Israeli Settler Pogrom Against Palestinians; CFR/Brookings Report Suggests Linking U.S. Aid to Settlement Freeze
A week of Israeli settler outrages against Palestinians and against Israel's own security forces reached a crescendo over the last 24 hours with settlers opening fire on Palestinian civilians and unleashing violent disturbances across the West Bank. Israel's Justice Minister, Daniel Friedman, has just called the events a "shocking pogrom", journalists have described how their presence saved Palestinian residents of a home near Kiryat Arba from a lynching, and IDF sources described how the right wing activists "want to spark a religious war that would inflame the entire region." The belated IDF action in upholding a court order to evict settlers from a home that they illegally occupied in Hebron, led by Defense Minister Barak, was at least effective, although the same cannot be said of the limp-wristed measures taken in the face of settler rampages against Palestinians, and of the general approach to settler lawlessness.
While the Israeli press is full of graphic descriptions of the settler outrages, there has been remarkably little coverage in the American mainstream media, and as Jeff Goldberg points out on his Atlantic blog, there was no mention at all in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization's daily news digest (Daily Alert)--not surprising given that it is put together by the right-wing Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs led by Dore Gold. Settler extremism has become a strategic issue with implications for American policy, American private funding of settlements, and how to manage the security dynamic in the West Bank.
The litany of settler actions over this week makes for particularly bleak reading on a Friday night. On the walls of home and in mosques in the West Bank villages of Yatma, Sanjil, Turmus Ayya, and Isawiyya, graffiti has been scrawled reading "Mohammed the pig" and "Death to the Arabs", elsewhere cemeteries have been desecrated, Palestinian homes set on fire, olive trees uprooted, tires punctured, and yesterday two Palestinians were shot and seriously wounded by settler fire. Israeli security forces overseeing the evacuation of the Hebron house and sometimes trying to bring order were stoned and assaulted by settlers, along with the customary hurling of choice abuse, notably the word "Nazi". According to the Israeli Yedioth Ahronot newspaper, Ethiopian IDF soldiers "enjoyed" their own variation on the abuse theme, being told "niggers don't expel Jews".
All of this should not be described as madness. It was premeditated and there was a plan behind it that the Israeli establishment is calling a "price tag". In the immediate term, the settlers were hoping to prevent the evacuation of the Hebron house by setting off violence across the West Bank and by trying to provoke a Palestinian response that would in turn require the IDF to focus elsewhere and therefore be unable to carry out the Hebron mission. But the real goal was to send a signal that any future settler evacuation would carry a price far more bloody and devastating than the Gaza Disengagement of summer 2005--namely, to inflame the entire Occupied Territories, if not the region. The settlers (thus far at least) did not achieve that goal, but they have certainly caused great damage, and it would not be an exaggeration today to call settler extremism a potentially strategic destabilizing factor in the Middle East.
And yes I know, when I say settlers it is not all settlers, but let's not be naïve. Extremism is deeply entrenched in the settler movement. This does not apply to the economic settlers or what could be termed the "accidental settlers" close to the Green Line--their sin is one of indifference. But the settler movement has nurtured and produced this phenomenon of extremism, just read Akiva Eldar and Idith Zertal's "Lords of the Land", or Gershom Gorenberg's book "The Accidental Empire". The most noticeable aspect of the settler presence this week were the youths, often barely in their teens, and who might be described as Israel's child soldiers, high on the teachings of fanatical religious leaders. As Ben Caspit writes in today's Ma'ariv:
The hilltop youth...are not errant weeds, we are talking about a well-ordered organization with a hierarchy, with rabbis, with separate incitement, with a combat doctrine and with weaponry...they have messianic insanity in their eyes...This monster has to be stopped now. Afterwards, it will be too late.
In fact, this was the tone in much of the Israeli press (and not just in Haaretz) and from much of the Israeli establishment. Senior sources in the Israeli Prime Minister's office were quoted as saying "these Jewish terrorists are as bad and dangerous as Arab terrorists." The American mainstream media, which tends to get very excited at Arab violence, had precious little to say either in the print or electronic media.
