A Special Place in Hell / Breaking Israel to fix it – rightists rethink holding the West Bank
So profound is the fear that Netanyahu may commit to a sea change on the West Bank, and succeed in mobilizing the support of a consensus of Israeli and U.S. Jews, it has now spread to some of the most vocal and - until now - most unflagging of the prime minister's past admirers.
By Bradley Burston Tags: Israel news West Bank settlementEvery revolution tends to believe that it is forever. Nowhere is this more evident than in Israel, for six decades cradle and crucible to concurrent revolutions.
But the fate of every revolutionary movement is to age, to fall prey to fissures and compound fractures, and to be astounded to find that one day, it has become history.
 |
Settlers protesting in Kfar Maimon in 2005. The sign reads “Only a totalitarian regime uses the army against the people.” |
| Photo by: Alex Levac |
Now it is the turn of the settlers. Though the trappings of their past success remain, their revolution is broken. The settlement movement – along with the dovish revolution whose banner was land for peace – was shattered in the chaos of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.
In just six days in 2005, the single most indispensible figure in rooting settlements into the territories, Ariel Sharon, quashed a quarter century of Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip – at the approval of two-thirds of the Israeli electorate.
The settlement revolution has never truly recovered. Even as it insists that West Bank settlements can never be undone, the movement is both haunted and crippled by its own private Naqba, the loss of the dream of a Greater Israel in the Likud government's disengagement.
Of late, figures of significance on the right of both the Israeli and American Jewish communities have begun to rethink the future of the settlers' core redoubt: the West Bank.
As Israeli-Palestinian negotiations resumed this month, influential Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer astounded many colleagues on the right by observing that "No serious player believes it can hang on forever to the West Bank.
"This has created a unique phenomenon in Israel - a broad-based national consensus for giving nearly all the West Bank in return for peace," Krauthammer continued. "The moment is doubly unique because the only man who can deliver such a deal is Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu - and he is prepared to do it."
The comments coincided with a number of indications of a beginning of change on the right and within the settlement movement itself.
Among the more intriguing is a group of young Israelis – some of whom grew up in West Bank settlements - who have moved back into Israel to resettle the abandoned kibbutz of Retamim in the central Negev.
The group includes the son of Pinchas Wallerstein, a former longtime leader of the Yesha Council, the effective government of the settlement movement.
At the same time, some residents of settlements outside the blocs which U.S. officials foresee could be appended to Israel in the context of a withdrawal, have been putting out feelers to Israeli government agencies about possible compensation for voluntarily moving back to Israel in the future.
Another shift in thinking is increasing sentiment for the possibility of a unilateral West Bank withdrawal outside the context of negotiations with the Palestinians. For many Israelis, this dovetails with fast-evaporating hopes for an eventual peace agreement with a deeply divided Palestinian body politic.
Israeli analyst Guy Bechor, who has often argued for hardline stances vis a vis the Palestinians, wrote last week that Israel should now deliver an ultimatum to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas: "This is your and your administration’s last chance. If we fail to secure a quick agreement, where Israel’s demands are recognized, we shall unilaterally evacuate most of Judea and Samaria, annex the settlement blocs and Jerusalem’s Old City, and abandon you and your regime to Hamas’ and Jordan's mercy.
Bechor has also proposed that Israel renounce its annexation of most of Arab East Jerusalem and cede control over it. "An immense burden – on the political, defense, economic, and public relations fronts – will be lifted from our shoulders when the status of Palestinians in east Jerusalem will be the same as that of Palestinians across the West Bank," he wrote earlier this year.
"This will happen eventually in any case, according to the world, so why not do it now?"
Most daunting to the settlers and their supporters is the fear that Benjamin Netanyahu may opt to follow in the paths of hawkish Likud founders Sharon and Menachem Begin, and launch a landmark withdrawal. It was Begin, settlers note, who pledged as he took power as prime minister, that he would someday retire to a settlement in then-occupied Sinai - only to return the entire peninsula and demolish the settlements there under the 1979 Camp David peace treaty.
Israel Harel, a founder and former leader of the Yesha Council and one of the most prominent voices of the movement, warned last week of the "huge ideological about-face" he said that Netanyahu had undergone.
Noting that Netanyahu had begun speaking of "two states for two peoples" and calling Judea and Samaria "the West bank," Harel wrote in Haaretz that many of the prime minister's critics "cannot grasp the fact that Netanyahu, via his statements, has embarked on a road from which there is no turning back."
