Dismantle Hebron?

Great Debates
1

This story, describing the rising problem of settler vigilantism in the West Bank settlements, ends with a quote from the Israeli paper Ha’aretz calling for the “evacuation” of the settlement Hebron
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20010904/3599125s.htm

Looking at the long term, the issue for debate here is: is this even plausible as a long term goal? Obviously, evacuating the settlements would remove a HUGE roadblock to peace. In fact, I doubt if any Palestinian state could plausibly exist without this, because the settlements make necessary not only Israeli military prescence within the border of that “state,” but their supply highways essentially cut the Palestinian territory into a Swiss cheese of checkpoints and Israeli-only travel periods: making a joke of any feeling of control over ones territory.

But the article reminds us of something that should be obvious: many of the major settlements have existed long enough for people to live and die in them: there’s already a deep emotional connection to that land to butress the religious and legal connections. And it’s deep enough that the settlers seem willing to even fight fellow Israelis to keep their land, if it comes to it.

Given all this, could places like Hebron really ever be “evactuated” out of the West Bank without sparking as much violence from settlers being robbed of their homes as it would possibly alleviate from Palestinians who resent their prescence?

And if, as I think, the settlements probably aren’t going anywhere, should Israelis at least seek to protect both Palestinians and Israelis in the territory, rather than Israelis only? Since, if we admit that the settlers aren’t going anywhere, and they will control the territory in perpetuity, could they gain legitimacy as a true police force in the area? Or could only outside forces acheive such legitimacy among both Palestinians and Israelis?

2

Talking about the case of Hebron only, the settlment there is actually in the middle of the town of Hebron and there really is no way it could remain there, particulary as it is a flare-point for both settler and Palestinan violence. Another important factor though is that Hebron was the second holiest Jewish city (or so I am informed) and it is probably the settlement that the Israelis most want to hang onto.

The settlements will probably go in the end, I think most people accept this (according to an Israel acquaintance of mine the majority of Israelis do to), they are illegal and probably the largest obstacle to peace.

3

I visited and spent a day in Hebron when I visited Israel in December 2001. In short, there is no way those settlers are leaving voluntarily, for various reasons:

  1. Enough of them, both young and old have already died so as to make the idea of their having died in vain (by evacuating) an extremely bitter pill to swallow. A part of the day that we spent there was spent in the cemetary in Hebron. There were the victims of the 1929 massacre, as well as the graves of the people who have died within the last 10 years. (Interesting note: the tour guide, a definite “hard-liner” resident of the town, did NOT take us to Baruch Goldstein’s grave). The thoughts of (a) the people who died for that settlement and (b) the idea of physically handing over the cemetary to be desecrated after they left is something that none of them want to contemplate.

  2. Many of the “houses” in the settlement have bullet holes. The constant fighting between the two groups is unrelenting and creates an “us-vs.-them” mentality. As such, both sides are “dug into” their positions, and are not going to leave willingly.

  3. Lastly, Hebron is the home of the Tomb of the Patriarchs, one of the holiest sites in Judaism. Hebron is the place where the Patriarchs lived. Most Jews would sooner give up Tel Aviv than Hebron. In short, if you asked most Orthodox Jews which city they most had to have on religious grounds, you’d get Jerusalem as the number one answer. If you asked them for another city after that, Hebron would no doubt be the overwhelming #2 city.

Zev Steinhardt

4

All of the above nicely illustrates some of the reasons why settlements on occupied territory is and should remain illegal.

5

Zev: that’s basically my sense of things. But given that, doesn’t it seem ridiculous to pretend that there is some sort of two state solution in this situation? If they are occupied territories, illegal or no, and there’s really no chance of the settlers giving up the settlements, and thus really no chance of Israel giving up its commitment to defend those areas, wouldn’t it be better for them to be officially occupied and controled by a single authority (which, undoubtedly, would be the Israelis)? Obviously, that would not go over well at all with the other 80% of the city. But at least then the de facto ruling power would have some de jure responsibility to all the residents.

6

Personally, I don’t care about the settlers’ “connection” to the land. It’s not their land, the settlements are illegal, and that should be the end of it.

Personally, I have more sympathy for the Palestinians’ connection to their land, which goes back for centuries, not decades. What kind of shoddy precedent would be set by deciding that an illegal settlement becomes legal if it can last a few years?

