Monday, December 22, 2008

Hebron Agonistes: Too Much For Israel

The apartments of Kiryat Arba, as seen from the yard of the el-Hai family in the wadi below.

It has been common for educated Israelis to think, and Israeli diplomats and American Jewish leaders to present, the settler community of Hebron as a kind of radical nuisance. Presumably, the settlers are a side-show of a defensive strategic policy, a touch of hubris gone wrong, a little understandible selfishness after centuries of self-effacement—anyway, a line that can be moved when the time is right, certainly not a country within a country that has grown, SimCity-like, into something the size of the Jewish colony in Palestine in 1946.

In this view—not entirely wrong—the settlers were post-1967 Israelis only more so: people who took classical Zionist ideas about settling the Land of Israel a little too seriously, or took the Jews’ election a little too literally, or accepted cheap mortgages from the Jewish Agency a little too opportunistically; people who have randomly scattered themselves in the occupied territory in a now obviously failed effort to annex the holy land, or just to show that Jews can live everywhere in it.

The settlers, presumably, have settled under the nose of a forbearing, once vaguely sympathetic Israeli government, otherwise preoccupied by encirclement and terror. But they are people whom the Israeli government—if it ever had a real peace partner in the Palestinians, and not jihadist terrorists firing missiles, or sending in suicide bombers—would clear out in a great show of sovereign will. The recent clearing of the “House of Contention” by the Israeli Army is proof, so the argument goes, of the Israeli army’s residual power. The more recent breakdown of the cease fire with Hamas is proof of how Israel faces an existential threat, and dares not be distracted by the settlers.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who’s picked up the scent of power, is defining a new centrism by triangulating these poles. He knows that Israelis have lost patience with Judeans, or at least the disquieting ones. He’s made a show of purging one of the most fanatic of the settlers, Moshe Feiglin, from the 20th. position in the Likud list for the Knesset (though many more remain in 
the top 30); and he is simultaneously telling us that both the peace talks Olmert conducted with the Palestinian Authority, and the “time of retreat” in Gaza, are over. No two-state solution will compromise the existence of Kiryat Arba (no more than the unity of Jerusalem), he says. But neither settler zealots nor Palestinian terrorists, presumably, will be allowed to challenge the existence of the state. Each side—some now, some later—will be forced to change their behavior by Israeli state force.

I WENT TO Hebron a couple of weeks ago, as part of a delegation of Israelis hoping to show a measure of solidarity with an Arab family whose patriarch, Abed el-Hai, had been shot at point blank range defending his home from one Kiryat Arba settler as the House of Contention was being cleared. There is no need to sentimentalize this gruff, stolid man—whose many barefooted grandchildren, sticky from holiday candy and twittering over
 our cell phones, will be run over by global forces if peace should ever come. But let’s just say that a day in Hebron focuses the mind. 

You think out from Hebron, and the holes in the common wisdom become obvious, well, certainly less abstract. A different pattern takes shape, and virtually every premise of the common wisdom falls away.

1. Kiryat Arba, with surrounding settlements, is a solid town of about 10,000 people and growing. Many of its youth were born there, marinating in a peculiar and vicious righteousness. But there can be no Palestinian state if Kiryat Arba remains; to keep its residents under Israeli sovereignty, you would have to cut the southern West Bank in half, and keep checkpoints all along the route from Gush Etzion. Kiryat Arba’s residents would never accept Palestinian citizenship, even if this were offered. Imagine offering Klansmen rule by Stokely Carmichael, or Martin Luther King, for that matter. 

2. According to army intelligence, and demonstrated precedent, a substantial number of Kiryat Arba residents would be willing to violently resist the Israeli army. Reserve army units—young men from Herzliya or Netanya—will tell you the settlers are out of their minds. But this is not the only army. An increasing number of junior officers conducting the occupation come from the movements and homes of the settlers. The army is there, soldiers say, to keep the peace. But in any case, this means enforcing the status quo, in which settlements naturally expand. 

