Dealing With the Jews of Judea, Samaria & Gaza

Interior Minister Avraham Poraz has a novel suggestion for getting rid of the Jewish outposts in the Shomron. Speaking on Army Radio this morning, he proposed that after outposts are dismantled and evacuated, Israel cooperate with Arab forces from the Palestinian Authority to prevent Jews from rebuilding them. Poraz said that the forcibly evacuated outposts should be turned over to Arabs from the PA, and the Jews would then not dare to return and rebuild them, for fear of confronting the Arab militia.

An excellent idea. Though the hilltops aren't nearly as big a problem as certain established settlements. When Sharon's government starts talking about evacuating the Hebron settlements, then we'll know they are very serious, and the PA had better be equally serious about Hamas and IJ.

Just three days ago, similar anti-Jewish sentiments...

Avraham Poraz, the Interior Minister of the current government of Israel is "anti-Jewish"? Wow. Arutz Sheva is really living up to its reputation as the "Al Jazeera of the radical settlers" today.

-Eric

Avraham Poraz, the Interior Minister of the current government of Israel is "anti-Jewish"?

A more acurate statement would have been, anti "religious Jew", or "Lo Dati. This is part of the platform of the Shinui party (of which he is a member), which ran on an anti religious Jewish theme.

There is indeed a schism in Israel between the religious and non-religious. The citing of the Altalena is a direct reference to violence against those who were more relighous (or traditional) to justify future violence of the non-religious left upon the religious right.

When Sharon's government starts talking about evacuating the Hebron settlements, then we'll know they are very serious, and the PA had better be equally serious about Hamas and IJ.

I have a couple of questions for you about Hevron:

The Jewish community in Hevron existed for hundreds of years if not longer living in peace with the Arab ihnabitants of the city. In 1929, after instigation by the Grand Mufti Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, then the leader of the Palestinian Arabs, the Jews of the city were either driven out or killed. Tell me: why shouldn't there be Jews today in the old Jewish neighborhoods of the city? The Palestinians love to talk about "right of return"? Doesn't that apply to Jews as well? Why must the city be Judenrein?

If Israel withdraws from Hevron what will become of the Tomb of the Patriarchs? Will Jews still be able to worship at the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? If so, will they be safe? How would you insure this without a Jewish presence>

Avraham Poraz, the Interior Minister of the current government of Israel is "anti-Jewish"?
A more acurate statement would have been, anti "religious Jew", or "Lo Dati. This is part of the platform of the Shinui party (of which he is a member), which ran on an anti religious Jewish theme.
There is indeed a schism in Israel between the religious and non-religious. The citing of the Altalena is a direct reference to violence against those who were more relighous (or traditional) to justify future violence of the non-religious left upon the religious right

I'm aware of the dispute between the religious and non-religious Jews of Israel. It seems odd in a nation born out of one of the most horrific genocides in world history, perpetrated by those who saw no difference between secular converts with one Jewish grandparent and the most devout of Haredim. But for the most part it's an internal issue, and none of the concern of those of us who are not Jewish and do not live there.

The one area where it becomes an external issue is settlements. Some of us who support Israel but not the settlement movement suspect that secular Israelis tolerate the excesses of the radical settlers because they would prefer that their more zealous co-citizens pester Arabs in places like Hebron or Gaza Bank than non-observant "ethnic" Jews in places like Ramat Gan.

In any case, at the very minimum, Arutz is guilty of a poor choice of words. If they mean what you say they do, "anti-religious" would be a better phraseology. However, I suspect that the choice of words was an intentional effort to imply that failure to support the radical settlement movement is somehow "anti-semetic". That accusation falls on its face in Israel where most citizens seem to oppose them, but carries some weight in the US where settler advocates often claim that anti-"Yesha" = anti-Israel = anti-semite.

