In the comment section of a Haaretz piece on the arrest of a settler for a failed attack on a Palestinian village, there is a great exchange between a settler and a peace activist, Natallie Durson, who I believe is from LA. The settler shows some sensitivity to the rights of the people among whom he lives.
#8 Durson:
"So the settlers attacked the IDF to the point that the IDF had to
withdraw. The settlers are long on gall and short on brains. The IDF
will go out of its way to avoid a fight, as we have seen before, no
matter who the enemy is."
#21 Meir from Gush Etzion:
"
Matalie, [sic]
I foam at the mouth, when i hear of the bad things some of my co-settlers have done/ or plan on doing.
Thank
G-d they are not numerous,
but they are too many for my liking..and
finally it seems that more action is being taken against them.
Then
there are those, who continue to work within the framework of the law,
but who are blind to the presence and rights of Palestinians, among
whom we live. There are many blind settlers..who at time open their
mouths with insensitive words..at time disgusting.
They also
make me MAD...but they also do some good..they help wake up many normal
settlers to the evils of our blindness and insensitivity.
Being
sensitive and humane does not necessarily legitimize our continued
existence as settlements in areas that might/should be become part of
the Palestinian state..BUT being sensitive is necessary to legitimize
ourselves as human beings and Jews."
#23 Durson replies:
"
Thank
you for your response. As always, generalizing or catagorizing people
by groups inevitably does a disservice to some, possibly even a
majority within the group. I hope that this is understood and that you
don`t take offense from my comments. I am certain that in the future a
large number of settlers lives will become unsettled, the good along
with the bad. I wish you luck in that time to come."
#41 Meir replies:
"Natalie, I appreciate your post #23. You can be sharp, and sometimes i do think you go overboard.
I
often think your perspective is a bit warped..or not broad enough..but
i see that you are coming from a place not as narrow as i previously
thought.
Now i see that i have good reason to continue reading
your posts...even if they cause me discomfort at time-sometimes because
they are a challenge..other times because they seem to me off base."
(Thanks to Sky Redoubt for the headsup.)
It is overwhelmingly the fact of being a settler, not the good/bad behaviour of the settlers as such, which is the essential anti-arab bigotry here.
otto, I think you have to consider the institutional framework that draws them there. Not only the institutional framework but a huge ideological justification factory, in which they are caught. They are needed to guarantee the facts on the ground, but they did not devise them.
Sometimes I wonder if the Israelis–apart from a few ideologues–wouldn't be much more realistic, if there weren't e.g. the "Jisraelis":
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/07/two-israels_13.html
Compare the above article with this young American:
http://nazibegone.blogspot.com/2008/06/jewish-nationalism-and-zionism.html
or:
http://nazibegone.blogspot.com/2008/06/who-are-you.html
Off topic, but, Michael Scheuer boldly goes where no man has gone before
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=13139
Otto and LeaNder, the settlers are not as homogeneous as your comments suggest. Some are ideological, some are opportunistic, some are anti-Arab bigots. I wouldn't venture to guess the actual composition, but I have known a few and most of those were more like Meir above, who, in another comment, says:
"You are right. I live on land that was destined to be a Palestinian State according to the UN Resolution (Partition Plan). But this land was owned and settled by Jews previously. These Jews were never offered the choice of being minority citizens in Palestine, nor to be evacuated orderly to the borders of Israel. Instead they died (most were murdered after surrender) trying to defend the Jewish State from Arabs who rejected the UN Partition.
I have been prepared for almost 40 years to leave the reestablished Etzion Bloc after the Palestinians accept Israel, and negotiate with us. This started only twenty years after the the war in 1967. During those years many people have made mistakes, and many also have done bad things…and some people of good will have come to some sort of understanding that compromise is possible-and many settlers will have to move."
These people should be made allies in ending the occupation instead of being excluded on some puristic grounds. They are good people caught in the situation, as LeaNder suggests. They will be the ones that will resist the violent minority that will try to shout them down as it did in the past (cf. Yonatan Bassi) Someone said that Carter made a big mistake of agreeing to meeting terrorists but not meeting a single settler on his last trip to the ME and I agree. Any pragmatic solution will have to include dialog with all the sides. They speak about strengthening the moderate elements in Hamas and the Palestinian society as a whole; same needs to be done for Israelis.
