One of the big problems with being on the American right is that one has to spend a lot of time convincing one's political allies that no, Jesus Christ will not be really angry, sulk, and stay away longer if Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip*. See Perlstein's article in the Village Voice** .
*What does it say about me that my first reaction on reading the Village Voice article and learning that Eliot Abrams*** had reassured the constituents that they did not need to worry because Gaza was not part of "historic Israel" was, "What a liar!"? I was (momentarily) genuinely irate that Abrams would pretend that the city in which Samson died was not part of "historic Israel"--not part of what the sixth-century priests said that The One Who Is had granted to Abraham and Moses in fee simple forever. Then I came to my senses, and realized that if there are ever any circumstances in which one is justified in telling Noble Lies--in treating one's interlocutors not as rational and reasonable beings to be persuaded but as cattle to be driven and manipulated--Eliot Abrams in this case is certainly one such.
**Once again (as so often happens in these days), only Fafblog! can treat this at the level at which it deserves:
Fafblog! the whole worlds only source for Fafblog.: Juan Cole has pointed out an article in the Village Voice about apocalyptic Christian groups meeting with the White House to make sure that its Israel policy is compatible with Jesus coming back to end the world. Which is an interestin' thing to think about. How many refugee camps does Jesus want bulldozed in Gaza? Will Jesus give up Gaza for more settlements in the West Bank? And what if we are completely missin' the mark here an' Jesus touches down in the Sinai peninsula forgettin' all about the Camp David Accords? Will Jesus get mixed up an' make the Muslim end of the world happen instead? That would be horrible, no one would be happy then!
***The National Security Council Director sent to calm down the constituents who want the Antichrist to come as soon as possible. A prominent Iran-Contra plotter, felon, and right-wing Latin American terrorist sympathizer.
Posted by DeLong at June 7, 2004 07:48 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postFafblog!, on the fall of Empires, relevant as example of the maxim, regarding history repeating itself..
First time as tragedy, second time as farce? And third...
fourth...
fifth....
Wasn't Gaza a city of the Philistines? Also Askalon?
Posted by: Zizka on June 7, 2004 09:38 PMYep. The claim is that the Israelites conquered them...
Posted by: Brad DeLong on June 7, 2004 10:01 PMTwo questions. Can't Abrams' audience look this up themselves? (Given their apparent fixation, wouldn't they know he was lying even as his words took wing?) Looks for all the world like Abrams wasn exercising the now standard assumption that, if you want a lie to be taken as the truth, you need merely lie without shame. Next question - doesn't Abrams' (extended) audience include a bunch of guys who thought that Jesus wouldn't be able to return without their help in breeding up appropriate cattle for sacrifice? So they spent a bundle of bucks trying to raise (was it pure red?) cattle in Israel? And they think Catholics misinterpret the Bible.
Posted by: kharris on June 8, 2004 05:04 AMI'm not a Rabbi, but my understanding is that Gaza (and Ashkelon and Ashdod) are generally not considered to be fully part of the "Holy Land" from the point of view of Jewish law with respect to issues like tithing of produce, first fruits, etc. In some respects these cities' "halachic" (Jewish legal) status may be somewhat ambiguous. That of Hebron or Bethlehem or Nablus is not; they are all clearly part of the Jewish Holy Land.
The fact that Samson died in Gaza is irrelevant. Millions of Jews died in Auschwitz, but that doesn't make Poland part of the promised land. The fact that King David defeated conquered some of the Philistine cities is irrelevant. David's conquests, as reported in the Bible, extended well beyond anything that might be consdered halachic "Israel."
The relevance of this is that if we're seeing so much resistance to abandoning Gaza, where the religious connection is tenuous, then how much more, and more violent, opposition should we expect when it comes time to abandon the enclaves in Judea and Samaria.
Peace propoents will have halachah on their side, too. The preservation of human life is a Jewish legal imperative. But we are very close to the bottom of a very steep hill. Your ad hominem remarks notwithstanding, peace proponents should be encouraging the Administration to help Ariel Sharon take at least one step up.
Posted by: Aaron Gurwitz on June 8, 2004 09:03 AMThe Perlstein piece is enough to make you think that the French have a correct understanding of the roots of US middle east policy: driven in part by domestic bigots and enablers of settler colonialism, both Christian and Jewish.
If you want a single Jewish settler to remain in land taken by Israel in 1967 you are not interested in peace - you are interested in territorial expansion. All the settlers must go, even around Jerusalem. That is why Sharon's plan cannot be supported, because he want to remove some settlers as part of a trade to keep hundreds of thousands of others.
Israel has many legitimate demands, including freedom from terror and limitations on the right of return. The desire to keep any settlers in land taken in 1967 is not one of them.
Ronald Reagan: 'Tear down that wall.'
George W. Bush and John Kerry: 'Build up that wall.'
It's really, really hard to generate sympathy for the settlers in Gaza, given that they not only choose to raise children in a shooting gallery, but force hundreds of Israeli teenagers to defend them. (And, of course, we must remember that ultra-Orthodox families manage to dodge service in the IDF.)
It's even harder to sympathise with the eschatological Christians in the US who basically tolerate having those settlers and soldiers serve as sacrifices to encourage the Second Coming.
The Six Day War was not fought using a map derived from the Torah as a battle-plan. This is really not hard to comprehend.
Posted by: nick on June 8, 2004 01:52 PMAnd it even harder still to generate sympathy for the PLO and their Gaza supporters who constantly preach hatred of Jews and Americans. Arab radio and press (organs of the Egyptian government) constantly put out diatribes against the Jews that would be the envy of Goebbels.
Posted by: A. Zarkov on June 8, 2004 07:52 PMGnothe seauton (Greek) - Know thyself
O sancta simplicitas! - Oh, holy simplicity! (Jan Hus)
In posterum - Till the next day
Una voce - With one voice, unanimously
Omnes aequo animo parent ubi digni imperant - All men cheerfully obey where worthy men rule. (Syrus)
Verveces tui similes pro ientaculo mihi appositi sunt - I have jerks like you for breakfast
Eheu fugaces labuntur anni - Alas, the fleeting years slip by. (Horace)
Avarus animus nullo satiatur lucro - A greedy mind is satisfied with no (amount of) gain
Lex malla, lex nulla - A bad law is no law. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth
Ad hominem - Appealing to a person's physical and emotional urges, rather than her or his intellect