Beyond the shock and condemnation, the lurch by hard-line settlers toward a more extreme and confrontational approach has implications for Israeli and American policies. On the Israeli side, the state long ago ceased to uphold its own laws when it comes to the coddled settler community. That community now poses a direct threat to Israel's survival as a democracy with a Jewish character, in which the rule of law is upheld. And as this week proved, the hard-line settlers have become a clear and present danger to Israel--only drastic measures will suffice.
But I want to focus for a moment on the consequences for American policy, and in particular for a new Administration. The U.S. is on paper opposed to settlement expansion. The U.S. narrative, though, has shifted. Initially settlements were characterized by the U.S. as "illegal"--that description was dropped by the Reagan Administration and never returned to. Settlements became no more than "unhelpful" and later on an "obstacle to peace"--a language which the Bush Administration has occasionally used. What the U.S. has not done is to take a firm, consistent, and unrelenting position that Israel uphold its commitment to a settlement freeze--and without such U.S. action, the Israeli cost-benefit calculation on settlement expansion vs. freeze is always skewed in favor of the former.
This week, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Saban Center at Brookings released a report in the form of a book, entitled "Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President", including a chapter addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict. One of its five key recommendations was for the U.S. to "press Israel to freeze settlement construction" (they also recommended bringing Hamas into the fold, but that's another story). The Report went on to suggest how this might be done: "Both public criticism of Israeli settlement policy as well as conditioning portions of aid to a settlement freeze can be effective in eliciting Israeli compliance." So that's Brookings and CFR--and it doesn't get much more establishment than them--linking U.S. aid to Israel to a settlement freeze. Interesting, methinks.
Many groups in the U.S. (including right-wing Christian Zionists) provide financial support to settlements and settler causes (see here and here), often to 501(c) 3s as tax-deductible, charitable contributions, and that is something into which an investigation is long overdue. Jewish groups in particular should be vocal in their opposition to settlements (see Bernard Avishai on J Street here at TPM). After the Shin Bet Chief spoke of certain settlers groups posing a security threat, my colleague Steve Clemons suggested on his blog that the U.S. investigate and place those in question on the Terror Watch List. U.S. efforts to support the Palestinian economy and ease the closure and checkpoints (for details see the U.N.'s OCHA website) are undermined most of all by the existence of settlements scattered throughout the West Bank, which are protected by the IDF, have their own access roads, whose residents demand freedom of movement, and whose existence largely dictates Israeli-imposed restrictions on Palestinian mobility.
American efforts at building up Palestinian security capacity are also compromised by the settler scourge. The Palestinian Security Forces (PSF) will be unable to stand by and watch for long as settler militants unleash their wrath on the Palestinian population--indeed their intention is to provoke a PSF response.
And finally of course, the greatest threat to the entire two-state solution is the settlements enterprise. In short, there is no credible peace policy unless one is willing to get hard-assed about settlements--and that is true for both Israel and the U.S.




















What can one say, Daniel, except yes, yes, and yes ...to ALL of it. It would be interesting if Rahm, who clearly has an attachment to Israel, were to drive his boss in this direction.
December 5, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto
December 5, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I firmly agree with what you say, but do not think you go far enough. A freeze on settlements is insufficient. All illegal settlements must be uprooted and destroyed. Only when Israel behaves in a fully lawful manner will they have the moral authority to challenge Palestinian militants. The complete withdrawal of Israeli settlements from Palestinian lands will also go a long way toward defusing Palestinian anger. On a marginally related note, the blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza must also end immediately. This accomplishes nothing, hardens the will of committed militants, and creates even more of them.
December 5, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
DrDick, the Israelis have withdrawn and withdrawn. For what? To be attacked again? You cannot appease the Palestinians. You need to visit these heartless beings. They are animals with no peace in their hearts. Winning battles hardens ones will. Not being beat down. Palestinians, or any group that wants to hurt others, must be put down.
December 5, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old Sarg,
You seem to run together the occupation with the settlement movement. But how are they related? If the IDF occupies some Palestinian territory, and if withdrawing from that territory somehow provokes Palestinian attacks on Israelis in Israel, I can see how one might think that the occupation and withdrawals halted must be continued until peace is achieved.