Second, a large part of settlers are not ideological but were drawn to the territories because of government incentives and lower cost of living (I don't think one can sweepingly call them anti-Arab bigots any more than calling all the European colonizers of the past anti-native bigots.) Again, I don't know exactly how many, I'd guess at least about 50%, taking into account that most settlers live in the big settlement blocks like Ariel. These also will be prepared to leave given the economic aspect is sorted out.
The real hard-core Kach variety is certainly a small minority, but, as is often the case, is able to be the most vocal and mobilizing one.
one squat is too many. will meir leave or is his brand of thievery and violence and hate acceptable? apparently it is.
'Someone said that Carter made a big mistake of agreeing to meeting terrorists but not meeting a single settler on his last trip to the ME and I agree.'
A sly sentence. Where Carter 'agreed' to meet 'terrorists', he simply didn't meet any settlers. This subtly infers he must not have agreed, or agreed not to meet settlers, which would indicate a bias on his part that I believe does not exist. Can you point to any evidence that his not meeting settlers originates with a desire on his part to avoid them?
I would be willing to bet my left nut that if the failure to meet settlers wasn't simply an oversight on all sides, that if it was a conscious decision, it was made by the settlers rather than Carter, one of whose distinctions is his willingness to talk to anyone about anything. By contrast, his reception in Israel was shameful in it's lack of respect.
It may be that authorities there decided not to arrange a meet with settler groups, and perhaps that's just spite, but it may also be a recognition that had Carter done so, his moral force and palpable humility would have set the hectoring racism of the settlers in very stark relief. And not just in comparison to Carter, but maybe also with the good manners and openness of the 'terrorists'.
That is the other element in your formulation I find troubling. While the people whose land has been stolen and who have forged alliances and organisations who try to expel the invaders by force are 'terrorists', the people squatting illegally on that land are far more benignly referred to as 'settlers'.
I guess it's easier to fall into such lazy prejudices if you are ethnically related to either side, particularly when you are soaking in a media environment that works assiduously to cultivate such a biased mindset, but excuse some of the rest of us if we demur.
Glenn, I don't know whether a settler group had a chance to invite him or not, nor did I intend to imply that Carter is somehow biased. ("Somebody" I referred to is here) My fault if it came across this way. I also agree that his reception in Israel was shameful.
I don't intend to argue with you about relative merits or repulsiveness of "terrorists" or "settlers" (terms we use for recognizable concepts). But I don't think you need to believe that enemy of your enemy is your friend, if you see what I mean. Also, I hope you can agree with my point that people like Meir above deserve to and should be made allies in ending the occupation and the Palestinian suffering no less than, say, Khaled Meshal.
Mr. Weiss:
Thankyou for your article about the annual
Vegas meeting of the Jewish lobby, so to speak. I find it on a par with the promotion by the federal government subsidizing the US auto companies locating in cheaper countries, or, globalization. leading to mass destution in the US, the same action that this government has taken by allowing, if not forcing, the Israel Lobby to absolutely lead US foreign policy.
And then forcing international countries to help in order to ligimize illegal wars. At present, the US is extremely busy changing international law. incrementally.
Your analysis does not go far enough, but as far as it does so excellent. Thanks. Governments around the world (as is mine in the Netherlands) are scared stiff of the Israeli Lobby. One voice of common sense and of reason here, one voice there ….and incremental achievment of peace in the Middle East and in the rest of the whole world, Arabs and Muslims making up at least two billion of us six billion strong, may happen. Change is our most common human action; sovreignity the other…..
With atom power, fascism is in its death throws……Iran is arming itself to protect its identity …..Israel is not a democracy but a dictatorship that commits genocide with US complete support.
Two and two is still four. With its support of Isael, the US is stating it is not a democracy. Live for a few years in downtown Detroit Michigan and you will agree.
Suzanne de Kuyper
Amsterdam
Suzanne de Kuyper