THE RIGHT TO AFFECT YOUR NEIGHBOR
by Emanuel A. Winston
The idea that the majority rules simply because there are more of them, may not be the way to decide some problems. When the majority has a prejudiced or vested interest in what it considers its own well-being, while putting the minority in danger, that's not a fair or equitable way to decide problems.
The minority does not exist, nor should it - at the pleasure of the so-called majority. The majority in Israel lives along the Mediterranean coast. These are city people mostly who generally think of themselves as Politically Left and highly Liberal. They feel insulated from hostile Arab Muslim Palestinians on Israel's borders, even though the majority of Terror attacks have occurred in the cities.
Whenever there is a Terrorist attack in downtown Tel Aviv, they think of it as an anomaly. Once the blood and body parts are mopped up and the flesh scraped off the buildings, the shock is quickly forgotten. Generally, instead of being angry at the Arab Muslim Palestinians, the source of their pain, they quickly drift over into the idea that "somehow" the mere existence of the 'settlers' provoked the killings. That, if the minority of Settlers now on the East side of the 1967 Green Line (Armistice Line) were not there, the Arab Muslim Palestinians would have no reason to attack. Ergo, they, the majority, must be right and the settlers must be 'wrong' - which is artful denial at its peak.
In an atmosphere of self-delusion, they ignore the steady hate mantra of the Muslims all over the world, be they Terrorists or the supportive civilian population, generally saying: "We will cleanse the land of Jews from the Jordan (River) to the (Mediterranean) Sea for the State of Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital only of the new State of Palestine."
So, the majority tell all those Jews who choose to live their lives on the 'liberated' side of that irrelevant Armistice Line that Abba Eban nicknamed the Auschwitz Borders, that you must leave. You must abandon homes, farms, factories and gift them to a veritable flood of hostile Arab Muslim Palestinians as a peace gesture.
To fulfill his new idea, Sharon had to enlist that part of the nation who did not live in the 'territories' nor had any investment in remaining there. That was not difficult because Sharon appealed to those called the Political Left who long ago were taught to dislike, if not hate, those Pioneers pejoratively called "Settlers".
In the earliest days of the State, the Left encouraged 'settlement' of the Land. The Arabs made one war after another, with Terror attacks in between, gambling the Land away, on the off-chance, they could themselves occupy and remove the Jews.
The Left, from the first nation builder Prime Minister David Ben Gurion onward, used the rightfully captured Land out of self-defense to create settlements (kibbutzim and moshavim) that turned into cities. They, the Left, soon forgot that a great deal of the Land that they settled on was Land rightfully owned by Jews originally and rightfully re-captured from the Arab Muslims after the various wars - all of which were started by the Arabs - not the Jews.
The Left soon became the radical Left and began to bond with their Arab Muslim aggressors on the theory that hostile Muslims could be appeased and would accept them as neighbors. The Leftist Jews started to offer Jewish owned Land (once occupied by Arab Muslims) back to their aggressors but the Land was not ever theirs to give. Thus started the demonization of Jews who live in the Territories. That dislike was compounded when it became clear that Settlers believed the Land was always theirs as promised by G-d.
This was a multiple affront to the city dwellers since most didn't believe in G-d or his Covenant gifting the Land of Israel to the Jews in perpetuity. The radical Leftists really hated the idea of G-d's Covenant. They also hated the fact that Jews could successfully work the Land as was originally planned by the Labor Zionists. While Ben Gurion believed that Labor Zionism was the way to get to a secular Israel, they soon drifted off into secular nothingness.
The questions arise:
Can the majority, to suit their self-serving needs, mandate that a large minority must leave their homes, farms, factories, schools, synagogues, businesses, infrastructure and even their cemeteries?
Can the majority do this on the theory that the Arab Muslim Palestinians will be appeased with this sacrifice?
Where in the civilized and so-called democratic nations of the world does one part of a nation gift the other part of their own nation to an adversary?
We did see it once when a catastrophic decision by the French and British authorized the gift of the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) to Adolph Hitler on the promise that he would then be pacified and leave them alone. As we know now, it only whetted Hitler's appetite and confirmed that the gifting nations were weak and would be easy conquests.
Regrettably, we are seeing a similar replay of nations gathering in what they see as their own self-interest and gifting parts of Israel to a hateful adversary, hoping the 'gift/sacrifice' will appease the Arab Muslims and their Terrorists. Here we find the Bush Administration, the E.U., the U.N., and Russia (the Quartet collectively) are willing to repeat the Sudetenland Betrayal because they are the majority.
The Leftist Jews who now support Sharon, even though they believe that the Sharon family has behaved dishonestly regarding money, wish to gift a great deal of Jewish territory to Arab Muslim Palestinians. They accept the 'diktats' of a single person, Sharon, whose aberrant personality demands obedience in all matters.
The coastal Jews of Western Israel believe that the mountain Jews of the East must be sacrificed "for the good of the majority". As non-observant or irreligious Jews, they ignore the idea that G-d put each of us here on earth as a single person and not as chattel or pawns to some larger group to move about as in a chess game.
We cannot make a minority expendable so the majority can live better.
If I, in the minority, choose of my own free will to risk my life to save yours, that is my choice - not yours to make for me. Observant Jews believe that one life is the whole world - referendums and dictators' wishes notwithstanding.
If a majority wishes to impose its own self-serving will on a minority in a life-and-death struggle, I would feel it only proper that the minority has every right to defend itself by every means possible - and I do mean every means!
Emanuel A. Winston is a member of the Board of Directors and a Research Associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies