A reader writes:
As an employee of what you have taken to calling the “Greater Israel Lobby” who does not support the idea of Greater Israel, I would like to respond to the question that you leveled at Jeffrey Goldberg: “What would work to stop and reverse the settlements and forcibly remove the religious fanatics now upping the ante in a global religious war into which the US would inevitably be dragged?” One thing that would work is to stop looking at “settlements” so myopically and start drawing distinctions between the different kinds of Israelis living in different kinds of neighbourhoods that fall on the “wrong” side of the 1948 armistice lines.
The term “settlements” encompasses everything from what are essentially neighbourhoods of Jerusalem that have expanded over a then-unrecognised border to the hilltop outposts that probably come to mind when you write about them. Most of the people who live in “settlements” are not the religious fanatics you speak of, they are generally poor immigrants from the former Soviet Union or from Ethiopia who came to Israel and went where the housing was cheapest, as well as people who work in Jerusalem but wanted to live in a quiet suburban setting.
The religious-Zionists who refuse to give away the Path of the Prophets and the Cave of the Patriarchs are definitely the loudest of the West Bank’s Jewish residents, but they are neither the largest group nor the most powerful. What is happening with all of this external pressure, however, is that their voices are resonating within a community that feels attacked and does not understand why. Having actually been to the places you write about, I can tell you that many of them are not even aware of the issues surrounding the Green Line – they have been raised to consider where they live to be part of Israel.
Another issue that is rarely raised by you or anyone else who attacks them for where they choose to live is that they have some very serious and legitimate concerns about security. I have been on the bullet-proof school buses that take their children to school every day, which were introduced because they used to be habitually shot at as they drove to school; they will all tell you horror stories about babies being shot by snipers and restaurants full of people being bombed. They have seen what has happened in the last twelve years when Israel has twice withdrawn from territory and both times the territory was overrun by Islamist extremists who have used it to attack Israel.
I am, of course, aware that there is another side to the story and that many of these settlers also have blood on their hands, but many of them do not and the fact that they are being constantly condemned by people – such as yourself – who refuse to investigate who they really are is causing them to band together, leading to a retrenched siege mentality and a growing influence of the fanatical voices that none of us want to hear.
What would work to stop and reverse the settlements? I would suggest:
1) Draw distinctions between different settlements and start treating them like a group of people with a fanatical minority rather than a group of fanatics.
2) Begun a dialogue with them, showing them that we understand their perspective and educating them on other perspectives that boycotts would only cut them off from.
3) Israel implementing tax penalties for living in settlements and using the attendant revenue to compensate people who leave the settlements for Israel proper. This is a change that will not come from American pressure, but will need to result from internal lobbying within Israel.
4) Address the security legitimate concerns that the Israelis have. Put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to stop naming sports teams after terrorists, stop endorsing clerics who refer to Jews as “Satan on Earth” and stop appointing people to public office because they were imprisoned by Israel for murder (see the Governor of Bethlehem if you don’t believe me).
It would also help to form a better understanding of AIPAC, which is not the right-wing group that everyone is making it out to be and actually does not have a particular stance one way or the other regarding the West Bank. AIPAC has a very narrow policy agenda, which is entirely focused on increasing cooperation between America and Israel. There are militant organisations affiliated to – but distinct from – AIPAC that could perhaps justify the moniker “Greater Israel Lobby”, but the pro-Israel community is a very diverse and fractured group in America and the only message that can bring most (if not all) of them together is one as simple as AIPAC’s “the US should have a strong relationship with Israel”.
If you speak to the pro-Israel mainstream, you will find that the vast majority are not too fond of the settlements and are in favour of a two-state solution, as indeed are most Israelis. The debate is not what the solution is but when and how it will come. The increasing hostility from certain sectors of the US is not encouraging Israelis to act sooner, but rather creating a feeling of being attacked and winning more sympathy for all the wrong people.
The Dish 