Agreed. They should have asked permission. But in their eyes, they may have assumed they wouldn't get it. True not a defense, but that is the common thought among the settlers, Further, no one has even clarified whether this guy was a settler. It is assumed they were because they went to Kever Yosef. The articles I have read said they were leaving when the shots took place.
They broke the law, yes, but where does it become okay to shot someone just because they are assumed to be settlers?
With all respect, Rakhel, I don't think the issue is whether they were settlers or not. And if they assumed they wouldn't get permission to go, they shouldn't have gone. This isn't about the theoretical right that Jews should be able to go to Kever Yosef-- I agree, we should be able to go-- but about the practical reality that right now, Kever Yosef is in the legal security control of the PA, which the Israeli government ceded them. In the best of all possible worlds, should people be shot for breaking the law? No, of course not. But the truth seems to be that these folks went there illegally, and either going or leaving, they failed to respond to challenges legally issues by the PA security forces, and got shot for it. And we all know that if a bunch of Palestinians got around security, showed up someplace in Israeli-controlled territory, failed to respond to challenges legally given by Tzahal, and got shot, we pro-Israel folks would all presume that Tzahal had every right to shoot, and would defend the action as such. Like I said, I'm not glad it happened-- I think it's very unfortunate-- but it seems to be a perfectly legitimate mistake to happen, given the very tense security situation in Israel and the territories. And from a Jewish point of view, the
zechut (merit) one might have by going to Kever Yosef to
daven (pray) is completely obviated by the principle of
pikuach nefesh dochin et ha-kol (saving a life overrides nearly all other commandments). They had every reason to suppose that going without clearance was unreasonably dangerous to life and limb; there was no overwhelming positive commandment that they had to go, especially not then and under those circumstances: their clear duty was not to go. They are, halakhically, at fault for their own demise.
You don't think there are things people can do that would comprise their humanity?
No. I think there are things that human beings can do that are terrible, awful, inexcusable things. But a human being is a human being. And in some ways, not only is it productive of yet more hatred and bloodshed to deny the humanity of others, but it is counterproductive to ourselves: for if we say that "they" do what "they" do because "they" are not human, then that implicitly makes okay anything that "we" do because "we" are humans while "they" are not.
Only if all of Israel were settlers you would have a point, settlers are not even supported by the Israeli public.
I think that dehumanizing
any faction or element of the other side in a debate is counterproductive and generative only of irreconcilable hatred and pointless bloodshed.
