||Challenging myths and presenting facts about
Israeli arguments for and against
|London - published on 9 July 2003
Beyond Images Ref: 25
This Briefing outlines the arguments used
in Israel for and against Israeli settlements in the West Bank
The settlements are certain to be a major issue in future negotiations
between Israel and the Palestinians, and it is therefore important
to understand the arguments relating to them.
“Israel is the biblical Promised Land. Israel
must retain the West Bank, and continue to establish settlements
The basis of the Jewish peoples’ claim to the Land of
Israel is biblical.
God promised the Land of Israel to Abraham around 3,500 years
ago. According to traditional Jewish belief, that biblical promise
applies today. Israel’s existence in that part of the
world rests entirely on the biblical claim: otherwise Israel
might as well be located in Central Africa or Asia.
The Jews left Egyptian slavery to fulfil God’s promise
to them, and always yearned for the Promised Land during their
later centuries of forced exile and persecution. The Promised
Land includes the entire territory between the Mediterranean
and the Jordan River, including what is today called the West
Bank. It is the land which was inhabited by the patriarchs Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, the matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel, and
by King David, Elijah the Prophet and Deborah the Judge.
Towns such as Kiryat Arba (on the outskirts of modern-day Hebron),
Beit-El and Efrat are in the West Bank and are labelled as “settlements”,
which makes them sound recent. In fact, they all have biblical
histories stretching back thousands of years, and have played
a central part in Jewish national and religious life. Jews only
ever left such places when attacked, killed, or driven out.
According to this argument, from 1967, when Israel took control
of the West Bank and Gaza, it has been religiously forbidden
for Israel to hand control of any part of the territories over
to any other sovereign authority (such as the Palestinian Authority).
By contrast, continued Israeli settlement is a religious obligation.
The argument contains a bitter twist. If Israel withdraws,
and agrees to Palestinian rule over the West Bank, this would
in reality make that area “Judenrein”: an emotive
expression for “Jew-free”. Why? Jews would be entitled
to live anywhere in the world, but it would be difficult if
not impossible for Jews to live in their own Promised Land,
given the violently hostile Palestinian attitudes towards Jewish
settlements, and Palestinian control over security in those
The above argument in favour of settlements is commonly made
by members of Israel’s National Religious Party, by other
parties on the Israeli right such as United Torah Judaism, and
by most religiously observant members of the Likud party.
Israeli critics say that this religious approach ignores the
realities on the ground. While they do not question most Israelis’
sense of attachment to the Promised Land, they argue that Israel
should withdraw from the populated parts of the territories.
The reason is simply that it is not feasible to control the
entire territory, while the Palestinians claim the right to
self-rule on the same territory. If Israel continues to claim
the entire biblical land, the country would have to require
millions of Arabs, either immediately or at some future date,
to live under Israeli sovereignty but without basic democratic
Religiously, therefore, withdrawal is preferable, so long as
it is for the sake of a secure peace agreement with the Palestinians.
No-one religiously advocates withdrawal if it is only going
to give Palestinian terrorist groups more opportunities for
The religious justification for withdrawal in the context of
a peace agreement is clear: the Jewish concept of pikuach nefesh
(“saving human life” via a genuine peace agreement)
prevails over the concept of Eretz Yisrael Shleima (maintaining
the unity of the entire Greater Land of Israel from the River
to the Sea).
These arguments are made by politicians such as Minister Rabbi
Michael Melchior, and by “doveish” members of religious
parties such as the centrist religious party Shas.
“The Jewish people can only achieve their national
redemption and bring the Messiah by retaining the entire biblical
Land of Israel”
This is a second religious argument in favour of retaining
all the land.
The argument runs as follows. Jews are destined for an everlasting
redemption and this can only happen, according to Rabbinical
teachings, in the Land of Israel. When redemption comes, the
Jews will enjoy peace, security, and spiritual tranquility.
Israel’s creation, so soon after the Nazi Holocaust,
marked the beginning of a process of the complete redemption
of the Jewish people. The Jews lifted themselves out of tragedy
and anguish, and by creating Israel are progressing towards
the Messianic age.
The wars of 1948 and 1967 (both of which were forced on the
Jewish state) were miraculous. As a result of them Israel assumed
control of the biblical territory between the River Jordan and
the sea (see Argument 1 above). Settleement activity brings
the redemption closer. It is not permissible for Israel to reverse
this process by returning land. To stop building settlements
would mean a rejection of the Messianic vision.
The majority of religious settlers, and many other religious
Jews in Israel, adhere to this argument.
Critique: Not all religious Jews – inside
or outside Israel – agree.
