Debate and Dissent
Late last night I posted a small but relatively harsh note expressing disappointment with the folks over at IsraPundit for letting one of their posters, Tiburon, cross the line into incitement. IsraPundit has generally served as a reasonable voice for the Israeli and Jewish right, and I was surprised to find them flirting with what effectively amounted to treason.
This morning, another regular poster there, Joseph Alexander Norland, posted his own pretty harsh comment in response to Tiburon's original post, calling for a model of resistance to disengagement that explicitly ruled out violence. He also posted a longer article indicting calls for violence.
That there can be dialogue, debate, and dissent about such an emotional issue is a small blessing. Of course passions will run high over the next, dangerous couple of years. It's important to have a framework for resolving disputes without resorting to violence. IsraPundit won't be that forum of course, but it should serve as a model for what that forum must look like: driven by dialogue, with an appreciation for the weight of the ideas being discussed, and above all foregrounding the unacceptability of violence. The debate there goes on, as it will for the foreseeable future. My most recent contribution:
Tiburon:
I understand what you're advocating to be a tactical maneuver - force those implementing disengagement to calculate the possibility of a civil war in their costs and benefits. Force them to consider that they might have to face massive violence if they go through with their plans and then, if they still go through with their plans - then resist only in legitimate ways.
The problem is this strategy NEVER works. "We're so clever and are in control of ourselves - we can turn the incitement on and off; we can turn the violence on and off" is a tiger that opponents of disengagement won't be able to get off of. All it takes is a young member of Gush Katif hearing the implied message in PE's position: "I'm not saying violence is OK, but resistance is most the most important goal" and convincing himself that now is the time for armed resistance. The implications would be nothing short disastrous: a permanent weakening of the Jewish state much worse than what disengagement would do, an opening for Israel's enemies for outright attack, and a sense in the international world that Israel doesn't have its house in order and that they can therefore be pushed around.
Your observation that sensible right-of-center voices have been purged from Israel merely makes this strategy of silence more dangerous, because once the boulder of violent resistance starts rolling there's no way to hold it back because there's no way to keep everyone on the same page - all it takes is a couple of hotheads who think they have a mandate to, G-d forbid, attack an Israeli soldier. And the point is that they're more inclined to think that they have this mandate because there are no sensible right-of-center media outlets explaining to them the right way to resist disengagement - there is no subtlty, there is no way nuance, and above all there is no reliable way to issue information once violence begins. That there is no way to reorient those opposing disengagement once, G-d forbid, violence begins - no way to disseminate calls for moderation in the middle of, G-d forbid, the sparks of a civil war - makes it all the more incumbent that we do everything possible to avoid going down that path before it starts.
If Israel's media is truly dominated by the Left, then a call for violence also spells the end of the settler movement. Do you believe for a second that Hamas would fail to take advantage of a Jewish civil war? Do you believe for a second that, after a schoolbus or cafe is bombed, that those on the right who started the war would not be blamed? The demonization that would occur following such an incident would make how the right was portrayed following the murder of Rabin, alav hashalom, seem like good press!
The greatest danger is not disengagement - it is, G-d forbid, civil war in the Jewish state. Armed conflict between Jews will take generations to heal. Regardless of where one falls on disengagement, this nudge nudge wink wink rhetoric about violent resistance is staggeringly dangerous.
So while I would have preferred that this debate never even occur, that IsraPundit is able to serve as a site for civilized debate and dissent is heartening.
This morning, another regular poster there, Joseph Alexander Norland, posted his own pretty harsh comment in response to Tiburon's original post, calling for a model of resistance to disengagement that explicitly ruled out violence. He also posted a longer article indicting calls for violence.
That there can be dialogue, debate, and dissent about such an emotional issue is a small blessing. Of course passions will run high over the next, dangerous couple of years. It's important to have a framework for resolving disputes without resorting to violence. IsraPundit won't be that forum of course, but it should serve as a model for what that forum must look like: driven by dialogue, with an appreciation for the weight of the ideas being discussed, and above all foregrounding the unacceptability of violence. The debate there goes on, as it will for the foreseeable future. My most recent contribution:
Tiburon:
I understand what you're advocating to be a tactical maneuver - force those implementing disengagement to calculate the possibility of a civil war in their costs and benefits. Force them to consider that they might have to face massive violence if they go through with their plans and then, if they still go through with their plans - then resist only in legitimate ways.
The problem is this strategy NEVER works. "We're so clever and are in control of ourselves - we can turn the incitement on and off; we can turn the violence on and off" is a tiger that opponents of disengagement won't be able to get off of. All it takes is a young member of Gush Katif hearing the implied message in PE's position: "I'm not saying violence is OK, but resistance is most the most important goal" and convincing himself that now is the time for armed resistance. The implications would be nothing short disastrous: a permanent weakening of the Jewish state much worse than what disengagement would do, an opening for Israel's enemies for outright attack, and a sense in the international world that Israel doesn't have its house in order and that they can therefore be pushed around.
Your observation that sensible right-of-center voices have been purged from Israel merely makes this strategy of silence more dangerous, because once the boulder of violent resistance starts rolling there's no way to hold it back because there's no way to keep everyone on the same page - all it takes is a couple of hotheads who think they have a mandate to, G-d forbid, attack an Israeli soldier. And the point is that they're more inclined to think that they have this mandate because there are no sensible right-of-center media outlets explaining to them the right way to resist disengagement - there is no subtlty, there is no way nuance, and above all there is no reliable way to issue information once violence begins. That there is no way to reorient those opposing disengagement once, G-d forbid, violence begins - no way to disseminate calls for moderation in the middle of, G-d forbid, the sparks of a civil war - makes it all the more incumbent that we do everything possible to avoid going down that path before it starts.
If Israel's media is truly dominated by the Left, then a call for violence also spells the end of the settler movement. Do you believe for a second that Hamas would fail to take advantage of a Jewish civil war? Do you believe for a second that, after a schoolbus or cafe is bombed, that those on the right who started the war would not be blamed? The demonization that would occur following such an incident would make how the right was portrayed following the murder of Rabin, alav hashalom, seem like good press!
The greatest danger is not disengagement - it is, G-d forbid, civil war in the Jewish state. Armed conflict between Jews will take generations to heal. Regardless of where one falls on disengagement, this nudge nudge wink wink rhetoric about violent resistance is staggeringly dangerous.
So while I would have preferred that this debate never even occur, that IsraPundit is able to serve as a site for civilized debate and dissent is heartening.
