as disengagement nears, settlers community hits up

[sharonbn]

all news from last week:

1) Pinhas Valerstein, head of regional council of yesha wrote a public letter on Sunday, condemning the new law of "pinui pitzui" (evacuation and compensation) that passed in its first vote in the knesset. The law gives regulations on compensations for those who will be evacuated as part of the disengagement plan. the law also sets a time limit for compensations (May 2005) after which there will be no compensation for those who will leave or be evacuated. The law also states that no compensation will be given for those who forcefully resist the evacuation.

In the letter, Vaerstein declares the "transfer law" immoral, the unity gov't "illegitimate" and calls for all settlers to break the law, resist the evacuation and be prepared to pay the price in prison time.

The letter was endorsed by the Yesha council, effectively making the council support massive law breaking. As can be expected, this step caused a great turmoil in the political and public systems. The PM, the president, the minister of defense, the military chief of staff - all strongly condemned Yesha council and warned of the chance of bloodshed and civil war, if the situation further deteriorated.

2) In their struggle against the disengagement, the settlers launched a new campaign: wearing orange magen david cloth badges on their cloths. These badges (with yellow color) were used by the Nazis since 1936 to mark Jews in public. The badges became one of the symbols of the Holocaust.

Yet again, this campaign caused great controversy in the public system in Israel. The campaign was strongly rejected by Holocaust survivors as well as by Yad Vashem institute as offensive and degrading to the memory of the Holocaust. the PM, the president and also Efi Eitam from mafdal party - all called the settlers to stop the campaign and remove the badges.

[Binyamin]

There were many holocaust survivors who supported the orange stars, and who wore them. The campaign has been dropped because of the controversy.
Its very unclear why this is worse than calling IDF soldiers "nazis," or other similair instances where the left uses holocaust terminology for its purposes.

Its interesting that those sectors which are the most understanding of the palestinians' use of violence are the least understanding when Jews are trying to defend their homes.

[sharonbn]

There were many holocaust survivors who supported the orange stars, and who wore them. The campaign has been dropped because of the controversy.

so.... apparently there weren't enough Holocaust survivors who supported the campaign. since it was dropped

Its very unclear why this is worse than calling IDF soldiers "nazis," or other similair instances where the left uses holocaust terminology for its purposes.

First of all, I don't know of any incident where lefties called IDF soldiers Nazis. Can you provide a link to the news item? I know the Palestinians do use Holocaust terminology, ut that is hardly the same.
Second, if there were such incidents, then no, its not worse it's the same. Using Holocaust terminology degrades the importance of the historical event.

I don't get the "logic" behind this statement, if the lefties are using Holocaust terminology, that makes it OK for the righties to do the same??? Maybe the righties should try a new approach: instead of copycat-ing left provocations, they should engage in politically correct propaganda. Maybe it will help their cause.

Its interesting that those sectors which are the most understanding of the palestinians' use of violence are the least understanding when Jews are trying to defend their homes.

Which sectors are these? The Likud? The Knesset? If I remember correctly, it's the head of the Likud and the head of state that devised the disengagement plan. And it is the Knesset that approved that plan.
Everyone understands the motives of the GS settlers. However, no one will support their strategy to break the law, to use provocative campaigns and no one will support their use of violence.

[KettleWhistle]

as well as by Yad Vashem institute as offensive and degrading to the memory of the Holocaust.

So Yad Vashem Institute, a museum, is now an organization to judge morality?

I'd say the campain and the use of this sign are very appropriate. Holocaust was an act of ethnic cleansing commited against Jews, during which most did not resist. The removal of settlers is by no means different, with the exception of them being removed from our motherland, rather from a place in a foreign land.

[sharonbn]

So Yad Vashem Institute, a museum, is now an organization to judge morality?

Yad Vashem is not a judge of morality. it was mentioned as example of the public response to the campaign. Yad Vashem is considered an authority on Holocaust issues and is quoted by media worldwide. There were other institutes and individuals who voiced their opinion on the campaign. AFAIK, there were no favorable responses outside the settler community (and even among that community there were objections.)

I'd say the campain and the use of this sign are very appropriate. Holocaust was an act of ethnic cleansing commited against Jews, during which most did not resist. The removal of settlers is by no means different, with the exception of them being removed from our motherland, rather from a place in a foreign land.

I'd say the campaign and the use of this sign are highly inappropriate. for two reasons:

1) the campaign equates the Israeli gov't with the Nazi regime. But the disengagement plan is fundamentally different than the Nazi final solution: a) the disengagement plan does not involve physical harm and more important b) the disengagement plan is a decision that a gov't makes about its own people, not about a foreign people. the gov't, as the legitimate representative of the will of the people, is allowed and even expected to make decisions about its own people. even controversial and unpopular decisions. e.g. when a gov't decides to raise taxes, or to declare war or to sign a peace treaty - all these may be controversial and unpopular decisions, yet it is expected of gov't to reach these decisions and carry them out, as representative of the people. when the French pulled out of Algeria, they evacuated 1 million (1,000,000) French settlers from Algeria. No one called it ethnic cleansing. you don't ethnic cleanse your own people.