The ultimate fear is that if Netanyahu takes a position in line with Washington's vision of concessions, the Likud and the cabinet - for all its drumbeat of eternal commitment to the settlers - will go along.
Settler leaders have also suggested that the movement's will to resist such a change is much diminished since the Gaza disengagement. Senior Yesha official Shaul Goldstein
remarked at the outset of the settlement freeze that most settlers were too "moderate" to take off from jobs to attend protests, even though he said the freeze "means that life might stop."
Since the Gaza pullout, the Yesha Council has also lost much of its influence with young firebrand activists, many of whom now dismiss the council as mashtapim [collaborators] and bourgeois.
There are also fears that radical actions by young "hilltop youth," the movement's volatile shock troops, could further alienate the Israeli mainstream, adding consensus support to a West Bank withdrawal.
The lack of movement toward a formalized peace accord is also spurring general Israeli interest in a pullout, based on the sense that if no action is taken soon to separate Israel from the more than 2.5 million Palestinians of the West Bank, the Jewish state will effectively become an Arab country.
Through it all, Netanyahu remains the linchpin to any move to alter the status of the West Bank. If Netanyahu were to play the Iran card, citing U.S. pressure for concessions in return for security assurances, even rabbis staunchly opposed to withdrawal would have to rethink their stances, Harel maintains.
"Any rabbi would agree that when it comes to saving the nation from the Iranian bomb, national pikuah nefesh (saving a life) takes precedence over Judea and Samaria."
On Monday, speculation grew that Netanyahu was mulling a major step, when Israel Channel Two television reported that he backed legislation for a referendum on a future West Bank agreement. Apart from a possible signal of the prime minister's intentions, a referendum could blunt and overcome rightist opposition to a withdrawal.
So profound is the fear that Netanyahu may commit to a sea change on the West Bank, and succeed in mobilizing the support of a consensus of Israeli and U.S. Jews, it has now spread to some of the most vocal and - until now - most unflagging of the prime minister's past admirers.
"Netanyahu’s preference for appeasement is both ironic and destructive." The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick writes. While Krauthammer's "arrogant and false portrayal of reality is debilitating," she continues, "it is Netanyahu who is charged with leading and defending Israel."
"And Netanyahu is the man who is now leading us on a path to degradation and defeat."
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
the louder and more insulting are the futile protests... chazal ve-ematz!
Israel seems to mistakenly postpone restitution to the 900,000 Mizrachi Jewish refugees (1948-56) from Arab world when actually NOW is the best moment for that huge transaction that could trade Mizrachi indemnification for ALL of Samaria and Judea. The Palestinians could at the same time be vastly enriched dividing up the vast Mizrachi spoils.
The current situation is unstable and will deteriorate over time, so Israel has ONLY THREE OPTIONS. (1) give up lots of land, water, cash and apologies for 1947 and all that came after, creating the state of Palestine, or (2) every human between the Jordan river and the Med Sea becomes a FULL citizen of Israel, or (3) eventual massive war that Israel loses causing a new Jewish refugee situation. These are the **ONLY** options because as the US declines in power and the Arabs increase in power, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Israel to win every war forever. Israel does NOT have enough resources for years of war. Pick one option!
Guy Bechor's words are interesting (but not in its entirety). As long as Israel keeps Jerusalem undivided, all the rest of WB can be negotiable. This new phenomenon (from the Right) proves that Israel is committed in seeing the Palestinian people having a home of their own; and therefore it is committed to peace. It would be interesting to see how the Palestinians would react if Israel would unilaterally disengage from most of Judea and Samaria....lol...ah, I bet they'd be as lost as they were when Israel unilaterally evacuated from Gaza.
Might I remind you that Ehud Barak was the first Prime Minister whom stated after Camp David that there may be a need for Israel to unitlaterally separate from the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip & West Bank......
I agree with it completely. They should be next. cheap cars for sale
While generally briliant, he has a history of errors on Israel matters. He was in favour of the disengagement, and that brought us a Hamas state in Gaza. I wouldn't read anything into his weakness on Judea and Samaria.
zionist in canada, were it not elections that brought hamas to power in gaza, and the non-recoginition of these elections that helped radicalize many followers of hamas?
I am monitoring as usual.
