Soccer Dad

Civil Disobedience - Both Sides Now

Usually when an Israeli resorts to civil disobedience we can expect the media to portray that Israeli sympathetically, if he/she is objecting to nationalist policies. Peter Hermann of The Baltimore Sun, therefore, deserves credit for covering both sides of civil disobedience (or insubordination to the army) in "Settlement issue takes a new turn".
In the article Hermann describes Milli Osheroff who says:

"I'm convinced that the occupation of the Palestinians is bad," says Mili Osheroff. "We are harming another population, and we must do what we can to stop it. If not, my grandchildren will one day ask why I stayed silent, why Israel stayed silent."

On the other side, Hermann gives Datya Yitzchaki her say:

"Retreating from here would be a disaster to the state of Israel," says Datya Yitzhaki. "It is bad for security, bad for our values and bad for us as individuals."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's political tactics justify civil disobedience, she says; his firing of Cabinet ministers who oppose leaving Gaza and his ignoring of Likud Party votes that did not go his way amount to undemocratic means.

"We cannot use democratic tools anymore," Yitzhaki says. "We hope that if we sound frightening enough that we won't have to do anything. But if not, we are going for complete anarchy. Jews should not be fighting to evict Jews from their homes."

That second paragraph is important as it allows a view that doesn't usually find its way into the coverage of Israel in America. A withdrawal from "occupied territories" is a good thing to most reporters, but Yitzchaki declares that the means are not appropriate.
Yitzchaki was an excellent choice as she writes "A Setter's Journal" for the Jerusalem Post and comes accross very well.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at January 5, 2005 05:52 AM | TrackBack