This is a short assignment I completed a few months ago. It's a review of an excellent book on the history of Israel's settlement movement. For those of you interested in learning about one of the main obstacles to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, I highly suggest giving it a read.
Israel: a State Between the Line, a People over It
Never has a land been as inextricably tied to a people as the land of Israel has to the Jewish people. Genesis 15:18-21 describes the Jewish tradition of Gevulot Ha’aretz, Borders of the Land, a reference to the land promised to the descendants of Abraham. The presence of Abraham, the father of the three monotheistic faiths Judaism, Christianity and Islam, makes certain the multi-farious nature of this promise. This is why the singular nature of the Jewish narrative is a case study in contradiction. The state of Israel and its inhabitants, both Arab and Israeli, have come to embody this contradiction. The chasms within Israel’s state and society are prevalent and bountiful: the regions lone democracy acting as one of its many occupying forces; a modern society unremittingly tempered by its ancient past; and the rule of law perpetually finding itself in conflict with the law of God. To draw on the term “e pluribus Unum”, out of many, Israel, is indeed many. Not anywhere do these chasms collide more, than the vast collection of Israeli settlements that are scattered throughout the Israeli occupied West Bank.
“Lords of the Land” is a cutting, in-depth, expose of the origins and evolution of the Israeli settler movement. It is a historical account that cuts through the core of Israeli society. The authors, Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar, chronicle the rise of radical messianic Judaism in the aftermath of the Six-Day War of 1967, and how a government and the public struggled to find an appropriate response to this righteous phenomenon. Zertal, a leading Israeli historian, and Eldar, chief political columnist and editorial writer for the left-of-center Israeli daily Ha’aretz, portray the settlement movement as a group of individuals committed to their radical interpretation of Judaism, convinced of their nefarious tactics, and resolute, if not fierce, in their belief of a biblical land of Israel inhabited by Jews alone. Dissimilarly, the portrayal of the Israeli government is anything but resolute. The authors paint a picture of an ambivalent government; teetering at the crossroad of fervent religious Zionism and the principles of secular Zionism upon which the State was established.
The authors availed themselves of an unabashedly leftist political tone throughout the book. Within the context of the Israeli political landscape, it is the political, secular “left”; which finds itself most at odds with the radical settler movement. Strikingly, this bias does not prevent the authors from vigorously highlighting the missteps of Israel’s left-leaning Labor government during the early stages of the settler phenomenon. In one passage, Zertal and Eldar chronicle the early attitudes of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin:
“For the moment, however, Rabin proposed taking a softer tactical approach toward the settlers. ‘The evictions just strengthen them,’ he said. ‘Let’s give them permission to go into Qadum camp, and three weeks later they’ll all go home,’ he added, thus testifying to the extent to which he and his colleagues in the old political guard were blind to the new sort of messianic-political energies that had erupted in Israel’s public sphere.” (Pg. 48)
Also highlighted are the divisions that existed, between not only rival political or ideological wings, but also the ones within them. In fact, a compelling narrative can be constructed when combining “Lords of the Land” with in-class readings; specifically, the Jacob Abadi piece, “Religious Zionism and Israeli Politics: Gush Emunim Revisited.” At the center of this narrative is the consistently vague approach to the settler movement adopted by the Israeli government. Zertal, Eldar, and Abadi each point to the dissention within the Labor party as the primary cause behind the rapid rise of Gush Emunim. In “Lords” Rabin is quoted as saying: “…it {an aggressive campaign to thwart Gush Emunim} would not stand a chance as long as the Labor Party was split in its attitude toward the Gush and as long as the defense minister saw its people as ‘true idealists.”(Pg. 48) The defense minister to whom Rabin refers is Shimon Peres.
Another binary that presents itself is one having to do with the state, the settlers, and the question of sovereignty. Hannan Porat, a man regarded as the first settler, wrote, “Co-existence with the Arabs depends on settlers ‘suppressing with a heavy hand any attempt at terror and damaging our sovereignty.’” (Pg. 104) Another settler, Rabbi Yitzhak Shilat, of Ma’aleh Adumim, argued, “Anything we do as a result of distress and anger, even killing, is good, is acceptable and will help. Killing is just a matter for the Kingdom.” (Pg. 105) I believe what the authors are trying to portray is a group of people intent on supplant every metric of State authority, with religious authority. When reading these passages I immediately remembered an occasion when I heard Shimon Peres speaking about Israel’s peacemaking efforts, and I paraphrase: “Israel on four occasions has attempted to make peace with its neighbors. On two occasions, we were successful and on two, we were not. The two times we were successful {Egypt and Jordan}; we were negotiating with one government, with one military, and one policy. The two times we failed {Palestinian Authority, Lebanon}, we were negotiating with two governments, with two militaries, and two policies {referring to the multiple factions - PA/Hamas, Lebanon/Syria}.” Could it be that the settlement movement has intruded on the sovereignty of Israel much in the same way that Hezbollah has intruded on the sovereignty of Lebanon? Can it be that the Palestinians too have a negotiating partner that embodies the failed qualities outlined by Shimon Peres?
These are some of the thought-evoking questions provoked by “Lords of the Land”. The strength of this work is rooted in the quality and breadth of research presented by its authors. They manage to present the views of every relevant segment of Israeli politics and society. This statement leads me to what I believe to be the two major weaknesses of this work. Although the breadth of presentation is impressive, the tone in which certain views are presented, more specifically, the views of the settlers, is rather harsh and overly aggressive. This leads me to the fear that the authors, in writing “Lords of the Land”, were out to convince people who have already been convinced of their particular viewpoint. In that respect, I find this work to be of more of a polarizing or contemptuous, and thus counterproductive, work, than a work that seeks to bridge an admittedly irreconcilable divide. The second, and in my opinion, most glaring weakness is the absence of one critical constituent in this conflict: The Palestinian people. The Palestinian narrative does not figure into the book at all. One possibility for this is that the authors believed that the light has shone so brightly on the missteps of the Palestinians over the last forty years that it would be appropriate to shine that very light solely on the missteps of Israel. The other possibility of course is that the authors believed that any inclusion of some Palestinian narrative could undermine their case or give fodder to their ideological opponents. Nonetheless, I do still find it somewhat troubling that the authors make no mention of the very people that this settlement movement has affected the most.
In the final analysis, “Lords of the Land” is the first work of its kind. A comprehensive history of the rise of radical Judaism and the settler movement and the lasting affect they have had on this ever-volatile region. This book gives readers the opportunity to fully immerse themselves in a world of opposing viewpoints. The only question left now is: are we too entrenched to look beyond our world views in order to reach a settlement?
I certainly hope not.
No comments:
Post a Comment