7

As bitter as it might be for the people who have lived there for a long time, or personnally fought for them, I do believe that all settlements should be dismantled. There’s no other way to make the deal palatable for the palestinian, and to create a viable Palestinian state (as opposed to a collection of Bantoustans, separated by Israeli-controlled hyghways, Israelis-controlled settlements, Israelis-controlled towns, Israelis-controlled neighborhoods, Israeli-controlled boundaries, etc…

Of course, theorically, people should be free to stay where they are under Palestinian rule, but in the current climate and at least for one or two generations, this is likely to result in unrest, crimes, terrorism, etc (and on both side, since the people who would want to stay, for the major part, would be hard-liners). So, yes…I think that even towns like Hebron should be evacuated by the Jews, or at least that people should be strongly incited to leave the oldest settlements (even when Jews have actually been living there for centuries), and the recent ones should of course be simply dismantled. People moving out should be comlpensated (by the Israeli government…after all, it’s this state which allowed/send them there at the first place, for the most part).
As for the Palestinian refugees fate, I believe that Israel should offer them some compensatory amount of money for properties which have been actually seized in Israel proper. Perhaps this could apply to the children, or possibly even to the grandchildrens of these people (most of them being probably dead). I don’t think a "right of return is acceptable for the Isralis, except perhaps on a “compassionnatory” level for people who were actually born/actually lived within the boundaries of Israel (but not for their descendants).

I strongly doubt Palestine, given its abysmal situation, could receive all the people who claim they’re are Palestinian and ask for the “right of return”, either. So, I suppose the world community should provide the necessary financial help and incentives to allow them to relocate in other countries (including possibly western countries) or settle as citizens in the countries which currently harbor them (which would probably involve a lot of money and some diplomatic arm-twisting in several cases).

As for jerusalem, I think it should be actually shared (and by that I don’t mean calling “Jerusalem” some subburb and handing it to the Palestinians, as it has been offered at Camp David, but I refer to sharing the actual historical town of Jerusalem). But I don’t think this sharing should be done along some boundary. I think the city, though heading both governments if so they whish should be demilitarized and essentially autonomous, ruled by Jerusalem citizens themselves, with both the Palestinian and Israeli governments having both a strictly defined (in order to avoid abuses and obstruction) right of veto concerning the most important decisions (that could include in particular who could “immigrate” to Jerusalem and under which conditions).
This leave unsolved the issue of Israel security, though, given the lack of depth of the country and the current political situation and popular mood in the neighboring states. This could only be achieved, IMO by a very strong international and military commitment to protect Israel (I mean something similar to the US involvment in South-Korea).

8

What of the problem of ‘Two Palestines’?

Assuming that enough settlements (all?) are dismantled to satisfy the Palestinians; Assuming that the Jerusalem issue is resolved; assuming that security concerns on both sides are resolved…You are still left with two geographically separate ‘Palestines’. Will Israel have to allow a land corridor between them?

As to Jerusalem, didn’t Israel take E. Jerusalem from Jordan? I don’t understand why it would go to the Palestinians, not the Jordanians, if anyone.

9

The same solution than in Berlin during the cold war could be used : a corridor consisting of only a major road.

10

I doubt that Israel would give one square centimeter of Israeli soil to the Palestinians, for whatever reason.

11

It’s funny how Israel has a double standard about that. They don’t want to surrender Israeli soil, nor will they surrender Palestinian soil.

12

I hope I don’t draw flames with this one, but I don’t care how holy any of this land is, if they’re going to bring about World War 3 with this bickering over land, it stands to reason that the conflict should be ended by whatever means necessary. What about the fact that Palestine has “no national identity?” I don’t have a cite for this, but if I remember correctly, Palestine is actually a name the Romans used as an insult after crushing Israel back in the day, which was then adopted by the Arabs as “Falastin.” Not sure why, but I don’t really think it matters – by the time these people get done shelling one another, the land won’t be worth living on.

13

abdul, Palestine was not an insult used by the Romans but was the name that the Greeks gave to the area many centuries before the Romans arrived there. It comes from the Philistines, who at many times were in control of the area, particularly the coastal region, before Philistine culture died out in roughly 600 BC.

