Q&A: Where Was It During the Disengagement?
Where Was It During the Disengagement?
Question
I saw that you brought up the disengagement in the homily.
I also hear this from emotionally driven people on the hard-right Religious Zionist side.
But the High Court also wasn’t there when those settlements were established, and also when, to defend them, the finest sons and daughters of Ra’anana, Herzliya, and Netanya were sent.
It didn’t help mothers whose sons and daughters came back without an arm, without a leg, as vegetables, or in coffins.
It left the issue entirely in the hands of the authorities—the government.
If so, then it also had no right to intervene against the evacuation, when it was clear that this would cost soldiers’ blood.
It didn’t intervene when they were established, when they were maintained despite the bloodshed, so it can’t intervene when they are evacuated.
So what’s the claim בכלל—where was the High Court during the disengagement?
It was exactly where it was when they were established…
What does the Rabbi think about this?
Answer
My view is that these are overly general claims that come from the gut. To ask the question seriously, one has to examine which specific government decision is being discussed, and what exactly the grounds were supposed to be for intervention by the High Court. Only then can one try to compare the cases.
Discussion on Answer
So evacuating too, and stopping the death, bereavement, suffering, and injuries—that’s the government’s business, and there are no grounds for High Court intervention.
That’s exactly the point.
Are you serious? You called yourself “Straightforward,” and for no wrongdoing on your part :). Who demanded that the High Court intervene in the settlements because of the risk to soldiers? The claim is twofold: 1. It is against international law. 2. When it comes to private land, there is a question under Israeli law. That’s all. What does that have to do with the disengagement?!
1. That’s a claim made in full force in every situation, although in principle the Covenant Between the Pieces overrides it.
2. Sometimes.
3. The claim about risk to soldiers under compulsory conscription is a full-force claim every day, at all times, every hour.
Whoever didn’t intervene when they were established and maintained, and kept quiet while blood was being spilled,
it would be proper for him to keep quiet when they stop this whole dance.
The authorities have the right to decide to conquer and settle and have people killed for it, and they also have the right to withdraw.
If you want to write a post with your musings, that’s perfectly fine, but not here. The responsa section here is meant for questions and discussion of them. You are ignoring what I wrote and continuing with your own line as if nothing happened. Of course one may disagree, but then it’s worth explaining why, and there is certainly no point in repeating empty slogans that have already been shown not to hold water. I understand that you’re angry at the High Court, and that’s legitimate too, but venting frustration is not an argument—certainly not for someone who is “Straightforward.”
Ah, I hadn’t noticed. There is a new argument in your remarks: you claim that the High Court cannot intervene because of the Covenant Between the Pieces, which is a supreme constitutional principle. A marvelous legal move. How did I not think of that?!
It seems to me that the Rabbi didn’t fully grasp what I mean.
The High Court allowed the authorities to conquer, and allowed the government to settle and maintain those places at a very heavy blood price, mainly for regular soldiers or reservists who come by force of the compulsory draft law, and really have no choice—they are obligated to put themselves at risk, be injured, and even die, because it assumed that this is the area entrusted to and assigned to the government, and that it is not supposed to intervene in it.
At that stage, the settlers—and I am among them—were pleased with the High Court, or at least with its restraint from interfering in government decisions, even though that imposes mortal danger on many soldiers.
On day one, when the government decided for its own reasons to evacuate and stop endangering soldiers in defense of those places, there is no reason to expect the High Court to intervene.
That is to say: for decades its view had been that it does not intervene in whether to go to war or make peace, whether to establish a settlement or evacuate it. And when that was on our side, we were pleased.
So if you eat the cake, it doesn’t stay whole.
So now, why doesn’t the Rabbi simply answer in the homily: where was the High Court during the disengagement? Right where it was during the establishment of those settlements…
?
Silent then (because it was a legitimate government decision and there were no grounds to intervene), and silent during the evacuation (because this too is a legitimate government decision and there are no grounds to intervene)
?
I’ll answer again. Nobody expects the High Court to intervene because of the risk to soldiers. That is not what the discussion is about.
Generally speaking, the question of whether this will cost soldiers’ blood is not grounds for intervention by the High Court. That is a decision for the government. So that isn’t really the discussion at all.