But I fail to see how building civilian settlements in militarily occupied territory enhances the security of Israel proper. The settlers then only become a potential target for attacks. What role are the settlers playing in the military operation? Human shields?
Consider this: nobody in their right mind, even those who want to prolong the US military presence in Iraq indefinitely, would dream of saying that the best way of promoting US security would be to move a bunch of American families to Iraq and start having them build settlements among Iraqis on land seized from Iraqis. Isn't the same true of Israel and Palestine?
So even if you support the Israeli military occupation in Palestine on the basis of the security it provides to Israel, how can you sensibly argue that the settlement movement enhances that military security operation?
December 6, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Old Sarge definitely has a plan here that will solve Israel's Palestinian problem. "Put down" in its most common usage means to kill. In the case of an entire people, I quess we are talking about genocide. If only Israel could find a politically acceptable means to "put down" the West Bank Palestinians, then their demographic problem would be solved and we would finally have peace in the Mid East. Yes folks, listen to Old Sarge, he has the solution for us.
December 6, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Miracles never cease! The Israelis have "withdrawn and withdrawn" and yet their state has increased in size from about 60% of Palestine in 1948 to about 80% today, with settlements growing on the remaining 20% (which of course also remains under occupation). I guess they did withdraw after invading Lebanon and gave the Suez back to the Egyptians, but apparently they're still planning to keep a piece of Syria in the Golan and a little bit of Lebanon in Shebaa Farms.
And, Old Sarg, exactly how much time have you spent visiting Palestinians (and not while wearing an IDF uniform)?
December 6, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the Sinai, as I recall.
December 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, meant to say Siani not Suez
December 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point and it's valid. But it is also valid to note that the Israelis HAVE withdrawn from a lot of land that they might have wanted to keep, all things being equal. And they have done it in the interests of peace--to the degree that any of these negotiations has ever been about peace with a capital P.
December 7, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is just possible that the settler movement will overplay its hand and perhaps already has. American media and attention may be easier to attract with images of settlers performing terrorist acts and pogrom-like activities than those of Palestinians being mistreated.
J=Street is a promising development and this view of the settler enterprise needs. I'd like to hear more, Daniel, on specifics for those of us who agree with you to take concrete action.
December 5, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a similar thought, but with respect to the Israeli government and the non-settler Israeli public. At a certain point, they are going to say enough is enough.
December 6, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the settler movement has nurtured and produced this phenomenon of extremism . . .
Is it just the settler movement? Ethnic nationalism in general has a inglorious history of leading nowhere good.
Bernard Avishai wrote just a few days ago on this website about "terrorist circles" and how the extremists at the center of the circle endure only because of the tacit support of the outer circles within the culture that breeds the extremism. While he was writing about Islamic extremism, why wouldn't the same analysis apply to Zionist extremism? Maybe it's too easy simply to blame the settlers at the core. Maybe it's time to question the outer circles where many moderates and progressives reside?
December 6, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely think there is a strong reluctance for Jew to battle with Jew, especially when Jews face a much larger and largely hostile world, particularly the Arab/Muslim world.
Hopefully now they see they must in order to protect a much bigger piece of what they have.
December 6, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Personally, I have had the most success arguing with my right-tilting mishpoche that it is simply not smart to sustain national real estate development projects in territories that said nation has shown no interest in annexing into its own. It has proven difficult at best (and often enough ridiculous) for the other side argue favorably for an Israeli annexation of "Judea and Samaria" when we have past the forty-year mark of their occupation.
December 6, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . territories that said nation has shown no interest in annexing into its own.
"Facts on the Ground," anyone? Anyone?
December 6, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Ellen, facts on the ground are NOT the same as annexation. With annexation, the Israelis would have a real problem with what to do with the Palestinians.
December 6, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes "facts on the ground" is one of those phrases like "eyeballs glued to screens" and others which cut through mountains of bullshit and get to the core reality of the situation. I'm so tired of all the bullshit surrounding this issue!!