When the Romans took control they still knew this area as Palestine from the Ancient Greeks and after a short-lived Jewish client kingdom, and a revolt, they made the area into the province of Syria-Palestinia.

Fast-Forwarding in time, when the British Expeditionary force took control of the area in 1917, the area to the classicially obsessed British was still known as Palestine from antiquity (the area was at this time was known to it’s Ottoman rulers and inhabitants as South Syria) and they gave the area this name, along with the country which is now known as Jordan (which prior to this only very small portions of the east bank of the Jrdan would of been included in the ill-defined area known as Palestine). In 1922 the British Mandate was set up, with the miltarily ruled area being divided up into Mandate Palestine and Trans-Jordania, under the same adminstration but slightly different mandates. In 1926 (or perhaps it was 1927???) Trans-Jordania ceased to be in the adminstrative area and became an Emirate.

14

Bloody merry go rounds:

It is not a fact, it’s a rather illiterate smear on the part of those who claim such.

I refer you to Lapidus, History of Islamic Societies for a substantive overview of the development of Palestininian national idenity, with roots in various Arab nationalist movements in the late 19th century, driven in response to Zionist settlements begin. then through the 20th century. Lapidus reiterates the consensus view that a distinct Palestinian national identity was clear by the 1920s, earlier citations to such references as being Palestinian date to the Xian press of the 1890s as memory serves. It is very clear this had solidified in the period 1948-1967. Continued claims that there is no Palestinian identity are either sheer ignorance or worse, thinly vieled bigotry.

It was not an insult, it was a regional designation, the Arabic adoption is Filistine, Arabization of the Byzantine usage.

“These people” – the Israelis and the Palestinians are simply ordinary folks in a rather diffuclt set of circumstances competing over land both sincerely believe is theirs.

A correction to MC:
Usage of Filistine is attested to in Arabic in regards to the West and East bank areas at least in Xian Arabic press prior to the British. It’s vague and undefined to be certain but certainly not something the British made up or imposed. It does appear, however, to have begun with Xian Arabic speakers, as far as my memory serves.

A nitpick, as memory serves Trans Jordan was est. as a Kingdom for the Hashemite family, but it niggles I might be wrong, in that it might be converted to a Kingom shortly thereafter for Sheikh Hussien. I am fairly certain it was not an Emirate, but again memory does get confused.

15

Look to the history:

(a) Siezure of Jerusalem from Jordan was during the period that Jordan admin the West Bank, which was not recog.
(b) Jordan has subsequenlty renounced all claims to Palestinian territories and all aspirations to rule Palestinians, ex. those who have become citizens in the East Bank.

16

Well, in the Middle East Emirate (well at least I think so, the term Emirate for the Trans Jordan was lifted from an encylopedia published in 1931)is pretty much equivalent to Kingdom (the date of 1926/1927, was the date when the Hashemites were imported from Saudi Arabia to become the monarches of Jordan).

Jordan it self does not want anymore Palestinians and therefore has cmpletely renounced all claims to the westen Bank as roughly 50% of it’s population are Palestinians displaced by the Israelis and further 10% are descended from Palestinians who emigrated to the region freely before 1948.

17

Modern usage has Memlika and Emirate being rather differently structured – however historically I concede it is less clear.

18

I agree with some of the previous posts here, in that the settlements are the biggest obstacle to peace in the region. I have little sympathy for those hard-core settlers who feel that they have a “connection” to the land and who would rather die than leave. The fact remains that their beloved settlements are built on occupied (stolen) land and are illegal under international law.

I doubt that Israel will ever agree to evacuate or dismantle the settlements, because they have already flouted International Law for over thirty years, and don’t really give a shit about UN resolutions or the legality of their actions.

However, if this miracle ever does come to pass, then I agree that the settlers should be moved, and that the IDF should be the ones to move them. By all means compensate them, but the settlements will have to go.

19

Here is another one…

Where do the settlers get the land from, specifically? Do they actually just truck over and setup a town, poof!? Do they get/buy the land from the Israeli gov’t? Do they buy it from Palestinians?

20

AFAIK, the Israeli Government “appropriates” some land from the Palestinians (such as a farm), builds a new settlement, surrounds it with walls and security, then trucks the settlers in. I could be wrong, but I’m sure someone will be along shortly to correct me if I am…