Netanyahu is succumbing to a sea change in Washington. The same way after 9/11 the IRA realised that they could no longer continue with terrorist activities and maintain the support of it's American base. Netanyahu has recognised that American support for a two state solution requires a readjustment of Israel's borders
You've got your chart upside down. It's not Netanyahu who succumbs like the IRA did, it is the toothless gang of criminals that is the Palestinian National Authority, who while still proclaiming their commitment to ten point program and Arafat's vision of total eradication of zionism, realize with horror that they will never be able to achieve that. There is a limit to the amount of exaggerations, lies and plain fabrications that the arabs can get away with in the supportive leftwing western media. It is the PNA - and Hamas, who tries very hard to retain the manly political poker face yet crumbling internally - who are the criminals and terrorists and for whom the bell tolls. The two state solution is not the end of this conflict; it is the end of any legitimacy to arab struggle against the existence of Israel.
exactly lintwit its all israel and the arab portion is called jordan
... it will happen anyway, so why not do it now? Uh, no, it won't happen unless we let it happen. So, if we "do it" now, then yes, it will happen. This defeatism I hear every day at work in Tel Aviv, and it started a long time ago, and will be the death of the whole country if we don't stop it. You can take the Jew out of the exile, but you can't take the exile out of the Jew.
in following a critical path in your writings the path always ends up in erewhon land ! its time you study the words appeasement and danegeldt as the basis of history that always ends up in disaster. it takes a special kind of idiot to suggest evacuating peoples home villages and towns will bring peace and resolve a dispute ? failing to follow binding treaties of the past has brought the present impasse , the arabs of the palestine mandate belong in jordan !
The fact is that Israel doesn't want peace. Israel profits by avoiding peace. This will not change unless America (and the world) get tough with israel and force peace upon them. This is unlikely to happen for a large number of reasons, but mostly because Israels has complete control of the America congress when it comes to matters concerning Israel. Okay, that's it. There is nothing more to write. Just rehash these facts over and over. Obviously this allows limited scope for the army of commentators, writers, talking heads, think tankers, etc, (including Bradley). It is much more convenient to pretend that the many various peace talks and talks of peace talks are intended to achieve peace. Never mind that nothing ever happens as a result of all this fakery. There is always next time!
you confused Israel with the PA, which resurrects the Three Noes of Khartoum and calls them negotiations. Or maybe you confused both parties with your fact-free worldview of a nefarious, multi-tentacled Israel twirling Congress around its pinkie as the peace-seeking Palestinians look on helplessly. On one point I agree with you: ."Nothing ever happens as a result of all this fakery."
as always
the usa is bound by the anglo-american convention of 1924 and which is embodied in legislation of 1925. a perusal of websters dictionary will enlighten you as to the meaning of the word PEACE .
In its 200+ year history, the US has walked away from lots of treaties and agreements and has screwed over every one of its friends, many of them multiple times. In the end, Americans will do what is best for Americans and if that means throwing Israel to the wolves, they will do it in a heart beat.
During the course of the American war in Iraq, the Israeli economy and the settlement enterprise boomed. It is no wonder why Israel was one of the very few nations that supported an American attack to begin with. In the end, the Iraq war proved to be both unnecessary and very expensive for America. No so in Israel. In fact, Israel is calling for an encore in Iran!
Actaually, Iraq was an american mistake . Iraq was almost harmless - a few scads fired on Israel could be dealt easily by us - we could just bomb Iraq by ourselves like we did in 1980 with their nuclear reactor. So we told americans - "Strike IraN", but somewhere in the line one letter was misspelled and they received "Strike IraQ", that was a sad mistake. Nevertheless, any mistake can be fixed and we are going to do in in the near future flattening Iran finally.
This debate that is going in Israel and the US between Jews shows how desperate Israel and US Jews have become for a fast peace deal. In my opinion the reasons are simply, 1) The coming American economic, social and empire collapse leaving Israel alone in the dark. 2) The frustration over the inability by Israel and America of winning wars in the Middle East and keeping big areas of land occupied. 3) The relentless determination of the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims for decades in not allowing Israel to expand. Instead, Israel remains pinned down in the areas it occupied in 1967.
Sharon did evacuate the Gaza settlements. At the time, he made a very convincing case that it was for security reasons. There were only a few thousand Gaza settlers, but they required a greatly disproportionate number of IDF for security. Those settlements were an easy target for the rockets and attackers from Gaza. Of greater interest was the fate of Sharons "vision" to make a unilateral withdrawal from a "significant" portion of the west bank settlements as well. This was stated in Kadimas charter. Sadly, Sharons "health issues" kept him from pursuing this vision. His successor, Olmert was left with the task. Olmert did nothing with the west bank settlements until the 2006 war began. At that point, he started building like a madman. There were also "express conversions" to get as many ersatz Jews into the west bank as place holders for real Jews, which would come later. The financial benefits to buying a house in the settlements got better under Olmert. He did not withdraw a single settler. This is the storey that needs telling. Saluting this peace fakery is counter productive and demeaning.
