all of you (SHE) and alike (HE) are shouting all the time - give them a chance. Give them land. Give give give...

Well, if it was a startup company failing like that for 10 years all the time asking for more funds I do not think it was still around. But it is not. It is OUR land (yes yes OUR land for the past 2000 years and more...) that you want to give away for free - we did not get anything in the last 10 years - oh, sorry we did get - death, blood and tears...

Orange is the color of sanity if you ask me. We need a revolution in a our crambling "democracy" in which the prime minister son (covering for his dad) is about to go to jail.
Yitzhak Rabin resigned from the government back in 76 when his wife had a bank account in the US which lead to the 77 changes. But these days everything is ok... as long as it is against the orange ribbon!

He said...

Oh. Shock, horror, shiver me timbers. I knew it would pop up at some point, that line about Jews belonging to this land because they were here 2000+ years ago...way before those pesky Palestinians.

Face facts. The Palestinians aren't going to suddenly disappear, they are here to stay. I don't particularly love it either. Trust me, I'm not a leftie. But surely, one day, however far in the future that day might be, you should be prepared to sit and talk peace with your neighbours.

And how can you compare a peace process, however off and on it is, to a startup company? Really not sure how that works...You sound like an Israeli who has been burnt working in the hi-tech industry...

Liza said...

Seems like Israel has also broken her fair share of agreements as well, so you can hardly fault one side and not the other.
With regard to peace, well that would be great, and it certainly is the ideal goal. In the event that it doesn't happen though, if Israel chooses to stay in the territories, given the demographics of the Palestinian growth rate versus the Israeli growth rate, there will no longer be a Jewish majority in Israel. We are all in the area to stay, whether you like it or not, so why not deal with the situation that we've been dealt, instead of trying to handle a situation that doesn't exist.
Oh, and BTW, I work for the startup that you described...

Ruth said...

I am not so sure that disengagement will lead to peace. Why should it? Hamas is doing all they can to present it as their victory and they problably call the shots already in the Gaza strip. The talibanisation of the Gaza society is an ongoing process (remember the horrible killing of girls for being seen with their fiances?). Terror organisations are already being invited in moving to Gaza and some have officially accepted.

Seeing the world in black and white is extremely superficial. Seeing everything in monochrome grey is not much smarter.

I think this analysis more to the point: http://www.arabworldanalysis.com/blog/archives/2005/07/time_to_stop_ga.html

tamouzrocks said...

"I am not so sure that disengagement will lead to peace."

It's not about peace anymore. It's about existence.

The past 12 years have convinced me that there will never be peace in the middle east. The issue becomes: will there be a Jewish, democratic Israel? Or even a Jewish, *un*democratic Israel?

Sharon understands this. He doesn't give a crap about peace. He only cares about his beloved Israel with all his heart. But he's realistic enough to see the ticking demographic time bomb. The disengagement is about saving Jewish Israel.

Ruth said...

I also see the demography and the hard choice this means for Israel.

However, this would fit well with the proposal in the analusis I linked to above: Evacuate the settlements but keep the army in Gaza.

And the word "peace" was, of course, mentioned by "him" in response to the "Jewish connection to the land".

Anonymous said...

Here's your own article, your words - but from a different perspective. If you read the following you would certainly perceive the author to be wacko...so here's your mirror image:

It must be the most successful marketing campaign in history. The color blue is so strongly identified with the secular/forcibly-remove-jews-from-their-home movement that I automatically become suspicious of anyone and anything with the color blue. It's even reached the point where it has simply become a distasteful color. Yes, the cute little stuffed penguin on my desk has suddenly become an enemy agent, and parts of the company logo will have to go. I feel funny getting in taxis that have a blue ribbon (and given that I take a shuttle taxi between the train station and my office twice a day, the blue ribbon potential is always there), as if I'm actually contributing money directly to the Jew-removal movement. Of course, maybe they change their ribbons based on the neighborhood that they happen to be driving through, as one Jerusalem-based taxi driver told Lisa from On the Face. In the area where my office is, though, I'm inclined to doubt it. These guys are "kacholim" ("blues") through and through.

