May 14, 2008
why are some cities less important than others?
There is an argument that is offered that is considered pro-settlement, but it disturbs me whenever I hear it.
When the debate swirled around the dismantlement of Gush Katif, a major argument was that they are the front line for the rest of us. If we get rid of them, the terror will be that much closer. If they fall, we will have to contend with terror in Beer Sheva Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.
When talking about allowing other areas to build, or other areas to get rid of, the same argument is often presented, that they are the front lines and prevent the terror from getting closer, to the main cities.
Today a certain structure was approved for building in the Jewish area of the Arab village of Silwan. In the ensuing debate, the leftists want the plan canceled, even though the land was legally purchased, and all the regular reasons. The representatives of the Amuta of Ir David, Elad, when asked by the Haredi media for their response, said, "You have to understand. If we don't continue buying land there and building there, in Ir David, you will have to fight for your right to live in Mea Shearim."
In other words, again, we are the front line and if we fall, you are next.
Is that really a good argument? Why is Meah Shearim more important then Ir David, that the reason to continue building in Ir David is to protect Meah Shearim? Why is Gush Katif less important than Beer Sheva, Sderot and Ofakim, that the reason to keep Gush Katif was so Sderot does not get hit? Why is Chomesh and other places in the Shomron less important than Netanya that the reason to keep them is so Netanya does not get hit?
Don't they deserve to stand on their own merits, and not just as protection for cities further in the borders?
There is an aspect of truth to it, as their presence keeps the front line that much further out, but they are not there in order to keep my house safe in bet Shemesh. They are there because they believe in settling the land, especially parts that are abandoned by most others. And that is great. But why is that specific argument legitimate?
Maybe one of the "settlers" reading this could try to explain the argument...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
I don't like that argument...just as I don't overly appreciate the "security concern" argument to legitimize our building in Yehuda and Shomron.
ReplyDeleteAll cities in Eretz Yisrael are important, and they are ours. The legitimacy of settlement in Tel Aviv and Haifa is identical to that of Gush Etzion and Elon Moreh.
I think the point is to drive the point home. No one cares when it is somewhere over there, but when it may affect you (i.e. a big city), then the perspective changes a bit.
ReplyDeleteTheoretically it should not matter which city needs protecting. But you have to know your audience. Secular people care more about losing Tel Aviv than Gush Katif, and charedim care more about Mea Shearim than Gush Katif. So by protecting what *they* don't care about, you say, you're really protecting the place they do care about. Even if they SHOULD care about both places.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's a way of saying "I know you guys want peace, but despite the common impression that destroying settlements will allow for a two state peace agreement, in fact the Arabs will just continue to attack us somewhere else."
They're not necessarily presenting a reason, but it's an argument to convince someone else why they might find it important.
ReplyDeleteIt's similar to having a not-yet-frum person over for a meal on shabbos. The (stated) reason for keeping shabbos is zecher l'ma'aseh b'reishis. But it's being presented as a time for being with family, etc. Mitoch she'lo lishmah.....
I think that argument is weak.
ReplyDeleteWe will live here and build here because this land is ours. It is ours because the Ribbono Shel Olam gave it to us.
And just like in Beitar, Kiryat Sefer, Immanuel, etc... nobody will dictate that Jews can't build a beit knesset, all the more so in Jerusalem.
The Haredi press and readers will have no problem understanding that.
ארץ ישראל איננה דבר חיצוני, קנין חיצוני לאומה, רק בתור אמצעי למטרה של ההתאגדות הכללית והחזקת קיומה החמרי או אפילו הרוחני. ארץ ישראל היא חטיבה עצמותית קשורה בקשר חיים עם האומה, חבוקה בסגולות פנימיות עם מציאותה.
ReplyDeleteומתוך כך אי אפשר לעמוד על התוכן של סגולת קדושת ארץ ישראל, ולהוציא לפועל את עומק חבתה, בשום השכלה רציונלית אנושית כי אם ברוח ד' אשר על האומה בכללה, בהטבעה הטבעית הרוחנית אשר בנשמת ישראל, שהיא ששולחת את קויה בצבעים טבעיים בכל הארחות של ההרגשה הבריאה, ומזרחת היא את זריחתה העליונה על פי אותה המדה של רוח הקדושה העליונה, הממלאת חיים ונעם עליון את לבב קדושי הרעיון ועמוקי המחשבה הישראלית.
המחשבה על דבר ארץ ישראל, שהיא רק ערך חיצוני כדי העמדת אגודת האומה, אפילו כשהיא באה כדי לבצר על ידה את הרעיון היהדותי בגולה, כדי לשמור את צביונו ולאמץ את האמונה והיראה והחזוק של המצות המעשיות בצורה הגונה, אין לה הפרי הראוי לקיום, כי היסוד הזה הוא רעוע בערך איתן הקודש של ארץ ישראל. האמוץ האמתי של רעיון היהדות בגולה בא יבא רק מצד עמק שקועו בארץ ישראל, ומתקות ארץ ישראל יקבל תמיד את כל תכונותיו העצמיות.
צפית ישועה היא כח המעמיד של היהדות הגלותית, והיהדות של ארץ ישראל היא הישועה עצמה.
מקור: http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A5_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A7_%D7%90