Alright, there was a column in today's Star Tribune by Elie Wiesel. It was about the Israeli pull-out from Palestine. He said that the Palestinians should not have been rejoicing the departure of the Israelis, since they were obviously devastated from being torn from their homes that they have lived in for the past 38 years. Ummmm...?

Besides the fact that I wouldn't really have any sympathy for the settlers anyway, because (even in most of Israel's government's eyes) they have been acknowledged as illegal, why shouldn't the Palestinians celebrate when their occupiers finally get their asses out of their territories? And when they see their illegal settlements bulldozed, just like a lot of their houses have been? I wouldn't be sorry to see the people go who had moved into my neighborhood aggressively and guarded their illegal homes with more violence than necessary. Besides, the people it seems Wiesel is talking about most are the one who refused to leave - he mentions the "heart-rending" and "unbearable" scenes of "children, led way on foot or in the arms of soldiers..." OK, so the Israeli government gave these people money to move and help in finding new places. They offered to help in packing. They helped in transportation. The only reason anyone would have to be taken away by soldiers is if they resisted leaving. They had plenty of warning. And then the ones who were violent to the soldiers? Would you be happy to see them STAY? No, those are the kind of people I would rejoice over leaving.

Wiesel says that Jews were instructed by Solomon "not to rejoice when the enemy falls." (Then suggests that Muslims do not have the same sort of compassion. "I don't know whether the Qur'an suggests the same. Ummm, Elie, you are a very smart person with plenty of research assistants. I'm sure that you could have looked and found an appropriate passage.) OK, sure, have some compassion. But he seems to have little to no compassion for the other side of this story. He goes on to recount a story from his visit with Ahmed Qureia (Palestinian PM) last spring which he means to suggest that Qureia put forth a threat of violence if Sharon doesn't "negotiate definitive borders right away." Perhaps Qureia was simply commenting regretfully on the fact that they CAN'T control the actions of the people and protests will arise if more is not done. (You can't debate the fact that sometimes you simply can't control people's actions. Even dictators get overthrown.)

Anyway, I was not pleased with that column, obviously. Anyone want to put in their two cents about the situation?