The new consensus, led by Michael Walzer: defeat the settler movement. I'm all for it, though it is a little like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Here is Hitchens at Slate:
The zealot settlers and their clerical
accomplices are establishing an army within the army so that one day,
if it is ever decided to disband or evacuate the colonial settlements,
there will be enough officers and soldiers, stiffened by enough rabbis
and enough extremist sermons, to refuse to obey the order. Torah verses
will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as
well as Arabs. The dress rehearsals for this have already taken place,
with the religious excuses given for Baruch Goldstein's rampage and the
Talmudic evasions concerning the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Once
considered highly extreme, such biblical exegeses are moving ever
closer to the mainstream. It's high time the United States cut off any
financial support for Israel that can be used even indirectly for
settler activity, not just because such colonization constitutes a
theft of another people's land but also because our Constitution
absolutely forbids us to spend public money on the establishment of any
religion.
Thanks to Dan Sisken.
Well, Hitchens is nothing if not a shameless hanger-on to whatever's popular.
"Well, Hitchens is nothing if not a shameless hanger-on to whatever's popular."
Which is fantastic news as it indicated that the discussion is opening up and becoming a popular topic.
I feel almost inclined to write a fawning letter to Hitchens about how fantastic he is to encourage him to write again….
It's high time the United States cut off any financial support for Israel that can be used even indirectly for settler activity, not just because such colonization constitutes a theft of another people's land but also because our Constitution absolutely forbids us to spend public money on the establishment of any religion.
Agreed.
I agree with Ross.
The Constitutional argument is silly, too. The anti-establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a state religion; nothing more. It's been expanded to ridiculous extremes, usually by people hostile to Christianity. This is the first time I've seen someone claim it applies to foreign policy!
I thought Hitchens was a big Israel supporter. If so, this is news. Maybe the California air is good for him. How's he handling Stanford without cigarettes?
I second Shirazi's quote. Best tag line I've read in a long time.
Right on.
Dedication to Constitutional rights makes for interesting and worthy companionship.
The way to confront the group of rabbis that are supporting the settlements, is to oppose the effort on religious grounds.
The rabbis are neo-orthodox, NOT orthodox.
There is a reasoned argument that conflating a piece of land to the status of divine is an active practise of idolatry.
Its evidence of the absence of spiritual life, rather than an assertion of it in the present of the future.
Torah itself affirms over and over "IF you keep my commandments, I will give you the rain in its time…"
Richard-
Your statements about "idolatry" are simply wrong. You clearly don't know anything about the thinking of these groups. I suggest you study more about it before you make sweeping statements like that.
Hitchens is a militant, fanatic atheist and religion hater. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Witty's got a good point.
As I understand it, most of the ultra-Orthodox groups (e.g. Neturei Karta) are very antiZionist–they reject Israel and view it as a heretical entity. They shut out the modern world as much as possible.
Except some ultra-Orthodox (e.g., some Agudat Israel Party members ) accept the state, just not its messianic pretensions, and work within many of its institutions.
These groups are exempt from compulsory military service and do not volunteer for police work, yet the state protects them all and financially helps them all.
In comparison, the modern or neo-Orthodox, while scrupulously adhering to halakah, have not cut themselves off from society at large. They are oriented to the same ideological goals as many of the secularists, and they share the basic commitment to Israel as a Zionist state. Furthermore, they participate in all major state institutions, including IDF. This group is also referred to as "Orthodox Zionists." They've been represented historically by a number of political parties or coalitions, and have been the driving force behind many of the extra-parliamentary social, political, and Jewish terrorist movements that have characterized Israeli society since the June 1967 War. Most Orthodox Zionists have been "ultra-hawkish" and irredentist in orientation,e.g., Gush Emunim, the Bloc of the Faithful.
(A minority of other Zionist groups, for example, Oz Veshalom, an Orthodox Zionist movement that is the religious counterpart to Peace Now, have been more moderate.)
The neo-Orthodox tend to look to the ultra-Orthodox for legitimacy on religious matters, and the ultra-Orthodox have nearly a virtual monopoly on the training and certification of rabbis (including neo-Orthodox ones) in Israel.
Hitchens is right. Period. Expect more Hitchens on I/P.
He's always been highly critical of the settler endeavour. He's also Jewish, apparently.
The settlers will run like rabbits once they are convinced the Israeli government does not overtly or tacitly back them.
And the numbers of Jewish prisoners in US east coast prisons will go up.
"The way to confront the group of rabbis that are supporting the settlements, is to oppose the effort on religious grounds."
Richard Witty
And here, as he does every day, Richard takes us into the Gentile- flavored fever dreams of American Zionist supporters. "Religious grounds" Richard? As pronounced ex cathedra by whom, may I ask? You got a Jewish Pope in mind. Or would an Israeli State Talmudic Ruling serve?
Judaism doesn't work that way Richard, there is no Pope or Central Committee or Board who can issue a ruling of that nature and make it stick. Maybe Abe Foxman?
Seems Citizen has it right, and Witty knows who will win the tug of war between the various factions of orthodox jews in Israel. The secular jews combined with the neo-Orthodox (reminds me of the USA neocons). There's more of them than the ultra-Orthodox and they don't go try to hide from the moder age, but join all Israeli institutions, eg the IDF–rabbis will come around, as they have done already by issuing the IDF pamphlets attendant the massacre in Gaza, giving them what I would call the Ivan mandate–to the Grand Inquisitor, "you mean God is dead, I can do anything?"
Yes you can, young pimply trooper.
The settler movement!
As though there is any meaningful distinction to be made between Israel and the settler movement.
Israel IS the settler movement.
Why should we care if the impetus to brutalize people and steal their land comes from verses plucked from the obscene comic book known as the Torah, or from secular filth and refuse from the toilet like Tzipi Livni, Netanyahu and all the other completely interchangeable Israeli criminals?
Settler movement!
Talk about a non-issue.
Judaism doesn't work that way Richard, there is no Pope or Central Committee or Board who can issue a ruling of that nature and make it stick… Posted by: Mooser | March 25, 2009 at 01:57 PM
Unfortunately this is true, but it often seems to me that it is a contrived internal pluralism, maintained artificially to increase deniability for any given policy. I admit, all complex political organisms do this, but Judaism has raised it to a very high art, which may be one of the things that has given the concept of 'dialectics' a bad name among merkins, who see what they call 'hegelian', i.e., false, contrived oppositions, everywhere, concealing clever systems which are pre-planned to produce outcomes which are the vector sums of the divergent tendencies.
Rowan, you are astute here. It's like being in a room full of members, and they all argue assuming the same basics about the Other. Very talmudic. They all leave the meeting, feeling they've been quite the rebel or protector of tradition. Another analogy that comes to mind is the US Congress regarding Israeli activities–but thats giving that body way too much credit.
I agree. It's a question of plausible deniability. The question is: to whom is it plausible that the state which is funding the settler terrorists and providing the settler terrorists with lucrative incentives to steal land and attack people, is opposed to the actions of the settler terrorists?
It's preposterous.