Arnon Segal is a "devout Bentist", Zvi Sukot "collaborates with the malicious government", and Daniela Weiss "provokes the left-wing government". These are accusations that up until a year ago would have sounded as if they were taken from a stand-up show, but in recent months they have been seriously hurled at religious Zionists and those who settle in Yosh.
Sometimes they are accompanied by shocking statements such as "We would be happy if they evicted you from the house".
During the negotiations to save the settlement of Avitar and after the evacuation of its citizens, they claimed that Zvi Sukot, a former "Otzma Yehudit" activist and one of the most prominent among the settlers, was cooperating with the government, that he surrendered to the left who wanted to clear the hill.
This week it was Arnon Segal and Daniela Weiss who were marked.
Segal, who is running in the primary elections in the Religious Zionist Party, was accused of excessively supporting Bennett and promoting left-wing policies, and Daniela Weiss, one of the first settlers in Samaria and the founder of the settlement Kedumim, was accused of planning the operation to establish the outposts after Bennett's resignation in order not to embarrass him.
How is it said?
The truth doesn't exactly line up with these accusations.
Zvi Sukkot insisted that the army inspect the lands of the settlement he founded in order to return to it with the state's blessing later, Arnon Segal criticized the various governments in recent years quite equally, and Daniela Weiss published leaflets about the occupation as early as the beginning of April, before Bennett himself knew that he intended to resign.
We live in a democracy and everyone has the right to criticize others as they wish, but in my opinion, red lines were crossed here.
The first red line crossed is related to wording.
No matter how deep the disagreement, these people, who dedicated their lives to the people of Israel, to their country and state, are not traitors.
The second red line has essentially been crossed.
How is it logical that a fake Facebook user doubts the love of the country of a person who moved with his family to a remote hill, while the former sits in his comfortable home?
In what world does a woman criticize the support for Israeli sovereignty of a man who lives in East Jerusalem and works every day for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount, when she didn't do a bit of what he did?
Since when do people insist on timing a settlement operation the likes of which has not been seen for years, while they never thought of devoting their lives to the settlement operation like Daniela did?
Criticism is not only desirable but necessary in a country like ours, but it is appropriate that no matter how sharp the criticism is - it should come accompanied by a dash of modesty on the part of the critic and recognition of the rights of the object of the criticism.
Equally important is the connection to reality.
I, too, would be happy to settle all the regions of the Land of Israel to my heart's desire, to go up to the Temple Mount at any hour and to be a priest and a priest of rights that are now denied to Jews in the State of Israel.
Unfortunately, this is not the case, and it is appropriate that we put the sharp criticism of such or other moves into context.
Compromises are the necessity of reality, even if they are not simple and even if the government with which one settler carries and gives is such that it is difficult, almost impossible, to come to terms with its existence.
We would all prefer to have it all all the time, but sometimes a part is better than nothing - or in other words - one land survey in hand is better than two empty hills on the mountain.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
