Showing posts with label Judea and Samaria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judea and Samaria. Show all posts

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria

Israeli Sovereignty.com

In coordination with Jordan, Israel will extend its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
Arab residents of these areas will become citizens of Jordan (Palestine). Their status, their relationship to the two countries, and the nature of the administration in the populated areas will be formulated and set forth in an agreement between the governments of Israel and Jordan.

From "occupation" to sovereignty
The territories of Judea and Samaria were included in the area of the British Mandate that was intended for the establishment of a National Home for the Jewish people. Since the end of the Mandate, and following the failure of the Partition Plan, these territories did not receive recognized legal status. They were occupied by Jordan in 1948, but this occupation was not recognized under international law. During the Six Day War (1967) Israel occupied these territories and returned them to the Jewish people.

Judea and Samaria represent the heart of Eretz Israel. The central mountain range, with Jerusalem as its heart, reminds us who we are. Here Abraham walked with his son Isaac; here Jacob pitched his tents; here our forefathers drove out the Canaanite nations under the leadership of Joshua Bin Nun. In the hills of Judea and Samaria, there are tens of sanctified sites of historical significance, many of which have not yet been researched.

These territories were under Jordanian sovereignty/ occupation for only 19 years. For more than 40 years, these territories have been under de facto Israeli sovereignty, and there is no impediment to officially and actually annexing them to the State of Israel.
The danger in Palestinian sovereignty
The alternative to Israeli sovereignty is handing over Judea and Samaria to Palestinian or other Arab sovereignty. This would be a strategic catastrophe of the first magnitude. After the Northern region of Israel was paralyzed following the presence of Hezbollah on our Northern border, and after the Western Negev is absorbing a rain of Kassam rockets, it is not difficult to imagine what the Central region – the Sharon, the Dan Bloc, and Jerusalem – will look like when dominated by enemy forces. In such a situation, Israel would become a hostage living in the shadow of a constant threat.

The handing over of Shiloh, Beit El, Bethlehem, and Hebron to foreign hands expresses the Jewish people's rejection of its roots, and leads to a loss of awareness of our rights to the country – a loss transmitting a message of weakness to our enemies, and making us appear to view our presence here as of a temporary nature only.

Handing over Judea and Samaria to foreign hands also means acceptance of Israel's capital, Jerusalem, becoming a border town, surrounded on three sides by territories under Arab sovereignty; and constitutes a fatal blow to the extensive Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria. These communities exemplify Israel’s national strength and a high level of social and human values, and harm to them – like the destruction of Gush Katif – threatens to cause a grave blow to the morale of Israeli society, the possibility of a national fissure, and radiation of weakness to the Arab world.
< BODY>
Israeli control, of course, also represents the anchor of security stability. IDF presence in the towns of Judea and Samaria, and its consistent and intensive activities in routing terrorist nests has succeeded in almost completely eliminating the terrible acts of suicide bombers that only a few years ago were regarded as a problem for which "there was no military solution." The strength of the IDF – and not Abu Mazen's weak forces – is what is currently preventing Judea and Samaria being turned into an additional "Hamasland" that would threaten Israel as well as the stability of Arab regimes.
The demographic devil
For many years Israel has been deterred from annexing Judea, Samaria and Gaza because of the fear of reducing the Jewish majority within the borders of the State of Israel. The great wave of immigration from the countries of the former Soviet Union, stability in the birth rate of the Jewish sector, and a decreasing birth rate in the Arab sector, have considerably shrunk the "demographic devil" and have turned it from an existential threat to a problem that can be solved.

A comprehensive program for the rehabilitation of refugees, as proposed in the first section of this initiative, will totally remove the demographic threat from the State of Israel as a Jewish State. The extension of Israeli sovereignty to these territories will also bring in its wake a significant change to the composition of the population: The real elimination of the "Green Line" would lead to a more normal distribution of the Jewish population, that would move naturally to the "new" region adjoining the center of the country – only minutes from the Dan Bloc and Jerusalem.
 
The status of Arab residents of Judea and Samaria
The dismantling of the refugee camps as part of a process of rehabilitation will reduce the Arab population in Judea and Samaria and minimize poverty and over-crowding in Palestinian towns.

