THEY THREW ROCKS!!

OK, so I was going to wait for the husband to post about this, but after reading this, I got so upset I had to write about it. Many Jews, especially Israelis are starting to blog about the events that transpired in Amona yesterday. There is so much disinformation out there to make it look like this was a Disengagement gone horribly wrong, that it's frustrating. Over 200 people were injured in yesterday's altercations, including a few very serious injuries, that it is vital to examine the facts.

Myth #1: This was a Disengagement of a settlement.
Fact: This was not a Disengagement ordered by the government. Nor, did Olmert initiate the evacuation. This was a court ordered clearing of 9 housing units that were built illegaly, without permits, on a legitimate settlement. Again, this was NOT a Disengagement.

Myth #2: Olmert ordered the evacuation.
Fact: Olmert did NOT order the evacuation. The courts did. The courts handed down the decision to clear these 9 housing units over EIGHT months ago. However, the destruction was postponed until late January so as not to coincide or be too close to the date of the Diengagement. It seems the date is meaningless. As will be seen later, these kids were going to everything in their power to make sure that the world knew that this had to do with the Disengagement.

However, Olmert decided to reject the head of the settlement's appeal to allow the houses to be safely moved to Ofra within a specified period of time, or the settlers would destroy them, themselves. I disagree with this decision because I feel it was done out of disingenuous reasons. Olmert wasn't trying to "enforce" law. He was trying to make himself look tough on illegal outposts before the upcoming March elections. Let me be clear. I don't like Olmert. I don't want him to be Prime Minister. If I had a choice between him and BB, I would choose BB simply because he would be the lesser of two evils. I don't like BB that much, either. Now, because of this move, Olmert will be linked as the one who caused yesterday's fiascal even-though he's not responsible for ordering it.

Here in lies my main issue. There are many people complaining that this should never have been done because there are thousands of homes within Israel that have been been built without permits. They especially like to point out the fact that there are thousands of Arab homes being built and have been built on privately owned Israeli land, illegally, or without permits. I have to say to these people that I whole-heartedly agree with them with one exception. I believe that the Israeli government is not going after the illegal Arab homes for two reasons. One, they're afraid of the riots that would ensue, effectively rendering them hostage to the threats of their own citizens. If they're so afraid of their own Arab citizens, how can they say they're tough on other people? Reasons number 2 came to me as a result of what happened in my neighborhood. Namely, an international incident. Hebrew University is building a new student's village. When the project was about to ensue, there was a big bruhaha over illegal Arab houses that were on some of the land that was going to be built on. In the international scene, everyone said that this was another case of the Israelis forcing Palestinians/arabs off of "disputed" land. Of course, no-one mentioned the fact that all of the land that Hebrew University wanted to build on was owned by Hebrew Univeristy and had been owned by them since the early 20th century, and the houses that they wanted to get rid of had been built there illegally, so HU had the complete right and authority to kick these people out. I beleive that the government is looking to avoid more of these kinds of incidents.

However, to say that because of these reasons, no evacuation of illegal outposts should be conducted is completely ridiculous. Israel is a country of law. We are ruled by law. These specific houses were brought before the courts by a left-wing group. While I don't agree with their tactics, the court ordered that these NINE houses were illegal, NOT the settlement, and had to be demolished. They rejected an appeal, like Olmert did, to allow for the houses to be moved to another location until legal permits could be obtained or to allow the settlers to destroy the houses, themselves. It's not as if this was a random settlement chosen by Olmert for "liquidation". This brings me to the next myth.

Myth #3: The police had no right to hit the protestors or have clubs.
Fact: Being that this was not a disengagement but police coming to enforce a court ordered evacuation, they had every right to use riot gear and rules. Personally, I felt that they should have had even more weapons and protection. These police officers were there to enforce the law. They should have had rubber bullets, tear gas, and fog horns in hand. These protestors threw CINDER BLOCKS. They threw STONES. That's what upsets me the most! THEW THREW STONES!!! That makes them no better than the Palestinians. During the Intifada, when the Palestinians were throwing rocks at our soldiers, people were crying for them to do more and be more violent in order to defend themselves. But here, we say that they have no right to defend themselves when CITIZENS of their country are doing the same. The police have no reason to be ashamed of themselves with the exception of those subsequently found guilty of being overly violent and brutal. They enforced the law. Saying that they had no right to is saying that you don't believe in the rule of law.

