The Future Be Told?

   

A prescient Pini Dunner six months ago wrote in the Jerusalem Post:

…Over recent months a new group has emerged that seems to uncannily echo the stance adopted by Natorei Karta. Its adherents use religiously charged language to besmirch the democratically elected government of Israel. They seem to have no respect for the rule of law and their verbal assaults on those who oppose them are increasing in tempo and aggression.

The group I am referring to consists of those among the religious settlers and their supporters who will continue to oppose the Gaza disengagement whether or not there is a referendum.

This group – a minority, it must be said – has decided unequivocally that the Greater Israel ideal is of such enormous significance that no kind of pragmatic compromise with reality can possibly be reached.

And make no mistake: This group is not about to roll over and give up its cause for the sake of Jewish unity. Should the disengagement take place, as it seems certain it will, adherents of this group will become sworn enemies of the State of Israel, equal in scale and virulence to the Natorei Karta.

But while Natorei Karta has no history of violence, the uncompromising proponents of non-disengagement have already proven themselves violent and, worryingly, most of them have military training. The idea that rational, democratic, sensible measures – such as a national referendum – would in any way defuse the fire of their extremism is both na ve and dangerous.…

It is time for the leaders of religious Zionism, rabbis and political leaders alike, to take a deep breath and announce to their followers that although they can continue their conscientious objection to the Israeli government's sell-out of their theological worldview for the sake of pragmatism, this must coincide with the acceptance that they will have to put their utopian dreams on ice. It is what Menachem Begin did after the Altalena. It was what Agudat Yisrael haredim did after the 1947 UN decision. And it must happen again now. Otherwise we will have to contend with a settler Zionist Natorei Karta group whose existence will be a threat to us all.

On reflection, I am not sure that the Natorei Karta analogy is entirely correct. Perhaps a better analogy would be with the Second Temple zealots who defended Jerusalem against the Romans, killing anyone who hinted at compromise or surrender.

Ironically, our survival as Jews was contingent on the subterfuge of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, who smuggled himself out of Jerusalem in a coffin and struck a deal with the Roman leader so that the inevitable destruction of Jerusalem would not lead to the disappearance of Judaism.

The miracle of Jewish survival has always been the result of pragmatism and practicality, not extremism. It is a lesson that the fanatical Greater Israel land-cultists would be wise to learn.

I would only add that the blame for this lies squarely with Rabbis Avraham Kahane Shapira, Mordechai Eliyahu, Yitzchak Ginsburgh, and the late Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

Comments

[AA]

15 to 20 years ago , author , artist and columnist Amos Keinan wrote an eery & somewhat Kafkaesque short novel on what would happen to israel when fanatic armed "self styled religious" take over the country . i had read the book , then can't find it now & nobody i know seems to remember it's name !
anybody remembers ?

[Contributor]

Wow, Shmarya, you're giving the Rebbe a lot of credit for influencing all these settlers who have no affiliation with Chabad.

Let it be noted, that this movement is perceived as a threat, not because of their military training, but because of their democratic infiltration into the Likud party. As for your "holy of holies" democratically elected government, Hitler was also democratically elected. But that did not stop him from turning Germany into a police state violating human rights and the very foundations we consider "democratic." Would you have objected to a mass revolt against The Third Reich? Get your priorities in order.

Judean law does not require the citizens of Judea to elect a governmental institution which jeapordizes the lives of its citizens, and delivers land, adjacent to its borders and built and cultivated by is own citizens, to a hostile warring enemy.

Judean law does require its citizens to appoint a governmental body to enforce its constitutional laws and the laws instated by its authority and to institute a monarchy. This, without any preclusion of maintaining a democratic nature.

In this (what has become a) pseudo-democracy called "Isreal," Judeans have an opportunity and an obligation to exercise whatever rights they have left to obey their national obligations, including the institution of a Judean government and (a constitutional) monarchy.

[David Kelsey]

Excellent post! I would also add, however, the Neocons who are the American apologists of the Greater Israel agenda.

Because they are silent on Gaza, and ostensibly secular, it is not understood how radical they truly are.

This can be seen in their truly confusing that what is good for Israel is good for America.

Not all the dangerous zealots of Israel carry swords or guns.

[Contributor]

Yes, David, it may be true that the real weapon of "destruction" and radicalism is the settlers' right to vote. Perhaps it is time that the majority reign in on the dangerously generous democracy and reserve full citizen status strictly for those not wearing kippot. After all, how else can we protect ourselves from the looming threat of democracy in action?

[ConCon]

David is not making a point about Israeli politics but American. He is claiming that American Zionist Jewish neoconservatives have taken over American foreign policy to serve a foreign master. It would be nice if Chabad at least occassionally took on this point of view but they are too busy bashing Sharon. Or, it would be nice of Chabad-bashers took the David Kelsey's of the world on but, no, you guys are too busy bashing Chabad.

[ConCon]

btw, Shmarya, you may note that D. Kelsey did not complain that this or that Jew was doing something that was ultimately bad for Israel. His claim is that "dangerous zealots" are deceitfully "confusing that what is good for Israel is good for America."
Presumably what is good for America is what is bad for Israel.

Think about it.

These are not exactly folks who are following the disputes between you and, say, the CH folks who have migrated to TA's blog, yes?

You give these anti-Zionist trolls slack and they'll take over your blog.