-Eric

I have a couple of questions for you about Hevron:
The Jewish community in Hevron existed for hundreds of years if not longer living in peace with the Arab ihnabitants of the city. In 1929, after instigation by the Grand Mufti Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, then the leader of the Palestinian Arabs, the Jews of the city were either driven out or killed. Tell me: why shouldn't there be Jews today in the old Jewish neighborhoods of the city? The Palestinians love to talk about "right of return"? Doesn't that apply to Jews as well? Why must the city be Judenrein?

One thing to keep in mind is this: Many of the Jews of the Hebron Massacre of 1929 were hidden by their Arab neighbors, at great personal risk. Many of the Palestinian victims of the Hebron Massacre of 1994 were aided by Jewish doctors, emergency personnel, and even soldiers, also at great personal risk.

If Israel withdraws from Hevron what will become of the Tomb of the Patriarchs? Will Jews still be able to worship at the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? If so, will they be safe? How would you insure this without a Jewish presence>

Any peace deal with a chance of success would have to address this issue. The way I would do it is with a large Israeli consulate adjacent to Patriarchs (perhaps at the site of some of the current settlements). This could include a Yeshiva or a similar institution. Governance of the tomb itself, as well as the other religious sites of the West Bank, would be another issue that would have to be addressed. I'd suggest consular status for "single-religion" sites, and a multi-faith commision to cover shared sites such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

The consulate would guarantee by treaty Jewish presence at the Tomb. It would also give the Palestinian government the right to "persona non grata" radicals who abuse their neighbors. There would be a religious Jewish presence in Hebron, but not the sort of fanatics that dominate the current settlement.

-Eric

It seems odd in a nation born out of one of the most horrific genocides in world history...

To those who are intimate in the knowledge of Jewish fratricide, it is not odd at all. It is an intricate part of our heritage. There is a fast day in the memory of when Jews informed on their brethren in Israel to the Romans and the then state of Israel was laid waste by Titus.

The one area where it becomes an external issue is settlements

The Arabs have been attacking the Jews long before there were Jews living on the other side of the green line.

In its history, Israel has fought wars with the Arabs outside and inside what is now modern day Israel. The wars of the 1950's, 60's, and 70's all took place while there were no Jews living in or on the lands that are called Judea, Samaria and Gaza. There were no Jews living on the Golan either. The land that Israel took control of was captured as the Arab population has always used and launched wars on that land. The Arabs lobbed missiles and shot from those hills. The secular governments of Israel in those years encouraged and helped pay for Jews to live in those "settlements". It has always been an external issue. The difference between then and now.is the decision by Israel to allow the Arabs to arm themselves. Naturally, they have used the weapons to launch larger scale attacks on the Jewish population. In large measure because they can. Mostly because they covet all of the land of Israel. They are still at war.

However, I suspect that the choice of words was an intentional effort to imply that failure to support the radical settlement movement is somehow "anti-semetic".

It is my understanding the the words "anti-semetic" were invented in Germany because "Jew Hatred" was bad publicity. The words "anti-Jewish" seems fairly accurate in their context as, that is exactly what the lo dati in the government are. They are anti anything that is religiously Jewish in Israel. They are completely secular to the core. I only bring up the anti-religious Jew as it would put it into context.

There is also additional thinking that the secular Jews hate Judaism so much that they hate this in themselves. It is a viciousness that brings out such cruelty to allow for physical attacks on religious Jews to serve their purpose. This is where the phrase "self hating Jew" comes from.

Shinui is secularist, in that they wish to see a separation between church and state akin to the United States. I personally disagree with that philosophy because I believe that preserving the Jewish nature of Israel is essential to Israel's survival as anything other than an Arab state. Shinui also supports cutting the funding of religious organizations and what basically amounts to welfare for the haredim. Finally, they support reducing Orthodox control of Israeli life.