"Kacholim". Whenever I say it, I say it with disdain, as if I was swearing. I wish I could say that I can't help it, but that would be lying. Obviously, I do it on purpose. Perhaps if I wasn't so disgusted by their actions, I wouldn't feel the need to refer to them in this way, but their protest methods are so utterly abhorrent that all I feel is anger. Throwing garbage at soldiers alongside Arabs was sickening, and to actually be the contributing factor in the tragic death of a police officer recently is a twisted act of cruelty perpetrated against the people in Israel. I think of these secular (am NOT referring to all secular people here - am specifically referring to those I describe in the following text, having seen it on the news - I have many secular friends and colleagues who are wonderful people and would never do such things, especially not in the name of peace) people who would never take God's name in vain, yet these same people have no qualms about twisting the meaning of democracy and pretending that it is ok to arrest people without due process, to hold them in prison with no family or attorney contact, for indefinite periods of time, because they sat in a street protest, or to throw Kippah-wearing people off of a bus because of their Kippah and for no other reason.

With the latest goings on near Tzomet Shilat, I can't help but be reminded of a woman I know who lives there. A fervent left-winger (I can only assume that her car is bedecked in blue, and that she's probably gone out and purchased a new wardrobe consisting solely of blue articles of clothing) who had no problem to share her political beliefs (and any other beliefs she may have had) with anyone who would listen (not a terribly endearing quality in the workplace), I imagine her to be serving up coffee and cake to her Arab "guests", reveling in the fact that she is doing her part for the cause (perhaps she's even helping them to abuse the soldiers and police in the vicinity). This charming individual once tried to explain the actions of the would-be Arab terrorists and their leftist supporters who have succeeded in killing thousands, maiming more for life, and destroying families throughout Israel and the world as an act of misguided youth (she knows one of the families, and he couldn't possibly be a terrorist!), and my colleagues and I are counting our blessings that she is no longer working with us, so that we won't have to go through the disengagement with "ha'kachola ha'zot".

Of course, I realize that not everyone sporting blue these days supports the perpetrators of these acts, and that they simply support the disengagement. However, words of condemnation are few and far between, and if these people do not take a vocal stand against the psychos, one can only assume that they support them. And, with these frightening hooligans setting the course of events, it should prove to be a most interesting Summer, to say the least, pitting Jew against Jew, brother against brother. Let the feelings of impending dread begin...

Liza said...

Umm... Sorry, to burst your bubble, but I'm inclined to believe that you're the wacko here, not me. This isn't Mad Libs, where you can just stick words into text written by someone else in order to twist it around and make it your own. And it is definitely your own, as I would never be involved with or support your perception of the "kcholim". You distort the picture. While there may be those who purely want to see Jews dragged from their homes, I want to preserve a demographic majority in the Jewish State, and I want to see a two-state solution, which can't happen as long as we remain there. Sad as it is to force people to leave their homes, it is for the greater good. Those who choose to ignore the facts or believe that they can stop the disengagement will get burned.

Ruth said...

She

Please accept that your perception of "the greater good" does not have to be shared by everybody and sundry. Insinuating that the anti-disengagement people are deliberatly putting their personal gain before "the greater good" is not acceptable.

The notion that rewarding terrorism might be dangerous (the precedent being of cours the withdrawal of South Lebanon and the perception that this has fueled the planning of the current terror war against us) is not less fact-based that your notions about demography.

Liza said...

The problem is that you see it as rewarding terrorism. I see it as removing Israel from a difficult, problematic situation. And yes, if it means that soldiers will stop being killed while defending isolated (as well as not so isolated) settlements, then yes, it is for the greater good.

With regard to my "notions" of demography, as you call them, well dear, let's take a look at the Jewish birthrate, and then let's take a look at the Arab birthrate. It doesn't take a genius to realize what's going to happen down the line. We can either choose to be a geographically smaller country with a solid Jewish majority, or we can remain in the current situation and suddenly find ourselves in the minority. Seems to be a no-brainer to me.

Anonymous said...

You missed the point. Stop being defensive and please just listen for a moment.

I am absolutely not saying that I support the ideas of your article when it is switched around 180 degrees.

I am simply displaying your own words back to you, but from the other perspective, and your reaction was antagonistic instead of accepting.

Had someone written your exact article, using your exact words like "enemy," "disdain," "disgust,"etc., yet had written it with the opposite group as the subject, then it becomes a "distortion" (as you yourself wrote in your comment) and you would never support the author's perception of the "kcholim," (also, as you wrote).