The Arab population that will continue to reside inside the new borders of the State of Israel will enjoy full human rights awarded by the State of Israel, but they will possess Jordanian-Palestinian citizenship, and their political rights will be realized in Amman.

There will be limited autonomy in the Arab settlements while day-to-day administration will be under Israel’s authority in a form to be determined in negotiations between Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan.
____________________________
 
Note:  Israeli Sovereignity is a new website for me; just located it today.  I have posted a link under our "Links" to Israeli Sovereignity and here is a comment from the author of this blog:
For decades Israel has sought the proper road to peace, only to be disappointed time and again from the bloody results of the paths
 that were chosen.

We were not mistaken in striving for peace, but only in the way we
set out to achieve it.

I call on you to join me in a new way of thinking about the conflict,
in learning from our mistakes, and in re-reading the regional map
toward a revitalized and genuine quest to achieve The Right Road
to Peace.

Please read, learn and share the insights of this site!

Sincerely, MK Benny Elon

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Who are the Palestinians and who is occupying what?

CanadaFreePress.com
By David Rushton Sunday, January 24, 2010

Muslims constantly scream and whine about Israel occupying Muslim lands in Israel. Newspapers and T.V. newscasts talk about Judea and Samaria being “occupied” by Israel. The U.S. State Department and other government entities refer to parts of Israel as “Israeli Settlements.” So the question must be, “Is Israel occupying part of Palestine or are the Muslims occupying part of Israel”?

The Torah portion for last week included the following passage (A Torah Portion is a weekly section of the Torah studied by Jews which enables them to read and understand all of the first five books of the Bible in one year. Marcia and I study it every week along with the commentaries).
Exodus 6

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country.”

2 God also said to Moses, “I am the LORD. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them. 4 I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they lived as aliens. 5 Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered my covenant.

6 “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. 7 I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the LORD.’ “

The Bible proves that God gave the Land of Canaan to His Chosen People Israel. The above is, of course, only one of many references to this historical and biblical fact.
Historical Proof that Israel is Jewish

About six years ago Marcia and I visited the community of Gush Etzion near Hevron (Hebron). As part of our tour we went along an old road and saw several Mikvot (plural for Mikva, the ceremonial pool used for ritual cleansing) that dated back about 2,500 years. This is just one of the thousands of proofs that Israel was continually inhabited by Jews for more than 3000 years.

A recent discovery in Israel sheds new light on the period of King David and proves once again (as if more proof were needed) that Israel existed as a nation more than 3000 years ago.

In an article on the Arutz Sheva website, Avi Yellin reports that a pottery shard was discovered a little over a year ago at excavations that were carried out near the Elah valley, south of Jerusalem. But until recently, archeologists were unable to confirm that the language on the shard was actually Hebrew rather than some other Semitic language.

Now a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered the inscription and proved that it is the earliest known example of Hebrew writing and that it was written during the reign of King David.

You can read more about professor Galil’s research elsewhere, but two examples should be enough to show why he authenticated this discovery. The verb “asah” used in the text means to do and the verb “avad” means to work and each of these verbs are used only in Hebrew. In modern day Hebrew and Arabic there are many similarities because they both come from Semitic language roots. But 3000 years ago there were no other languages that used the same verb forms as are found on this piece of Hebrew inscribed pottery. The Arabs were not there. They were in Arabia.

It is also interesting to note that other cultures at the time referred to multiple gods while the Hebrews were the only people who believed in the One God. This fragment of text on the pottery parallels passages in the Bible in which Jews are called upon to support the weaker members of society including widows and those who are strangers living in the Commonwealth of Israel at the time.

This new evidence proves once again that the Biblical account is true. Israel existed as a State over 3000 years ago. Those who claim that Israel is occupying Arab lands haven’t a leg to stand on. Muslims have absolutely no reason to be in the Land of Israel other than that the Israelis tolerate them and allow them to live there.
Where did the name Palestine come from?

To cut a long story short, the name Palestine is derived from Philistine which is a translation of the Biblical “Plesheth”. Translations and mis-translations cause much confusion. An amusing example of this occurred when President Carter in a speech said that he loved the Polish people. The interpreter translated it as “I lust after the Polish people.” I hear that the translator is now working as a dishwasher in Warsaw and so should some of those who translated the Bible into English.

