Why isn't the Western Wall a good place for a rally?
Sunday's Arab terrorist attack in Samaria, which critically wounded a 10-year-old, Dor Kuzik, adds immediacy to this somber chronology.For the JPost to put it that way is to show weakness, I'm afraid, and to encourage the very violence that they supposedly oppose. What are they saying, that Jews can't/shouldn't be voicing their opposition in any way whatsoever, because they'll be "inviting violence"? That's excusing the actions of the antagonists, I'm afraid, and acting as if the enemy's behavior is not important. Are they afraid that the Al-aqsa brigade that controls the Temple Mount will help to lead a riot with stone throwers attacking the prayers at the Western Wall below? But worse, are they saying that violence committed by Arabs is legitimate? Sadly, by acting as if Jewish actions matter more than Arab ones, yes, that's what they're doing.
Yet even as we commemorate these great calamities, we need to be mindful of the danger of inadvertently setting the stage for others. It is clear why the leadership of the anti-disengagement struggle wants to gather at Judaism's central site; there is indeed no place more appropriate to invoke divine assistance for the Jewish nation. But plans to hold a series of anti-disengagement "prayer vigils" at the Western Wall, culminating on Tisha Be'av - the day before the withdrawal is set to start - are divisive (this is no consensual Jewish struggle against a common outside enemy) and pose a genuine risk of violence.
I remember that some Tel Aviv residents wanted to organize a boycott of Yediot Achronot and Maariv recently. I'd strongly advise them to add the Jerusalem Post to their list of papers to boycott, no joke.
For more on this topic, see also One Jerusalem.
Labels: Israel
