The Day Before Disengagement: Tisha be-Av, 2005

© Yirmeyahu Ben-David, 2005.08.14

Pâ•qidꞋ  Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u

It's morning of the tzom (fast) of the Ninth of Fifthmonth (popularly known by the Babylonian month name: "Av"; see Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 8.19). The disengagement is due to begin tomorrow while, today, we fast, mourning the breaching of the walls of both our First and Second Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ on this date on the Judaic calendar. Already, I miss my morning coffee. My daughter graduates from IDF basic training tomorrow but parents cannot attend this graduation ceremony because the base is located near Gaza and the IDF expects protestors, demonstrations and who-knows-what to make traffic and security a nightmare.

For months I have likened the situation in Gaza to the battle with the Amorites, when a religious right of that time arrogantly assumed י--ה would follow them instead of requiring the reverse. It's fitting that this was yesterday's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 1.41-45).

The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ have supported the disengagement since about 1986. Unlike most others, our position hasn't changed. This was true for getting out of Lebanon and it's true for the Disengagement.

I supported going into Lebanon to clean up the PLO terrorist nest. I remain unchanged today. Going in and cleaning up the mess was a necessity. Staying in Lebanon, however, was a fool's errand. Hopefully, the U.S. can do that in Iraq. Israel, by contrast, is a tiny country with no capacity, at present, to lead the world in toppling dictators and defending freedom. We are surrounded by over 20 hostile Muslim-Arab countries and large portions of our country are permeated by Muslim-Arabs.

While the fanatic right argued that we would face some kind of Armageddon if we pulled out of Lebanon, I consistently argued that we had no moral right to occupy a foreign country and, therefore, י--ה wasn't supporting us there and neither would the world. Since pulling out of Lebanon, as we and many others predicted, there was no Armageddon. For the most part, the northern border has been quiet.

I, and the N^etzarim, are in the moderate religious center. (Readers outside of Israel are likely to infer a misconception from this, however. In Israel, "religious" is a synonym for Orthodox. Here, the moderate religious center is the moderate Orthodox center. Non-orthodox apostasies like the American Conservative and Reform movements don't even factor into the equation.) The N^etzarim have championed the moderate religious center since we arrived here in 1985. Unlike others who seem to sway with the wind, our position has never changed. We were moderate religious center when moderate religious center wasn't cool, when it was still virtually non-existent in Israel.

The religious right hasn't been getting their prayers answered. This demonstrates that י--ה isn't granting their prayers because they aren't obeying Him; they're wrong-headed and asking — insisting — on things that are demonstrably contrary to the unfolding Design and Will of י--ה. The repercussions of the impending reality check for the religious right is grave and cannot be overstated. Instead of seeking and discerning the Will of י--ה, they stubbornly insist they are right, fighting י--ה. Being confronted with the unavoidable reality that י--ה doesn't back the religious right is a reality check on a level not seen since the debacle with the Amorites. No one in this country that I've encountered has the ability to communicate with י--ה. Even the devoted know little more than to recite the standard petitions in the Orthodox liturgy. The N^etzarim do. The wonder isn't that N^etzarim communicate with י--ה, but, rather, why other Jews don't — and the answer is simple: obey Tor•âhꞋ instead of practicing the superstitious minutiae of medievolatry.

The religious right has the khutzpah to claim that the Holy Land is theirs contrary to Tor•âhꞋ. That's right. Tor•âhꞋ stipulates If you keep My Mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ. When Israel isn't keeping the mitzwot, claiming the land is a constructive contradiction of Tor•âhꞋ. What does Israel stand for? Being like every other country. We have parades of homosexuals and other perverts openly and publicly, not only in Tel Aviv, which is unacceptable, but even in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. Is it any wonder the Muslims consider the presence of Jews to be a corruption of the Holy Land? Or that Jews are evil? We fuel that fire when we tolerate such perversion in the Holy Land. We should conduct ourselves such that Muslim-Arabs wonder at our holiness, exactly the opposite of the current situation. Were that to become the case, the conflict would, to a great extent, evaporate.

Largely ignoring this, the religious right concern themselves with not using electricity on Shabat (a medievolatry addition that contradicts Tor•âhꞋ — Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1), not using an umbrella on a rainy Shabat (because rabbis can't discern opening an umbrella from building a tent), not brushing one's teeth during a fast (for fear one might inadvertently "eat" a molecule of toothpaste or "drink" a molecule of water), attributing the cause of their misfortune to some blemish in their mᵊzuz•âhꞋ or the like.

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of such minutiae, designed to occupy a Jew so thoroughly that these trees conceal the forest of questions he would otherwise pursue. (Indeed, younger religious Israelis are increasingly pursuing life's more urgent questions — to the great consternation of rabbis who lack the answers.) The obsession with minutiae keeps the religious Jew from thinking — and, therefore, from finding י--ה.

