The Jewish people need to decide between Jewish historic Zionism which views our settling the land of Israel as a moral right, and colonialist post-Zionism which views the Jew as a foreign occupier of his land.
Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said a few days ago: “It breaks my heart to initiate relinquishing sovereignty over the Temple Mount but there is no other choice.” However, conceding the Temple Mount means opting for a one-way road that leads straight to the annihilation of Zionism. And the heart that will be broken will not be that of Olmert but rather that of the Jewish people. There is only one meaning to giving up the Temple Mount: the end of the State of Israel. [The late defense minister] Moshe Dayan was mistaken when he declared that Sharm el-Sheikh without peace was preferable to peace without Sharm el-Sheikh. But the Temple Mount is not Sharm el-Sheikh.
No one gives up their heart in return for peace. If the aim was peace at all costs, the safest and most immediate way to achieve it would be simply to convert to Islam. Just as, for the sake of peace, even the most ardent left-wing activists would not be prepared to convert to Islam, not even in a symbolic way, so it is impossible to concede the symbols that express identity. Peace is merely a means for the Jewish people to exist and thrive.
Many Zionists support the establishment of a Palestinian state and with that end in mind, they are prepared to make far-reaching concessions. The argument within the Zionist movement is between those who believe that it is possible to forgo [the outpost of] Migron and perhaps even Ariel, and those who believe we must build in Judea and Samaria. The argument is between the issue of reducing the scale of the demographic problem versus the benefits of remaining in territories that are vital from the national-historic and security points of view.
But you cannot be a Zionist if you are prepared to yield the place that provides us with the moral, historic and religious right to this land – the Temple Mount. It is not by chance that the Palestinians are demanding an Israeli withdrawal from the Temple Mount. The leaders of the Arab world and the Palestinian national leaders understand the significance of symbols.
As early as 1895, Theodor Herzl wrote in a letter to Baron Maurice de Hirsch: “What is a flag? Is it nothing more than a pole with a rag of fabric glued together. No sir, a flag is something more than that. With the flag, the people are led wherever the leader wants them to go, to the land of choice. People will live and die for the flag, only for it will they be prepared to give their souls if they are educated to do so.”
Symbols have significance. If we are prepared to give up the heart of our homeland in difficult times, we will end up by also conceding those places which today seem more convenient. The Palestinian national movement is interested in an Israeli declaration, signed by the elected leadership of the Jewish people, that even in the place where the Jewish people’s demand to be entitled to the land is the most moral and justified, the right of the Palestinians – “the natives” – takes priority over the right of the Jews – “the colonialists.” That is why they are not prepared to make concessions. They want to have the symbol. The right to the land.
Abbas Zaky, the Palestinian ambassador to Lebanon, said some two years ago: “When the Jews leave Jerusalem, the Zionist ideology will begin to collapse. It will die a natural death.” Olmert has deserted the heritage of political Zionism which recognized the importance of symbols. Olmert has forgotten that decisions in the practical and material world have spiritual and moral significances that are likely to undermine the basis on which the Zionist ethos and the State of Israel rest.
The Jewish people need to decide between Jewish historic Zionism which views our settling of the land as a moral right, and colonialist post-Zionism which views the Jew as a foreign occupier of his land. It is impossible to maintain a nation-state which negates all connections with the past of the nation. It is impossible to create an ad hoc Zionism which views the Jew who settles in Ramat Aviv as someone moral and the Jew who settles in Jerusalem as a foreign conqueror. Zionism is based on an inseparable connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. Even thousands of years of exile were unable to sever this connection. This is a tie that is so deep that it grants the Jewish people moral preference to the right to the land even over the (small number of ) Arab fellaheen (farmers ) who were living on the land in the early days of Zionism.
I am not going to enter into the question of whether it is correct to implement this right over the entire land. It is possible that there are places where the demographic reality does not justify continued control over them. But there are places from which withdrawal would be the end of Zionism. “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning.”
