I ask those of you who still hold this belief to ask yourselves: at what point would reality outweigh the value of ‘good intentions’. How many separate times would your child have to set the carpet on fire before his protestations that he “really just wanted to help light the candles” start to ring flat? How many times would your colleague have to “totally unintentionally” set your office on fire before your tolerance ran out?

Are you willing to extend to George W Bush a similar benefit of the doubt that he had the best intentions when invading Iraq? What about those political leaders who believe the hysteria about man-made global warming is unfounded, and refuse to change their nations’ industrial activities–would you forgive them if the glaciers melted and humanity got permanently pruny? Would it all be OK because they really had “the best intentions”?

If a right-wing Israeli leader had ordered a bizarre invasion of Syria that had left 1,500 Israelis dead, would you forgive him because he only did it for “the best reasons”? And how many guns would he have to place in the hands of your enemies, and how many fellow citizens have to be murdered by them, before you wonder if the politician supplying the guns really “means well”.

Let us suppose that an Israeli prime minister had supplied thousands of weapons to dreaded [insert Darth Vader theme music] “Israeli settlers”. Let’s say those guns were later used to murder three innocent Arabs….

Think about it for a second. How about 30 innocent Arabs? How about 97 innocent Arabs murdered and 117 wounded? How about more than 1,000 innocent Arabs murdered in several thousand total incidents over the course of 10 years?

And let’s say that over the course of those 10 years, the Israeli prime minister continued distributing more weapons to the killers themselves or their closest friends. Would you forgive that prime minister on the grounds that he “meant well”? Would you forgive the new prime ministers who continued the process after him?

Let’s get real. In your comments above, you do not even claim to be pleased with the results that the politicians whom you defend brought to the Jewish people. Nor do you even claim that the results were good irrespective of your own preferences.

And more fundamentally–as I think is demonstrated by the thought experiments above–you do not really believe that the “good intentions” test is a widely applicable benchmark for assessment in the real world.

The truth, in contrast, is that you hold good intentions as a narrowly applicable benchmark, meaning this: you hold to a certain ideology, one that you are not willing to abandon. And it pleases you that people in positions of power advocated for that ideology and implemented it in practical ways that you were not able to do yourself.

And so you are willing to forgive people who commit reckless acts that harm others, as long as those acts are in furtherance of your particular ideology.

In my view you should ask yourself if there is any break point at which you might have to conclude that your ideology is misguided or even untrue. And if there is not, what does that say about your ideology? In the meantime, I wonder what the victims think.

The impending disaster of the Oslo Accords were apparent from the beginning. Arafat was an unreformed revolutionary, quasi-MArxist thug who reaped disaster everywhere he went. Immediately after signing the agreement he referred to it as being similar to various “temporary” treaties signed by Muhamed and pledged to wage jihad until the end. This information was made accessible in Hebrew and English and only a pagan worship of the State would have prevented an educated Rabbi from seeing the truth. The Israeli government utilized communist propaganda tactics to lull the population into thinking Arafat was reformed when he wasn’t, and utilized Stalinist tactics to suppress opposition to Oslo.

What you wanted to occur was unrealistic and unacheivable from the beginning and it was obvious from the beginning that Oslo would turn Israel into the Valley of the Shadow of Death - as it did - and in attcking oppenents of the accord by defining them as “irational” or “messianists” or “idolatrous land worshippers” was a contribution to the Oslo process and what it ultimately reaped for Israel. Former Minister without Portfolio Amital’s assertion that you mention, was part and parcel of this political tactic of deligitimization of the opponents of the Oslo accord, and is a baseless canard against many of those those who truly seek Israel’s security and truly wish to see a democractic Israel arise from the ashes of it’s current pseudo-communist incarnation - and who are not idol worshippers, are not irrational and are not messianic - and many of whom are not even religious.

Read a bit of my blog if the above terminology as it relates to the State of Israel is foreign to you

It’s not just politicians, by the way. If we’re honest, we’ve never seen the Agudah apologize for its many mistakes, either. Again, b/c its pointless, and only serves to bolster the critics.

Shachar: As for Rabbi Riskin, I believe that although he is an ace at public relations and fund-raising, he is still an idealist. Otherwise he would have remained in his cushy pulpit in New York. He was never in the pocket of the religious parties. He once supported Sharansky’s former Yisrael B’Aliya party.

I wonder how you operate without hindsight. People did what they thought was right. THe type of attack you have launched here, simply helps to hand power to those who tell people what they want to hear(like Netanyahu) or people who ignore the big issues and concentrate on what they can get (like every religious party in the country).

Measurable fact is that Israel cannot indefinitely occupy a small area temming with 1.5 million plus people who don’t want to be occupied. And every leader has come to recognise this - even those, like Sharon, elected on the basis that they would refuse to recognise it.

You simply cannot run a country and have as little responsibility as you and Rabbi Feldman have when you make these comments.

Let me suggest a new card.

“I am sorry for forgetting that my religion mandates that human life is more important than earth or cities. I am sorry for failing to minimise the disruption caused by my legitimate need for a homeland, which happens to be where you also live. I am sorry for failing to try to find a way to defuse your anger because I preferred my own triumphalism.”

LOL (a little bit). Look I adore Shakespeare but that said–it’s very important to resist the temptation to say “To hell with all of you!” or “Throw all the bums out!” Those responses are mainly a face-saving way to say: ‘Don’t force me to analyze the facts–just give me a clear-cut solution now!’ That’s certainly no way get to the truth, which is why such an attitude would never be allowed in a courtroom–it’s just a cover for laziness.

