Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2002, pages 35-37

Special Report

 

The “Other” Fundamentalists

 

By Nizar Wattad

For nearly two years, a “new” intifada has raged across Israel and Palestine, thanks in part to Washington’s tacit support of Israel’s occupation, in part to wrong-headed Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians—but mostly to a phenomenon that threatens to destroy any possibility of peace in the region: Israeli racism. Like American racism in the 1950s and South African apartheid from 1948 until the 1980s, racism in Israel is neither universal nor absolute. It is, however, sufficiently prevalent to provide the ideological fuel necessary to maintain an occupation that is extremely costly both financially and in human lives, be they Muslim, Christian or Jewish.

Nowhere is the blight of Israeli racism more apparent than in the settlements of the West Bank and Gaza. There Israeli settlers wreak havoc almost daily on the lives of Palestinians in the name of Jewish fundamentalism—an ideology as far from the Jewish faith as Christian and Islamic fundamentalisms are from their own, and just as dangerous.

Doron Rosenblum, a journalist for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, uses the term “Israel’s settler warlords” to describe fanatics pressing the nation to war against the best interests of most Israelis. “The settlers for years have done whatever they could to obstruct territorial compromise,” Rosenblum wrote. “The settlers fought tooth and nail against all initiatives for peace or separation...And these are the people now jubilantly sounding the bugle and calling the nation to war.”

More than a mere rallying force, she said, “the settlers are now mapping out general strategic objectives—‘reoccupying the cities of our Lord,’ as they call it, and basically annexing the territories, again as part of a much broader agenda.”

This agenda, simply, is the territorial expansion of Israel as a purely Jewish state—sans Palestinians. In their excellent analysis Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky point out that the National Religious Party—of which most West Bank settlers are members—“has continuously opposed any and all withdrawal from territories conquered and occupied by Israel since 1967...These same Jews printed and distributed atlases showing that the land of Israel, belonging only to the Jews and requiring liberation, included the Sinai, Jordan, Lebanon, most of Syria, and Kuwait.”

In a recent New York Times interview, one member of the Gush Emunim settler movement shared his hopes that “in a few years, all of this area will be covered by Jewish population. I can show you how you can connect this area to Tel Aviv without any major Arab population inside.”

If ethnic cleansing proves impossible, the constant expansion of settlements will be used as a bargaining chip of sorts, with more remote settlements being given up so that Israel can keep those it already has. Hence Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon’s 1998 call for settlers to “grab hilltops” before they could be returned to their rightful Palestinian owners.

This strategy is already working in Jerusalem, from whence an Israeli withdrawal is almost unimaginable—despite the city’s official status as occupied territory, not to mention U.N. resolutions calling for the city to “be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime…administered by the United Nations.”

 

Settler Violence

Two important human rights reports released since April 2001 provide a shocking account of the violence Palestinians have suffered at the hands of settlers just since the onset of hostilities in September 2000. Human Rights Watch (HRW) devoted an entire 29-page report to Settler Attacks and the Lack of an IDF Response in the town of Hebron alone. In six months, HRW reported 51 separate incidents in which Hebron settlers attacked Palestinians while Israeli soldiers and police stood and watched. In December, LAW—the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment—released a report documenting 145 settler attacks in the first 10 months of conflict, none of which overlapped with HRW’s count, for a minimum total of 196 incidents in 10 months—more than 13 times the number of Palestinian suicide attacks in the same period of time.

The most prevalent form of settler violence in these documents (66 counts) was the wanton destruction of Palestinian property, including cars, homes, stores and merchandise, followed closely (64 counts) by incidents in which settlers fired guns at people and buildings. Stone-throwing, arson, beating/stabbing of Palestinians and agricultural destruction also were quite common. These attacks, according to the meticulously documented LAW report, directly resulted in the deaths of 23 Palestinians. Noted the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, “In most cases in which Israelis killed Palestinians [since December 1987], self-defense was not involved.” These 23 deaths were no exception—nor was the recent death of the 14-year-old girl Nivin Jamjoum.

 

Hebron, July 26-28

On Friday, July 26, 2002, Palestinians shot and killed Elazar Liebowitz, a 21-year-old Israeli settler and soldier, in an ambush. His sister later told Israel Radio that Liebowitz “strongly loved the land of Israel. He was zealous for the land. At least we know that before he died, he managed to cock his rifle. We know that that’s how he wanted to die, maybe with a few more notches on his gun.”

Thanks to an eyewitness report in the American Jewish weekly Forward, we also know that Liebowitz made three requests before his death: “first, that a stone from Itamar, a settlement north of Jerusalem that he helped build, be placed in his coffin; second, that he be eulogized with songs; and third, that his friends exact revenge for his death.”

And avenge they did. Shortly after Liebowitz died, settlers embarked on a weekend-long rampage, attacking Palestinian residents of Hebron and damaging their property. According to The New York Times, many wore T-shirts that read “No Arabs = No Attacks.” One soldier who witnessed the riots recalled hearing the sound of breaking glass. “At first I thought it was some kind of religious custom I had never heard of,” he said. “I asked one of the female soldiers who were with me if she knew what it was. A woman, she seemed to be from the area, heard us talking. She came up to us and said it wasn’t a custom. It was just that the Arabs brought out the evil in people.”