The word plesheth meant migratory referring to the migration of the Philistines into the sea coast of Israel. So the Palestinians of 3000 years ago were, in fact, the Philistines. The Philistines were not native to Israel, in fact, as their name implies, they came from somewhere else. Most scholars agree that they came from the Greek Islands, most likely Crete. Obviously, they did not speak Arabic and they were not Semitic like the Jews and Arabs. The Arabs came from guess where?—Arabia.

From the fifth century BCE, the Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean “Philistine Syria” using the Greek language form of the name. In the year135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to wipe out the name of the Roman “Provincia Judaea” and so renamed it “Provincia Syria Palaestina”,

The name “Falastin” is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman “Palaestina”. Golda Meir the Chicago schoolteacher who became the Prime Minister of Israel said,

“The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation’s supposed ancient name, though they couldn’t even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin.”

So the Philistines occupied part of the Land of Canaan at one time and they came into conflict with Israel. But there are no Philistines left today. The so-called Palestinian people have absolutely no connection to the Philistines and, therefore, no connection to the Land. Yet the world continues to call the area “Palestine” because the rulers of this world have no regard for God.

At the end of the first essay in this series I remarked that I was ready for an onslaught of hateful mail from Muslims and others who do not believe in God. Well, there were no letters from Muslims and, I think, only one from an atheist. The overwhelming majority of the comments came from people who agreed with and applauded the article. Many were thankful to me for explaining the truth about Israel. One of those readers, however, went a step further and commented on the second, as yet not published, article in the series. He reminded me of a little know fact from World War II that is quite interesting.

Kenneth Tremble from Australia said that During WW II there was a Jewish Brigade fighting alongside the British Forces against the Germans. They were known as The Palestinian Brigade. He correctly accuses the U.S. State Department, with Hilary Clinton in charge, of being corrupt in refusing to acknowledge that the Jews are the Palestinians, NOT anybody else. He also states that Hilary will be accountable to God for her treatment of Israel.

Right on Kenneth, thanks for the contribution.

And let us not forget that the Germans had their allies too. They were the Muslims who wore German Uniforms and fought against the allies.
So where did these so called “Palestinians” come from?

At one time, before Yasi Arafat came on the scene, I had many Arab friends in Israel. That was before Arafat infected so many of them with such a hatred for the Israelis. I remember on one occasion asking one of them where the Palestinians came from. He told me that his father was from Syria and his mother from Saudi Arabia. Curious, I asked another of my friends and he told me his family was from Iraq. Another said his mother was Lebanese and his father was Egyptian. Not one of their families was native to Israel. Incredulous, I asked if they knew any families who had lived in Israel for a long time. They mentioned the Kourie family who had lived in Jerusalem for three of four generations. But it did not amount to much more than that. So, how is it possible that the United States government has been fooled into thinking that Israel has occupied Palestinian lands if there has never been a country called Palestine with an Arab government, parliament, flag and official borders and there are only a handful of families who have actually lived there for more than a few generations?

Perhaps we should ask a member of the P.L.O about this. After all, it was the P.L.O. who first championed the so called Palestinian rights and brought these people to the attention of the world by hijacking aircraft and murdering passengers.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with P.L.O. executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. In which he said he said:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

It is true that some Muslims have lived in Israel ever since the Muslim invasion of the seventh century but, most of the time; it was only a handful of them. Frankly, they did not want the land because it was largely barren after the Romans sought to purge the Land of Jews between 70 and 73 following the destruction of the Temple in the year 70. Some Jews escaped and stayed in Jerusalem and nearby towns guarding their God-given right to the Holy Land and the Holy City.

A few Arab nomadic shepherds and traders crossed the land moving in and out with their sheep and camels and trading with the Jews. Some of the Arabs actually settled in the Jewish villages and were welcomed as a part of the community. But there were always Jews living in the Land and there was always a steady stream of Jews coming back from the Diaspora drawn by the magnet of Jerusalem.

Those of you who would like more detail of the continuous Jewish presence in the Land can see a wonderful essay with many maps on the website
What does the Khoran say about the Land?

Well, believe it or not the Khoran states emphatically that the Land belongs to the Jews.