Ori: Politicians are investigated for almost every crime in the book, except for criminal negligence in the discharge of their official duties. Nobody in the US was investigated for the Vietnam war. Chamberlin, a.k.a. Mr “Peace in Our Time”, was not investigated for the appeasement that encouraged Hitler ym”sh to the point WWII was necessary.

Garnel Ironheart: I would like to note that Shimon Peres’ and Yossi Beilin’s meeting with the PLO in secret during the Madrid conference years in order to formulate the Oslo Accord was AGAINST the law of Israel which forbid such meetings.

Ori: If I remember correctly, that law has an exception for official representatives of the state of Israel. Shimon Peres was the foreign minister at the time, which could mean he was allowed to appoint said representatives. But I agree that that is a potential crime that could be legitimately investigated.

KT

Ori: In other words, the current crop of politicians have to hold on to power, by whatever means necessary. Losing it will mean jail or exile. Since nothing they did is technically illegal under Israeli law, you’ll pass retroactive laws and judge them based on that.

I’m not sure where the point of no return is for a civil war, but I suspect your plans aren’t that far from it.

Do you define over 1,500 Israelis murdered by Arab terrorists since Oslo (more than in the entire history of the state up until then) as a record to be proud of? Do you believe the handover of southern Lebanon to a terrorist group in 2000–a move that led to one full-scale war already and now threatens the sovereignty of Lebanon itself–is worthy of admiration?

Should Israeli politicians perhaps reconsider their eager provision of weaponry, ammunition, advanced tactical training and sophisticated equipment to the terrorists of the West Bank and Gaza?

Was the handover of the full Gaza Strip to a consortium of terrorist groups in 2005–and the expulsion of 9,000 residents to effectuate that handover–an act of virtue? Are Israeli politicians responsible for the destruction of those residents’ lives and livelihoods? Are Ehud Olmert and his political associates at all culpable for their now explicit refusal to protect the citizens of Sderot?

Should the Olmert government face any judgment or consequences for its dismissal of intelligence warnings (and common sense) that enormous quantities of weapons and personnel were and are being smuggled into Gaza?

Should we admire successive Israeli leaders consignment of millions of Palestinians to live under the boot of the PLO and its terrorist associates? Is Israel’s empowerment of a dictatorial terrorist organization a model that other leaders should emulate? Does Israel not bear some moral guilt strictly for the consequences that this empowerment has brought down on the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza? (not to even mention Israelis!)

Should the general judgment of Israeli leaders be held up to scrutiny, now that their decades-long insistence on the imminence of “peace” with “partners” has decayed into suicide bombs, security fences and daily missile strikes? Does the fact that they were demonstrably incorrect even at the beginning not sharpen the question?

There’s political opinion, and then there’s measurable fact. Confusion of the two leads to poor judgment. How do you respond? That the politicians “meant well”? I wonder if the dead victims agree.

There is a reactionary movement within the RZ world called “Realistic Religious Zionism”. Their position is clear - unilateral retreat from the “occupied territories” and a change in the focus of the movement to kiruv amongst the non-religious Israelis. This is in stark contract to the movement within the RZ world that focuses exclusively on the settlements.

Naturally, the proper course in somewhere in the middle.

One must remember that the original reason the Mercaz Ruchani Leumi (the Mizrachi) arose was to bridge the gap between the Zionists who wanted to build a Jewish national home but wanted nothing to do with religion, with the Chareidi community of the day which was deeply immersed in Torah but wanted nothing to do with the building of a Jewish national home. The point of Mizrachi was to create a middle ground, a movement in which the building of a Jewish national home was to be halachically and spiritually desirable. The terms laid down by the three oaths in Kesubos had been fulfilled and therefore it was time to return and rebuild Israel not just because we wanted to be a nation like all others but because it was Jewish destiny to restore Hashem’s glory and his people to His land.

What happened since is what happens to all movements that try to occupy the middle ground. Some moved left, allowing the chilonim to influence them more than they influenced the chilonim and others moved right, preferring the non-compromising idealism of the chareidi community(BTW, I am not saying this in a critical fashion, I admire the chareidi community to manitain its standards in the face of overwhelming societal pressure).

If RZ wishes to regain any sort of importance, it must regain that middle ground, showing that it is possible to build a Jewish national home and that a mdoern state run along halachic lines is possible. We should be pushing for the sanctity of Shabbos, kashrus and public decency. But we should also be pushing for the historical truth that Yehudah and Shomron are OUR lands that were taken from us by enemy squatters and that fighting for the “territories” is not a fanatical enterprise but rather an assertion of Jewish rights for Jewish land.

Here’s one Israeli who reads this and doesn’t vote for religious parties.

The perception is accurate and much of the cheshbon nefesh in the RZ is revolving around whether we worked hard enough for social concerns, for the sanctity of Shabbat. Did we work hard enough to bring Judaism into the social fabric of the state or did we simply allow the secularism of the state come into our Judaism. All these things have been heard and will continue to be heard. It is once of the few positive results of the criminal expultion of our brothers from our lands.

So I and many others who I know are mekabel the mussar in this regard. However! Do not think for a second that we therefore stop seeing the expulsion as a criminal act. Lo Nishkach veLo Nislach! When the country will inevitably mend its wounds and reach a state of spiritual health, we will use the same “justice” system which currently oppresses us to deal justice to those who have commited these crimes against our brothers. Poshei Oslo laDin!

From here on the western side of the Atlantic, the very strong impression is that the religious parties in Israel are only interested in a single issue: For the charedi parties, that issue is money for their communities, especially their yeshivot, and for the religious Zionist parties, that issue is settlements. They seem to be willing to support just about any government that gives them what they want on those issues. As a result they have little influence in other areas.

How is this perception inaccurate? And if it is accurate, does such a single issue focus really serve the interest of Jews and Torah?