Last week, Jewish blogger Dov Bear emailed me to ask that I respond to an article by Leon Wieseltier, as cited by the Bear in this post. A few other “right-leaning” bloggers have already responded to it; I have take my time with my response, due to my heavy workload. Here’s what I have to say…
I had a number of general problems with the article.
For a start, Wieseltier’s world is one of generalizations. All the “settlers” are Jews of a messianic sect, with delusions of a Greater Israel, with no concept of humanity, and who put their interests ahead of everyone else’s. He conveniently fails to mention the countless people who moved to these communities, not out of ideological conviction, but rather out of practical necessity, and with the encouragement of the Israeli government.
Wieseltier also conveniently fails to mention a major reason for the settlement of these areas: the climate of insecurity prevalent in Israel both before and after the 1967 war, with the Israeli government ever so mindful of the existential danger to the state. From the Israeli government’s point of view, the “settlements” have been borne out of the perceived necessity to extend Israel’s defensible borders, and not out of religious belief.
Wieseltier characterizes the idea of Jews living in Gaza as “a foul idea, morally and strategically.” For the religious Jew (Dov Bear included), the Torah is the blueprint for morality (unless you are talking of subjective morality, which I am not). And a compelling argument can be made that the Torah sees Gaza as part of the biblical land of Israel that G-d promised to the Jews (although it was not part of the land conquered or inhabited by them). And although others do not see it this way, characterizing the Jewish presence in Gaza as representing a morally offensive idea, ignores the fact that these compelling arguments – based on the Torah – do exist.
Strategically speaking, most of Israel’s military experts have been of the view that holding on to Gaza was desirable from the security point of view. Many of the experts who nevertheless supported disengagement, felt that the diplomatic and demographic considerations outweighed the security issues (read here for more details). For many people, the security considerations are of paramount importance, and would not render our presence in these areas a foul or offensive idea from a strategic perspective. Again, Wieseltier is ignoring the fact that compelling strategic arguments exist to justify a continued Jewish presence in Gaza.
Wieseltier also sees the Jewish presence in Gaza as promoting the “immediate ecstasy of the few above the eventual safety of the many.” Again, he paints all of the residents with the same brush. But even more than that: he ignores the fact that the “safety of the many” could be consistent with a Jewish presence there (given the aforementioned possible strategic benefits). This holds even if “the many” includes the neopalestinians. Gaza’s Arab residents could gain from a Jewish presence in the area, as a result of increased employment and trade activity (don’t believe me? Read this article). The real problem is the terrorism, necessitating IDF action. If this was stopped, there would be no reason why everyone could not benefit from a Jewish presence in Gaza.
I also have problems with some of Wieseltier’s other assertions, including:
The “settlers” lived dangerously but not heroically – I would have thought that living true to your beliefs in the face of great danger is heroic.Wieseltier’s definition of heroism seems predicated on it being “facing danger for reasons he agrees with.”
The need to protect these “settlers” diverted the IDF’s efforts from more pressing tasks – this has no basis in reality. The IDF has not found itself short in manpower in order to execute its operational objectives. Furthermore, this argument ignores the strategic importance of the area to Israel, from a security perspective. The IDF had an interest in operating in the area for reasons of which protecting the residents was but one. Other reasons included dismantling the terrorist infrastructure there (something the PA have not been willing or able to accomplish), and gathering intelligence.
Of course, this is not to say that Wieseltier does not make any valid points. He is correct in acknowledging the “virulently rejectionist character of Palestinian nationalism”, and the fact that neopalestinian compromise is a prerequisite for a foreign policy breakthrough. He is also correct in his disdain for some of the misguided slogans and strategies of some “settlers.” However, his entire article seems to me to be a case of trying to justify his political mindset – seemingly set in stone – as opposed to carefully reviewing the facts in a balanced way, and arriving at a logical conclusion.