3. There is nothing random about what the settlers are doing. In Hebron, the idea is to create a land bridge from Kiryat Arab to the Tomb of the Patriarchs. It is Abed el-Hai’s bad luck that his home is in the way, in the wadi below Kiryat Arba, which the settlers want to turn “Jewish.” Most nights, Kiryat Arba residents throw rocks, garbage, and bags of urine into his yard. 
In the area known as H-2, where the settlers have rights under the Wye Agreement (you know, the agreement then-prime minster Netanyahu negotiated in 1998), the Arab population has declined from about 35,000 to 18,000.   

The road from Kiryat Arba to the Tomb has a yellow (that's right, yellow) line on it, indicating that no Arab is allowed to walk on it; the settlers push their baby-strollers freely, while army jeeps patrol up and down, and Arab kids watch from third floor windows, many of them with iron screens to protect them from rocks, etc. 

The settlers have set up a synagogue on the land of Jaabri family—another family in the way—which the Israeli High Court has declared illegal, and the army has taken down over 30 times, only to have the “minyan” rebuild it. During prayers, their children often throw rocks, etc., onto the homes of the Jaabris. A stone’s throw in the other direction is the grave of, and monument to, Baruch Goldstein

4. Multiply the Hebron problem by twenty, and you have the real, grotesque problem that occupation has engendered. Jerusalem is the radioactive core of it. Try to evacuate Kiryat Arba by force and tens of thousands will stream down from yeshivot in Jerusalem to stand with them. 

No Israeli leader wants to deal with facing down the new Judeans—or can, without destroying Israeli social solidarity. I have written here before about how all fanatics live within concentric circles of support. No matter who wins a majority in the next election, about half of Israeli Knesset members will be from circles which the settlers count on—National Orthodox, Shas, Leiberman’s Russians, Haredi—people concentrated in and around Jerusalem, whom the settlers will tell you would be in settlements themselves if they had the guts; people who will nevertheless apply the “values” the settlers stand for to Jerusalem. 

Again, Netanyahu has demoted Feiglin. But the government he will form will rest on this Judean coalition. And if Livni-Barak win, they will face an opposition nearly the size of their own bloc, with many sympathetic members, and a fear of resting their coalition (as they will have to) on the Arab parties. 

5. Hamas is growing in power—in the West Bank, too—directly as a result of this grotesquery. It is absurd to think of Gaza as a separate matter. Nor will the Hamas leadership be intimidated by shows of force. Actually, they thrive on it—precisely because eruptions of violence allow them to be seen as the steadfast opposition to the inertial expansion of Israeli occupation. An Israeli attack on Gaza, which must be bloody, will be play right into Hamas’s hands. 

6. True, Israelis on the coastal plain are increasingly appalled by the settlers, and will tell you so. Livni’s biggest applause line at the Globes business conference last week was her insistence that, under her leadership, peace talks with the Palestinians will continue. But taking on the settlers is another matter. It is more politic to talk about smashing Hamas, whose missile attacks on Shderot truly are insufferable.

7. Netanyahu speaks of "economic peace" as alternative to the peace process. This is also absurd. Palestinians cannot build businesses with 500 checkpoints across the West Bank. Those checkpoints are mainly to protect the settlers. 

WHERE DOES THIS leave us? The simple fact is, this problem is too big for Israel. We will need the world’s involvement; anyone who tells you different is either covering for the settlers, or afraid for electoral reasons to appear squishy about Israeli autonomy, or arrogant, or ignorant, or thick, or all of these at once. This post is not the place to describe what involvement means, though the contours of a two-state deal have been obvious for many years. The point is, what Hebron represents cannot be solved by this deal in a few decisive months, like the evacuation of the Sinai was. New changes to the landscape will take years. Or the landscape will look like Bosnia.

Perhaps the saddest part of all of this is that first patriarch of Hebron, Abraham, never turned promised land holy. When faced with contention, as his herdsmen quarreled with Lot, he said something unforgettable but forgotten: "Is not the whole land before you? Let's part company. If you go to the left, I'll go to the right; if you go to the right, I'll go to the left."


Anonymous said...


How can we prevent Israel's Holocaust guilt - its looking back over its shoulder like Lot's wife, frozen in fear - from continuing to let a bunch of loathsome Jewish clowns hijack the future of 6 million living Jews and other minorities?