Germany lost the second world war in europe but won( economicaly) the peace Leaving the west bank in peace will lead to an economical victory
Dear readers, I have spent months wondering about the following mystery, and finally decided to admit defeat and ask for your help: What is the difference, according to Haaretz, between their lists of "Hot Topics" and "Most Popular"? You can observe that the two lists often overlap and contain some of the same articles, but the lists are also not identical and contain some different articles. So what is the difference, since one must exist! The headings for both lists contain the indicators "24 hours | 7 days", so you would think that one list, say "Hot Topics", would mean "most popular over the last 24 hours", while the other would mean "most popular over the last 7 days". But no, both lists have a little arrow under the "24 hours" part. One possibile explanation is that "Hot Topics" is the list of articles most commented on by Talkback people, while "Most Popular" refers to the "most read". I have seen that the "Hot" list is arranged today mostly in decreasing order of number of comments, but even TODAY, this was not always true. so what is the meaning of this? My theory: Even Haaretz people don't know, only the computer people who designed the site. But they are long gone, so nobody will ever know. At least, this is my theory. Do you have a better explanation?
And don't invoke my name in vain, please.
Unfortunately people accept leaders words without checking them for accuracy. As I research the old testament and what it says, as the Ultra Orthodox have done, the Zionist are wrong. There is nothing giving the west bank to Jews. The Jews like the Muslims and Christians are bound by the Ten "Commandments", get it, Ten Commandments. Unless all these people live up to what they profess to believe, there will turmoil.
Unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and "leave Abbas to Hamas"?? How insane is that? You're not leaving him to Hamas, you're leaving Israel to Hamas on the West Bank. What is this, a fit of pique? Israel tried this in Gaza with disastrous results--doing the same thing on the West Bank would be a catastrophe.
but you'd still flunk ,since you haven't answered the question : If "ALL revolutionary movements fall prey to age fissures.." ,how come the Pal Revolution doesn't do it ? You have fully adopted Pal Revolution's lingo on "60 years [of injusice]" ,not since the 67 but since 1948 , And somehw you suggest their revolution won't follow the inevitable fate of the "Zionist Enterprise" ,fissure ,old age.. F ,Ilyich Burston ,F ,no more than that
you fail Logic 101. Perhaps not incidentally, you also fail Grammar 101
,like screaming "Yes, We can!" Do you understand word "All revolutions "? All ,means pal "revolution" inclusive . So much for your Logic 101 (btw ,,a normally gifted person wouldn't need a college course in order to understand "All") Reason the "pal revolution" is not failing is simple : Ilyich Burston,you and Co ,always ready to serve as lubricant for their "Revolution" .
lol. the palestinian resistance is not a revolution by dint of your say-so. adding the descriptor "all" in front of "revolutions" does nothing to change your definitional ineptitude. go back to what you do best, like drinking and nursing your hatreds
Hi: Im so tired of Israels enemies ,if I were PM i would wheres me lawnch keys ! Temple mount I wouldnt even put up with the PA ! They be dead in one day ! Toobad bye Bob
of the Likud mindset.
there is no chance you will have any power. The likud party to which you belong is another story
Churchill famously claimed he would not be the kings first minitister to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire, but indeed he was. So too, Bibi promoted illegal settlements and defended them adamantly but will be the one to withdraw and demolish them. He joins, Begin, Shamir and Sharon, and Churchill. Grandiosity of declarations is over compensation.
Netanyahu is ready to take such radical steps, and yet is unwilling to continue the building freeze during negotiations? The journey of a thousand miles begins with a small step. So far we hear only meaningless words.
Glick was once bitten by a snake and the snake died!
What is this? Glick Schtick?
Does Netanyahu intend to make peace? Is the question not really 'Will Netanyahu destroy his government to make peace"? Or, "Is Netanyahu willing to risk the fate of Rabin by offending the Israeli right"? If he does intend to risk everything he loves - personal power - for the long-term good of Israel, then why is he refusing to enforce, much less extend, the settlement freeze? If he intends to make peace, then why does he not do so? It is not as if there have been no prior negotiations with Abbas upon which closure could be based. If Netanyahu intends to make piece why is his Foreign Minister making statements which clearly are intended to destroy that effort? Mr. Burston is grasping at straws.
Because the freeze is wrong. It is wrong because it removes any motivation the Arabs may have left for accepting the existence of Israel.
