It's time to talk about Jewish historical rights to the land of Israel
In Friday's Haaretz, Nadav Shragai nailed it:One might expect more national pride and a clearer, more lucid statement from a government that believes Judea and Samaria are inseparable parts of the historic homeland, and at the very least sees the "settlement blocs" as an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any final status accord. Perhaps a statement in the spirit of Simon Maccabaeus, who said: "We have neither taken other men's land, neither do we hold that which is other men's: but the inheritance of our fathers, which was for some time unjustly possessed by our enemies."Read the whole thing.
Our friends in the United States, both real and imagined, need to hear from us that the historic, religious, legal and sentimental links that bind the people of Israel with Hebron and Beit El are no less legitimate than those of the Palestinians; that we are not occupiers in our own country and that there are Jews for whom this land is holy, just as it is holy to Palestinians - Jews whose connection to these pieces of land are bound by love, the Bible, tradition, nature and beauty.
Many years ago, a member of the British House of Lords asked Chaim Weizmann why the Jews insist on settling in the Land of Israel when there are so many undeveloped countries that could serve as a national home. Weizmann responded with a question: Why do you drive 200 kilometers every Sunday to visit your mother when there are so many old ladies living on your street?
I admit that I have been guilty of ignoring our historical right to the Land of Israel in many posts in this blog. I have consistently made the argument that a 'Palestinian state' will endanger Israel's security. I have no doubt that argument is correct, and I thought it would resonate with many readers to whom historical rights might be something of less importance. But the security argument no longer resonates with a world in which all political systems are equally valid and all countries are the same. The 'Palestinians' have turned the argument into one over historical rights. It's time that we respond in kind.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:51 AM
1 Comments:
The security argument is an argument based on a necessity justification. A historical argument is based on a rights justification. The Arabs and the world will never agree to Israel's holding onto land gained by force. They will respect an argument that holds the Jewish people have a historical title to Eretz Israel that is valid as a right. The difference lies in that a security situation can and does change; a right on the other hand can never be revoked.The latter is an argument Israel needs to advance more in order to save Yesha.
Post a Comment
<< Home