The settlers had already been rioting for two days when they began firing guns outside the home of Marwan Jamjoum. Fearing for the safety of his parents and three siblings, Marwan decided to rush downstairs and lock the main iron door. His younger sister Nivin followed him. The following is from the testimony Marwan gave B’Tselem:

“When I looked through the small windows in the stairway, I saw more than 25 settlers on the street near our house. Some of them had guns and others had knives. They were young, between the ages of 18 and 30. I started down the stairs, and was surprised to see that two settlers had already entered through the iron doors. They were standing at the edge of the stairs.

“My sister, Nivin, went ahead of me. I suddenly heard two shots. Nivin fell down the stairs. She didn’t scream. Blood started flowing on the stairs and on her clothes.”

Nivin, who was pronounced dead 15 minutes after arriving at Alyah Hospital, having been detained for five minutes on the way by Israeli soldiers, was buried the next day.

The incident received wide coverage in the Israeli press, including a scathing Ha’aretz editorial which asserted that “the violence in Hebron is proof of just how impossible it is to maintain a state of coexistence between settlers and Palestinians in the occupied territories and just how great a role the extremists play in exacerbating the conflict.”

The editorial went on to criticize the Israeli government for demanding that Palestinians impose discipline on Arab residents of the occupied territories while “Israeli governments, even when the prime minister or defense minister have been from the [leftist] Labor Party, surrender to the settlers and cooperate with them.”

 

Israeli Response

Moshe Givati, an Israeli adviser on settlement security, called the Hebron riots a “pogrom against the Arabs of Hebron, with no provocation on the Palestinian side.” Israeli soldiers and police, Givati said, “acted with too much restraint. It was necessary to use much greater force...It is inconceivable that they [the settlers] curse and swear at soldiers and police officers,” who, according to B’Tselem’s detailed report, made only half-hearted efforts to stop the violence.

It is telling—indicative of the double-standard typically employed by the Israeli government in the occupied territories—that Givati seemed most irked at settlers for attacking Israeli soldiers and police. “When Palestinians attack Israelis,” notes a B’Tselem survey, “the authorities invoke all means at their disposal, including some that are incompatible with international law and constitute gross violations of human rights…In contrast, when Israeli civilians attack Palestinians, the Israeli authorities employ an undeclared policy of leniency and compromise.”

Indeed. Of the 196 settler attacks documented by HRW and LAW in the first 10 months of the current intifada, Israeli soldiers offered assistance to wounded Palestinians exactly twice. In no instances did Israeli soldiers or police actually stop settlers from attacking Palestinians or their property. When one family complained to a soldier that settlers were poisoning their water supply, the soldier put it bluntly: “We are not here to protect you, we are here to protect the settlers.”

HRW concludes that “the lack of an effective IDF response has emboldened settlers to become more threatening and abusive toward the Palestinian population.” B’Tselem puts the blame on the IDF’s lack of preparation: referring to the Hebron riots, B’Tselem concluded that “the vast majority of these incidents could have been prevented if the police and army had been properly prepared and had made any effort to prevent anticipated violence.”

Lack of preparedness and lack of effective response are not the Israeli army’s only problems, however. On Oct. 26, 2000, following a day of settler attacks in Hebron, LAW reported that “Israeli soldiers themselves attacked Palestinian houses with rocks and bottles full of urine.” On July 12, 2001, when Palestinians tried to defend themselves from settlers wielding Uzis and M-16s, “Israeli soldiers and police shot at them instead of preventing the settlers from continuing their rampage.” Israeli forces also prevented fire and medical personnel on several occasions from attending to emergency situations caused by settler attacks, and allowed settlers on at least five occasions to occupy Palestinian homes for a number of days, sometimes holding religious services before breaking and burning everything inside.

In one instance, settlers entered the home of Izzeddine Sharabti, in which 21 people live. The house contained a Palestinian folklore museum replete with old ceramics, vases, coins and watches, in addition to an extensive library. The settlers burnt everything. “I cannot estimate my loss,” laments Sharabti. “I lost everything, the ancient artifacts, the library, all the furniture and all the memories from my childhood...This house was my very soul. I feel like I’ve lost everything.”

 

U.S. Support

Israel’s current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has made his position on settlements quite clear, saying that “the fate of Netzarim”—a settlement in the middle of the Gaza Strip—“is the fate of Tel Aviv.”

While serving as Israel’s agriculture minister in the late 1970s, Sharon called for two million Jews to settle in the territories by the year 2000. While Sharon hasn’t quite achieved that goal, the West Bank settler population—not counting occupied Jerusalem—has doubled over the last decade to around 200,000. The Israeli organization Peace Now reports that since Sharon assumed the post of prime minister in February 2001, no less than 44 new settlements have been established. This growth is supported by what The New York Times calls “an elaborate system of government incentives and a powerful network of political support. The government provides the settlers with cheap land, discounted loans, tax breaks and other aid,” including cheap housing, subsidized community activities and free transportation, at a total cost of over $1 billion a year.

