Comments on: Ehud Goldwasser http://aharoni.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/ehud-goldwasser/ Treacle tarts for great justice Sat, 18 May 2013 12:14:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Amir http://aharoni.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/ehud-goldwasser/comment-page-1/#comment-2360 Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:19:00 +0000 http://aharoniimport.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/ehud-goldwasser/#comment-2360 Dear Anonymous,

Yes, we would be better off without destroying Gush-Katif.

We would also be better off if we didn’t run away in panic from Lebanon instead of staying there until victory.

> I seriously doubt it.

Wake up – everyone except Olmert admits to the simple fact that it did damage and gained nothing. Can you tell me that we gained *anything* from it?

> These guys are always looking for an excuse. If it wouldn’t have been now, it would have been either sooner or later.

That just proves my point. If they always have an excuse, then why did we have to destroy 25 villages?

If there are guys who are looking for an excuse to shoot me, i have no moral problem to shoot them first.

It hurts, but wars must be won. Do you know that Hizballah, for example, always writes the name of our country in double quotes – “Israel” – because according to them we don’t really exist? The only way to win a war with someone who denies your existence is to destroy him. I’m all for Gandhi-style nonviolence, but in Gandhi’s case the Brits didn’t deny the existence of an Indian nation. It doesn’t work in the Middle East. I read somewhere (i think that it was the Encyclopedia Hebraica) that Gandhi said that Jews should fight non-violently for their rights in Europe. And you know what happened to Jews that stayed in Europe.

> Zionism, based on your beloved Wikipedia, is a secular movement

Wikipedia is fun, but it’s not trustworthy in its current form. Judge for yourself: Zionism is indeed a secular movement, except the Zion part, which comes from the Bible. Herzl could have fought against pogroms. But he made an insane decision to fight for Jews’ rights far away in the Land of Israel. There is no logical explanation for it. A Bible is a book – a bunch of letters on paper. But if we have a moral right to demand rights anywhere, this is the only place. It doesn’t really make sense, but it’s as good as it gets.

Eretz Israel Hashlema came later, you say? Initially the Zionist congress demanded much more land than the E.I.H. people of today are talking about, including half of what later became the Kingdom of Jordan. Those Zionists demanded the land according to Biblical borders. How secular is that? They tried to offer us Uganda instead. It didn’t work out either.

qeqic

]]> By: Anonymous http://aharoni.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/ehud-goldwasser/comment-page-1/#comment-2359 Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:49:00 +0000 http://aharoniimport.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/ehud-goldwasser/#comment-2359 Hi Amir,
When you talk about the first Israeli settlers making their homes in what was then a vast wasteland with a few old castles and lots of olive trees, you seem to think that they did it just for spite. Well, I won’t say that spite didn’t factor into it at all, but you seem to be ignoring what else happened in the world back then.
In the late nineteenth century there came waht would late be called by my (and your) history teacher “Aviv HaAmim” (it just sounds better in Hebrew), meaning there was a great nationalistic awakening going on throughout Europe, and populations that were under some empire’s rule began to understand that they deserve their own rights. Zionism was born in those years as well. About ninety years ago, which would be 1916 – we’re talking already of the years after the second Aliyah (which, remarkably is already the fourth one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah).
A hundred years ago, anti-Semitism was at its (then) worst with pogroms sweeping through the south of the USSR, not to mention sporadic temple burnings throughout Europe. This was also a consequence of the national awakenings.
Israel, since the conception of its idea, was seen as a shelter (Miklat, how appropriately) to all the Jewish people worldwide. To this day, over 100 years later, its existance is our insurance policy against the Holocaust happening again.
Yes, I know, anti-semitism is on the rise, but in our world today where you live is a choice you make. If a said French Jew has a problem with anti-Semitism in Paris he can pack up and leave for Tel-Aviv. If he has a problem giving up croissants, well, that’s his choice, isn’t it?
Like I said – where you live is a choice. Your own choice, not your parents’ or your childrens’. I could have been living a far nicer life in the US, but I’m here, because I choose to be here. I can’t see myself not living here. I can’t see myself not joining the Army, nor can I see myself packing my bags right now and hightailing it to Tel Aviv, or better yet – the United States.
I think that, my friend, is patriotism. Once, I had a conversation with a few of my cadettes, and they convinced me that what I see as patriotism is basically Zionism.
Zionism, based on your beloved Wikipedia, is a secular movement. It was founded by secular, highly educated Jews.
“Eretz Israel HaShlema” is nowhere in their manifest. That’s a later addition.
Do you really think that if we hadn’t gone forth with the Disengagement we wouldn’t be in this situation right now? I seriously doubt it. These guys are always looking for an excuse. If it wouldn’t have been now, it would have been either sooner or later.

]]>