Don't you see? You actually believe that it is ok to write those same words, but turn it around and it suddenly becomes unacceptable. What is that called...right - hypocrisy.

Oh, by the way - - if you think the terror has been bad in the past 5 years, just wait until we run away from the south. You probably supported Oslo (assuming you were old enough), Madrid, Sharm, running like mice from Lebanon, and all of the other pathetic appeasements that has only led to increased hate and terror. How nice. And you actually believe that there can be peace? As I mentioned yesterday, I liberally supported plenty of peace movements, but I am not so foolish as to think that religious-fanatic haters who condone the killing, maiming and dismembering of other people can ever live under normalized relations with Israel.

Your readers can decide.

Ruth said...

She

If you were reading my previous comments you would realize that I do not object to your argument about demography. I object to your self-righteousness combined with your lack of differentiated thinking on the issue.

Every single-vision perception can only be wrong. I do not "see the disengagement as rewarding terror". I mentioned this as a valid argument against the disengagement as it is being carried out. Your point about demography is also a valid argument for disengagement per se.

My impression is that you do not really weigh arguments pro and con but just go with your gut feeling.

Liza said...

What frightens me is that you do not find it acceptable to be disgusted by or show disdain for people who perpetrate acts of agression and questionable moral value, even though they are doing it in your name, so to speak. Does this mean that it's okay to stop traffic throughout the country, hurl abuse at members of the security forces, equate the disengagement with the Holocaust, place fake bombs in bus stations (including the Netanya station, just two days after a terror attack in the city), etc., as long as it is in support of your cause? It is to the perpetrators of these acts that I have been referring, yet everyone has conveniently ignored that part, instead choosing to attack me for what they wanted to believe that I'd written.

Oh, and I never said that I believed the terror will abate once we have retreated from Gaza. I just happen to think that leaving is the right thing to do, terror or not. It may get worse, it may get better, or it may remain the same. Time will tell, and I don't believe that we should stay there just to fight terror, as it hasn't worked until now. And, I'm not even going to address your stereotyping of Palestinians as "religious-fanatic haters who condone the killing, maiming and dismembering of other people", for just as there are all kinds of Israelis, there are also all kinds of Palestinians. You are making a generalization of the sort for which you are accusing me.

Ruth said...

She

your initial postings goes far beyond showing disgust with the unacceptable actions of some anti-disengagement people. You called "orange" that is the whole group "the enemy" (not even an enmey, THE enemy.

There certainly are all kinds of Palestinians, however, the PA is not a democracy but a thugocracy where the people calling the shots might with some justice be discribed as "religious-fanatic haters who condone the killing, maiming and dismembering of other people".

Ruth said...

And by the way are you aware that as late as May 2005 about half the Palestinian populations still is in support of suicide bombings?

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2005/no54.pdf

Anonymous said...

Below is what you wrote, my comments interspersed:

"What frightens me is that you do not find it acceptable to be disgusted by or show disdain for people who perpetrate acts of agression and questionable moral value, even though they are doing it in your name, so to speak."

ANON - If by "aggression" you mean initiating physical violence on someone, then I agree that civilians should not do so - it is unacceptable behavior. "Questionable moral value" is subjective - your morals, my morals, the morals of a terrorist, or a slaveowner, or a rapist or a child...they are all different. For centuries the church anhialated people the name of its own morality. So did the Germans. Therefore, it is the holder of the moral compass that decides. But see further:


"Does this mean that it's okay to stop traffic throughout the country, hurl abuse at members of the security forces, equate the disengagement with the Holocaust,.."

ANON - Yes, Yes and Yes - you see, I come from a DEMOCRATIC point of view, and Israel is always so proud to call itself a democracy. In the USA, all three of these items are 100% legitimate ways of showing your opposition. Do you not view Martin Luther King as a leader of a righteous movement? Guess what - he and his group constantly broke "the law" as it was then. No blacks in the front of the bus was a law. No blacks in certain restaurants - a law. Was he "wrong" for violating these "laws?" Well, it was illegal to be sure, but the laws were arguably immoral, and wrong, and the temperment of the times required actions like his to wake people up to change those laws. Therefore, though it was not legal, it was right and just and heroic. Had you been there with your current attitude you would be shouting to the rooftops about how he was breaking the law and deserved to be punished. Or not?? If not, why not - because you agree? That is not what makes action proper or not, your agreement. There must be a generic and objective line, not just yours.