Israel’s government also tacitly condones the settlers’ more militant activities. B’Tselem points out that settler attacks “are carried out...using firearms and ammunition provided to them by the IDF.” After the Hebron riots, Israeli official Moshe Givati noted that “for some reason they [the settlers] were all carrying army-issue weapons.”

It goes without saying—or should—that these weapons are provided courtesy of the American taxpayer. This is despite the official U.S. position vis-à-vis settlements, reiterated somewhat lamely by President George W. Bush in his June 24 policy speech, that “Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.” It is also contrary to the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, which stipulates that U.S. military aid is not to be used against civilians. Washington’s ever-increasing aid to Israel—to the tune of $6 billion annually—is a clear indicator of de facto U.S. policy, which tacitly supports every Israeli violation of Palestinian rights.

The Israeli government further encourages settlers to violence through its dual legal system—one set of laws and punishments for Palestinians, another for Jews who commit crimes in the same territory. The rule here, it is important to note, is based not on nationality but on ethno-religious background: any Jew, regardless of nationality, is tried in Israeli civilian courts. Palestinians, on the other hand, are tried in military court. The system under which Israelis and non-Israeli Jews are tried, naturally, provides more protections to the defendant. This has led B’Tselem to conclude that “in a single occupied territory, Israel is operating a system of separation with discrimination by law.”

The stark difference in the sentences handed down to Palestinians and Israelis convicted of similar crimes is evidence of such discrimination. For example, of the 126 cases from December 1987 until mid-January 2002 in which Israeli settlers killed Palestinian civilians, exactly one life sentence was handed down. All other sentences amounted to a total of 67.75 years—less than two years per victim. Furthermore, of the 14 cases in which jail time was actually served, half had their sentences reduced by at least one-third.

By contrast, in roughly the same time period (December 1987 to April 2001), Palestinians killed 117 Israelis in the occupied territories, and were handed a total of 40 life sentences. In addition, 13 of the Palestinian suspects were killed before being brought to trial, and 19 of their homes were either demolished or sealed.

On Jan. 21, 2001, 37-year-old Israeli citizen Nahum Korman was sentenced to six months of community service and fined $15,000 for killing 11-year-old Hilmi Sawasheh. Compare this to the sentence handed down the same day to Palestinian Sua’d Ghazal, who Amnesty International confirmed was “suffering psychological problems” when she wounded a settler with a knife in 1998, at the age of 15: “Immediately after her arrest, despite being a minor, she was held incommunicado...for 27 days, for 17 of which she was held in solitary confinement. Since then, Sua’d Hilmi Ghazal, whose mental health deteriorated as a result of the ordeal, has been held for two years in the women’s section of Neve Terze prison in Ramle,” and sentenced to an additional six-and-a-half years in prison.

The contrasting sentences, Amnesty asserted, “reflect a deeply rooted culture of discrimination against Palestinians, which permeates the Israeli justice system.” Korman’s community service sentence, it added, “sends out a powerful message—that Israelis can kill Palestinians with impunity.”

 

Organized Violence

It is interesting to note that the least common forms of settler violence documented in the HRW and LAW reports were the poisoning of Palestinian water sources (three counts, resulting in dead livestock and pets), capturing and torturing Palestinians (three gruesome counts), and bomb-setting (four)—all of which require some measure of careful planning and execution. In other words, settler violence at the beginning of the current intifada was primarily a spontaneous phenomenon, often erupting after a religious service or memorial event. This was certainly the case with the July riots in Hebron.

As the conflict continues, however, settlers are adopting a more systematic approach. According to the HRW report, “Palestinians believe that the settler attacks are aimed at making life unbearable for them, forcing them to leave their homes, and allowing the settlement to expand.”

This, of course, is in line with the settlers’—and the state’s—overall territorial ambitions. Add to this the fact that an increasing number of settlers are “systematically [depriving] Palestinian farmers from access to their land,” and the arrests in April and May 2002 of six settlers plotting to bomb an Arab girls’ school in East Jerusalem—a disaster barely averted by alert Israeli police. The trend seems to indicate that settler violence is becoming more organized—and, in the words of Ariel Sharon himself, “100 times more dangerous.”

Following the murder of Nivin Jamjoum, Ha’aretz lamented that “the obvious conclusion…has never even come up for discussion.” That obvious conclusion is that the presence of a violent settler movement on Palestinian land is the largest obstacle to peace in the region, engendering as it does an illegal and brutal military occupation, which, in turn, results in attacks and counter-attacks from both sides—at the loss of their civilian populations.

To end the cycle of violence Israel simply must comply with Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention—to which it is a signatory—which states that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” All Israel has to do, in other words, is evacuate the settlers, dismantle the settlements.

Is it possible? According to a recent poll by the Israeli group Peace Now, 68 percent of settlers would be willing to comply if so ordered by their government. As a matter of fact, only 9 percent of settlers said they would insist on remaining in their settlement, while only 6 percent suggested they would oppose the decision using illegal means.

Nizar Wattad is editorial assistant for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

< Prev		Next >