Meir Panim’s Tiberias Free Restaurant not only provides warm meals, but the opportunity to socialize as well.
Weeks of turbulent Arab uprisings throughout the Middle East have dislodged dictators and inspired tens of thousands of young Muslims to dream of freedom. Swarming through streets and squares, they have demanded the end of autocratic rule.
With due concern lest this ferment ultimately bring Islamic extremists to power, it has nonetheless been heartening to see a generational cohort of young Arabs draw inspiration, for a change, from values that are deeply embedded in Western democracies.
But old habits die hard. For weeks, no blame fell upon the long proclaimed source of all Middle Eastern problems: Israel. Nor was there even a detectable whisper of concern over the plight of Palestinians, ever the justification for Arab rage. Even Jewish settlements were ignored. It was widely, and correctly, understood as a spontaneous Arab revolt until President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen declared that from Tunis to Oman, the Arab upheaval was managed by Tel Aviv.
For a time it was possible to imagine that even the Obama administration understood that Arab fury had nothing to do with Jewish settlements. Indeed, amid the turbulence, the United States blocked a UN Security Council resolution condemning settlements as illegal. But what the administration gave with one hand it quickly reclaimed with another. Advertisement
After the 13-1 vote Susan Rice, American ambassador to the United Nations, apologetically explained: “Our opposition to the resolution…should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” which “violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties and threatens the prospects for peace.”
This boilerplate attempt at even-handedness, balancing the reluctant American vote with an impassioned mea culpa, suggested that the Obama administration remains locked into old fallacies about Jewish settlements as the primary obstacle to Middle East peace. What does it say that the American president, ever so hesitant to support democratic movements in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya – and, two years ago, in Iran – still relentlessly pressures the only democratic nation in the region?
Yet rarely, if ever, during the past twenty years has any Israeli government – whether led by Labor or Likud – challenged the absurd canard that the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East is Jewish settlements.
Just a year ago Netanyahu capitulated to American demands for a ten-month settlement freeze, during which time the Palestinian leadership quietly folded its hands, did nothing, and awaited the expiration date so that it could demand another extension.
Although Netanyahu rejected that demand, his government remains unwilling to authorize even the expansion of existing settlements that are certain to remain part of Israel – to say nothing of building new ones. And it has swallowed the claim, reiterated by American no less than Palestinian officials, that new or enlarged Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem are “settlements.”
Following the UN veto, the Netanyahu government expressed its gratitude. Israeli border police demolished three homes in the outpost of Gilad Farm, located on Jewish-owned land in Samaria, while wounding a dozen young defenders. Netanyahu, citing “international reality,” indicated to his Likud colleagues that “the American veto in the Security Council was only achieved with great effort” and, presumably, must be rewarded with the sacrifice of a settlement.
Israeli governments have long swallowed the insistent – and erroneous – claim of their Arab enemies (and presumed Western friends) that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) are illegal under international law. To the contrary: “close settlement” by Jews in all the land west of the Jordan River is a right recognized by the League of Nations eighty years ago and confirmed by the United Nations twenty-five years later. After the Six-Day War, United Nations Resolution 242 (by design and careful drafting) called only for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from “territories” not “the” territories or all the territories. By now more than 300,000 Israelis have embraced the venerable Zionist principle of settling the Land of Israel.
For many of the pioneering settlers, the lament of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook just weeks before the Six-Day War became their inspiration. Rejecting the partition in 1947 that had severed the new State of Israel from the biblical Land of Israel, he cried out: “Where is our Hebron? Have we forgotten it? And where is our Shechem? And our Jericho – will we forget them?”
After the war his students, led by Rabbi Moshe Levinger, remembered. Rabbi Levinger located the new settlers within the historic mainstream of Zionism: “Like emigrants and settlers at the turn of the century and the kibbutz farmers, we, too, are pioneers.” The overwhelming majority of he early settlers, in Gush Etzion, Hebron, and Samaria, were religious Zionists.
To be sure, as the years passed secular Israelis searching for affordable housing relocated into sparkling new settlements that were appealingly accessible to major Israeli cities. Now the largest settlements, closest to Jerusalem, are ultra-Orthodox communities. But the pioneering stronghold of religious Zionism is Hebron, where 700 Jews and their 6,000 Kiryat Arba neighbors (surrounded by more than 100,000 Arabs), remain faithful to its centrality in Jewish history and determined to continue three millennia of Jewish habitation there.
With all that is happening in the Middle East, the Israeli left (enthusiastically supported recently by J Street) continues to cling to its dogma that Israeli “occupation” is the axis on which the region turns. But this anti-settlement fervor should be recognized for what it is, and always has been: an expression of the fear of secular Zionists – including prime ministers across party lines – that religious Zionism may yet challenge their cultural and political hegemony.