Anyway, more on your three points - stopping traffic? perfectly fine, very common worldwide as a way to try and awaken the masses. Dangerous? sure. Heck, I shudder to think of an ambulance that cannot get to its destination, or any similar potential tragedy. But it is not unique to right-wingers...check your own history of traffic-stopping by leftists, Histadrut, etc. Annoying? yes. Illegal? yes. But immoral and disgusting and hate-worthy? I guess only if you disagree so much and are blind to the reasons behind it. Certainly less offensive than throwing rocks at motorists on the 446, yet those perpetrators walk around free. Jew-killers get to take exams, while traffic-stoppers sit in solitary and cannot, all because of the political atmosphere. The whole sanity check is gone now, thanks to people like you who so strongly think there can be peace they push aside all self-perceived obstacles, even the dignity of human life.

As to Hurling abuse and equating something with the Holocaust. Yes, absolutely democratically acceptable. Is it nice? nope. Might it be offensive? of course. But since when in a democracy is the freedom of such speech ever stifled? Nazis today march in the US, don't you know? Under the swastika flag. Is it nice? nope - but is it undemocratic? not a chance. Like it or not, that is democracy, not the mirage practiced here. In the end, it is just words, and unless they lead to a clear and present danger such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre people have the democratic right to say, and wear, what they wish. Israel is a sham. Imagine - forcing someone to remove an orange shirt in public before entering the western wall...you, the liberal, are not sickened by this society that can stoop so low? That is what is so fake about your liberalism - it is only for what you like.

"place fake bombs in bus stations (including the Netanya station, just two days after a terror attack in the city), etc., as long as it is in support of your cause?"

ANON - that is pathetic, cowardly, and unacceptable. it is also the work of such a small, twisted minority of nutjobs that you can likely count them on the digits of your body. Using the extreme of the extreme to underly your case only shows how desperate you are to find some way to make the rightists look bad.

In the end, your philosophy cannot win...it never has in the history of the world. Appeasement begets more violence...take a history course. Once you get past the fantasy of two-states, past the false hope of normal relations with Arabs (yes, I noted them as fanatical in general - have you ever listened to a Mosque sermon?), past the fallacy of any claim to know that we can co-exist at all, only then will your mind be clear enough to listen to alternative solutions, those which preserve the respect and rights of Jews. Jews, not just Israelis - this is not Portugal where our pride stems from borders as defined by whatever power-hungry person is making the rules at the time. Or does it? if you think it does, well....then I suppose you would fight just as hard if Feiglin becomes Prime Minister and makes his decisions. After all, you must support the government laws, right?

You're no true liberal, you just hate being associated by what you consider archaic, backward losers who live in the past. Admit that, and your much-needed therapy has achieved a breakthrough.

zahava said...

I feel compelled to caution the commenters to restrain their emotion when responding to She. As I stated in my comment in the first post regarding her feelings toward the protests, this is truly a time when we must work very hard to work toward unity rather than further dividing ourselves. Ratcheting up the rhetoric will not solve anything, but may compel people to more firmly defend their positions without trying to see the other side.

That being said, She, I will add that I truly wish that your second post had been your first. While we are obviously on different ends of the political spectrum, I can respect (while disagreeing with the means this will be accomplished) your saying that you believe that removing ourselves from Gaza will begin to address the issue of demographics.

Please believe me when I tell you that I daily witness the denunciation of abuse and violence against OUR security forces -- be they military or police. In my community, during this period of the three weeks, I see daily postings for shiurim asking us to look inward and remember the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash was the result of sinat chinam. I see daily lists of the appropriate Tehillim to be said to both ask HaShem to answer our prayers and to help us find the strength to come out on the other end of the summer as whole a nation as possible.

One thing that can be said, regardless of the polemics -- we are a country of mothers and fathers who desperately want our children to be safe. The anger and the passion of these discussions reveals the dire level of concern for our collective well-being. But it is precisely because of the emotional issues that we must be circumspect when discussing our opposition. I can not speak for anyone else, but I can (now) tell you quite calmly, that the force of my previous response was a knee-jerk reaction at being called the enemy. And while you may insist that you were not speaking to me, because I am not a member of the extremist opposition, you did attack the position.