The protestors picked the wrong event to protest. It was bad tactics on their part. This wasn't an evacuation of a settlement. I CANT KEEP SAYING THAT ENOUGH!! What's shameful is the fact that these kids (WHERE THE HELL ARE THEIR PARENTS IN ALL OF THIS!!) were out there trying to stop Israel from being a country of law. There were some good articles printed today in the Jerusalem Post over this very point.

Descent into violence: (Excerps)

Amona supporters and their leaders seem to have been engaged in a dangerous form of brinkmanship. Not content with nonviolent protest, they attempted to calibrate the level of violence.
Is it permissible to throw paint-filled light bulbs as opposed to rocks? Can one actively resist when the police come to take you away? These are the wrong questions. It is not a matter of how much violence can be gotten away with; the use of violence of any sort against security forces is unacceptable.
In a democratic society, civil disobedience is a time-honored form of protest. Streaming to a closed military zone to protest the legal actions of the state is perhaps understandable. However, when security forces arrive, protesters must go willingly or at least not violently resist arrest or removal. That is how citizens of democracies protest government decisions.
Representatives of the state engaged in making laws should not be on the side of the lawbreakers. By participating in the protest, they were effectively undermining the rule of law they are sworn to uphold. Their place is on the floor of the Knesset, not the roof of an illegal house in Amona.

'We want war,' protesters chant (Excerps):

A "civil war started here," declared Danya, 14, as she sat on the ground Wednesday afternoon watching border policemen push activist teens down a dirt incline, at the tail end of a five-hour failed battle to save nine empty homes on the Amona outpost from destruction by security forces.
Danya said they were angry over the pullout and wanted to take a stand on their principles of defending the Land of Israel in God's name.
A number of them were particularly upset that the council tried to broker a compromise that would have allowed the homes to be moved to Ofra and would have sent the teens away without a fight.
At 5 a.m., upon hearing such a deal might be possible, dozens of activists gathered around veteran settler leader Pinhas Wallerstein and called him the "devil" while chanting "We want war, we want war."

Analysis: The new anarchists (Excerps):

In terms of its scope and damage, Wednesday's clash heralds no civil war. In terms of its instigators, however, the war is already afoot, and in terms of their prospects, they already have lost.
From the viewpoint of the religious youngsters who dominated the rioters in Amona, Ehud Olmert is Rehoboam, King Solomon's unworthy heir whose fateful response to the people's plea for a relaxation of his father's heavy taxes was: "My father flogged you with whips, but I will flog you with scorpions."
The weapons at play Wednesday in the hills of Benjamin were not whips and scorpions, but billy clubs and stones. Stones much like the ones with which those biblical rebels murdered Rehoboam's tax collector, Adoram. That rebellion was so successful that Solomon's kingdom was instantaneously, and irrevocably, split between Judah and Israel.
Curiously enough what is at stake now is remarkably similar to what was at stake then, when the Israelites of Samaria challenged Jerusalem's authority and tested a newly arrived successor's sway and resolve. The only difference is that this time the ruler represents not two of 12 tribes, but a decisive majority, while the rebels represent so small a minority that even its own leaders no longer claim to represent "half the nation," as they habitually had until last year. In fact, last summer they even failed to gather the several hundred thousand demonstrators they once would easily mobilize for mass rallies.
Yet the rioters' problem is not only in their limited following but also in their ideological integrity. As super-patriots for whom the Jewish state's survival is a supreme value, it is remarkable that they do not understand that twisting the state's arm and denying its majority's will undermines the Zionist enterprise itself.

I wholly agree that what transpired yesterday must be investigated, any-one guilty of brutallity and illegal actions should be punished to the full extent of the law, and the incident need to be learned from. However, to say that the country should be ashemed of what it did, and these KIDS are innocent is to ignore and dispell that Israel is a country ruled by law and court orders and law mean nothing if it comes to Jews doing illegal things on their own land. I will tell you the motto we used in Bnei Akiva:

There is no Israel without Torah. It is not the other way around.

"We are in bondage to the law so that we might be free."
Cicero Roman philosopher (106-43 BC)
"Lawlessness is lawlessness. Anarchy is anarchy is anarchy. Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy."
Marshall, Thurgood U.S. lawyer and Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1908-1993)
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Asimov, Isaac Science-Fiction Author (1920-1992)
"Violence cannot build a better society. Disruption and disorder nourish repression, not justice. They strike at the freedom of every citizen. The community cannot—it will not—tolerate coercion and mob rule."
Commission on Civil Disorder, 1968
"There is a violence that liberates, and a violence that enslaves; there is a violence that is moral and a violence that is immoral."
Mussolini, Benito Italian dictator and leader of the Fascist movement (1883-1945)