December 6, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the settler "movement" (vs those who just live there) still hold the goal of annexation. How could they not?
And they know just what to do with the Palestinians. It is the policy known as Transfer that has been in the right wing back pocket for a long time. Remember Sharon's statement, before he became PM: He said that there is a Palestinian state; it is Jordan.
December 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, though I must say that I'm not for using the Terrorist Watch List and government investigations in a way that would have a chilling effect on the ability of private Americans to express themselves. If an American wants to give money to settlers in Israel, that's the American's business. I might think (and I do) that it's misguided, stupid and unhelpful but it's not my place nor is it our government's place, to dictate people's political actions.
December 6, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except, isn't there that sort of prohibition on giving money to Islamic charities? Maybe not a prohibition, but you come under suspicion, no?
December 6, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, I agree with you, but we have a situation where it is rather risky and difficult for an American to give money to Palestinian causes (because the giver might end up being accused of supporting terrorism) but very safe and simple to give money to Zionist settlers. I don't like the idea of limiting what Americans can do to support political movements, but if we are going to have limits, it's important that they are applied as evenly as possible. Of course, the danger of having such limits, is that it probably is impossible to apply them evenly, because we, as a nation, have our biases. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist . . .
December 6, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with both you and Tintin. What worries me is liberals using the tools of the right to advance our own causes. Yes, people who give to Palestinian causes are often held up to scrutiny, put on watch lists and generally harassed but... that's wrong!
We need to dismantle the right wing security apparatus, not convince ourselves that we can somehow use it for better ends.
December 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article is nothing but a cheap shot at headlines, has absolutely no value otherwise. Last I remember people died in pogroms ...
December 6, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So theo,
The settlers' riots and attacks on Palestinian homes and families are just fine, or trivial occurrences, because no one died? (A fact that seems to have been just by chance, btw?)
Great moral compass there, dude: maybe you should post your home address here at TPM: with a solicitation for a gang of religious fanatics to come and burn you and your family out. After all, as long as no one actually dies, it's all OK, right?
December 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
More Jews and their friends talking about arabs.
And J-street isn't a "peace lobby" it's a Jewish peace lobby.
No arabs involved, any more than there are at TPM.
"If an American wants to give money to settlers in Israel, that's the American's business."
And if an American wants to give money to Hamas?
Here's some fun: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3634222,00.html
---Haaretz photojournalist Tess Scheflan sustained light wounds Saturday after being assaulted by an IDF soldier in Hebron. The army launched an inquiry into the incident.
The journalist who accompanied Scheflan Fadi Edayat, told Ynet:
"Tess and I were walking around in Hebron…we went into the home of a Palestinian family, taken over by soldiers at the scene. We interviewed the family, which was forced to stay in one room, spoke them, and then we left the house and walked down an alley to leave the area."
"The photographer spotted soldiers running; she photographed them and one of the troops ran in her direction. He attempted to grab the camera of another photographer who was there with us; he walked up to him aggressively, and grabbed him by the neck. I asked Tess to photograph him so we can file a complaint, and then he punched her in the face. She fell down to the ground and he hit her again, this time with his gun butt," Edayat said. "For half an hour she couldn’t see with her left eye. I asked a medic to treat her; she was very tense and in pain."---
Here's some more
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
December 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's nice, Seth. Any time Arabs want to participate in these conversations, they are more than welcome. No one's stopping them. You're right about J Street: It is a Jewish peace lobby. So? Half the time, the world is complaining that Jews aren't speaking for peace in the ME; the other half of the time, the world is complaining that Jews are speaking out for peace.
As for official "name" bloggers are TPM, you are right. No Arabs that I'm aware of. I've suggested to Josh that he add some. You should as well.
December 6, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceans of coverage, commentary and polemics about Islamic terrorism against Israelis, and silence concerning Israeli terrorism against Arabs.
Have American hypocrites serving the West Bank settler-terrorist movement no sense of shame?
