[Readers challenge Sheikh Palazzi on his position against the Israeli government′s Disengagement Plan.]
What if another reason for removing the Jews from Gush Katif is because Israel knows that if they remain there and the Palestine Authority is in charge of security, those Jews would be massacred as soon as Israel′s forces left?
Everyone takes for granted that Jews will never be permitted to live in peace under a Palestinian Authority administration. This shows that this same administration will not be a democracy, but a racist dictatorship.
That is the reason why I say that US President George Bush′s policy is contradictory. On one hand, he declares to be "at war with terror", and that the solution to win that war is spreading "democracy". In the Middle East, however, the Bush administration is doing exactly the opposite: compelling a democratic nation like Israel to withdraw from a part of its territory in order to create another dictatorial Arab regime.
This practically means rewarding terror, instead of fighting it, and spreading dictatorship, not "democracy".
Politicians should be accountable; perhaps they should rely more on referendums (after passing appropriate laws to do so), etc., but being in office by election and working within the law does not make politicians criminals.
I cannot but consider the Gush Katif and northern Samaria deportation plan a crime. Theoretically, I have no problem with "disengagement", but plenty of problems with "deportation". Supported by the majority of its citizens, a government can decide to disengage from a certain area and even to renounce its claims of sovereignty. However, I consider it a crime when, as a consequence of that disengagement, people are forcibly removed from their homes and compelled to resettle elsewhere.
After World War II, my country, Italy, renounced its sovereignty over a part of its northeastern territory in favor of Yugoslavia. Even so, it did not send the army to deport Italian inhabitants from that territory. Whoever wanted to move elsewhere could do so, and whoever wanted to remain therein, living under Yugoslavian sovereignty, was free to do so. In my humble opinion, that is the basic difference between a "disengagement plan" and a "deportation plan".
Were the Italian government to decide that "all Jews, since they are Jews, are forbidden to live in Rome and be forcibly transferred to Milan," I would say that the Italian government is committing an evidently anti-Semitic crime. I find it astonishing that the same is being done by the Israeli government to the Jews of Gaza. Someone who is an Arab will be permitted to go on living in Gaza, while someone who is a Jew will not be permitted to do the same. I find this distinction criminal and immoral.
Of course, there are different levels of criminality: If someone steals someone else′s wallet for his pocket, that is a crime; while if someone enters into someone else′s home and massacres his family, that is surely a greater crime. Hitler deported Jews from their homes in order to send them to gas chambers; Ariel Sharon wants to deport them to compel them to resettle elsewhere. There is no comparison between the seriousness of the two crimes; yet, both are inhumane crimes and must be opposed as such.
There is a basic point I would like to mention. Would a certain government decide to deport a segment of its citizens on ethnic or religious grounds, the whole world will protest and accuse that government of racism, violation of basic human rights, etc. However, a double standard in effect in this case implies that when the same is done to the Jews, world public opinion finds it normal. Deporting people from their homes is illegal and immoral, except, apparently, when it applies to Jews.
I am shocked in realizing that this point of view is so common that even some Jews accept it.
|