I hope and pray that our country will find ways to build internal bridges. I do believe that we want the same result. I am fearful, however, the the current steps being taken to get there may be a terrible detour.

nrg said...

It's so hard to know where to begin. I think that equating the civil rights movement (which, under MLKjr, was one of the most successful ever cases of non-violent civil disobedience) with the anti-disengagement movement would be a good place to start. MLK and his followers rose above the anger, the violence, the viscious circle of mistreatment and bias and fear and hatred and demanded to be treated with respect while choosing to show respect in return. It was unprecendent, highly effective and worthy of praise and awe. I don't believe that the same can be said of those protesting against disengagement.
Nor can the actions being taken or the laws being broken be fairly compared. "Anonymous" wrote, "Well, it was illegal to be sure, but the laws were arguably immoral, and wrong, and the temperment of the times required actions like his to wake people up to change those laws. Therefore, though it was not legal, it was right and just and heroic." This was the description of MLK and his followers. Please tell me, was this put in your comments because you believe that laws against planting false bombs are "immoral and wrong" and that planting a fake bomb anyway was "right and just and heroic"? If this is not what you were trying to say, then the praise of civil disobience in the Southern US in the 1960's, although very kind, had no place in your comments. If that IS what you were trying to say, then I think I would be too stunned to come with a rebuttal.

I am neither Jew nor Muslim, Arab nor Israeli. But, if those who have contributed to this blog are any indication, I see little hope for the lot of you. Which saddens me. Perhaps I am naive, but I love people, humanity, that morsel that I find in another individual which allows us to find a common ground, no matter how small. I read nothing but skepticism, mistrust, fatalism ("peace would never work anyway") and hatred from a great deal of you. Violence, not appeasement, begets violence. Unless Israel is willing to expel or erase the Palestinian population, a two-state solution is not a fantasy, it is a necessity.

I have the luxury of looking at this from a distance. Some might say that fact prevents me from being able to see the situation clearly, but there is the slight possibility that I can, in some ways, see more clearly than those whose vision is blurred by what is obviously a highly emotional topic.

"She" has really touched a nerve here, I think.

Ruth said...

nrg

It might have been helpful if you had mentioned who you are.

You write: "Violence, not appeasement, begets violence."

All such mantra are too simple to be true. There are enough examples for both violence begetting violence and appeasement encouraging violence as well as force stopping aggression and refusing to play the game toning a conflict down. It all depends on the circumstances and unless you are very well acquainted with them you cannot know.

"Unless Israel is willing to expel or erase the Palestinian population, a two-state solution is not a fantasy, it is a necessity."

I should add that willingness alone is not enough, Israel would still lack the option to do so. However, this is neither here nor there, since Israel most certainly does not want anything like this. In the last election the only party running on a "Transfer" ticket failed to reach even the 1.5% needed to get a Knesseth seat .

Whether the current disengagment is a good thing has been doubted also by staunch supporters of a 2-state solution, Nathan Sharanski for example.

Anonymous said...

NRG wrote:

"Please tell me, was this put in your comments because you believe that laws against planting false bombs are "immoral and wrong" and that planting a fake bomb anyway was "right and just and heroic"?"

ANON - I see you come from the same old school of 1) "repeat something enough times, people remember it and assume it to be true" and 2) Write things out of context.

Do you think the readers of this blog are so thickheaded that they will not also recall that I specifically wrote earlier that the "false bomb" activity you so blithely retch up again was 1) "pathetic, cowardly, and unacceptable" and even more importantly 2) "the work of such a small, twisted minority."

Yours is the mind that chose to hate all settlers and right-wingers when Rabin was killed instead of realizing that only a mentally unstable person could carry that out. Look, I'd be a happy person to wake up tomorrow and learn of the deaths of plenty of evil human beings - whether Bin-Laden or Beilin, Putin or Peres...but I would be the first to rat out the sicko who would actually try to achieve it with intent. That is God's domain, not ours. And please, don't argue the easily-swallowed, but nonsensical side, spouting "Well, if not for the hatred surrounding his murder by the rest of the righties maybe it would not have happened." Please, this is not Political Science for high-school.

By the way, interesting how two days ago the Supreme Court refused to allow medical documents surrounding Rabin's death to be examined, documents which surely expose contradictions that would question the government's case. This deieased system knows no mercy to truth.

