Wedge issues. The fine line between free speech and incitement. Deliberate shaping of language as a form of propaganda in a face-off between secular and religious conceptions of power. If President Obama can make a “misspoke” in terming “polish death camp” when he really meant German death camp in Poland, then one can see the liberality that can be generously sprinkled over all discourse. In Israel, the broader issue is secular power, the bastion of Enlightenment and liberal tradition sensing a threat from a more assertive religious engagement with the political process. What arises is far left, read anarchist elements which in a bizarre and ironic manner, serve as transmitters of fringe but significant lines of thought among the liberal secular elite, that will jab and counterpunch the religious without provocation; a secular fanaticism of sorts…
( see link at end) …After the article by Melanie Lidman in The Jerusalem Post on April 30, stating that the Interior Ministry was accusing me of illegally constructing Palestinian homes demolished by the municipality, I wrote an op-ed that appeared on May 8. In it, I explained the motives underlying my behavior, and argued that it was a case of legitimate civil disobedience – required of any person with a conscience, when the state is conducting clearly immoral acts.
… And so on, in variations on the proverb of the “man spitting into the well from which he drinks” – with a stronger focus on the pitcher (myself) than what it contains….
…The issue arising from the criticism concerns a major question in public policy – the relationship between “the law” and “ethics.” And I am sure that anyone who disliked my position is going to get angry again: I don’t sanctify either “the law,” or “the state.”
The state is not a value in itself, but no more (or less!) than an organizational framework for managing society, and the law is a set of rules planned to regulate relationships. The two of them – the state and the law – are “necessary evils,” logical and reasonable as long as there is an ideological alliance between the state, its laws and its citizens.
…And now, when the nationalists are ruling, and have discarded all traces of morality, our commitment to the ruling norms has shrunk to the bare minimum – and not always that. Let me choose between violating the law or helping in lawful ways, and I would unhesitatingly choose the latter. But when all lawful roads are blocked, and gatekeepers prevent me from doing my job lawfully, I will not act like the hero of Kafka’s “Before the Law” and wait until they let me in….
I will skirt around the law to help the people for whom I was elected. We are not original – the Orthodox have always said and done the same, and so have the settlers after Gush Katif’s evacuation. Now it is our turn to say: this is not our way, we do not subscribe to the injustices being performed here, the ways of the state are not ours, its values are not ours, and its acts in the t
tories are not in our name.
So I aim to undermine the occupation from within. For people with a conscience, it is more than a right – it is a duty.
We did not invent the method – Feiglin uses it in the Likud, and the religious Right runs pre-army programs to take control of the army from within. I would also like to place our youngsters in strategic positions, to change from within….
The far-out religious are not that dissimilar to the anarchists.Perhaps also a fifth column from within. The recent dust-up over the “King’s Torah” had inflammatory implications in postulating that under certain conditions, non-Jewish lives carried less weight in the eyes of god than Jewish ones, brought the issue of Kahanism back to center stage and the broader implication that Kahane entertained in which the Torah was incompatible with democracy based on selective parsing of the scriptures. Less heretical is the view that encourages IDF soldiers to refuse to execute settlement evacuation orders, expulsion, which is easily tenable from a religious perspective, especially after Gush Katif and the Amona disorder. But groups like ICAHD posit secular morality to encourage the same behaviors and tactics:
… ( Meir Margalit) We’re not talking about how legal a government action is, but how moral it is. In fact I never understood my friends who strongly disagree with outposts built on private land, as if they were less grave than those built on “state land.” They fell into the trap of the settlers – who distinguish between “illegal outposts” and settlements built with government approval, as if that makes them legitimate.
The law doesn’t legitimize acts of theft, or patently immoral actions. No law will stipulate for me what can and can not be done, but only standards of conscience that discriminate between good and evil – not between legal and illegal.So it is strange when people ask why I’m ready to break the law for the sake of the public I represent – because that’s supposed to be the default situation of any public representative….
…To state the obvious: bad laws shouldn’t be complied with! And a law that permits the demolition of homes is not only a bad law, it’s a harmful law, a blot on Israeli society. I will work against this and violate this without hesitation, until someone wakes up.It is amusing that criticism leveled against me comes from groups specializing in lawbreaking.
Supporters of Beit Yehonatan, Migron and Givat Ha’Ulpana should be the last to criticize me – or maybe the first to understand my position.Indeed, there’s an apparent similarity between my position and those who freely violate court orders and build settlements on private land. But it’s only an external similarity.Though we’re both willing to break the law, when it comes to purpose there’s a major difference between us….
They do it to redeem the land, while I’m working to promote peace. Purpose makes a difference and there’s a huge gap between the two goals – one stems from the religious/nationalistic sphere, the other originates in the moral/human sphere.That creates two essentially different, even conflicting actions. “In that case, you can justify the hilltop youths,” critics say, and at the intellectual level I understand their efforts, but can never justify actions that I believe undermines peace.
A well-known broadcaster on a right-wing radio station called me a hypocrite when I said I didn’t justify the hilltop youths. He thinks that the youths and I operate the same way, but doesn’t grasp that there’s no correlation between the two actions….( continued)…
The intellectually most contentious issue of the far left, Marxist-Anarchists, religious-anarchists in the moral sense, the universalists, is the element of nihilism, the secular vision of messianic violence, the Dada elements where a labyrinth of conceptual constructions, infinite, breaks off from a long line of tradition in the way, say, Marcel Duchamp conceptual art was regarded as “terrorist”; placing this type of radical politics within the spectrum of an Alexander Berkman, Luigi Galleani and the early 20th century advocates of dynamite and explosives:
…It’s the purpose that makes the difference – not the external act of violating one law or another. Indeed, I know that selectively respecting the law will cause chaos. It’s impossible to run a state when each citizen chooses which clause of the law to honor, and which not to. That’s what I am working towards.Chaos would shatter the state – and afterwards it may be possible to rebuild it. What we have today cannot be repaired.
We aspire to dismantle the state, with the hope that something new and far better will result from it. Too bad about the spilled blood and the shattered dreams, but we will emerge stronger.
In parentheses – I’m no megalomaniac; I realize I can’t end the occupation but, as our rabbis said: “You are not obligated to finish the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.” Read More:http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=271926
“Israeli troops came at five in the morning to demolish the house and were done by 7 am. They also demolished our barn that had some poultry in it,” said Burhan Burqan, the owner of the house in Silwan, told AFP.
We received a notice two weeks ago and they carried it out today,” he added.
Enforcing the rule of law in Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods is often a contentious affair. Monday’s demolitions came one day after three Israeli police officers were injured by Arab rioters in the frequently volatile Shuafat neighborhood….
The move was hailed by Jewish activists who say the Palestinian Authority is seeking to effectively annex eastern Jerusalem by underwriting illegal construction in the city on a large scale.Read More:http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150421#.T8X648Vb76M