There is no more effective way to stifle opposition than setting up your own opposition — something that was done in East Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary during the era of Soviet imperial rule there. The government of Israel, which in many ways reflects the culture of Stalinist Russia and the political culture of pre-revolutionary Russia which was shared with the early Zionists who came here a century ago, is following the same instincts as the communists did in setting up their own opposition in Eastern Europe.
Before we get to what is actually going down with respect to the fake opposition and what it really means, let's examine briefly the status of Judea and Samaria under Israeli law. In May 1967, Jordan governed three provinces west of the Jordan River: Nablus in the north, Jerusalem in the center, and Hebron Province in the south. Jerusalem Province included the Old City of Jerusalem and the area immediately to the east of the city, east of the 1949 Armistice Lines, what is now called the Green Line. After the Six Day War in June of that year, the Israeli government pledged to the people of Israel that Jerusalem would never be divided again. The Old City, and a goodly portion of the land east, north, and south of the Old City were annexed to the State of Israel. All of that territory is under the rule of the civilian government of Israel — sort of.
The remaining territory was a problem for the government. They wanted badly to annex the land, but did not want to annex the Arabs living on it. However, Moshe Dayan, by blowing up the bridges linking the territory to Jordan, prevented the Arabs living here from leaving, which is what most of them wanted to do — so the government was stuck with Dayan's stupidity. To make a long story short, the government called together a commission, headed by a man named Meir Shamgar, and he (erroneously) decided that the land was "occupied territory." The Israelis gave the three former Jordanian provinces the title "Administered Territories," and set up a Civil Administration under the aegis of the Security Minister. The laws in the Arab villages, the laws of Jordan, were to remain in force, except for the law banning the sale of land to Jews. For a long time, the Israeli government discouraged Jewish settlement here. Under the premiership of MenaHem Begin, the title "Administered Territories" was replaced with Judea and Samaria, which is what the area really is to us in Israel. But Jewish settlement here was still discouraged.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy, I have skimmed your great article, and shall now go back and read it more thoroughly. However, my initial comment is that if impoverished little Honduras can overcome world opinion and the repressive actions by the United States Government, so can Israel.
I hope; however, there do not seem to have been the divisions in Honduras currently existing in Israel.
Wishing you a pleasant sabbath,
Dan(Miller)
2 - Christine
Ruvy, stopped by to check out your article and say hello. As a person who cares what happens in Israel, I like to know what is going on, however, this is a lengthy piece and since I am a morning person, I will have to read this first thing tomorrow.
In the meantime...Shalom!
3 - Ruvy
Dan,
The "new" State of Israel brings to it divisions and disputes from 2,000 years of exile, disputes that go all the way back to the divisions that were in Judean society when fighting the Romans. This, on top of all the divisions that have developed since makes a very complicated political situation.
The sources of the present divisions that are most prominent in this article stem from divisions in Polish-Jewish society from over 100 years. Add to them all the divisions of Jewish society, and the divisions in Israeli society, and you have what Israelis call a balagán.
Christine,
This is not a pleasant piece to read. It was not a pleasant piece to write, and it details divisions on Jewish society and Israeli society that are unpleasant - divisions that do much to unvarnish the "hava negila" image that one learns as a foreigner.
Of course, now that we are all "imperialist zionist genocidal baby-killing, ethnic cleansing maniac Jews" who have no sympathy for the greatest martyrs of the 20th and 21st century, "the poor Palestinians," who is supposed to give a damn, right?
Try and bear in mind that this article does not have to do with Arabs or our dispute with them.
Hope to hear your thoughts later today, Christine.
shavúa tov! - have a good week!
Ruvy
4 - Christine
Wow, Ruvy, what a story. Don't know who you can trust. That makes it even worse.
I'm a little confused...What is the Yesha council's motive for this betrayal?
5 - Ruvy
UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE
We see what the open enemy of the Jewish people in Israel does in this update. The question is what the hidden enemies - the Shaba"k agents and people who are paid by the government to be agents provocateurs are doing to sabotage the efforts to resist this illegal building freeze.
Continuing violence in Samaria as police attack Jews to the applause of Arabs.
Units of the goon squad of the Israel Police, Yassa"m, attacked residents of Kedumim Sunday morning, and beat up demonstrators, Arutz Sheva reported today. There is a video to be watched along with the report.
From the article:
The inspectors were accompanied by special Yassam unit police officers, who reportedly used strong violence to disperse the protestors. The Yassamnikim hit the town’s mayor, Chananel Durani, and his deputy, eyewitnesses say, and threw young girls on the street, as seen on the video above.
The inspectors ultimately succeeded in entering the town, where they placed the stop-work orders and quickly left. Their cars were pelted with eggs and other objects, courtesy of the residents.
The Shomron Residents Committee reports that on their way to Kedumim, the forces drove through three nearby Arab villages â€" Funduk, Haja, and Kadoum â€" places that the army generally considers too dangerous to enter in order to apprehend terrorists or confiscate weapons.
To the Jewish residents’ horror, they learned that the Arab residents applauded as the convoy of forces drove through.
6 - Ruvy
Christine,
I'm a little confused...What is the Yesha council's motive for this betrayal?
I cannot put my finger upon the motive. This I do not know specifically. Money - bribes being paid extra to betray one's neighbors - is one probable motive. Corrupt behavior - and the knowledge of the Shaba"k of this corrupt behavior - is another. And there certainly has been plenty of corruption in the way many things have been handled here in Samaria.
Once, I saw one of the residents of this village showing some non-religious Jews around, pointing various things out. I looked at his face - only one emotion registered there - guilt.
Draw your own conclusions.
7 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy,
I suspect that you may read this with as much envy as I did.