Let's face the facts - as always, it boils down to either money or s@x. The PM is not being indicted for financial crimes he has committed in order for the US-pressured Jew-upheaval to go forward. Sharon is simply protecting his own tuchus, and in the process knowingly stirring up feelings of despisement and hate that "She" has so bravely exposed of her own. Live long enough and you will read this in history once the dust settles.

NRG - You are lucky this is not a true debate - your tactics would have you disqualified for being way underinventive.

As for Zahava - this is a blog. Emotions and finger-pointing are an important part of it. We all know that there will nbever be peace here as long as the Muslims retain the tenets of their faith. There is no historical evidence otherwise, and as the most left-leaning kibbutznik friend I have said to me last week, "we waited too long." Even in his heart of hearts he knows that had we followed through in 1967 and rid our borders of large Muslim population centers our lives would be monumentally better. Instead people like "She" were in charge (Dayan, et al) and could only beg for chance after chance to show the world how humanitarian we are, regularly sending devout Muslims laughing across the globe. Stupid Jews indeed.

nrg said...

Anonymous, your comments were not taken out of context, rather I found them misleading. I still uphold my opinion that a comparison of MLK and the anti-disengagement movement is inappropriate.

That said, I am not sure that we have been writing in the same blog. I don't know what you feel I have repeated, or what old school you believe I have attended, but that comment made no sense to me. Feel free to clarify.

When it comes to previous comments, when you choose to be anonymous, I have no way of knowing whether you have also authored previous anonymous comments. I do not believe that any participants in this blog are thickheaded, on the contrary, most are well-spoken, admirably strong willed, obviously intelligent thinkers.

I must say that from the paragraph begining, "Yours is the mind that chose to hate all settlers..." my chin dropped to somewhere around my knees and I have not fully recovered. What on earth are you talking about? You don't know me at all, I have not shared any opinions of what I was thinking when Rabin was killed, I have not expressed hatred for settlers, I have not argued any "easily-swallowed, but nonsensical side, spouting "Well, if not for the hatred surrounding his murder by the rest of the righties maybe it would not have happened." At that point in your tirade, you were simply having an argument with yourself, providing both the comments to enflame your anger and the counter comments to make your point. Please do not include me in that type of debate, and please do not make assumptions about what I do or do not believe. I am quite capable of expressing myself. If we could move on from the ramblings about money or s@x and PMs being indicted and other topics that I cannot rationally connect to this blog post and come back to the very educational and enlightening, if somewhat hot-headed discussion on disengagement from "She"'s blog, I am sure "She" would appreciate it.

By the way, in response to Ruth's comments, am I supposed to mention who I am? I've never written in a blog before, but I thought part of the point was that one could write freely without having to say who they are. Do you mean my religion? Nationality? Not sure what you are looking for here. Otherwise, I appreciate what you wrote and agree that individual situations require different actions. Thank you for your comments.

nrg said...

I stand corrected, Anonymous, your condemnation of false bomb was in the same comment submission, I apologize. But the rest of my reply remains unchanged.

Anonymous said...

nrg

no, you do not have to disclose who you are. However, since you emphasized that not being a party to the conflict by religion or nationality gives you a fuller vision I wondered. For example German people usually are psychologically a "party to the conflict" due to the German history.

Ruth said...

The anonymous above is me, Ruth.

Ruth said...

Anonymous,

I object to your calling Beilin "evil" and pair him with Bin Laden.

While I think that Beilin's politics are misguided and while I resent his contempt for proper democratic proceedings (see Geneva "accords") I do not question his bona fide. I am convinced that he also wants Israel's "greater good", I only happen to disagree on his perception what the "greater good" might be.

If you class everybody with a different political approach together with the undeniable evil (Bin Laden) then you should have your moral compass overhauled.

Liza said...

Anonymous,

The fact that you would "be a happy person to wake up tomorrow and learn of the deaths of plenty of evil human beings - whether Bin-Laden or Beilin, Putin or Peres" is quite scary (aside from Bin Laden), even if you would "be the first to rat out the sicko who would actually try to achieve it with intent." Most sane people would not wish for the deaths of those with whom they disagree. Aside from Bin Laden, who has masterminded the deaths of thousands, what have any of the others ever done to deserve death (ok, Putin's handling of the Chechens borders on war crimes, but I'm not sure that I'd wish him dead)?

