September 22, 2005


Rabbi Eliyahu changes mind on refusal (yaakov katz and matthew wagner, Sep. 23, 2005, THE JERUSALEM POST)

In a surprise break from his fierce opposition to disengagement and his support of calls for the refusal of IDF evacuation orders, former Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliahu, in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post, urged members of the national religious camp on Thursday to remain loyal to the state and the army.

This view stands in stark contrast to that espoused by a group of settlement rabbis – such as Zalman Melamed of Beit El, Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba, Elyakim Levanon of Elon Moreh and David Dudkevitch of Yitzhar – who see as their leader former Ashkenazi chief rabbi Avraham Shapira.

In the name of Shapira, these rabbis are calling for a radical revamping of the relationship between religious and secular Zionists.

Eliahu's equanimity, in his first interview with the press since disengagement, was a striking departure from his own previous adamant opposition to the pullout, which he had called a "curse from heaven."

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 22, 2005 11:59 PM

We are puzzled by the existence of an Orthodox draft exemption. I am loath to see land turned over to those who have lost it fair and square, but it seems unfair to excuse to most bellicose from the consequences of their position.

In America, the "chickenhawk" label is usuallly misplaced and unfair, in this case it seems appropriate.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 23, 2005 6:23 AM

They (Arabs) not only lost the land "fair and square," but they lost it after they attacked Israel, not because Israel went to war to acquire the territory, so to relinquish control and hand it over to thugs makes no sense, especially since their rhetoric hasn't changed and neither has their goal. They want to push Israel into the sea.

I don't understand why the comparison to Pakistan isn't made.

While the world condemns and defiles the Jews who wrest the territory for their future state from innocent pastoral Palestinians who were peacefully tending their sheep, no word is ever spoken in this same court of public opinion about the creation of Pakistan and how Gandhi in cooperation with the Communists forced the British out of India and forced India to give a large portion of its territory to create a Muslim state. As if there weren't already more than enough Muslim states nearby to migrate to if they felt oppressed in India and what ever happened to the peaceful Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. who were already living there?

Just when a bit of moral equivalency would be useful, it seems to have gone missing.

Posted by: erp at September 23, 2005 7:19 AM


The comparison is identical--there is a Pakistan.

Posted by: oj at September 23, 2005 8:13 AM

I think Israelis would demur that it's not identical.

Pakistan's neighbors aren't bent on pushing it into the sea with the blessing of the rest of the world.

Posted by: erp at September 23, 2005 10:17 AM

India has nukes targeted at Pakistan and a history of war with them. Israel has a nuclear monopoly.

Posted by: oj at September 23, 2005 11:33 AM

oj. I'm talking about world opinion, not hardware.

It wouldn't bother me if Israel used up some of their hardware cleaning up the 'hood.

Posted by: erp at September 23, 2005 1:00 PM

Opinion? Big whoop.

Posted by: oj at September 23, 2005 2:46 PM

If world opinion didn't keep the Arabs whooped up against Israel, the violence in the ME would have stopped a long time ago.

Posted by: erp at September 23, 2005 4:00 PM