No more disengaging
"Attempts to ... evict ... encountered the determination — and sweetness — of Yeshayahu Lichtenstein and Yehezkel Birzon ... 'I won't let them evict me,' said Lichtenstein ... 'This is a historic place.'"
These immortal words were quoted in a column printed in Haaretz. Readers of the newspaper had not seen such Zionistic phrasing in decades, and on the eve of the High Court's decision on the eviction of Migron's residents, who claim to have purchased their homes in full.
How did such a provocative piece make it into a newspaper that vilifies the education minister for being too Jewish and promoting an excessively nationalist agenda? Well, in actuality the article on the steadfast settlement refers to nothing other than Tel Aviv's Montana ice cream shop, whose owners managed to evade eviction. As for the real settlers, who hold on to the land of our fathers in Migron and thus ensure Israel's safety — they won't be getting their own ridiculous apotheosis as these ice cream vendors got any time soon. Rather, the settlers will receive their legal helping of condemnation.
If Haaretz is a newspaper for people who have given up on thinking — its motto is "the newspaper for thinking people” — then Yedioth Ahronoth is a newspaper that once had a country — its motto is "the newspaper for the whole country.” In the pages of Yedioth, columnist Nahum Barnea has already admitted defeat for his political camp. Good old boys like Barnea haven't managed to detach us from our nationality. Barnea calls the heroic settlement operation "the original sin."
Barnea states as a matter of fact that the settlements are "opposed to international law," which "prohibits settlement activity within an occupied area." It is important that the public know that this is written from the perspective of a newspaper that claims to speak for the nation, but is actually deeply embedded within the Left camp.
It has been explained time and time again that the position the High Court has taken over the belligerent occupation in Judea and Samaria has to do with how Israel handles the local population, and not with the fact that Israeli forces have remained in the area. Israel did not conquer the land from another country, but rather continues to hold on to this land, to which we also lay claim.
Israel's actions during the Six-Day War were in self-defense, and since the same threats still exist, it is legitimate to keep holding on to the land. And as was the case, since Jordan took over the land illegally, while Israel took it over in self-defense, Israel has the greater claim. This has all been said by the world's greatest experts on international law. Barnea isn't sanctifying international law; he and his friends just don't want Israel to hold on to the territories. They're too charged with Jewish and national memories. It's better to just go on licking ice cream.