Hatred on Both Sides of the [Anti-Terror Security] Fence
In this beautifully written piece (sorry, I'm an editor, the fact that it's well-written gets me excited) by Elie Wiesel, the author makes a point that not too many people have been willing to make and that the international media has certainly not made a big deal about.
He makes note of the fact that the Palestinians are rejoicing as the rest of the world watches the tragic scenes of people leaving their homes. And that is not the way it should be. "I know only that in my opinion, what is missing from the chapter now closing is a collective gesture that ought to be made, but that hasn't been made, by the Palestinians."
Would that we were all as optimistic about the chances for peace as Wiesel himself is. "Gaza, after all, is but one chapter in a book that must ultimately be about peace."
I don't think the Palestinians have an obligation to weep along with us, but as long as there is hate on both sides of the [anti-terror security] fence, there cannot be any sort of solution.
posted by Eli7 @ 7:12 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Hate is fine, it's not a barrier to peace. No one accuses the Israelis and Egyptians of loving each other, but the peace treaty has held up. What leads to peace is the realization that that you can't win. And untill the Palestinians realize that (which the evacuation did not help) there will be no peace.
A cold peace is sure a lot better than a hot conflict.
Playing Devil's Advocate:
Perhaps the Palestinians were celebrating that they are one step closer to a state on land of their own, and not that Jews were being evicted from their homes.
And on an unrelated note: Do Jews even say "Devil's Advocate"? (I have so much to learn.)
On the contrary, I think hate is a barrier to peace. If the Jews and the Palestinians hate each otehr from across their border, violence will always be just waiting to happen. I don't think they have to hug and be best friends, but senseless hatred is a bad thing on many, many counts.
NewJew, maybe the Palestinians were just happy to move toward statehood, but when all the pictures in the news are filled with sobbing Jews, doncha think it looks a lil suspicicious to be dancing on the rooftops? And what about Sept. 11?
(And i dunno about other Jews but I say "devil's advocate" all the time.)
Well, to be frank, I have little sympathy for the settlers. I think the vast majority of them (particularly the Kahanists) are selfish nuts and know that they had no business moving there in the first place.
But I also blame the Israeli government for encouraging settlement in the first place.
Regarding 9/11: Arabs who celebrated after the attacks were not joyful that thousands died. Rather, they were glad that the United States had experienced some of the suffering that they endure under their repressive, U.S.-supported governments.
Wow! And I thought I was liberal, NewJew.
Number one, I really don't think that most of the settlers are Kahanists. They are religious people who love their religion and therefore love the land of Israel and were encouraged by the Israeli government to move to the settlements. That hardly makes them radicals.
The media portrays the settlers as these radicals who only care about themselves and who are anti-establishment and terrible people, but that is not accurate.
Number two, it takes a very sick person to have felt the pain and loss of losing a loved one, to have experienced the suffering of repression that you refer to, and to then rejoice - to dance in the streets - when someone else feels that.
I'm sorry, that is sick and wrong and terrible, and there is something wrong with a culture that promotes that. Judaism dictates that you should not rejoice in your enemy's suffering.
They are religious people who love their religion and therefore love the land of Israel and were encouraged by the Israeli government to move to the settlements. That hardly makes them radicals.
I don't doubt the settlers' religious motivations. In fact, part of me admires it.
But to me the disengagement is about the rule of law. All modern states depend on the rule of law above all else. The law says that the settlers must leave, and the soldiers must enforce that law. However, when settlers or soldiers refuse to obey the law at the encouragement of their rabbis, that leans toward theocracy. This is why I view them as radicals.
Secondly, the settlers should have known back in the day that moving to Gaza was a horrible idea and would lead to increased tension while destroying the peace process. Regardless of the government's encouragement, they should have known that they had no right to move there.
I'm sorry, that is sick and wrong and terrible, and there is something wrong with a culture that promotes that. Judaism dictates that you should not rejoice in your enemy's suffering.
For the record, I completely agree with you. I don't agree with the fact that many Palestinians -- or other Arabs -- celebrated after 9/11. But I can understand their subconcious motivation for doing so because of the reason in my prior comment. Still, that doesn't make it right, of course.
And for the record, I'm just a moderate liberal. :)
I don't think the settlers should have known going in that moving to Gaza was a bad idea. I mean, if people didn't take chances and move to "undesirable" places Israel woudn't be in existence at all today.
And I agree with you that soldiers should have obeyed orders and settlers should have left (despite the fact that I oppose the Disengagement).
However I hardly think it's radical for people who made the barren desert their home, who lived in a place for many years and loved their homes, their communities, and their jobs, people who believed in what they were doing, to hate the fact that they were being made to leave - even to the point of some resistance.
Post a Comment
<< Home