You have consistently twisted words and tried to insinuate that you know what we think and how we would behave under certain circumstances. You try to make it sound as though we are the freaks and you are the rational one, while at the same time spewing such venom and hatred against those who disagree with you, against the Arabs, etc. that it makes your posts predictable and pathetic, always ending on a variation of the same theme - peace won't work, fantasy of two states, all Arabs/Muslims are fanatics, etc., with a few insults directed either personally at me (I believe you've called me a wacko, insinuated that I should be in therapy, called me a hypocrite, etc) or at whoever you are responding to. You try to mask your true hateful feelings under the guise of seemingly rational writing, but your narrow-minded, hate-filled ideas shine through each and every time, making it difficult to take you seriously. And, if you complain that I'm not listening to what you're saying and simply going on the attack, well I think I'm entitled given that you have repeatedly attacked me.

Ruth said...

She

what about me? Is it easier to dismiss Anonymous?

Liza said...

No, he just makes me angrier, because he's rude and insulting. You and I just disagree, and that is quite healthy. With you (if I had the time, which I don't - looming deadlines being what they are), we could probably have a serious discussion about these issues. We most likely wouldn't agree on most points, though I imagine we would respect each other's right to our own opinions. This individual has called me wacko and said that I should be in therapy, neither of which I take kindly to. Disagree all you want, but go after my opinions, not me.

You have chosen the high road here, and Anonymous has chosen the low road. Simple as that.

Ruth said...

She

Thanks for your good opinion.

treppenwitz said...

"...he just makes me angrier, because he's rude and insulting.... Disagree all you want, but go after my opinions, not me."

She... had you only listened to your own advice and directed your anger and moral outrage at the ideas and actions of the small group of people who 98% of Israelis would agree acted irresponsibly and even dangerously, this unpleasant exchange would have never taken place.

Instead you chose to call more than 40% of the Israeli population "the enemy". What's more, you have never taken ownership of those words or backed away from that position... preferring to wade into the murky waters of disengagement's pros & cons.

What got this whole discussion started was you acting every bit as rudely and offensively as 'anonymous'.

If you were some whack-job I would probably have simply ignored you. But your past posts have been so reasonable and well written (even when expressing opinions I don't share) that I felt your hate-filled attack required a response.

It may not seem fair to you... but I hold reasonable people to a much higher standard of conduct than people like anonymous.

Liza said...

Treppenwitz,

Point taken, though I don't necessarily agree. I think what many people in the anti-disengagement movement fail to realize is that what I've written actually sums up what many people in favor of disengagement are feeling, even if they choose not to express it as bluntly as I did. I've seen a number of comments here (though not many) and on your blog, as well as entries posted on other blogs expressing similar feelings of disgust at the acts perpetrated by people in the anti-disengagement camp. So, despite the fact that it may only be a minority of people perpetrating such acts, the perception is that the numbers are much higher, and that the support is there. And, most of the pro-disengagement folks that I'm referring to are not nearly as leftie as I am. There is nothing I would like more than to be proven wrong with regard to the opinions that I've stated, but aside from one or two comments that tried to do just that, everyone else, including you, simply attacked me, which only served to reinforce my beliefs, unfortunately. Had Zehava's comments here set the tone for the others, I can assure you that I would have felt more contrition than I do. But they didn't.

As far as "preferring to wade into the murky waters of disengagement's pros & cons", well, I didn't start that, others did. I just responded.

FearGod said...

You wrote that Israel is a democracy. That is a lie. It is a facist country.

The only country in the world that imprisons and puts into solitary confinement girls ages 13-16 for "talking back to police"

Sorry SHE but you're full of it. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd all be screaming bloody scam.

When histadrut shuts down an entire nation with its unlawful strikes - does the police and IDf react the same way as people who are being disengaged from their homes?

Self-hating-Jews unite. Your moment is now, but it will not last. Taking a page out of our arab-loving neighbors. 10 years ago the kids that are today calling themselves hamas were in jail against their will and against human law by your facist government and today they are leaders of havoc against your government.

In 10 years from now or less, these children that you UNDERSTAND are obstacles to a peace you will NEVER see in your day will one day kick you out of your home in the name of your godless country.

Enjoy the victory parade now, the last float is about to pass you by.