|

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Amos has his limits too

godolhador recently had this to say:
"What’s far more troubling is the behavior of some of the extremist right wing settlers and their supporters. If it turns out that we don’t have a God given right to posses all of Eretz Yisrael now, either because the kofrim are correct, or because Satmar are correct, or just because we stam don’t have that God given right, then they are gonna be in huge trouble for causing so much pain and misery to so many people. "

And he goes on to quote Amos' exhortation to be moral and ethical.

Now, I'm not going to relate to this from a theological viewpoint, because for all I know Satmar might be right. And it may be, as Rav Wolbe said, that the Medinah was created too soon in history, and we haven't earned the right to the whole Land, based on our dearth of merit. (Actually, I'm pretty darn sure we don't have the merit to be sovereign over the whole Land, since we're not).

But from a security standpoint, there's a great quote (I forget whose it is) which pretty much sums up the predicament the settlers find themselves in, and explains why Amos has his limits:

"If we act 10% more ethical than the rest of the world, we'll be a 'light unto the Nations'

If we act 25% more ethical, we'll bring the Messiah.

If we act 50% more ethical, we'll be dead."

And as the Arabs are emboldened and indoctrinated to hate and murder, the percentages drop radically.

But let me ask the settler crowd something.With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, would you have been in favor of a negotiated permanent agreement with the Palestinians right after the '67 war giving them some land and a State, from a position of strength, or would you choose the past 40 odd years of our tortured administration of Yehudah, Shomron and Gaza, with us in the sad predicament we are in today?

If we accept the analysis of Rav Hershel Schachter Shlit"a regarding when it is permissible to hand over territory, namely, when Klal Yisrael feels that holding on to the territory is a losing cause, I think I would have to opt for the former. It has just been too costly.

Of course, now, handing over territory is in my view a terrible display of weakness and a humanitarian immorality, and should be off the table. If and when the Israelis manage to crush the Hamas, B'Ezras Hashem, we'll have to look at the situation anew.

6 Comments:

Blogger chardal said...

It has just been too costly.

Would you advocate giving away the Kotel and Har HaBayit as well?

(OK, we pretty much did give away Har Bayit due to such reshaim as Dayan)

But the wall... Even Rav Sonenfeld refused to give up our rights to it in the 1920s

9:31 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

But the wall... Even Rav Sonenfeld refused to give up our rights to it in the 1920s

It would be a gut wrenching decision, but with hindsight, I'd have to say yes. It's hard to discount all the Jewish tears spilled there in prayer, but it's harder to wave away the Jewish tears of the mothers who have lost their children, wives who have lost husbands, and children who have lost parents. And families which have lost their homes and livelihoods.

With a heavy heart and a tear-streaked face, sorry that we had to do it, I think I would.

How many lives would you be willing to sacrifice to capture the Kotel? And to maintain it under Jewish sovereignty?

It would be interesting to ask all the great Rabbanim of the Dor, Charedi to RZ, this question.

10:47 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

How many lives would you be willing to sacrifice to capture the Kotel?

I would follow the minchat chinuch as paskened by Rav Kook in the Kottel Affair.

The only way we can properly value life is by properly defining for ourselves what we would be willing to die for.

Remember, you have no garauntee that the decission to give away the wall would cost more pain and suffering in the long run either.

11:26 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

Remember, you have no garauntee that the decission to give away the wall would cost more pain and suffering in the long run either.

Agreed. I'm assuming long run viable security arrangement.

12:39 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Agreed. I'm assuming long run viable security arrangement.

Well, then the first step is to convince the Arabs to drop Islam as their religion. Security is really imposible without that "realistic" step.

12:53 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Well, then the first step is to convince the Arabs to drop Islam as their religion.

History has shown that "Islam" is very pliable and different nations will adapt its interpretation of the gazillion contradictions in the Koran to whatever they think suits them at the time. The tremendously wide range of harshness of treatment of the Jews under the various Islamic regimes is astounding.

The radical nut jobs, after a security arrangement (and remember, after a collossal defeat in '67), would have to be free game in this arrangement.

1:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Web Site Hit Counters
SonyStyle.com Coupon