I would invite you to broaden this into a policy piece, and to start by reaching out to a larger audience and make them aware of the state of affairs. How the third most powerful army in the world can be defeated by permitting a fifth column of renegade racists to nibble away at its future.

You could send this as is as an op-ed piece to the NY Times and to the New Republic. I doubt either will publish it, for completely different reasons, but even without a reassessment of America's policy options in the Middle East, it is far and away the most sober and deepest assessment of why Israel's strategic friend should show some tough love. The Jews as a voting bloc aren't going anywhere into the arms of the Republicans, and I suspect that Obama could find a way of triangulating a deal which would require Israel to jettison the West Bank for a guaranteed political future in NATO, the EU, bi-lateral strategic defense treaty, etc.

In fact, Israel is looking at a much more precarious future no matter what it does. The Russians are selling sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to the Iranians, and no one in Europe except the British is betting on peace in our time with them.

But it would be good to have a clear policy formulated sooner than later in Obama's first term, (let Hilary take the heat...) and no more agreeing to disagree with Israel.

For starters, How about halting the $5 billion per year until the Israelis put their own house in order? We really could use it to bail out another failed enterprise...the US of A.

This is from a concerned American-Israeli who wants to be able to retire to his home in Ra'anana and not find a charred hill of bones and rubble. I can't help thinking of Wallace Stevens' poem after walking on least in that case, it was a natural and not a man-made disaster.

Y. Ben-David said...

Dr Avishai,

When quoting the TANACH (Bible) you should not do it selectively. Lot was Avraham's nephew. Lot never threated to kill Avraham, Lot never threatened to throw Avraham into the sea, Lot never tried to treat Avraham as a dhimmi (subjugated non-Muslim in a Muslim state). Lot never said Avraham was an alien invader in the country nor did he make up false history to deny Avraham's connections to the country (e.g. the Arabs' claim that there never was a Jewish Holy Temple in Jerusalem).
If the Arabs would agree to give up the so-called "Palestinian Right of Return" any Israeli gov't in power, including one of the Likud would respond with an agreement to withdraw more-or-less to the pre-67 lines, i.e. the terms you advocate. But the Arabs have not and will not make such an offer. Why? Because they not only object to the settlers in Judea/Samaria (your so-called Judeans), but they consider YOU, Dr Avishai, a settler as well. YOU came from North America and now live in Jerusalem in land that belonged to Arabs before 1948. True, you don't come thumping on a Bible, you come preaching "globalization" "anti-racism" and all the other slogans of the modern (and especially Jewish) "progressives", but it is all the same to them, in fact your views are MORE dangerous to them because whereas the lifestyle of the Jews of Hevron is actually fairly close to that of the Muslims of the town (family, tradition and religion-oriented), your "globalized" Hebrew Republic is nothing more than a modern, secular form of an agressive Crusader state with a missionary "religion" of materialist consumerism, disdainful of tradition, unlike the traditionalist "settler" Jews whose Judaism is not a missionary religion. That is why the Arabs won't make the gesture to support what you want, and so in your desperation, you are looking for outsiders to impose your policies on the majority of Israeli who reject them.

Adam Khan said...

Strongly put, Y. Ben-David.

While I fear Dr Avishai's exquisite pessimism, I credit him for fostering some of the most civil, articulate and forceful comments on a topic that usually ends up instead as reams of apocalyptic allcaps rages.

ibrahim said...

Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat

momo440momo said...

She has that vibrant tie-dyed Matthew Williamson purse, which looks more apt for beach outing, another small replica handbags uk , and a large sequined handbag. I don’t want to know what’s in those purses, but what I’d like to know is what exactly she’ll do on a beach that it looks like she has her entire wardrobe with her.

ekle paylas said...

nice blog Thanks for sharing. voicesohbet was really very nice.
sesli chat siteleri sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslichat seslisohbet
sesli siteleri chat siteleri
sohbet siteleri sesli siteler
voice sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli sohbet seslisohbet
sohbet siteleri sesli chat siteleri
seslichat sesli chat
herkesburda herkes burda
sohbetmerkezi sohbetmerkezi