Ronen Shoval is the chairman and co-founder of the Im Tirtzu movement.
@ BlandOatmeal:
The Wiki data is dated and there is no more NRP. They compromised themselves into oblivion. Never confuse existing parties and their political heads and cadre as reflecting the rank and file. They don’t always and if in competition for being part of the political power structure rely on them to choose their own very narrow individual interests then try to spin why they are good and working for their constituents interest.
Flash!!!|All politicians lie otherwise they would never have been elected or supported. In politics truth is a an endangered species.
@ BlandOatmeal:
By the way, Yamit, I didn’t intend the above as prophecy. I was just tongue-in-cheek quoting the attorney Jaggers, in “Great Expectations”. After witnessing a public hanging in London, as I recall, Pip appeared in Jaggers’ office and noticed Jaggers’ collection of shriveled, severed heads. Pip asked who they were, and Jaggers replied,
“They wen’t bad. You’ll go bad”.
Concerning the Religious Zionists you linked to (Yes, I looked at it — curiosity got the best of me), the NRP is noted as their political party. I seem to recall that on the eve of the expulsion of Jews from Gaza, when Netanyahu left the government in protest, the NRP was split: Half opted to follow Bibi and leave, and the other half opted to remain, to “work from within”. They have been a miniscule, insignificant political faction ever since. The National Union seems to have taken their place as the actual Zionist opposition, led by Arutz7’s own Ketzaleh. They are the only ones who stood up to Olmert at Amona, and got bloodied by Olmert’s Cossacks for their efforts. They are also a very small party. What is touted by some here as the “Nationalist Camp” is packed with the sort of “compromisers” you spoke against.
They all went bad. Do you have “great expectations”?
Messiah will change all that. (He is Rav Zvi Schneerson bar Kossiba, aka Barney Frank, but don’t tell anyone) :).
@ yamit82:
Yada yada. I’ve seen this before: Begin, Sharon, you name them. They all went bad, after coming to power. You’ll go bad.
@ rongrand:
Is this correct?
More or less
These are the only real Zionists left in Israel
Why? Becausae they are the only group unwilling to compromise on core Jewish values ie, Judaism pronounces the Jews different, and others deficient in a major respect, the transcendent realm. Judaism demands the isolation of Jews from the outside world, Judaism is self-righteous and presumes others to be wrong. Judaism is a radical teaching, and rejects compromise about values or observance and is intolerant toward hostile and abusive Muslims.
No countries ever decided their conflicts on goodwill, but only on the balance of power. The calls for compromise and accommodation in the Israeli-Arab conflict stem from moralism and rationalist fallacy, which presumes that chaos could be settled by negotiations rather than suppressing the chaos or wearing it down. Conflicts are solved through total victory or attrition, not talks. Besides, Israel has already compromised to the bones and core values by giving up Jordan in 1922. Judea is non-negotiable. Moses did not compromise with the Egyptians for better working conditions, nor did the Maccabees negotiate with the Hellenists for relaxed Sabbath rules.
Israel is an irrational project conducted against all odds. Rational people without faith or vision cannot steer her course. Only religious Zionism has been successful in transmitting national values to future generations, Secular nationalists at most 1-2 generations into post Zionism or worse.
@ yamit82:
A proud one at that.
Is this correct?
You state it was Secular Zionism the national liberation movement who was responsible for establishing an independent sovereign Jewish government and gathering in exiles.
Although secular in nature I believe at times G-d chooses those we least expect to lead a movement or a charge.
I may be wrong but, I believe G-d in leading His people back to the Holy Land their home He inspires they unit under Religious Zionism.
Does that make sense?
@ rongrand:
Secular Zionism was the national Liberation Movement of the Jewish People. The movement was successful in their aims: Freeing Palestine from Imperial and colonial Great Britain, establishing an independent sovereign Jewish polity and the in-gathering of the exiles. These aims were accomplished. Therefore there is no longer a Zionist movement or cause. We are left with multi definitions of Zionism where every individual has his own definition of Zionism.
