Posts
West Bank Mama, whom I assume is a mother residing in the West Bank, has a heartfelt post in which she laments, in part, the conflict faced by those young renegade settlers who are always setting up new illegal outposts in the territories, only to see them torn down by the police or the IDF. Such was the fate that befell Chavat Gilad earlier this month. Basically, the conflict is that these very patriotic and ideological kids really love Israel, and really want to serve in the elite divisions of the IDF, but often find themselves at loggerheads with the enforcement arm of the Jewish State, most poignantly perhaps, when they, as teenagers, must make the decision whether to attend a protest that is bound to turn violent and thus lead to probable arrests (which is a black eye to any application to an elite unit), or whether to sit it out, thus betraying one ideal for another.
I call the post heartfelt because it does a good job of explaining a real dilemma for hilltop youth, but I still find it hard to sympathize with these kids.
Look. The Israeli government has a law: It is illegal to set up illegal outposts.* To the extent that you set up illegal outposts, you will come into conflict with the Israeli government. It's as simple as that. You don't want to come into conflict with the Israeli government? Then don't build illegal outposts! It's not like illegal construction is some sort of automatic involuntary behavior, like breathing or something. It's also not as if there is literally no place for these kids to live, or there is a dearth of space in Israel proper in which to build houses. There are plenty of religious Zionists who get on perfectly fine living in Israel, livin' the Zionist dream, and not breaking the law.
If you'd rather break the law to satisfy some ideological itch, then you've decided you care more about one facet of your ideology (the building of illegal outposts) than another (serving in a Jewish army). Which is fine. In life, you face choices. You can't expect to deliberately break the law of a state in a consistent and brazen-faced manner, and then plan to be welcomed by the elite units of that state's army.
It's the same conflict faced by patriotic muggers.
*I believe that the absolute best way to state a law is to present it in its most tautological form. Can't argue with that.
5 comments:
The "law" now makes it illegal to boycott goods from the settlements.
Many prominent leftists are now calling for the law to be flouted.
Should they be above the law, or should they be punished to the full extent of the law?
First, the boycott law does not yet impose criminal sanctions. The only things potential publishers of boycotters have to fear are civil suits. Which is still pretty scary, but the role of the "lawbreaker" is inapposite.
But, do I believe in civil disobedience? Sure, insofar as it can be done peacefully. I have no problem with hilltop youth protesting government actions. If they were attending protests and getting figurative black eyes (through not attacking officials in a violent manner, say, to keep this clean) because they are on record opposing a government law, that's fine. But then you have to accept the consequences of that opposition.
Moreover, I would draw attention to the differences here in the obedience demanded by the respective laws.
With regard to illegal settlements, there's no great problem here. States always retain the power to regulate where people can build things. Your ideologocial right to effect foreign policy by building wherever you want is pretty weak in comparison.
Whereas free speech is something that is typically much less regulated by democratic governments, and you're ideological right to say things is pretty strong. If you can't publicly express certain political opinions without facing state sanctions, you would expect more sympathy, then if you can't build wherever you want. I'm inherently more sympathetic to the "I can say whatever dumb thing I want" than versus "I can build a residential-use buillding wherever I want."
"It is illegal to set up illegal outposts." -- presenting a tautologous statement in reference to a politically charged term doesn't clarify the law, it simply augments your interpretation...and political/subjective bias.
The correct term is unauthorized outposts...what makes them "illegal" is the lack of a signature from Ehud Barak...many outposts have local municipality permits, yet due to Ehud Barak's political worldview, (and against the equality of civil rights), he refuses to sign.
Creating an outpost is an excellent example of civil disobedience.
>"It is illegal to set up illegal outposts." -- presenting a tautologous statement in reference to a politically charged term doesn't clarify the law, it simply augments your interpretation...and political/subjective bias.
Well, yes, hence the footnote. :)
>The correct term is unauthorized outposts...what makes them "illegal" is the lack of a signature from Ehud Barak...many outposts have local municipality permits, yet due to Ehud Barak's political worldview, (and against the equality of civil rights), he refuses to sign.
Well, I don't think it really matters as to whether it's unauthorized or illegal. Clearly, the government doesn't like them and doesn't want people doing it, and there's legislation or regulation to that effect that seeks to curb the practice.
Regarding it all being up to Ehud Barak, I'm afraid that only furthers the point of the left. Why are zoning decisions left up to the Defense Minister? Because it's not a normal area, subject to normal laws, but an inherently military area, subject to special military, if not martial, law. I don't live in Israel, so feel free to educate me, but I assume that if I wanted to build a house or settlement near Haifa, I wouldn't need Barak's say so, but would suffice with the approval of the local municipal council. Actually, I don't know what it takes to do something similar in New York, either, but I assume the military does not enter into it.
But the settlements are another kettle of fish. So, while democracies are perfectly within their right to limit where within their jurisdiction people can live, even through something as banal as zoning or neighborhood councils, they have an even stronger hand in military affairs, or regions under quasi-military control, or in regions with particular military significiance. I assume the areas these hilltop youth claim qualify under one of these categories.
>Creating an outpost is an excellent example of civil disobedience.
Sure, but it's civil disobedience. But I'm not really sympathetic here - breaking the law out of ideology is breaking the law. I don't think there's some travesty of injustice being done here - one of government's inherent powers is deciding where people can set up shop.
Post a Comment