Another Sort of Jewish Guilt

[debka_notion]

Here speaks another member of gullible-people Anon. Everyone around is talking in an uproar about the disengagement, and I'm completely confused as to what to think. Honestly, all I know is that anything that brings peace is something of which I approve. The problem is that unlike Steve (or at least Steve's claims), I'm far from prescient. So really, I don't know what to think, or what to say. The entire situation confuses me: it's so much easier to retreat into a withdrawn world of private life and theology and ritual and academics and not get involved in the real world on a large scale. But that seems like the easy way out and not terribly adult. It's an awkward place to be. From what little I know, the disengagement seems to be the best bet rather than not. But do I want to see people suffer- of course not. Instead, in a world of suddenly strong opinions (I find it odd how quiet the online world seemed to be about the disengagement until just now, when the whole thing is coming to a head, as it were), I'm still feeling quite wishy-washy. Even for someone who dislikes politics, which I certainly am, I feel like I'm not living up to a responsibility.

Comments

[thevortex.livejournal.com]

One way to conceive of this is a horrid damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't situation. If there is no disengagement, people suffer. If there is disengagement, people suffer. But disengagement brings peace? I ask rhetorically: peace to whom?

The Vortex

[belu.livejournal.com]

Don't people break engagements all the time? Isn't it supposed to be the marriage that's a big deal to get out of?

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

Not that sort of engagement... Honestly, I have No idea why they chose that word. Maybe to be distinctive? Maybe because it was the longest word they could think of that applied?

[belu.livejournal.com]

Strange. What sort, then?

[belu.livejournal.com]

Right. Duh. That.

I suppose that's what I get when I consider other countries' domestic politics less important than my own.

[doctor-nine.livejournal.com]

The type of suffering being brought upon the settlers is economic and (if you buy their claims about their connection to the land) spiritual, but the cost of maintaining settlements thus far has been paid in blood and Israeli treasure. So, provided that this does bring about peace, taking 8,500 people out of their homes seems a small price to pay. That's the proviso, of course -- there has to be a follow-up to this on both sides.

I think the deafening silence you've been hearing about this has to do with the fact that Ariel Sharon is the one who's done it. For a staunch right-winger such as he to do this is confusing enough to those who might normally oppose it that they have nothing to say. Only Nixon could go to China; maybe only Sharon could pull out of Gaza.

And... "peace for whom?" Peace is universal. You obviously can't have peace if one side is attacking or being attacked. Peace is not simply the absence of violence, but the secure sense that violence is not the status quo.

[doctor-nine.livejournal.com]

Hmm... I'd also point out that Israel is a democratic country, and the majority of its people have supported the disengagement and opposed the expenditures and troop deployments needed to protect the settlements.