Clearly, the answer is "Yes" - there is no shame whatsoever, and even a fundamental lack of basic civilized morality in many instances. Let it also not be overlooked, however, that Jews in the U.S. are and have long been the key whistleblowers exposing such endemic, and ultimately anti-American, bias. Thanks to TPM for giving a forum to those, such as commentator Levy here, who are doing a major public service by calling spades spades.
December 6, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry but I do have to respond to this, because now Mr. Levy's minor point, that there has been little coverage about what is happening on the West Bank in the MSM, has turned into this kind of a political football. I cannot speak for what was in every newspaper or on every television station on Friday morning. But the newspaper outside of my apartment on that day was the New York Times, and on the front page of that widely circulated periodical, and above the fold in fact, was the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=west%20bank&st=cse
I didn't want to bring this up because I think Mr. Levy's central points about the extremist settlers, American support for them, and the incompatibility between the actions of these extremists and the the prospects for peace, are important and salient. But, for my own reasons, which I choose not to dwell on here, I wish to note for the record that the New York Times featured this story on page one on Friday, December 5, 2008.
December 6, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, you are right, but the headline in the New York Times was:
Israeli Troops Evict Settlers in the West Bank
Compare this to the headline in the Guardian:
Jewish Settlers in Hebron Shoot Palestinian Men
The headlines (and the primary emphases of the two stories) were quite different. The NYT story was primarily about the Israeli government and its interactions with Israeli settlers. The violence against the Palestinians, while mentioned, was peripheral to the main thrust of the story. The Guardian's story was directly about the settler violence against Palestinans. The web version of the story even had the videotape of the shooting. Reading the NYT's story, you don't get a sense that the violence against the Palestinians was anything more than vandalism. Reading the Guardian's article, you get a much more disturbing picture.
December 6, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NYTs article was written on Thursday and appeared in Friday's paper. If you think that the Times' deliberately omitted a reference to the shooting of an innocent Palestinian man by a Jewish extremist, then who am I to ask why you would think the Times would do that; I won't convince you to think otherwise. I know I wrote about the heinous desecration of Palestinian graves by these extremist settlers in another comment yesterday, and I got that from the NYTs article.
December 6, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way Purple, I just got Sunday's Times. Here's a link page to a full-page artice, an entire page, on Jewish intrusion into Arab areas of Jerusalem, and, inter alia, the dangers it poses to the prospects for peace.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/world/middleeast/07jerusalem.html?hp
Not exactly a favorable full-page article from an Israel right-or-wrong kind of perspective.
December 6, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, I'm not saying the NYT's is suppressing the news, it's just that they've reported it in a way that to me, at least, deemphasizes the violence against Palestinians. I think that's all Daniel Levy was claiming. Compare today's headline on the haaretz website. In Israel, the language is much stronger:
Olmert: I am shamed by Hebron settlers' pogrom
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1044331.html)
Haaretz has been using the word "pogrom" all week. Reading the Israeli press (or the Guardian) you get the sense that violence against Palestinians has reached new and disturbing levels. You just don't get that impression from the NYT.
December 7, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every single day there is Arab terrorism against Israel in the form of indiscriminate rocket fire into areas of where a civilian population is found. Does the New York Times report on it?
December 7, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
And remote controlled machine guns fired by female IDF soldiers at suspicious looking bi-pedal creatures pretending to suffer from malnutrition and lack of water and medical care. Put them down, for the sake of peace and Greater Israel, and never forget the Holocaust in times of moral confusion.
The Temple will be rebuilt!
December 7, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that should be kept in mind is the difference between 'Zionism" -- the belief that, because of the history of persecution they have received, Jews need a place, a 'homeland' where they could be safe -- and 'religious Zionism' -- the idea that Jews, because of the 'Abrahamic Covenant' have some sort of 'right' to the territories they were given in the Bible.
Zionism was a completely secular movement -- in fact, Herzl's willingness to accept Kenya rather than Palestine was a deliberate 'thumb in the eye' to the religious Jews. The founders, both of the movement and of the eventual state of Israel, were almost entirely secular Jews, many of whom were either or both atheist and socialist.
Originally the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox rejected the state.
"We aren't supposded to get a state until the Messiah comes, and you think Ben-GURION's the Messiah?"
