Another post about Israel – but this one a bit different.

I remember years (decades) ago, I was asked something about Israel and the West Bank. I recognized that one of the tactics of political Zionism was to take more land, and explain later. In fact, to a great extent, this tactic was the impost important in setting up the “facts on the ground” that led to the eventually declaration of Israeli statehood.

At the time I was asked about this, the future of the West Bank was uncertain, the possibility of a “two state solution” was seen by some as an inevitability. I was never sure.

The best book I have read on the subject (and I haven’t looked at it for some time) is Gershon Gorenberg’s “The Accidental Empire”. It told the story of the surprise conquests by the Israelis of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as a result of the 1967 “Six-Day” war. It was assumed that East Jerusalem would be retained by Israel for both ideological and practical reasons, and that the Golan Heights would be retained for security reasons, but the futures of the West Bank (until then administered by the Kingdom of Jordan) and Gaza were up in the air.

Gorenberg demonstrates that many or most Israeli leaders of the time, both military and political, assumed there would be a very short period of military occupation and that the West Bank would then be returned to Jordanian control. But it was also assumed that there needed to be some form of security barrier (either a no-man’s land, or a strip with a permanent military presence) to make a further incursion less likely.

It was the debate over the nature of the security barrier which opened the door to what came next. No-one could agree on the best possible barrier – some in the government felt the need for a larger barrier than others, and this argument had no end as it was clear that no barrier would be perfect and something more could always be added.

As this debate continued, and became more intense, another group found its way through that open door. They were the (largely American) religious Zionists who believed that the lands of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the geographic center of Jewish biblical history, needed to be incorporated into the land of Israel on a permanent basis. They began setting up settlements at various locations in the West Bank, vowing not to move, gaining allies among the religious community of Israel, and winning allies in the government. At the same time, many of those in the government and military looking for a security barrier decided that large scale settlements would help discourage future attacks. Working together, adopting the traditional Zionist tactic that first we take the land and then we talk, these groups sets the stage for the West Bank today, now the home of about 600,000 Jewish Israelis.

The details, for our purposes here, are not necessary. But let’s go back to the question I was asked so long ago. The question was: what did I think of those who were pushing for more settlements and eventual incorporation of the West Bank into the Jewish state?

Now my personal thoughts about the use of these tactics, or the goal of these tactics, were not (and are not) very important. So as I recall, I answered a different question. The question that I answered was how history would view these Israeli political and religious leaders. My answer was simple. If they succeeded, they would be lauded as heroes. If they failed, they would be considered incompetent and evil. That is still my answer.

But that gets us to today’s ultra-right wing coalition in charge of the Israeli government. If I were living in Israel, I would be violently against everything they are doing. I would consider it unethical, immoral, divisive, shameful, and discriminatory (to pick a few adjectives out of many).

The goal that the more extreme members of this government are taking reflects their belief that Jews and Muslim Arabs of the West Bank will never be able to live together in peace, that a two state solution is impossible for any number of reasons, and that the only true solution is to (one way or another) kick the Arabs out of the West Bank and incorporate the entire area into an expanded State of Israel.

The sad fact is that they might be right in the longest of long runs, even if they are as wrong as can be when looking at a shorter time period. And if they succeed in implementing their goals, it is possible that – a hundred years from now – they will be viewed as heroes and visionaries and not as miscreants and fools. That’s just the way history works.

We are now living through a period where the people who object to these tactics on some or all of the grounds listed above have no better answer, or at least no better answer which has a good chance of success. Yes, I guess it’s possible that moderate Arab leaders will emerge in the West Bank, and more accommodating leaders in Israel, and that the newly friendly Arab nations like the UAE will be able to bring both sides together. But it doesn’t seem like a likely possibility, does it?

It’s more likely that there will be a rocky, rocky road ahead. And as much as most of us condemn the current Israeli government’s actions toward the West Bank, it is possible that they will fulfill their goals and that – at some point in the future – their maliciousness will be forgotten. We just don’t know.

Am I wrong? If so, tell me.

And, by the way, did you notice that I left something out? It’s called Gaza, it has well over a million Arab residents, and even the current government hasn’t come up with a solution to this problem. In Gaza, the tactics of first take the land and then explain has no relevance at all.