As a masorti I do appreciate a lot of what Shinui stands for, but not enough to vote for them. There is a difference between wanting to limit Orthodox influence and being anti-religious. Why can't I be legally married in my shul? Is Shinui anti-religious, or rather is it pro-diversity, which includes respect for haredim amd datim?

You are guilty of painting all settlers with a broad brush. I don't blame you but rather the media portrayal of settlers in the American and European media.

I've told this story many times on Free Republic, but once more won't hurt:

My cousin was the administrator of Alfei Menashe, a "settlement" in Samaria about a mile and a half east of the Green Line near Qalqilya and Kfar Saba. It's built on a high hill. On a clear day you can see from Haifa in the north, down the coast to Hadera, Netanya, Herzliya, Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, and all the way to Ashdod in the south. That's about 70% of Israel's population. Prior to 1967 it was a Jordanian gun emplacement. It was used to shell Israel's cities. Of course a "settlement" was built there for purely defensive reasons.

My cousin was great friends with the muchtar of the neighboring Arab village. He and his family would visit the muchtar and his family during Muslim holidays and the muchtar would come over for Jewish holidays. Then the first intifada started. The muchtar and half his family were killed for being "too friendly" to Israelis. A fence went up around Alfei Menashe.

One beautiful clear Shabbat day back in another time when Netanyahu was Prime Minister and we foolishly believed Oslo was working my cousin, his wife, and I were taking a walk. We came to the fence on the east side of the town. Below, in the fields, Palestinians were working. My cousin was almost crying as he named them. "This is the muchtar's family" he said. "They're people just like us. All they want is to live in peace." These were the words of one of those villified settlers.

My cousin was a great supporter of the peace process. He said he would gladly give up his home for peace. Today he votes for Mafdal (National Religious Party) which is to the right of Ariel Sharon and Likud. His experiences, bitter ones, changed his views. He is hardly an extremist. Almost nobody there in Alfei Menashe was back then.

Most "settlers" moved to Judea and Samaria because housing is reasonable there and they could be 10 minutes from Jerusalem or 5 minutes from Kfar Saba. Others, like my cousin, worked in the territories. Most are anything but extremists. Continuing Palestinian terrorism is hardening their views, and indeed, those of many Israelis.

FYI: the bloodiest year of violence between the people we now call Palestinians and the Jews of what is now Israel was 1936-37. 6,000 Jews died in the Arab riots. There was no "occupation", no "settlements", and no state of Israel. Why did the Arabs hate us then? What in the world makes you believe their attitudes towards Jews have changed one little bit over the past 67 years? What is the difference between Muhammed Amin al-Husseini and Yasser Arafat? Do you really believe Arafat and the P.A. have even the slightest interest in peace?

It is hard to say that Shinui is respectful of the datim by its support of policies that would take away the voice of the religious Jew in Israel. Pro-diversity are often code words for support the violation of acknowledged Jewish tradition and law. Somehow, diversity seldom includes the religious Jew in the mind of Shinui. The separation of church and state is a secularist desire that is in conflict with the very essence of country that is based upon Jewish identity. It opens a pandora's box that leads to the civil war he postulates.

The very idea that a politician could make the public statements that compare and justify the deaths on the Altalena to the possible deaths in the removal of settlements is the opposite of respectful. He is stating that it is or would be civil war.

All he is doing is making these public statements is to lay the future ground work for violence and death. The problem is that he cannot see his own possible downfall as a result.

I'm going to try and separate my views from those of Shinui for a moment. It is awkward at best to defend a party whose positions include more things I do not support than things I do support. Fair enough?

support of policies that would take away the voice of the religious Jew in Israel.

Take away the voice or take away control? There is a huge difference between the two. The former I cannot support; the latter I support to a certain degree.

Pro-diversity are often code words for support the violation of acknowledged Jewish tradition and law.

"support the violation" or allow freedom of choice? If I choose to keep a kosher kitchen does that mean that kashrut should be the law of the land? It isn't and I don't think it should be. Shinui has supported opening businesses on Shabbat. In a Jewish state I have a problem with that. Basically I guess I mostly like the status quo. I just think how one observes Judaism is an individual choice and should not be dictated.