It wasn't until the Kooks arrived on the scene (not a pejorative, a father-and-son team of ultra-Orthodox rabbis whose last name was Kook) that there was a reconciliation between the Orthodox and Israel.
Israel remains a predominantly secular state, but -- much as in America over the last eight years -- political situations gave the religious party far more predominance than its numbers would allow. (Seeing the settlers as 'typical Representatives of the Israeli viewpoint' makes as much sense as seeing Monica Goodling as the prototypical American.)
Most Israelis reject the settler movement and 'religious Zionism' but are unable to crack down sufficiently because of Israel's proportional representation and Paliamentary system -- coupled with the fact that 10% of the members of the Knesset are Arabs, but joining with them is a 'kiss of death' for an
Israeli politician.
December 7, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to correct the numerous errors here:
(1) "Persecution" is not a reason to arbitrarily grab someone elses land and give it to someone else. The Balfour Declaraion, 1947 UN Partition Resolution and other pro-Zionist declarations and policies (which date back to 1840 or so) are based on Jewish presence and claims starting with the Bible, regardless of how a particular Jew may or may not relate to it in a "religious manner".
(2) The Religious Zionist Party, then called "Mizrachi" ACCEPTED Herzl's "Uganda Plan" (what right did the British have to gave that country to the Jews, simply because they were persecuted?) It was militant atheist Chaim Weizmann and others that opposed it and said "Eretz Israel or nothing!".
(3) Zionism was NEVER a "completely secular movement". The first modern Zionists in Eretz Israel that pioneered settlement outside Jerusalem and the traditional "holy cities" and who began modern agricultural settlements in the 19th century were religious. It is true that Herzl's political Zionist movement was largely secular, but there were not a few religious invovled in it, not to mention the others involved in Jewish settlement and development in Eretz Israel outside of Herzl's framework, including the Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox).
Jim Benton's statement that "originally the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox rejected the state". Totally incorrect. Yes there was strong opposition to Zionism among many, but not all Haredim, but this was largely based on the anti-religious attitudes of many of the political Zionists. The idea that Jews should not return to Eretz Israel was widespread in many religious circles, but in the 18th century major thinkers like the Hasidim and Gaon of Vilna began rethinking this.
In practice, once the state was created in 1948, both Orthodox and Haredim accepted it, and actively participated in its political life, even while being extremely critical of many aspects of its policies and its right to define policies in the name of the entire Jewish people.
Religious Zionism long predated the arrival of Rav Kook in Eretz Israel in 1904. It is true that Rav Kook's son, Rav Zvi Yehuda went much further and granted the state apparatus a value of "holiness" that other Orthodox thinkers did not accept, while still accepting the state as a positive thing.
It is a myth that "most Israelis reject the settlement movement". This is a myth that the Left has repeated over and over and over. Polls taken over many years show about 70% of the Jewish population of Israel views the settlements and settlers in a positive light evenn if they feel that some might have to be given up in the future. That is why Sharon adamantly refused to call new elections or a national referendum in order to get a public mandate for his reversal of policy on his proposal to destroy Gush Katif...he knew he would lose. Parties that support settlement have consistently gotten majorities in the Knesset ever since the Six-Day War.
Rabin, Peres, Barak and Sharon all used Arab votes to get majorities in their plans to destroy Jewish communities and to expel the Jews in Judea/Samaria/Gaza.
December 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"1) "Persecution" is not a reason to arbitrarily grab someone elses land and give it to someone else. The Balfour Declaraion, 1947 UN Partition Resolution and other pro-Zionist declarations and policies (which date back to 1840 or so) are based on Jewish presence and claims starting with the Bible, regardless of how a particular Jew may or may not relate to it in a "religious manner"."
I think you need to unpack this a bit. In what sense do the British (the Balfour Declaration) or the UN have the right to grab someone else's land and give it to someone else?
If we start with the Bible and say, in effect, that G-d gave the land to the Jews, we run into all kinds of problems when you have other people following other holy texts.
Unbroken historical presence is a much stronger argument, though it's hard to move from this statement--which justifies a Jewish homeland on SOME of the land, IMO--to a larger statement that seeks to justify Jewish possession of all the land.
