By Kenneth Jacobson
The next 18 months could be among the most critical and difficult periods in Israel’s history. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to disengage from the Gaza Strip is, according to opinion polls, supported by a significant majority of Israelis, but intensely opposed by a not insignificant minority.
Sharon is taking on two sacred cows at the same time: dismantling settlements, and withdrawing from territory in the face of terror without receiving anything from the other side. It is not surprising nor illegitimate that people are expressing strongly held views opposing the plan.
What is not acceptable is the use of words to threaten those on the other side, to justify breaking laws and resorting to violence, and to question the legitimacy and patriotism of one’s opponents.
It was the words of the Yesha Rabbinical Council — seeming to suggest that it is halachically forbidden to participate in the dismantling of settlements (since clarified by the council to minimize the sense of the comments) — which called to mind the potential dangers of extreme words, statements or edicts.
But let’s be clear: the responsibility for avoiding provocative language rests on all.
For example, it is one thing to argue that Israel’s interests — the country’s demographic future, its relationship with the U.S. and its desire not to rule a Palestinian population — will be served by the disengagement.
It is another to speak of the Gaza settlers as if they were illegitimate when Israeli governments have approved their being there; or that they are the ones responsible for terrorism or for the deaths of Israeli forces. In fact, terrorism exists primarily as an anti-Israel weapon wielded by those who reject its existence, and protecting Israelis is the job of its military forces no matter whether one agrees as to the wisdom of decisions that brought them to the spot.
Those who believe that Israel will be better off for implementing the Gaza withdrawal should be sensitive to the real pain that will be incurred by thousands of people who will be obligated to give up a life they made, in many cases for idealistic reasons, and now are being required to give it up based not on their own wishes but that of a democratic government. This is necessary because it is the decent thing to do.
Even more, everything must be done to avoid creating an atmosphere in which the settlers are demonized. Such a development would only exacerbate reactions.
At the same time, the settler community and the rabbinical leaders associated with it must avoid calls for disobeying the law. They have benefited from legal decisions in a lawful society and the majority among them knows how the law has protected them and how the precedents of lawbreaking can work in many destructive ways.
Claiming rabbinic sanction for opposing the will of the government undermines respect for religion and rationalizes anti-religious attitudes in Israeli society.
Most of all, we should have learned the consequences of extreme words. Some of us expressed great concern about the language directed at Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin after the Oslo accords.
Criticism of his decision to make concessions to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was legitimate; but statements that he was a sinner, a Nazi, a traitor were dangerous. As some of us cried out before the tragedy of his assassination, words can kill.
Similarly, we rightfully talk about the effects of the teaching of hatred by the Palestinians. We — on the right, left and middle — know that what one says and how one says it does matter.
The next 18 months will be a bumpy ride. Political maneuvering, international pressures, efforts by terrorists all can complicate an already difficult process. Nevertheless, all of this is manageable if the language of hatred is constrained.
Kenneth Jacobson is associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League.
Loading ...