When I go abroad, when asked where I am from, I simply say that I am a Jew from the land of Israel. Which pretty much defines who and what I am.
Jerusalem is Jewish memory.
Once the Temple Mount was the highest point in the city of Jerusalem, but in the year 135, Roman slaves carried away the dirt of the mountain, and turned it into the valley we now look down on from the Old City. The Romans expelled Jews from Jerusalem and barred them from reentering on pain of death. Jewish life, they proclaimed, has now ended.
The Crusaders rewrote Jerusalem’s importance, the center no longer of Jewish national drama, but the site of the passion and death of Jesus. Like the Romans they expelled Jews, and destroyed synagogues.
The Muslims came after, and as those before them rewrote the memory of Jerusalem, expelling Jews and Christian. They systematically built mosques on every Jewish holy site. They airbrushed the past.
In rewriting the history of Jerusalem each of these cultures rewrote our place, the Jewish place, in history. They consigned us, they believed, to the dust bin of history ? a once great people, now abandoned by G-d; bypassed by time. But Jews preserved Jerusalem as a memory. When we built our houses we left a square unplastered, and we broke a glass at weddings in memory of Jerusalem. From all over the world we turned and prayed toward Jerusalem, and because memory was kept alive, the Jewish people lived.
When Jerusalem was liberated, time was conflated. The past became present. What we had longed for became ours. What we had dreamed of became real, and soldiers wept because an adolescent Mediterranean country suddenly recovered a memory lost for 2000 years. The past was instantly present, incredibly, transcendentally, transforming who we knew ourselves to be. ‘Vehi Sheamda’
Olmert: “It breaks my heart to initiate relinquishing sovereignty over the Temple Mount but there is no other choice.”
Despicable Olmert is a huge TRAITOR to G-D, Jews, Israel and everyone who believes in our Wonderful, Glorious Creator Who gave Israel to Jews as an everlasting possession to Jews and to NO other people. NO other religion.
Rabidly anti-G-D, Olmert, would clearly surrender ALL Israel to totalitarian, colonizing Islam if he could.
Long live Jerusalem and long live Israel,Shalom
Giving up Jerusalem will mean the end of Israeli Nation and State,Jerusalem is the FOUNDING STONE OF ISRAEL
@ NormanF:
Norman, very good point and I am certain my friend Yamit will agree.
He’s right. By the way the Arabs don’t only not like Jews, they don’t like us Catholics and Christians either.
“If I believe G-d has led me back to the Holy Land and has to date provided me with the means to defend then what the hell would I even consider withdrawal from the Temple Mount. Passover is a good time to reflect on what G-d expects of you Israel. Open your eyes and listen.”
I happen to agree with you! I do subscribe to Zionism and in my last post, I pointed out what will happen if Jews give up their most important symbols and values. I am not prepared to relinquish them even for peace. To paraphrase Moshe Dayan, if given a choice between not having the Temple Mount and having peace and having the Temple Mount and having no peace, then I definitely prefer the latter situation. I would never sign away the Zionist dream just to get the Arabs to like me. Israel should follow suit.
BB already conceded Hebron. Zionism already collapsed.
And if peace with the Arabs is the goal, it can be achieved by Jews converting enmasse to Islam.
If Jews don’t think Hebron and Jerusalem are holy to them, the Arabs have a valid point: why should Israel exist at all? Its just a racist, colonialist usurper regime and the Jews need to return to where they came from.
Jews who don’t believe Zionism is legitimate should stop fooling themselves and begin to peacefully dismantle Israel. No point in Jews dying for a country they have no faith in and in which they have cut themselves off from their own roots in it.
This is a no no. By no means am I an authority on these matters, having said that my simple mind tells me it’s all wrong.
If I believe G-d has led me back to the Holy Land and has to date provided me with the means to defend then what the hell would I even consider withdrawal from the Temple Mount.
Passover is a good time to reflect on what G-d expects of you Israel. Open your eyes and listen.