Q&A: A Question About Political Wisdom
A Question About Political Wisdom
Question
They oppose approving the emergency regulations that keep the State of Israel—and especially its laws—applicable to the settlers beyond the Green Line.
Beyond the value question, I have a question about the political wisdom of this.
For 55 years this has been approved every few years automatically, without it even coming up for public debate. Theoretically it would pass with 4–5 in favor, 2 abstaining, 0 opposing—like any boring automatic law with an outcome known in advance, just something for the protocol. And that gives settlers, tourists, investors in land, businesses and homes, and every Israeli the impression that this is some kind of automatic part of the State of Israel.
Suddenly it’s no longer self-evident; it becomes subject to political and ideological negotiation, and in the future they could (and let’s assume that given the appropriate political power, they actually would) trade on it.
Approval in exchange for excluding Yitzhar and its satellites and the like, or a dispute between one person and another in a military court under Jordanian law, etc.
From the settlers’ perspective, this is basically a recipe for disaster. All the legitimacy that was supposedly self-evident to the Bibists becomes not self-evident at all.?
Answer
Is there actually a question here, or is this an op-ed against Bibi?
Discussion on Answer
As for your point:
Almost 30 years ago, Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, both of blessed memory, came up with a good plan to Judaize Jerusalem once and for all.
Simply to build tens of thousands of housing units for Jews in the Holy City.
(Back then about half as many Jews lived here as today; in today’s terms that would be close to 100,000 housing units in Jerusalem for Jews. A crazy number.)
The world shouted and threatened, but they were determined.
They decided and gave the order.
The coalition then also relied on the Arabs.
They heard this and submitted a no-confidence motion against the government.
Everybody laughed, because the right-wing Likud would support this in the government and it meant nothing.
But he who laughs last laughs best.
At the head of Likud then stood a man named B.N.
…
And he announced that Likud would support the no-confidence motion against the government.
The reason didn’t matter.
The main thing was to replace the government.
Everyone understood that the government had reached the end of the road.
Even the Arabs—Likud would help, and then elections…
But in the morning, having no choice, Peres informed the Knesset that the plan was dead.
The Arabs withdrew the no-confidence motion.
The government continued.
And from then until today, Jews have had no reasonably priced apartment in Jerusalem, and the Jewish majority in Jerusalem hangs by a thread…
That is thanks to B.N.
Whoever does copy-paste 28 years later does so at his own risk.
Yes.
There are people for whom the fantasy that they’re just about to take power will cause them to betray their root principles (for anyone who believes he has any principles at all) for the sake of that fantasy.
Maybe there’s something else to learn too:
That the settlers have no leadership.
And even so, if the chairman of the Yesha Council (formerly) were elected prime minister, they would fight him for the sake of a man named B.N.
In my opinion, this is a completely reasonable question for the settlers’ leadership.
Where’s the common sense?
It looks like they’re endangering the foundation of what until now had been taken for granted.
It makes sense that from now on it won’t always go through automatically, and that this will put all their achievements at real and tangible risk.
Up to the point where one day it could provide the public ideological legitimization for a disengagement decision, the way the Likud knows how to do—and did in Sinai (with an agreement) or in Gaza and northern Samaria (without an agreement).
Do they want to embarrass / anger the government?
Makes sense.
But why do it over something that endangers the central achievement?
To me this seems like an excellent question.