December 7, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In thinking about the Mizrachi support for the Uganda plan, how did THEY justify taking THAT land from its inhabitants if it wasn't freedom from persecution?
Certainly, Uganda was not the traditional homeland of Jews, not even of the 12 Lost Tribes.
December 8, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "shocking pogrom" as opposed to the pogrom Israel has undertaken since 1946?
December 7, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming that a select few Zionists weren't complicit with the pogroms against Jews in WW2 as a means of getting the state of Israel created.
December 7, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The conduct against innocent Palestinians is deplorable, and is being reported as such. It is also being condemned in Israel in harsh and meaningful terms. Olmert called it a "pogrom."
When did any Palestinian or Arab leader or media seriously condemn attacks and killings of innocent Israelis? Hamas throws a street party for such events, and they and the PA name streets after "suicide/homicide" bombers.
It is also news that Israel is removing settlers by force. I think Israel should do a lot more. Still, when have you seen Palestinian armed forces do anything serious against militants/terrorists that have murdered innocent Israeli children and other civilians? The most the PA has done is round up some for a few days in jail, and then a quiet release. Hamas, of course, celebrates such killings.
If you want to frame you historical review such that Israel has no right to exist on any of the land, then you can justify almost anything, I guess.
If you, like me, favor a two-state solution then we need to see changes from both sides. The PA/Hamas has to stop "Martyr Mouse" and similar incitement and turn its attention to building an economy and ending terrorism.
Israel must do more, but it cannot expected to be perfect before having any legitimate claim for self-defense and self-determination.
December 8, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really think that, for even a moment, Barack Obama is going to ever put meaningful pressure to bear on the Israelis?
If you do, what (AIPAC speech, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton) leads you to think so?
It seems to me that, as far as Israel in concerned, the new administration is already, "signed, sealed, delivered".
December 8, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Rahm's father can get to work on it. He has as much credibility as anybody else appointed by Obama so far.
December 8, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
I missed your column condemning the Islamic torture and slaughter of Jews in Mumbai.
Would you mind reprising it? I am sure that your outrage was amazing to behold!
What's that? You do not express outrage when Jews are murdered?
Never mind.
December 8, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Levy, the weakness of your position is verified by your deceitful hyperbole:
POGROM
Pronunciation:
\ˈpō-grəm, ˈpä-; pō-ˈgräm, pə-\
: an organized massacre of helpless people ; specifically : such a massacre of Jews.
An organized massacre? Like the Jenin Massacre?
Where is your documentation of this latest "massacre", Pinocchio?
Is it anything like the "genocide" of Palestinians that has accompanied a tripling of their population?
The supporters of the Palestinians are the most dishonest people on the planet. The facts are their enemy, so they spew an endless stream of lies.
Pogrom, huh? What a load of bullshit.
December 8, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What galls me about Israel is that it never considers buying the damn land from the Palestinians, it always uses the methodology of out and out theft. You say Jews need a homeland - OK, BUY it. You say G-d wants only Jews on that land - OK, ask G-d for the money to BUY it. As an American taxpayer, I am irritated to see so much financial aid go to Israel every year and then watch Israel not have the decency to at least pay reparations to the wretched Palestinians who are being ethnically cleansed from their own land. Why support a bunch of racist land thieves?
December 8, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of the land that Israeli "settlers" inhabit in the WEst Bank WAS purchased, but the Arabs take the money and later deny it, because to admit to selling land to Jews gets you killed. As far back as the 1930s, the Arab joke amongst themselves was, "We sell the Land to the Jews today, but we'll take it back later anyway." The slogan in 1936 was "Palestine is our land, and the Jews are our dogs."
Anyone who wants a SERIOUS study about the land issues in Palestine should read THE definitive text on the subject "The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939" by Kenneth Stein, University of North Carolina Press, 1984. What you will learn is that Arabs were EAGER to sell their land to the Jews for Jewish money, and the only reason why the JEws didn't buy every inch of Palestine was due to the fact that due to Hitler, the money was scarce. It was not due to any lack of willingness to sell land to the Jews, especially since most Arabs were convinced that eventually they would drive the Jews and take the land back anyway. To their chagrin, it didn't work out that way.
