Creating A Sinisterly Link Through "Lure" and "Context"

Gershom Gorenberg, has an article in The American Prospect.

Gershom has specialized in messianic Zionism. His Wikipedia entry defines him as "an American-born Israeli historian, journalist and blogger, specializing in Middle Eastern politics and the interaction of religion and politics" and "a left-wing, skeptical Orthodox Zionist Jew".

The article, as others of his usual writings, attempts to sinisterly link the mainstream of the nationalist-religious camp all the while distancing himself from what he does. It's a form of ballet.

The article is entitled "Yaakov Teitel and the Allure of Lawlessness" it begins with another theme altogether so as to create the "lawlessness" and then seeks to create a link between two different realities but in doing so, points an accusatory finger and walks away after staining a whole camp.

First, he relates of 'a glossy flier posted on a bulletin border in a small, illegal outpost of Israeli settlers near Nablus' and 'citing religious sources, the flier urged Jews to "harvest" the Palestinians' olives if they could, and uproot the trees if they couldn't.'

However, 'since Judaism forbids not only theft but also the destruction of fruit trees even in warfare', even Gorenberg had to point out that 'the writer had to use considerable casuistry to make his case'. Ans sure enough, i't was condemned a few days later in a popular right-leaning newsletter' but Gorenberg then writes: "The moderate right is disturbed by such tactics...The flier's text is testimony to the violence and lawlessness that are part of the ideological atmosphere at the settlement movement's radical edge" Okay, but what about that "edge"? Gorenberg dances: "The mayhem isn't just the work of a few crazed individuals" and then draws the link: "Use that as context for understanding the arrest of Yaakov Teitel...".

Gorenberg admits "Teitel's alleged offenses reads like a brief guide to hate crime" that "He was reportedly seen as a loner" but Gorenberg won't let his prey get away. He continues: "But that's framing the picture much too narrowly. Even if Teitel is a man driven by his own particular furies, he chose to live in an environment where acting on fury is sometimes treated as acceptable, even as a virtue."

Well, a) his first two suspected crimes were committed prior to his living in any Yesha community. So just perhaps his mind-set was fixed before he could insert himself into an "environment"? And his mind-set was less ideologically political than mentally unstable maybe? and b) a 'virtue' of 'acting on fury' is 'acceptable'? er, like getting drunk at bars and beating up innocent people or killing your sister because of unacceptable social activity? What exactly is Gorenberg saying?

Ah: "Ideological violence is basic to settlement history. Arguably, it is inherent to a project that asserts one ethnic group's ownership of territory while negating another group's rights".

So, Gorenberg is getting theological - a new meaning to 'born in sin'.

And he is quick to the defensive offensive maneuver: "Predictably, prominent settlers argue Teitel is an aberration". And he perverts something Emily Amrusi wrote, about the "300,000 people living today in Judea and Samaria" who are not guilty and certainly not connected to Teitel's perceived deeds. Gorenberg adds: "That's the number of Israeli settlers, not counting those in annexed East Jerusalem. For Amrusi, apparently, the Palestinians either are invisible or are something other than people".

Does Gorenberg think that Emily should have included Arabs in the pool of potential Jewish criminals? What does he take us for - fools? If she had written 'so-and-so million people' would he not have then, perhaps, claimed Emily was intimating that all Arabs posses a virtue of fury, that their history is one of ideological violence, that they are all to be stereotyped?

But he has thought of that and he quickly adds, after doing the damage: "Put aside that gaffe". Thanks there, Gershom.

And next, he gets downright mushy: "It's true that stereotypes should be avoided, that settlers are not a monolithic group. More Israelis have moved to settlements in search of the suburban dream than for the sake of ideology. Even among ideological settlers, there's a wide spectrum of attitudes. I assume that many felt a helpless revulsion when they heard of the Teitel case: Again, someone from their community had shed blood and besmirched their name."

But he can't let go: "...as I said, there is a historical context of settlers treating violence, not to mention casual disregard of the law, as trivial or even heroic...". Lucky for him, we're not talking about the Second Aliyah, the Third, the Hagana, the Palmach.

And he claims that Shvut Rahel is "a community established in violation of Israeli law, according to the government-commissioned Sasson Report".

That's wrong. Shvut Rachel was established right after the murder of Rachel Druck in October 1991, shot on the eve of the Madrid Conference on land zoned as part of Shiloh and in fact is registered as "the Shvut Rachel neighborhood in Shiloh".

Gorenberg if fearful that his mental instability will permit his friends and neighbors to "ignore the question of why he chose to live among them". So, every murderer and rapist and thief is to be looked at geographically - why did he come to live in this neighborhood or that village?

And then Gorenberg gets into conspiracy theories: "The open question now is whether Teitel was caught because his repeated attacks created more evidence for investigators, or because he'd begun attacking Israelis, or a combination of both" as if the failure to arrest him previously was due to an indifference to crimes against Arabs. I am sure the police would be upset about that

Gershom ends by noting "The occupation will not be listed as co-defendant or co-conspirator. But if he did do what the investigators claim, his hatred not only fits a context. It fits a context he chose, drawn by the allure of lawlessness".

The "context". Another innocent key word of blame and guilt. Another sinister link.

Such a ballerina.