|
|
MIDEAST: Threat Rises From Within
Analysis by Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler
JERUSALEM, Nov 23, 2009 (IPS) - Israelis were perturbed when new recruits at a recent passing-out parade at the
Western Wall in Jerusalem, the remains of Judaism's holiest site, suddenly
unfurled banners reading, 'Our Sons Do Not Evacuate Jews'.
The concern became more acute last week. After the demolition of two hilltop
settler houses in the occupied West Bank, six religious soldiers from the
same brigade deployed placards at their base, declaring their intent to refuse
to remove any more settlements if ordered to do so.
The bulk of the Kfir brigade is composed of religious Jews from settler
communities. Their national service combines military duties with religious
studies.
Both acts were privately filmed, and the material was disseminated by settler
activists to Israeli TV networks. The dissident soldiers were swiftly punished,
some to 30-days incarceration, others to confinement to barracks.
The two incidents have exacerbated public concern over politicisation in the
Israeli army.
Settler rabbis retort that it is senior army officers who are in fact
"contaminated by politics" since they are willing to give up land in the West
Bank which nationalist religious Jews consider as "God-promised to the
Jewish nation."
Many of the settler soldiers rely on ideological rabbinical precepts compiled
by ultra-nationalist rabbis who oversee their studies while they are doing
their national service.
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed of the Har Bracha ring of settlements near the major
Palestinian town of Nablus is an important source of inspiration. He provides
religious answers to the conscripts on how to be loyal to "nation, land, army."
"It is prohibited for any soldier or officer to participate in the strictly
forbidden act of expelling Jews from their homes and to hand over any
portion of the Land of Israel to enemies," he writes in one of his religious
tracts. "Those doing so violate several commandments of the Torah."
In his book, 'Revivim', Melamed responds to the question, "Will that not cause
the army to collapse?"
"If many refuse, no such order will be given," writes the rabbi. "At most,
senior commanders will have to resign. It would be good if this happened.
The majority of the senior officers are contaminated by politics."
A day after the latest incident, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared
that "refusing to obey orders means the breakdown of the state. We will do
everything possible to put an end to it. We survive because of our army, and
the army relies on its ability to give orders and to have them obeyed." There
will be "zero-tolerance" for soldiers refusing to obey orders, Netanyahu said
emphatically.
But words apart, neither the political nor army leadership is acting resolutely
to stop the drift.
The Prime Minister directed his tough talk against "any" insubordinate
soldiers - attempting to create a moral equivalence between protesting right-
wing settlers and left-wing 'conscientious objectors' who oppose serving in
the occupied territories.
"The equivalence is false," said the daily Haaretz in an editorial. Calling the
settlers protest "a revolt", the editorial said, "This is nothing but a cover for
blatant activity within the army by radical rabbis, some of whom openly flout
the rule of law."
Speaking of the serious problem of divided loyalties, the father of one of the
protesting soldiers declared, "Not for nothing is our army called the Israeli
Defence Forces. Its job is to defend Israel, not to remove Jews from their
homes in the Land of Israel."
That threat of divided loyalties within the army has haunted Israeli society for
many years.
Now, however, not just left-wing and liberal Israelis are beginning to wonder
what lies behind the protest: that it is not so much politicisation of rank-
and-file soldiers, but the kick-off of a settler strategy aimed at deterring the
government from taking any action against the settlements - be they so-
called "illegal outposts" or so-called "approved settlement communities".
As if to corroborate that, a settler group calling itself 'The Organisation for
Saving the Nation and the Land' announced that it would pay any protesting
soldier from their fold NIS1,000 (around 260 dollars) for every day spent in a
military prison.
Even so-called "moderate" settler ideologues put the Netanyahu government
on warning that there should be no repeat of the evacuation of the Gaza
settlements enforced four years ago by the previous right-wing government
under Ariel Sharon.
"Everyone, soldiers, politicians, the media and the legal authorities, all agree
that the army must not be politicised," says Yisrael Harel of the Ofra
settlement. "The protesting corporal and sergeants in the two recent
incidents have only a marginal role in that politicisation. The parties primarily
responsible are the same people who set the army against civilians - the
Prime Minister and his Defence Minster."
The question of the politicisation of the army has become a real issue in
Israeli society.
Literally in the first days after Israel's creation in May 1948, then prime
minister David Ben Gurion ordered the nascent army to fire on a ship
chartered by ultra-nationalists who were trying to smuggle into the country
both Jewish refugees from war-torn Europe and weapons to arm their
underground.
Ben-Gurion was determined to ensure loyalty to only one national army.
Dozens were killed in the attack off the shore of Tel Aviv. Ben Gurion had
made his point.
And, it helped his successors to keep at bay, even in turbulent times, the
specter of ideological infighting within the army.
The specter began to resurface with the start of colonisation of Palestinian
lands in the wake of the 1967 Arab-Israel war. Religious philosopher
Yeshayahu Leibowitz then warned that Israel would be eaten up from within
like a "cancer" by the Occupation.
In contrast to the perceived dangers of an army no longer united in purpose,
the power attributed to the settlers - often described as a 'state-within-a-
state' - is somewhat a political scarecrow.
For all the public 'fear' of the ever-growing political strength of the settler
movement, that 'power' is used, sometimes perversely, by the government
itself, to suggest that rolling back the settlement enterprise, and the 300,000
Israelis who live in the West Bank, may already be impossible.
The real question about the future of the settlements is an unresolved
political question: has Netanyahu the political will, like Sharon, to one day
order the withdrawal of settlers from occupied territories?
Is he the leader who has reportedly promised President Barack Obama that he
is ready for "major concessions" in the context of a peace bid with the
Palestinians?
Or, is he the leader who told settlers worried by the Obama demand for a
settlement freeze, "Ultimately, we're all interested in the same thing, but one
must act wisely."
Meanwhile, the settlers continue to exploit the long ambivalence of
successive Israeli leaders about the settlements, an ambiguity which might
make it every day harder for Netanyahu to take them on - if ever he were to
opt to lead Israel in that direction. (END)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