BTW, Ken Stein used to work with Jimmy Carter but left after Carter wrote his infamous book a few years back.
December 9, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Between 1882 and 1947 (over 60 years) Zionist Jewish immigrants and settlers took not one inch of land from the local Arabs. Every inch of land was purchased. The Council of the League of Nations in 1922 ruled that Jews have the right to freely immigrate, settle the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river, and reestablish the "Jewish National Home" in Palestine. Arab terror began almost immediately in 1920 despite the international legal ruling by the League. But not one inch of any private property was illegally taken from even a single Arab landowner. However, when the League was disbanded in 1946, and the British walked away from the Mandate, the UN General Assembly voted by 2/3rds vote to split the land between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews accepted, and the Arabs made war, that has been going on to this day.
The fact is 1.2 million Arabs live in Israel, so why can't 400,000 Jews live in a future Palestinian state? In 1948 TWO refugee problems began: The fleeing of 725,000 Arabs from the Jewish areas, and the fleeing of 900,000 JEws from the Arab countries, over 600,000 of whom came to Israel. Why is the Jewish refugee problem from the Arab countries never brought up? What happened to their properties? Why don't the Palestinians go to Morocco, Egypt, Iraq and other places to occupy the Jewish homes that were left behind?
December 9, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, the house in Hebron that the IDF kicked out the Jewish settlers from was bought for $700,000 in cash, and the settlers even made a video of the sale showing the cash being handed over to the former Arab owner. But despite that sale of the building by the Arab owner was fully in accordance to law, and despite being videotaped taking the money, the Arab later denied it fearing he would be murdered by the Palestinians, as selling land to Jews has carried a death penalty since the 1930s.
In 1929 65 Jews who had lived in Hebron for generations were murdered, and their property was taken by the Arabs. Of the 500 "settlers" in Hebron, many are descendants of the Jews who escaped the massacre of 1929. But you hear nothing about this in the press.
December 9, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is propaganda, which most people hear and buy, and there is reality which rarely makes the news.
FACT: in 1948 there were 1.2 million Arabs in Palestine.FACT: Today there are 5.2 million Arabs in Palestine (i.e., Israel, WEst Bank, and Gaza.) An increase of well over 400%.
FACT: In 1948 there were nearly a 1 million Jews in the Arab and Muslim countries. FACT: Today there are far fewer than 50,000 left. A decrease of over 95%.
If you were looking down from space, and saw 4-5 times as many Arabs in Palestine as there were 60 years earlier, but then saw less than 5% of the Jews who had earlier been in the Arab countries, who would you believe was the real victim of ethnic cleansing, the Arabs or the Jews?
December 9, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding this business of "occupation," the US and Russia occupied Germany and Japan after WWII. The US demanded that Germany and Japan become democratic countries and allies, and even imposed constitutions on them. Russia even took some land in Sakhalin, the northern islands of Japan which they keep to this very day.
Israel was attacked the day after the UN voted to partition Palestine in November 1947, first by guerrilla forces using terror, and then by 5 Arab armies in May 1946. Despite the odds, and spilling much blood (6,000 lives out of 600,000), Israel agreed to an Armistice line in 1949, even though by that point it could have swept all the Arabs all the way to the Jordan river. Jerusalem was divided for 19 years, and yet the Jordanians did not set up a state for the Palestinians, and attacks on ISrael continued. Finally in 1967, Israel was forced into war. Jordan shelled west Jerusalem and Jewish towns, forcing ISrael to occupy the WEst Bank to drive out the Jordanian forces. Despite many wars and much blood and treasure, it has given back 100% of the Sinai, 100% of Gaza, and prepared to give 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. It was prepared to give up most of the Golan (a name from the Bible) to the Syrians too. But it demands only full recognition of its RIGHT to exist and a final peace treaty. But to this day, only 3 out of 22 Arab states have agreed to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and they presume to set the terms as well, as if they were victors. That's CHUTZPEH!
December 9, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink