- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 12 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Stormy Night In Bnei Brak As Inspectors Try To Destroy Yeshiva
What is up with this habit of protesting/rioting in Israel when illegal construction is torn down? I know everyone thinks that their settlement/Yeshiva is the most important thing in the world, but everone’s got to follow the law.
#IfYouCantDoTheTimeDontDoTheCrime
1. Tearing down people’s houses is usually a bad idea. The Israelis picked it up from the Brits. Note that at the time Britain was an empire, and today it is not. The tearing down of houses is one of the sorts of things that undermined the empire.
2. If you hold by zionism (which hareidim do not), then one must consider the laws of the medinah to be valid since to hold otherwise is to deny the legitimacy of the zionist state. By rejecting the laws of the medinah, the protestors are in effect saying that zionist is illegitimate.
3. There is plenty of land in Eretz Yisrael which is recognized by the Zionist government and the western powers as open to Israeli settlement. There is no need to take land that most of the world considers to be owned by Palestinians.
Akuperma – +1. I would also add that the settlers (who are not Chareidi) probably also don’t really hold by the medina – at least the way it is now.
In any case, the way they feel is that the land belongs to us (to Am Yisrael), and the medina does not have the right to make such laws, so the laws are illigitimate. I guess it’s somewhat similar to the way that most Frum people would feel if the medina made laws that are against the Torah. In fact, they may feel that this falls in the same category since it’s assur to give EY away to the Goyim and it’s a Mitzvah to settle EY. Additionally, they may feel that it’s a pikuach nefesh issue to have Yidden living in these places so that the Arabs don’t overtake us.
I would also add that the settlers (who are not Chareidi) probably also don’t really hold by the medina – at least the way it is now.
This is utter nonsense. Spoken like a true chutznik.
mw, the boarders have changed several times. The state shouldn’t be able to just bulldoze Jewish homes willy nilly any time they feel like making one of their frivolous peace attempts. Can you imagine what would happen if they bulldozed Arab homes?
If you hold like the Zionists, then please explain to me how a “Jewish state” can exclusively bulldoze Jewish homes, but not anyone else’s. If you don’t hold like the Zionists, then who cares about their boarders.
I’m not a chutznik, and I said that based on people I know. There are a lot of people who got very disillusioned with the State after the Peace Process in the early 90’s.
You can feel to disagree if you want, but I would appreciate it if you could phrase it more politely.
You can feel to disagree if you want, but I would appreciate it if you could phrase it more politely.
You are correct, and I apologize. As I was reopening this thread, I was thinking that I should not have added that line earlier today.
By virtue of living in the Shomron, I am a “settler.” Most of my friends are “settlers.” All of our kids go into the IDF or Hesder, or Sheerut Leiumi. They all hold both the Medina and E”Y very strongly. Even after the Gush Katif debacle.
Takahmamash – thank you for apologizing. I appreciate it.
I realize that obviously settlers are usually “tzioni”, but there was a lot of disillusionment with the current (or then-current) government in the early 1990’s. That has nothing to do with how people felt about going to the army or celebrating Yom HaAtzmaut, etc.
I think some people distinguish between the concept of the Medina as a whole and how they feel about the current government (whichever government happens to be current at the time), and that’s why they don’t necessarily feel like they have to accept everything the government says.
At least, that is what was going on in the early 90’s. I am not sure what’s going on now, but if in fact it is the case that there are settlers who are doing something illegal (I don’t even know if that’s the case; I was just responding to the assumption made in the op), it seems that they do feel this way – that even though they are tzioni, they don’t feel that they have to listen to a specific government if the government is saying things they feel are wrong.
I think you may have misunderstood my point. But if you do understand and you just disagree, I would be interested in knowing how you would respond to the op’s question. Thank you.
No one outside the Chareidi and Chiloni extreme Left is against the state. People are are against the government, people are against the present make-up of the Supreme Court, but no one wants the state dismantled. This is a critical difference. Louis XIV notwithstanding the state is not the government or even the constitutional framework. The Wikipedia defines “state” as “a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government”. Thestate, like a corporation, continues while governments and constitutions come and go. France, for example, is now on its fifth constitution and has been a monarchy. However, no one says that it is a different state.
I think some responsibility is shared by those who build and settle in areas in defiance of the government in power, no matter what their views about the legitimacy of that government.
The planners/builders know full well from the start that the government has the power, the policy and a history of exiling inhabitants and destroying settlements it deems “illegal”. So building them anyway is at best a gamble.
But, to then present themselves as innocent martyrs of an oppressive regime seems a bit disingenuous if not an egregious misrepresentation of the events.
What I find interesting in the history of the pro/anti Medinah debate is the absence of a viable alternative by the “anti” camp. OK, you don’t hold by a non-religious government in Eretz Yisroel. So, join forces and elect a “frum” majority government.
On the other hand, those who hold that no Jewish government of any composition is permitted until “Moshiach”, then I suppose we can expect this sort of thing to repeat itself ad infinitum.
In addition to what I wrote previously (that I think they differentiate between the current government and the State as a whole), I think that in some cases, the government was okay with or even supported the settlements originally and considered it good for the country. The settlers were considered to be putting their lives at risk for the defense of the country and then felt betrayed when the government evacuated.
I’m not 100% sure of this though, although I do think it was the case. There may be people here who know more about it.
Avi K – if your point was to argue with me, I don’t see how what you’re saying is different than what I said. But maybe that wasn’t your point?
” So, join forces and elect a “frum” majority government.”
That is why most Frum people do vote, but there are not enough Frum people to have a Frum majority. Also, even if there were a Frum majority, that wouldn’t make the government Frum as long as there are not-Frum people in the Knesset.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.