The Khoran is actually a collection of writings by many people and the teachings of Mohammed. It also includes some works of science and parts of the mystic writings of eastern religions known in the seventh century. Many people would be surprised to learn that it also contains verses from the Bible and reveres some biblical prophets as prophets of Islam. However the following verses will come as a real shocker to most people.

Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: ‘Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel].”

There is an amazing Imam living in Italy and actually he is head of the Italian Islamic Union. I say he is amazing because he fully believes in and teaches Zionism and absolutely believes that the Jews are the rightful heirs to the Promised Land. The only mystery is how he has lived this long with such profoundly pro-Jewish statements. To see his thesis on “What the Qur’an really says” (Qur’an is just another translation of Khoran or Koran) please go to this website because he can say it far better than I.

And to see a video of him in Hevron visit
Can the Muslims claim the land through Ishmael?

Some people including many Muslims stake a claim for the Arabs through the line of Ishmael, the son of Abraham and his wife’s Egyptian servant Hagaar. The thinking is that if God promised Abraham that his family would be a blessing to the whole earth and that anyone who blessed them would be blessed and those who cursed them would be cursed, that must include the children of Ishmael who in fact was Abraham’s first son. That theory does make sense using man’s logic. The truth is that God made an executive decision to separate the children of Yitsak (Isaac) from the Children of Ishmael. It doesn’t sound fair does it? But who are we to question the Wisdom of the Almighty? Take a look at Genesis Chapter 17.

18And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

19And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

20And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

21But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

So God, Himself, refused to give the Abrahamic Blessing to Ishmael and the Arabs. Instead they received all the oil in the deserts of Arabia. Well, of course, the Muslims have their own story of this covenant. They believe that Ishmael received the Covenant. They also claim that it was Ishmael who was taken and almost sacrificed by Abraham on Mount Moriah, later to be called the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem. But remember one thing, the Bible was written hundreds of years before Mohammed was born and he and the other Muslims scribes took the parts of the Bible and other books that they liked and changed the parts they did not like in the seventh and eighth centuries.

If you want to call any group of people “Palestinians” it should be the Israelis.

David Rushton Most recent columns

David Rushton was born in London where his parents were staunch conservatives. He immigrated to the United States in the sixties and formed a patriotic organization advocating conservative principals which include rallies and marches. He had his own radio talk show for many years and was also a guest on many radio and Television talk shows.

In the last few years David wrote several books about the dangers of radical Islam and spoke on this subject in some of the largest Conservative Churches in the United States.

He now resides with his wife Marcia in Costa Rica.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Most Israelis Demonstrate Extraordinary Self-Restraint.

by Eli E. Hertz

Calls for a freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria - while Arab construction, which far exceeds Jewish development, continues unfettered - are clearly biased and by itself a violation of international law.

Israel, as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966) is obligated to use "all appropriate means" to promote and protect the right to housing, including the prohibition on forced evictions.

Arabs claim that Jewish settlements "change the status" of the Territories and represent a distortion of the Oslo Accords. This phrase applies to acts that change the political status of the disputed territory - such as outright Israeli annexation or a Palestinian declaration of statehood. Since Jewish settlements are legal, they should be promoted and supported in accordance of the "Mandate for Palestine" - The historical League of Nations document, that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The Oslo Accords do not forbid Israeli or Arab settlement activity. Charges that further Jewish settlement activity preempts final negotiations by establishing realities requires reciprocity. If the West Bank and Gaza were de jure part of the British Mandate, and if the Mandate borders [article 25] are the last legal document concerning this territory; and if Jews were forcibly expelled from the West Bank and Gaza in 1948 during a war of aggression aimed at them - then these Territories must be considered disputed Territories, at the least.

The Israeli-Palestinian border dispute is like every other major and minor boundary dispute around the globe. Since the West Bank and Gaza were redeemed in 1967 in a defensive war and are not "Occupied Territories" gained illegally by a bellicose power; and since this fact is recognized in the wording of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 that call for a settlement to institute "secure and recognized borders," calling for a construction freeze on Jewish settlements should, logically, be paralleled by a freeze on Arab construction in the West Bank.

The Oslo II Agreement recognizes de facto the special status and security needs of Jewish communities in the West Bank.

