Views from the Right
Interesting article in this week's edition of Dei'ah veDibur concerning the Religious Zionist movement. First of all, with regards to Amona:
That's an interesting point, if it's true, and not one that I've really heard talked about anywhere else.
Also, with regards to the Gaza pullout:
No conclusions -- just two things that sort of struck me.
Those who stockpiled boulders and cinderblocks on the rooftops of Amona, and then hurled them without regard to the fact that they could easily kill some other Jew — friend or foe — were not street bums looking for some action who tried to amuse themselves by dabbling in a little violence, like the bored children of Israeli secular society. These were not a few marginal types who could have arisen in any modern group. No. These were the best and brightest of the national-religious youth who went straight from their studies in the best yeshivas and ulpanas that religious Zionism has to offer.They do not care what their rebbes and mechanchim tell them about how to protest. They do what they think needs to be doneFor years the weakness of the national-religious chinuch has been a topic of discussion in their public forums, but up until now the challenge was from the "left:" far too many left the fold and became chiloni despite the intensive efforts and education of the best educators. This is the first time that the committed students, the pride of the movement, have defied the principles of their education.
That's an interesting point, if it's true, and not one that I've really heard talked about anywhere else.
Also, with regards to the Gaza pullout:
And the people were not asked to give up yishuv Eretz Yisroel but only to settle in another part of the Holy Land that is certainly no less holy than Gaza.
That makes sense if you think of yishuv haAretz as a 'din in the individual'. If you come at it from the perspective of 'din in the land' or maybe even 'din in the tzibbur', it wouldn't make any sense at all.
No conclusions -- just two things that sort of struck me.
1 Comments:
>That's an interesting point, if it's true.
Too bad it's not.
1. Anyone who bad-mouths a group 100% of the time (or even 95%) deserves to be ignored in that area even when their criticism happens to overlap with the substantive criticism that comes from within the group. That's why Senator Lieberman's criticism of President Clinton had an impact which no Republican attack ever could -- since most of the Republicans were Clinton's enemies even before the scandal. And that's why this editorial should not be taken seriously even though its point coincides with a substantive one. It needs to be the Religious Zionist leaders who say WE have gone too far -- not the Haredi critics who say THEY messed up yet again -- since in any case the Haredim think the entire Religious Zionist hashkafah is pesulah.
2. Anybody who equates, as this editorial does, "[t]hose who stockpiled boulders and cinderblocks . . . and then hurled them" with "the best and brightest of the national-religious youth" is simply motzi sheim ra. It wasn't the majority or even the plurality of the group who did so. Rabbi Stewart Weiss pointed out, in his comparison of Amona to the Chicago riots of 1968 (http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=6038), "To be sure, there were hot-heads and agitators among the Israeli throng, just as Abbie Hoffman and Tom Hayden ("Mr. Jane Fonda") had egged on the Convention crowd."
On the one hand, everyone needs to condemn, without any equivocation whatsoever, the planned violence of the extremist "hilltop youth." But most of the demonstrators did not plan any violence (at least according to our neighbor whose kid was there and got a concussion). Vietnam supporters at the time would have missed the point if they had smugly concluded -- as this editorial does now -- that the violence of the few proves that the entire movement is wrong and immoral. I guess this editorialist would have concluded that the violence at the Convention proved not only that the anti-war movement had gone too far, but that the entire movement from the start was out of line. Better to take the passive route and wait for the Viet Cong to surrender (then) -- or for Mashiach to come (now). I'm not impressed.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home