Unlike the US, Israeli prime ministers are not elected by the people and serve a fixed term. The party elects its chairman, and he heads its Knesset list in the elections (where people vote for lists, not individuals). Then a coalition is negotiated and one of the party heads serves as Prime Minister. Netanyahu faces some political dangers on the road to peace, whether he is sincere or not. Likud MK's may rebel against him (as many did against Sharon), and since other parties in the coalition are also right wing, they can get a majority in the Cabinet against the PM's position. (The PM has only one vote in Cabinet decisions, although he has more "influence" than other ministers.) If Netanyahu strays too much, some coalition parties may leave and Netanyahu will lose the PMship. Here the danger is lower, because Kadima is ready to join, but then they may be more left-wing than Netanyahu really is. So Netanyahu has to navigate carefully, even if he is sincere (which he may or may not be). Add to this that he is actually a political coward, and you get a better understanding of what is happening.
Continued occupation and settlement building provides LESS incentive for them to recognize a Jewish state of Israel
Just filling in the usual blank spots
Try using this to fill one of your 'blank spots'. Judea and Samaria are the core of Israel, both ancient and modern. Israel cannot be doing anything 'illegal' as she reclaims territory that was once hers. Even force is permissible when defending your homeland, CJ. Resistance to Israel's reclamation of Judea and Samaria is futile!
Don't you dare have the temerity talk about laws & legalities, unless you abide by them first 1- The first major one that was broken by the Arabs, was the UN Partition Plan, in defiance of the UN Res.181, when 5 Arab armies combined forces to attack Israel on 5/14/58 2- 1949 Rhodes Armistice Agreement, (Greenline) Nasser violated it, closing the Suez to Israeli shipping 3- 1967 - Syria, Egypt and Jordan combined forces and attacked again, which in turn forced Israel to take the West Bank to avoid repetitions of attacks from that very same are 4- 1973- Yom Kippur War, Egypt & Syria attacked on Yom Kippur, not only was that Illegal it was outright cowardly too
However, here's a better way to substantiate the statement that the settlements are not illegal: http://www.mythsandfacts.com/ReplyOnlineEdition/toc.html The essence of this book is that the international community as a whole and in particular its judicial organs went to extraordinary lengths to proclaim as illegal something that would be completely and utterly acceptable and legal if jews weren't involved in it. At the root of this deception is the false argument that arabs somehow "own" the title to the whole of Palestine and that presence of jews in West Bank is a violation of inalienable arab rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The settlers believed that their settling in the West Bank will hasten the coming of Moshiach, which will then solve all the associated problems, such as the presence of millions of Palestinians there. The Moshiach is still invisible, and the settlers are getting desperate. And since Gaza was already evacuated without messianic intervention, they have good reason to worry. Such was the fate of all Jewish messianic movements over the ages, with the exception of Christianity and Zionism. And both this movements took their destiny into their own hands, and changed their circumstances by accommodation and convincing, not by acting against reality. The big mystery in the settlement movement was the support of the non-religious Likud. They had the Jabotinskian "Iron Wall" theory as their justification: Oppress the Arabs until they agree go do what you want. But obviously reality is falsifying this theory. Behold, Darwin is coming.
Darwin is dead and dust. And soon you will be also. You are like the atheist whose funeral I attended a while back. There he was laid out in a tuxedo, of all things. How preposterous! All dressed up and no place to go!
Israel should vacate the west bank as it vacated Gaza. In time with the conflict over it will own the west bank and Gaza economically by investing and partnering in Arab economic activity in the Weat Bank. Can there be any doubt? Look what Israelis have done for israel. They will repeat with Arab partners.
sink or swim
He is a player. No vision or charisma who spent most of his life in the US, big mouth and no substance. I am surprised the Israelis voted him and his party in.
What is the difference, according to Haaretz, between their lists of "Hot Topics" and "Most Popular"? You can observe that the two lists often overlap and contain some of the same articles, but the lists are also not identical and contain some different articles. So what is the difference, since one must exist! The headings for both lists contain the indicators "24 hours | 7 days", so you would think that one list, say "Hot Topics", would mean "most popular over the last 24 hours", while the other would mean "most popular over the last 7 days". But no, both lists have a little arrow under the "24 hours" part. My theory: Even Haaretz people don't know, only the computer people who designed the site. But they are long gone, so nobody will ever know. At least, this is my theory. Do you have a better explanation?
Also, some times the articles have been renamed. They do this so that more people will log onto their print thus boosting their readership counts. It is not until the article pops up and you have started reading it that you realize that it was the same old crap just retitled.