Rather than negotiate a settlement, as agreed to in September 1993, Palestinians elected to break their commitment and to intensify the use of terrorism as a political vehicle in a low-tech war of aggression.

The status issue has been co-opted and warped by the Palestinians in an attempt to curtail Jewish settlement. Neither the 1993 "Oslo I" (the Declaration of Principles) nor the 1995 Oslo II (Interim Agreement) stipulate that the construction of settlements, neighborhoods, houses, roads or other building projects cease.

According to a former policy planning official, the pace of Arab construction is "more than 10 times the number of buildings under construction [in the Territories] than those approved [by the Israeli government] for the [Jewish] settlers." Calls for a freeze on Jewish construction in the Territories - while Arab construction continues unfettered, are discriminatory- all the more so, in light of the fact that Jews were forcibly expelled in 1948.

Most Israelis living in the Territories demonstrated extraordinary self-restraint in recent years.

Palestinian Arabs create the impression that they are at risk from violent Israelis. A close analysis of realities reveals who is really endangered. All Jewish Israeli schools, both in sensitive areas inside Israel and settlements in the Territories, are surrounded by perimeter fences and alarm systems. Public places from restaurants and banks to wedding halls and hospitals, have armed guards at the entrance. This is not the case in Israeli Arab communities or among Palestinian Arabs in the Territories, who are not exposed to terrorist attacks on civilians.

Settlers as a community attempt systematically to avoid conflict.

Settlers travel on bypass roads built by Israel that detour around Arab villages. They ride in bulletproof buses or wear flak jackets on their commute in their cars. More recently, some settlers have surrounded their villages with security fences. Except in rare instances, Jewish settlers, have not taken wholesale retaliation against Palestinian Arab villages, or attempted to establish a balance of terror.

The late Professor Ehud Sprinzak, a fellow at the Counter-Terrorism Institute in Herzliya, an expert on right-wing extremism, published a study entitled Brother Against Brother: Violence and Extremism in Israeli politics from Altalena to the Rabin Assassination. Professor Sprinzak not only stated that in his estimation, Israelis, including settlers, would not resort to armed resistance if ordered by their government to abandon their homes; he said that had other Western nations faced Israel’s external and internal challenges, their streets would have been flooded with blood." This was said before the quantum leap in levels of violence since September 2000. There were 18,787 (!) incidents where Jews were targeted by Palestinian Arab terrorists between September 2000 and May 2003 alone (with and without casualties) on both sides of the Green Line.

Legalities aside, before 1967 there were no Jewish settlements in the West Bank and for the first ten years of so-called occupation there were almost no Jewish settlers in the West Bank. And still there was no peace with the Palestinian Arabs. The notion that Jewish communities pose an obstacle to peace is a red herring designed to blame Israel for lack of progress in the Peace Process and enable Palestinian leadership to continue to reject any form of compromise and reconciliation.

Eli E. Hertz

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Wanted - Wisdom - Judea and Samaria


Where the destiny of Judea and Samaria is concerned, it will be Israel's tragedy if bloody-mindedness forces a schism where tolerance could have prevented it.
Construction site in the Elon...

Construction site in the Elon Moreh settlement, near Nablus.
Photo: AP

The warnings before Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip were apocalyptic.

The settlers of Gush Katif, it was widely predicted, being forced from their homes after decades in which the government had encouraged them to risk their lives by living in Gaza, would not go quietly. They believed that the unilateral pullout was a historic mistake; a capitulation that would lead to an escalation of Palestinian violence and terror; an act of betrayal by a prime minister, Ariel Sharon, for whom many of them had voted, and an unGodly, unJewish action - voluntarily relinquishing a portion of Jewish land.

Many soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, it was further argued, would prove incapable of carrying out the evacuation/eviction. Recent decades had seen a dramatic shift in the composition of key army units; where the young men of the secular kibbutz movement had once dominated, now the youths of modern Orthodoxy prevailed, and their loyalty to their military commanders would be superseded by their fealty to their rabbis, and to those rabbis' interpretation of Halacha. At the moment of truth, of Jew being asked to remove Jew from a home in the holy land, kippa-wearing soldiers would refuse their orders, and the army's capacity to fulfill its democratic obligation to the lawful government ofIsrael would be found wanting.