Dan(Miller)
8 - Bob Lloyd
If you acknowledge that the land on which the settlements were being built is of disputed ownership (and that it's not something that Israel can declare unilaterally), much of the argument of the article disappears. Instead of being a betrayal, it seems to be the Israeli government responding rationally to international calls to respect internationally agreed boundaries. You might disagree with the existing government's response to those calls, but given that the land is disputed, halting settlements seems the least that Israel should be doing.
Even if you disagree with the politics of the Israeli government, you can see that halting the settlement programme is a minimum for establishing any kind of negotiated agreement with the Palestinians and the old US pattern of massive funding of the Israeli military can't lead to a long-term solution. By contrast, the continuation of the settlement programme will ensure conflict with the Palestinians for generations to come. In that situation, it's hard to see why such a government move should be seen as a betrayal. It's actually a long-overdue recognition that its land claims are disputed and need negotiated resolution.
9 - Ruvy
Batya Medad, who lives a couple of villages away from me in Shiló, wrote this piece, one that tracks with mine, but is much shorter.
From her blog-post:
Barak used that dangerous term to describe the decision, "unilateral."
Barak, meanwhile, said at a closed meeting at his ministry in Tel Aviv, "We are talking about a unilateral step, at the government's initiative, which has been coordinated with the United States, with the intention of advancing the diplomatic process with the Palestinians."
That means that we get nothing for it. And Israel has tried that method with one consistent result every time. It has only made things worse, more terrorism and more death and destruction for Israelis.
Binyamin Netanyahu and family may be occupying the Prime Minster's Residence, but our government's policies are from Ehud Barak, whose Labor Party received very few votes. I'd say that we've been had, bamboozled, conned!
10 - Ruvy
If you acknowledge that the land on which the settlements were being built is of disputed ownership...
This is what I said: The remaining territory was a problem for the government. They wanted badly to annex the land, but did not want to annex the Arabs living on it. However, Moshe Dayan, by blowing up the bridges linking the territory to Jordan, prevented the Arabs living here from leaving, which is what most of them wanted to do â€" so the government was stuck with Dayan's stupidity. To make a long story short, the government called together a commission, headed by a man named Meir Shamgar, and he (erroneously) decided that the land was "occupied territory."
I never acknowledged anything. I recited what occurred - and made sure to include my opinion on it - an opinion that has plenty of backing.
11 - Bob Lloyd
[They wanted badly to annex the land, but did not want to annex the Arabs living on it.]
Precisely Ruvy. They wanted the land and not the occupants! You seem to think it was a mistake that the Arabs weren't given a way off their own land, but surely the question is why should they have been pushed off it in the first place?
You always seem to start from the assumption that Israel has a right to the land owned by the Arabs - that is contested. Israel doesn't have any right to push Arabs off their land. Your complaint about the government not making it easy, or forcing settlers to conform to government decision, seems pretty groundless.
You elect a government to make such decisions and the fact that they are actually taking steps to prevent settlement (despite allowing others to continue) is surely to be welcomed by anyone who wants to see a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.
The Palestinians will surely get a raw deal in any settlement though. Can you really see Israel agreeing to the right of return for all those families who were forcibly ejected from their homes and forced to live in refugee camps?
It hard for me to understand, Ruvy, why you are so vitriolic in condemning those who are making such a tiny step in the direction of listening to international opinion. The Arabs do have rights, they do own land, they were forcibly removed from it to make room for Jewish settlements. That is exactly the same as the apartheid regime in South Africa, and deserves the same condemnation.
12 - Ruvy
I start from the assumption that the Convention in San Remo on 24-25 April 1920, the one that defined the Palestine Mandate - and its borders gives the Jewish People and its representatives permanent and total sovereignty forever over all the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean de minimis. Resident Arabs have civil rights in this territory (i.e the right to fair trial, equal application of law, taxes fairly and honestly collected, freedom of speech and the press), they have the right to own land, they have the right to worship freely - but they do not have political rights in this land. That is international law as decided by the powers that stripped Turkey of sovereignty of this land in 1920, and it is the only comprehensive document in international law that deals with this piece of land. So, therefore the decision taken by the Shamgar Commission of 1968 was erroneous, an action based on ignorance.
As for "international opinion", it is worthless. "International opinion", after all, didn't give a damn when the Nazis murdered us off, nor did it give a damn when Jews were locked in ghettos in Europe, nor did it give a damn when Jews were denied their rights all over the Arab world and attacked there, nor does it give a damn today when Jews are attacked for who they are in that huge graveyard of Jewry, Europe, nor does it give a damn at the hatred and lies and genocidal teachings designed to murder us off. Put differently, international law, which is what I stand on has to be backed up against the savages of Europe, America and Arabia by our nukes and our faith in G-d.
If I hold you and your views in contempt, it is because you've earned it the old fashioned way - you've worked for it. And since it is MY land, and not yours to give away, your interference in our affairs here is viewed by me and those who agree with me - and we are many in this country - as an act of war. The day will come when it will be treated that way as well.
Let's put it this way, Robert, so it is clear in your mind. Rachel Corrie, a stupid American mall rat who was propagandized to hate her won country as well as mine, interfered in our affairs. She died for that interference, and she deserved to die. Her parents shame her memory, and shame themselves by pursuing the same interference, deluding themselves that they raised a martyr.
The man who tells you this is the father of two young men who know to respect you and your country, and who were raised to do so - something you obviously do not know how to do.
13 - Ruvy
Those of you who continuously whine of the "poor Palestinians" - and those of you who honestly believe in the reconciliation of ALL the Children of Abraham - need to watch this video and learn from this Arab's words.