For that partisan impulse to override Israel’s ever more precarious security situation could be catastrophic. It already confronts Hamas in Gaza (with Mubarak no longer available to enforce the terms of Egypt’s peace treaty), and Hizbullah, controlled and armed by Iran, on its northern border. Israel hardly needs to add a vulnerable eastern border, where even Jordan has recently rumbled with internal discontent.
More than ever, Israel’s security – and, perhaps, survival – depends upon its continued control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, where there is a string of Jewish settlements stretching from Ariel to Hebron. These ridges, demographer Yoram Ettinger observes, “constitute the ‘Golan Heights’ of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv,” where 80 percent of Israelis live.
Considered in this geopolitical context, Israeli settlements are not an “obstacle to peace” but a vital security barrier. Middle Eastern turbulence and uncertainty should not be permitted to override reality. And Israeli prime ministers might recognize that international law – however distorted its current restatements – protects, rather than undermines, Jewish settlements.
The largest Jewish settlement in the Middle East, after all, is the State of Israel.
Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of “Brothers at War: Israel and the Tragedy of the Altalena,” to be published this spring.
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
No tweets found.
“It was quite an institutionalized racism, and we didn’t come to get involved in politics.”
Israel’s R&D expenditure is higher than any western country.
With the passage of time, fewer and fewer people are left to testify about life and death in the camps at the hands of the Nazis.
A fascinating Biblical echo
So much of the struggle between Israel and the Arabs continues to concern space.
Why should a young Israeli become an observant Jew when Judaism’s official representatives preserve it in its exile version?
Like Chamberlain, Obama sued the ayatollahs for peace, insisting the only alternative to appeasement is war.
I have frequently drawn up lists of what I love most about Israel, and Arik Einstein has ranked high.
This new mood among Christian Arabs has worried the communists and Arab nationalist.
After nearly five years in office it should be clear that President Obama has always been a man on a mission to change America and the world. To be sure, we couldn’t disagree more with his vision – and in this we think we speak for most Americans.
We find it noteworthy, if not surprising, that with all the well-documented systematic human rights abuses committed by governments around the world – including, but not limited to, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Zimbabwe – not one resolution condemning any of them is planned by the UN General Assembly.
For his latest book, City College’s William Helmreich walked 120,960 blocks – in other words, nearly every block of New York’s five boroughs.
Throughout the past week we have thanked Hashem for the improbable defeat of the powerful Seleucid forces by a small, untrained band of Jewish fighters. We also celebrated the story’s one open miracle, when the menorah’s lights burned for eight consecutive days following the Temple’s rededication.
In death as in life, Menachem Begin remained who he had always been: a proud yet humble Jew.
Eighty years ago, in January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. Barely a month later Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated president of the United States. For the next twelve years, until their deaths eighteen days apart in April 1945, they personified the horrors of dictatorship and the blessings of democracy.
One of my searing early memories from Israel is a visit nearly four decades ago to the Ghetto Fighters Museum in the Beit Lohamei Hagetaot kibbutz. The world’s first Holocaust museum, it was built soon after the Independence War by survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.
Nearly sixty-five years ago Israel declared its independence and won the war that secured a Jewish state. But its narrow and permeable postwar armistice lines permitted incessant cross-border terrorist raids. For Egypt, Syria and Jordan, the mere existence of a Jewish state remained an unbearable intrusion into the Arab Middle East. As Egyptian President Nasser declared, “The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel.”
For anyone with historical memory the expulsion of Jews – by the Romans, English, French, Spaniards, Nazis, and Muslims – instantly evokes tragic episodes in Jewish history. Now the state of Israel expels Jews from their homes. Something is amiss in Zion.
Near the end of the nineteenth century, Theodor Herzl, the Viennese journalist who would wrestle with the plight of Jews amid the enticements and dangers of modernity, felt trapped. For his son’s sake he considered conversion to Christianity; to solve the vexing “Jewish Question” he even fantasized the mass conversion of Jews.
The recent kerfluffle over Israeli government video ads and billboard posters, designed to entice wayward yordim to return home, instead exposed the troubled psyche of American Jews.
In the good old days, Forest Hills, New York – where I grew up between 1939 and 1951 – was a shtetl for assimilated American Jews. Like my parents, all our neighbors were American-born offspring of Eastern European immigrants. A generation removed from their identity conflicts, we children knew that Forest Hills, liberated from Judaism, was our promised land.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/revolutions-and-reverberations/2011/03/09/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: