By Moshe Feiglin
23 Adar, 5773
March 6, '13
Translated from the Makor Rishon newspaper
We have reached the red line for Jonathan Pollard. If the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, doesn't bring our brother, Jonathan, who has been captive in his country for 28 years, with him to Israel - he is liable to die in prison, G-d forbid. With this heavy ethical weight on our necks, this horrible betrayal of an agent that we sent to risk his life for us, we may all be thrown into a reality that begins with a "small" destruction at Ma'aleh Rehavam and ends who knows where?
Yes, there is a connection between the two. When you are not loyal to your brother, when you do not practice basic solidarity, when there is no moral glue that ties you to your brother rotting in jail, then everything falls apart. If we have disengaged from Pollard, then get ready for the next Disengagement in the name of security, of course, and a solution for the Iranian problem, brought to you by Uncle Sam.
In the end, we will find ourselves without Pollard, without Judea and Samaria, without the Americans and with a nuclear Iran. Just like in the Lodz ghetto, where they gave a few poor children to save all the rest. Nothing has changed since then. The Jews are the same Jews and the mindset is the same, as well.
Today, I called upon my fellow Knesset Members to boycott Obama's Knesset speech if he does not bring our brother, Jonathan, with him. In the meantime, in the face of the approaching tsunami, we are all busy bickering over the proverbial tempests in the teapot.
When it comes to the Haredi draft issue, I don't know if I should laugh or cry. After all, the last thing that Lapid wants is for the IDF to suddenly grow a long beard and put on a black suit. And the IDF does not want or need the extra manpower. The IDF already drafts many more recruits than it really needs. On the other side of the coin, there are many young Haredi men who want to serve in the army, work and lead normal lives. The problem is that the IDF does not offer them enough frameworks that are appropriate to their level of observance. Nobody actually expects them to exercise with women instructors. So what is the debate really all about? Rating, and political capital.
The second tempest in the teapot is jump-starting the "peace" process. What are they talking about? In all of history, there has never been a collection of people for whom the entire world, including those who should surrender their sovereignty, has rallied full force to establish a state and the state has not been born. A "Palestinian" state will never be born because Golda Meir was right. There is no "Palestinian" nation and this non-nation harbors a primal fear of a state. Just look how Ahmad Tibi and Co. reacted when FM Lieberman made his generous offer to move the border west of their towns, effectively removing them from Israel proper.
The goal of "Palestinian" self-definition is not sovereignty in the Land of Israel, but rather, the negation of Jewish sovereignty in the Land. That is why a "Palestinian" state has never been established in Judea and Samaria and why there was never such a demand when Jordan or any other Moslem entity ruled here. Their focus has always been on the very last centimeter of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. As the British Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin defined the issue at the League of Nations when the British returned their mandate over the Land of Israel to the world body: "The goal of the Jews in the Land of Israel is to establish a state for the Jews in the Land. The goal of the Arabs in the Land of Israel (he did not say "Palestinians") is to ensure that the Jews do not establish a state in the Land of Israel."
The tsunami is approaching, and the Jews in the Land of Israel are fighting over total non-issues. If it weren't so sad, it would be comical. It's time to get serious.