The separation of church and state is a secularist desire that is in conflict with the very essence of country that is based upon Jewish identity.

Here we agree. I think my main point is that all the various expressions of Judaism should be welcome in Israel. I think it's wrong that a masorti rabbi cannot perform a wedding and have it officially recognized. I think chilonim end up resenting the datim amd haredim because certain things are shoved down their throats and because they are subsidizing things they do not believe in. Haredi exemption from IDF service has long been a point of contention for obvious reasons. I think a Jewish state can be maintained while respecting individual rights and having some degree of equality, including equal responsibilty for insuring the survival of Israel as a Jewish state.

All he is doing is making these public statements is to lay the future ground work for violence and death.

Rather than debate you let me ask you a question. Let us, for the sake of discussion, say that there is cessation of violence by the Palestinians and some sort of peace process ensues. Let us say there is some sort of agreement reached and part of it involves removing outlying settlements. Let's say Netzarim and Itamar are to be evacuated under the agreement. What if the people there refuse to leave? What should Israel do?

Also, let's talk about outposts that are illegal under Israeli law. Shouldn't the state of Israel have a right to enforce it's laws? If outpost residents resist what should be done?

Fine. You don't support the veiled physical threats.

Take away the voice or take away control?

Take away their voice. By violence and threats.

support the violation" or allow freedom of choice?

When a key politico public makes a public comparison of removing Jews from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to the Altalena, it is a clear violation. It is a heavy handed intimidation and justification of murder of Jews who would have the timerity to disagree.

I think a Jewish state can be maintained while respecting individual rights and having some degree of equality, including equal responsibilty for insuring the survival of Israel as a Jewish state.

Great. Then, do away with administrative detention. The government should stop threatening religious Jews.

Let's say Netzarim and Itamar are to be evacuated under the agreement. What if the people there refuse to leave? What should Israel do?

It is a non-issue as the people would be forced to leave by force. The government has already said they would be willing to kill Jews (to its everlasting shame).

Also, let's talk about outposts that are illegal under Israeli law. Shouldn't the state of Israel have a right to enforce it's laws? If outpost residents resist what should be done?

Oh Absolutely. The government should tear down every last illegallly built Arab house. :)

Your story is an important one for people on both sides of the debate to keep in mind. In many ways it is the modern counterpart of my reference to the reaction to the Hebron Massacres.

Actually, I've commented numerous times around here that there are two very distinctive groups of settlers. The most numerous are those that moved to the West Bank for economic reasons. We can debate the wisdom of the Israeli government's subsidization of these settlements all day, but those people are not there for malicious reasons. They tend to live close to the "Green Line", often contiguous to Israeli lands rather than Palestinian towns. I'd expect any peace deal to make their towns part of Israel, perhaps in exchange for Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif and the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem and an "access corridor" between Gaza and the West Bank.

One must comment, though, on the idea of "strategic settlements". If an area is strategically important, why put civilians and even children there? Why not a military base? That would be Israel's perogative as an occupier and no one could question it. Instead, all signatories of the Geneva Convention consider Israel in violation of same, except of course for Israel.

Now as I said and you more or less have said, there are two kinds of settlers. There are the economic settlers, and there are the ultra-nationalist settlers. Many of the latter, like their rejectionist Palestinian counterparts, advocate the ethnic cleansing of the former British Mandate of Palestine. I don't think that any unbiased observer can maintain that the types of settlers that make up a big part of the population of places like Gaza, Itamar, Hebron, and Kiryat Arba (where there is a monument to a suicide murderer) don't stir things up in the territories and aren't a real impediment to peace. These are the people that Poraz is suggesting need to be dealt with harshly. Arutz Sheva calls that "anti-Jewish".

-Eric

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.