In the physical and emotional turmoil, ran the ominous predictions, Jew would turn violently upon Jew, much Jewish blood would be spilled, and Israeli Jewish society would be torn as never before in the history of the modern state.

The doom-mongers were mistaken.

Many of the Jewish civilian residents of Gaza certainly did not go quietly. Many did believe "disengagement" was a historic mistake, would encourage Palestinian terror, represented a betrayal by Sharon and ran counter to divine will. But their resistance largely constituted a dogged, tenacious noncooperation with the forces that had been sent to remove them from their homes and was almost entirely nonviolent.

Similarly, many of the modern Orthodox soldiers of the IDF were indeed torn. Many of their spiritual leaders fiercely opposed the pullout, regarding it as halachicly untenable. Some of those rabbinical leaders made overt their opposition to "their" soldiers participating in any aspect of the withdrawal - not just the direct removal of settlers from their homes and the dismantling of the settlements, but also the indirect protection and support of other soldiers and security personnel involved in the operation. Yet incidents of soldiers directly refusing to carry out their orders were, relatively, few and far between - a reported few dozen cases. Overall, the IDF proved thoroughly capable of implementing the decisions of its political masters.

Broadly speaking, Jew did not turn violently upon Jew. Israeli Jewish society was not ripped irrevocably apart.

But Gaza was easy.

The settlements of the Gaza Strip were the furthest from the Israeli mainstream, in several senses. Geographically, even in our tiny country, Gaza is relatively distant fromIsrael 's main population centers, and it was the rare Israeli who had made more than the most occasional visit to the settlements there. The biblical and historic connection to Gaza pales by comparison to the centrality of Judea and Samaria. And numerically, the Gaza settlements had never flourished by comparison to some of theJewish towns and cities of the West Bank.

Gaza, moreover, was home to well over a million Palestinians, from whom Israel had always wanted to separate. Menachem Begin would have been delighted for Anwar Sadat to take Gaza off Israel's hands almost 30 years earlier. If Sharon had concluded that demographics required Israel to relinquish responsibility for at least some of the Palestinians in order to maintain a Jewish, democratic Israel, then Gaza was clearly the place to start.

But for at least some in that Israeli mainstream, while they were acquiescent to the notion of leaving Gaza, it was also the place to finish. Any substantial withdrawal from Judea and Samaria is another story altogether - the story that is playing out now.

THE LESSON drawn from disengagement by some settler leaders, ideologues and activists was that their resistance had been too soft, that they had capitulated too gently. The four years sinceIsrael withdrew every last Jew from Gaza have vindicated their opposition, they believe. The pullout, in their view, was indeed a disastrous miscalculation - the misguided removal of a flourishing community. Violence followed across the border. Hamas took over the Strip.Israel was forced to reinvade, enjoyed no international understanding despite the fact of its earlier unilateral departure, and will yet have to tackle a better-armed Hamas again. In that context, for them, any sense of relief thatIsrael had severed itself from Gaza, and has since managed to avoid being drawn permanently back into the quagmire of the Strip, is unjustified or outweighed.

So next time, or on the route to next time, some have concluded, opposition will have to be more robust.

In contrast to Gaza, furthermore, at least parts of the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria are close to the hearts of many in the Israeli mainstream, ideologically and physically. As with Gaza, most Israelis simply don't go to most of the West Bank settlements, ever. But unlike Gaza, most Israelis do sometimes visit some of the larger ones, notably those that are nearer to the pre-'67 lines. Almost all Israelis have friends and relatives who live in Judea and Samaria. Indeed, a sizable proportion of Israelis - again, in stark contrast to Gaza - live there themselves, often motivated far less by ideology than by the simple relative affordability of housing.

And Judea and Samaria, in contrast to Gaza, of course, are central to the historical narrative of Jewish Israelis - territory overflowing with biblical resonance.

West Bank compromise, in short, is a challenge of a whole different order than was posed by Gaza.
Construction site in the Elon...

Construction site in the Elon Moreh settlement, near Nablus.
Photo: AP

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, weighing what he has called the "mix of national interests" and compromising his own support for settlement expansion, evidently saw no alternative last month but to order the suspension of new home building throughout Judea and Samaria. Despite Netanyahu's protestations to the contrary, many anticipate that after the freeze will come pressure for withdrawal. The memories of the pullout from Gaza and parts of northern Samaria are still fresh, and Netanyahu is backing a Palestinian state and facing daily reminders that the international community has no sympathy for an expanded sovereign Israel.

To date, the formal settlement leadership and its supporters have responded with the relatively mild obstruction of building inspectors dispatched to assess potential infractions and a peaceful major demonstration outside the Prime Minister's Residence.

But amid reports of heightened security around the prime minister himself, and with a disturbing rash of incidents of extremist violence - including the torching of a mosque in the West Bank village of Yasuf, and attacks on police personnel - battle lines are being drawn. And because the stakes are so much higher where Judea and Samaria are concerned than they were with Gaza four years ago, concerns about intra-Jewish violence are still more acute.

THE BITTER dispute between Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, head of the Har Bracha Hesder Yeshiva, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, goes to the essence of the divide. At the time of the Gaza pullout, Melamed was as intractable as he is today in his interpretation of Halacha as forbidding the dismantling of settlements - an interpretation, it should be stressed, that has both learned supporters and learned opponents. But his opposition, and that of those who shared his views, was finessed - to the ultimate benefit of all.

Innumerable earnest public and mainly private contacts facilitated a circumstance in which even some of the rabbis who were most strongly opposed to the Gaza pullout restrained their public statements, and in which the IDF hierarchy managed to shelter those soldiers most acutely conflicted from direct and even indirect involvement in the withdrawal.

Similar, if not greater wisdom is required today.

The Jerusalem Post's religious affairs correspondent, Matthew Wagner, wrote in an astute analysis on Tuesday that "as defense minister and a veteran IDF commander, Barak had to show zero toleration for insubordination. No one knows better than Barak the dangers of a breakdown in military discipline. Distinctions cannot be made between orders. Whether it is an order to charge an enemy or to dismantle a settlement, a soldier must obey."

Barak is right, of course, the IDF would collapse if it tolerated insubordination, and Israel would not last a minute without the IDF.

Wagner went on: "Melamed could not back down either. He was standing up for Halacha. As he wrote in a statement that appeared on the Arutz 7 Internet site, 'It is the obligation of a rabbi to speak his mind on Torah matters freely. In that way he represents the sacred tradition of his people.'"

Indeed, it is impossible to conceive that Melamed could betray his understanding of Halacha, his interpretation of the very code that guides his life and the lives of those who accept his rabbinical authority.

So how, then, to reconcile these profoundly conflicted positions?

Elsewhere in the same article, Wagner asserted that "Halacha might, in principle, supersede an IDF order, yet it is not necessary to ever come to a situation in which the two values directly clash."

Here, we may be on shakier ground. Modern Orthodoxy and the institutions of our democratic state have found essential common ground in building and sustaining Israel these past six decades. The issues that unite these hierarchies far, far outweigh the practical matters that divide them. Somehow, almost miraculously, we have managed to reconcile the demands of a modern, secular state with the values of the faith that both sustained our people in exile and are so central to so many in the revivedJewish homeland today.

But questions relating to the destiny of Judea and Samaria - historic Jewish land beyond the borders of sovereign Israel - test that partnership more acutely than most any other of the dilemmas inherent in the curious, wonderful, unique relationship between the secular state and the religious leadership.

And Wagner may be unjustly optimistic in claiming that we need never reach a situation in which the IDF orders directly clash with Halacha. Orders are orders, after all. And a rabbi cannot compromise his understanding of God's will.

Yet orders can be weighed and sensitively assigned, and halachic interpretation can be questioned and reexamined in the gloriousJewish tradition. Our tragedy will be if stubborn bloody-mindedness forces a cataclysmic schism where good sense and tolerance could have prevented it.

The ancient history of Jewish sovereignty in this region is a bitter saga of internal intolerance dividing and then destroying the capacity of our people to govern themselves. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Gaza pullout, the modern lesson of disengagement is that a responsible awareness of the greater good can reconcile even forces and viewpoints that may seem to be utterly conflicted. Where the destiny of Judea and Samaria is concerned, and for the sake of Israel, these are lessons that simply must be internalized.