2) as I said before, mixing the Holocaust in current political disputes degrades the importance of the Holocaust and plays to the hands of Holocaust deniers. They will say that if the Israeli gov't can be equated with the Nazi gov't than what's so special about the Nazis? just another gov't with controversial policy, that's all.
this is true for A-N-Y use of Holocaust terminology in current political disputes.

[Mediocrates]

Jews drawing a frightful analogy is apparently more dangerous to them than actual mortar rounds. If only they were as motivated to do something about them.

[goliath]

1) The use or refering to the holocaust on whatever politics matter it's a shame ,and emphasing this in the news it's a crime against the memory of all the people who died ,and the fact that survivors were wearing those "ersatz" of given SS signs or French Gestapo or whatever ally of Germany ,is unbearable , if the difference between left and rightwing is that so huge ,I feel some doubt about a real politicy of coalition about my country , if 3.500.000 Jews which represent only the inhabitants of a city like Paris intra muros ,(m4.000.000 inh.) it's give me nausea ,and you're making the PAL bed for the future.
If I was a settler , I would never accept to quit the land who I'm living for 20 or more , and it's a delicate point , Pt. Sharon couldn't ignore it , do we have to sacrify those settlers ,to get in return a will of Israel destruction from PAL, is that the game?

2) Concerning Algeria ,you're Wrong , all the inhabitants were French ,and had a French passeport ,it was no more an outside territory but a department nb 98 .
Algerian have potentially the same right ,but that was untrue in the reality.

3) During that war ,they suffered a lot ,for some of them it was a real martyrdom , I mean people tortured by horrible means, all the prisoners were systematically killed on spot,an Algerian doen't counted and had no value on French mentality , some of those Algerian were so brave and proud , but they can't obtain a minimum of respect and justice from the French who all were despising all of them.
4) After the Evian Agreements , every person could chose is destination ,and obviously the ex-colons were living or could been killed on the spot , a great number of them departed to Israel or other countries like Canada and US. ; after a short stop in France ( Gov. indemnity money ) , the majority chose France ,uncluding a part of the Arkis ( Algerian'soldiers on French side ,collaborateurs) , the Arkis who stayed in Algeria were butchered with their familes on the spot (~ 250.000 persons )
5) France was not pulled-up from Algeria , in that period the gov. wouln't even call what's was happened for seven years was " war" , the word was "pacification" ,because "war" was in contradiction, with the fact Algeria was a French department,and the gov.had not to pay the troops they were after the legal duration of the military service ,which was 15 months and 18/,and 21 and after that ADL , over legal duration , and a soldier could receive a pay.

6) They understand that an agreement with the huge ditch who existed between the two culture could never had a peaceful solution ,and the cost of that war was very high , 450.000 troops on the ground ,during seven years .Casualties for Frenxh were 38500 .
7) And France was starting a new war in viet-nam (Indochina) ,but only volunteers have gone there ,nobody was drafted.
French GOV. accepted to call " Algeria War" in 1996 ,and began to distribute distinction to all the participating people ,even to the dead.

Concerning the Genocide , no use for any other matter can be accepted ,even outside of Israel.

[sharonbn]

Jews drawing a frightful analogy is apparently more dangerous to them than actual mortar rounds. If only they were as motivated to do something about them.

not true.
the "actual mortar rounds" are the cause for the disengagement plan.
so something is done about them.
You can disagree with the course of action, but you cannot say the threat is ignored.

[Mediocrates]

Maybe you need to publish a long detailed list of approved protest iconography and then herd off all the protesters to fenced off 'free speech zones' a la the Republicans here.

[sharonbn]

Maybe you need to publish a long detailed list of approved protest iconography and then herd off all the protesters to fenced off 'free speech zones' a la the Republicans here.

maybe we need that list.
Usually societies have "sacred cows", "taboos" and something like "common knowledge". Isn't there something like that for the American society? what about burning the American flag? if these concepts are missing from the Israeli society, then, yes, maybe we need such a list...

[KettleWhistle]

Yad Vashem is not a judge of morality. it was mentioned as example of the public response to the campaign. Yad Vashem is considered an authority on Holocaust issues and is quoted by media worldwide. There were other institutes and individuals who voiced their opinion on the campaign. AFAIK, there were no favorable responses outside the settler community (and even among that community there were objections.)

So?

1) the campaign equates the Israeli gov't with the Nazi regime. But the disengagement plan is fundamentally different than the Nazi final solution: a) the disengagement plan does not involve physical harm and more important b) the disengagement plan is a decision that a gov't makes about its own people, not about a foreign people. the gov't, as the legitimate representative of the will of the people, is allowed and even expected to make decisions about its own people. even controversial and unpopular decisions. e.g. when a gov't decides to raise taxes, or to declare war or to sign a peace treaty - all these may be controversial and unpopular decisions, yet it is expected of gov't to reach these decisions and carry them out, as representative of the people. when the French pulled out of Algeria, they evacuated 1 million (1,000,000) French settlers from Algeria.

The campaign does not equate Israeli government with Nazi regime. It equates the proposed actions of Israeli government with the actions of the Nazi regime. And there can be no parallel to Algreria. In part it is due to the reasons that goliath posted above. But more so because Algeria was not a part of French motherland. The territories where settlers live are parts of the Jewish native land.

No one called it ethnic cleansing. you don't ethnic cleanse your own people.

I don't. You do. Ethnic cleansing is forceful removal of people belonging to a certain ethnic group from a particular territory. That's precisely what the Israeli government is trying to do.

[Mediocrates]

Usually societies have "sacred cows", "taboos" and something like "common knowledge". Isn't there something like that for the American society?

Not really, no. Not one that I can think of. If you don't like the skinhead rally then meet across the street with your own bullhorn and drown them out.

what about burning the American flag?

Constitutionally protected free speech.

if these concepts are missing from the Israeli society, then, yes, maybe we need such a list...

Why? Once Ideas become dangerous a/o sacrosanct then you elevate opinions to near religious heights. We call that mob rule here. Free speech never means the freedom from being offended and even if 85% of all Israelis support the expulsion of Yesha Jews there is no reason why they can't remind you how offened they are.

[goliath]

Collective unconscious is present in all the persons and particularly our; we can seek or look for the fundamental parameters , alone ,or with a chosen group of people ;etablish a list even restrictive it would be an error ,the collective unconscious is present anyway , it is possible to try to channel it ,but not to determine it ,the instinct which continues in us ,comes from this unconscious : Fact os synthetizing a situation in an extremely short laps of time for example.This is only a theory , the great supporter was Gustav Jung.
The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche ( our reflected image) which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by expthe fact it doesn't like the latter ,owe its existence to personal experience ,and consequently is not a personal acquisition .
While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have desappeared from consciouness trough haven been forgotten or repressed (ie genocide survivors)
the contents of the collective unconscious have never been on consciousness ,and therefore have never been individually acquired , but owe their existence exclusively to heredity ; whereas the personal unconscious consist for the most part of complexes , the content of the collective unconscious is made essentially of archetypes;litteraly a pre-existent form which seems to be present always and everywhere ; ie : a second psychic system of a collective universal and inspersonal nature which is identical in all individual.
This collective unconsciouness doesn't develop individualy but is inherited. It consist in pre-existend forms ,the archetypes ,which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.
Synchronicity is a different but strange phenomenon ,and many people are the subject of this type of coincidence who can be checked, it's another interesting point for whom like .

[KettleWhistle]

Have you ever read this book: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...02150845&itm=1 ?It was written in French, and it's about people living in French colonies, but I think it addresses many general aspects of human character as well. I you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. The link is to the English translation, but the original was written in French.

[sharonbn]

So?

OK, I'll try once more.
the highlight of the paragraph is that Yad Vashem serves "as example of the public response to the campaign" the public response to the campaign was unanimous. This fact may say nothing to you. it does to me, and apparently it did to the settlers themselves.

The campaign does not equate Israeli government with Nazi regime. It equates the proposed actions of Israeli government with the actions of the Nazi regime.

I remember a radio interview where a settler woman wearing orange badge was asked why did she put it.
she said "the Sharon gov't is the same as the Nazi regime. They think the same and act the same."
The reporter said "But the disengagement plan does not speak of killing people, only evacuation"
and she replied "You and I don't know what Sharon will order his troops when the time arrives."

The majority of Israelis viewed this campaign as equation of the Israeli gov't with Nazi regime.

And there can be no parallel to Algreria. In part it is due to the reasons that goliath posted above. But more so because Algeria was not a part of French motherland. The territories where settlers live are parts of the Jewish native land.

I see no difference between Algeria and GS, other then semantics.
So France gave the Algerians French citizenship. so? apparently they rejected the "gesture". They wanted Algerian citizenship, not French one. Also, KettleWhistle, according to goliath, France saw Algeria as a very integral part of France, same as Hawaii is part of the US.

and goliath, France was indeed "pulled-up" from Algeria. The one and only cause for France giving up Algeria was the FLN. (like you said so yourself, France had to post 450,000 troops there, why they were sent there?) If it wasn't for the FLN Algeria would still be part of France and would become second Tibet.

I don't. You do. Ethnic cleansing is forceful removal of people belonging to a certain ethnic group from a particular territory. That's precisely what the Israeli government is trying to do.

Meaning of ETHNIC CLEANSING
Definition: [n] the mass explusion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dicti...hnic+cleansing