The secular "Zionist" founders of modern Israel openly declared that they would be happy when Israel had prostitutes like all of the other nations. The sickness of moral relativism pervades the pseudo-intellectuality of secular Israelis. Until Israel satisfies the "if" part of the bᵊrit, Israel has no right to the promise י--ה. Our right to this land is proportional to our obedience (holiness) and, right now, י--ה is being very gracious with us in that respect considering the perversions and abominations we parade even through the streets of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. King David didn't include Gaza in his kingdom and there is no one in the religious right today who compares to King David.

The disengagement will probably be completed in the next few days. Israel, and the religious right, will then be unavoidably faced with the greatest problem faced since the formation of the modern state of Israel: י--ה will have clearly and indisputably demonstrated that He is not with the religious right! There will be all manner of attempts to deflect this issue but the hard question that follows is: if י--ה doesn't endorse the Holy Land belonging to Jews then what right has Israel to exist here?

The religious right has, in large measure, ignored the N^etzarim, while supporting, instead, a group of pseudo-N^etzarim, with no connection whatsoever to RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, maintained a high-profile, flashpoint settlement in Gaza. Now, the pseudo-N^etzarim settlement is due to be uprooted and disappear in the next few days — at long last. It was necessary to uproot the false N^etzarim. Even so, if moderate religious Jews don't step up to the plate and begin to clean up the unholy defilements and abominations that secular Israelis and the religious Jewish medievolators have made here, the unfortunate answer to what right Israel has to exist here will remain "none."

For the most part, secular Israelis recognize that they have no special right to exist here and maintain a foreign passport for the day when they may prefer to leave. For them, Israel is no more than where they live and, for some, where they were raised and where their friends live. Only those willing to satisfy the "if" part of the bᵊrit with י--ה, living a holy life that preserves the holiness of the Holy Land, have a right to live here. Moreover, if this "if" were satisfied, Muslim-Arabs would be far more likely to view Israel as a cousin in holiness serving י--ה, the Ël•oh•imꞋ of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, if this is the same as Arabs call "Alla."

While security and military might is "exissential," the even more important battle that must be joined, the day after disengagement is achieved, is the battle for hearts and minds; Muslim and Arab hearts and minds as well as western hearts and minds. It is a PR war and it is a religious war that has yet to be widely recognized, much less engaged. The Muslims call it jihad and rely on terror. Jews must educate themselves to their own first-century evangelistic successes and, after satisfying the "if" in the bᵊrit, place the greater reliance on the words and concepts of what we have long called the "Living Room War."

The N^etzarim were right about getting out of Lebanon and we're right about getting out of Gaza. However, we were also right about not giving up another nanometer to the Lebanese or Syrians after getting out of Lebanon and we're right that, the day after disengagement is accomplished, Israelis must complete the Disengagement Fence and not tolerate another nanometer of compromise to anyone.

To his credit, PM Sharon may already understand this, having already declared that Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim is off the table. This must include Har ha-BaꞋyit, which belongs exclusively to religious Jews — who keep the "if" part of the bᵊrit.

We have reached the red lines and they are unalterable. If we should ever face the dilemma of having to choose between Tor•âhꞋ and an Israeli (or other) government that conflicts with Tor•âhꞋ there can be no hesitation or wavering in standing for Tor•âhꞋ. Upon completion of this disengagement, peaceful surrender to authorities bent on further compromising the Holy Land is finished. Unless we're talking about getting back Arab-occupied Beit LëkhꞋëm or ShᵊkhëmꞋ, even talk, here in the Holy Land, of considering or negotiating further compromise shouldn't be tolerated. Even elsewhere, such talk should be considered anti-Israel, opposed as part of the Living Room War, with every fiber of your being until your last breath.

After the disengagement, this is where we live, that is where they live, and they had better leave us in peace or there should be hell to pay on a scale they haven't yet imagined. The U.S. and the rest of the world can like it or lump it but they'll have to get used to it. The first terrorist infiltration following the disengagement — and, of course, terrorism will continue, disengagement won't end terrorism — should trigger a devastating, withering response on a scale not seen before; and every terrorist infiltration thereafter should be dealt with equal or increasing harshness. The "people" in Gaza are NOT innocent. They harbor terrorists, shield terrorists, feed terrorists, fund terrorists and lionize terrorists. That makes them terrorists too. If they want to avoid devastation they must get rid of the terrorists in their midst and stop raising their children to be terrorists. Like Lebanon and Gaza, however, don't stay. Go in like the Americans, with overpowering force, without handcuffing the military; utterly devastate — and then leave, immediately. Arab workers outside of the disengagement fence must be denied entry to Israel. They want independence, give it to them. Israel isn't responsible for their economy, their welfare or building a state for them. Independence means they're on their own. Disengaged.

One day reengaging may be viable. But that won't be soon and must not be rushed.

© 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author & publisher