The counter-argument is that this vision of redemption has
placed too great an emphasis on the acquisition of land, and
not enough emphasis on other goals of the Jewish people which
need to be pursued in order to achieve redemption.
For example, Rabbinic literature stresses the importance of
the unity of the Jewish people as a stepping stone to redemption.
If retention of the Promised Land divides the Jewish people
politically and ideologically, then by definition this policy
cannot bring either redemption or the Messiah.
Likewise, the concept of universal justice is at the core of
Jewish religious thinking. Israeli critics of the messianic
argument argue that by retaining the entire land, Israel is
creating an injustice for the Palestinian Arab population of
Two Jewish values – the holiness of the entire Land of
Israel, and the idea of universal justice – conflict.
And according to this critique, universal justice must prevail
over retention of all the land.
“There has never existed a sovereign Palestinian
state west of the Jordan river. Israeli settlements do not deny
any people’s national rights.”
This argument is not inspired by religious belief. Its adherents
include many “secular” Israeli politicians.
The argument runs as follows: there has never been an independent
State of Palestine. The majority of Palestinians reside today
in Jordan, on the eastern side of the Jordan river. If a Palestinian
state is declared on the western side of the Jordan this would
be a second nation for the Palestinians, which makes no sense.
According to this argument, Israeli settlement building in
the West Bank and Gaza does not take away the sovereign rights
of any other people. Palestinian nationalism is essentially
a cloak for Arab anti-Israel sentiment and is not a genuine
national movement. The main objective of a Palestinian state
in the West Bank would be to pursue a long-term strategy of
destroying Israel, rather than building up national life for
The second Palestinian intifada has given strong ammunition
to those who hold this view. Hatred of Israel appears in Israelis’
eyes to be a greater driving force for Palestinians than building
their own society.
But how is the matter to be resolved practically? It is argued
that if the Israelis display sufficient “will” to
hold on to the West Bank, the Arabs will understand that their
“false strategy” cannot succeed, because Israel
is determined not to yield. They will then either depart voluntarily
to reside in Jordan or accept some limited self-rule, which
is less than independence, under Israeli sovereignty.
It is important to remember that not all Israelis who live
in the West Bank and Gaza are religious. Many live in the territories
because housing was offered cheaply, or because of the overall
“quality of life”. For them, political arguments
in favour of settlements (such as this Argument 3) have greater
force than religious arguments.
Critics in Israel argue that, once again, this justification
for settlements simply fails to recognise political realities.
Whether and how the Palestinian national movement came into
being will be debated for decades to come. But it is not now
possible to challenge the Palestinian right to self-rule. Jordan
does not offer meaningful alternative statehood for the Palestinians
of the West Bank and in Gaza, nor for those who plan to return
to their new country from the Palestinian refugee camps.
Israel has no choice but to acknowledge the legitimate rights
of the Palestinians, and pursuing settlements as though no rival
claims to the territory existed runs counter to this.
“Israeli settlements strengthen Israel’s
Israel before 1967 was extremely vulnerable geographically.
It was 14 kilometres wide at its narrowest point, and Jerusalem
and other major population centres were very exposed.
It is claimed that Israel’s victory in the 1967 war gave
Israel “strategic depth” – more territory,
which it could use as a buffer against future military attack.
Israeli villages and kibbutz collectives had been established
since 1948 in remote parts of the country in order to create
more defensible borders. It was argued that Israeli settlements
should be built post-1967 in order to maintain that “pioneering”
approach. Settlement would become a path to future military
Israel built settlements in the Gaza Strip to the west of Israel,
to impede a future Egyptian attack. And settlements were built
in the Jordan Valley to the east of Israel, to impede an armoured
assault from Jordan and / or Iraq.
During the 1980s Israel accelerated its settlement building
in the heart of the West Bank. Towns such as Ariel, Emmanuel,
and Tekoa, together with smaller settlements, were built in
the middle of the West Bank. Large suburbs were built around
Jerusalem, such as Ma’ale Adumim and Pisgat Ze’ev.
The residents were predominantly motivated by religious conviction
(see Arguments 1 and 2 above). But they also took account of
the need to provide extra lines of defence in the event of future
According to this argument, Israel’s settlements provide
the country with the extra security it requires.
There are two main critiques in Israel of this argument.
Firstly, the settlements have not proven to be the security
asset they were claimed to be. As they are often in the midst
of Palestinian areas which are hostile, the settlements are
targets for attack rather that shields against attack.
Israeli army units are deployed to defend the settlements but
their operations are risky, complex and expensive, and cannot
provide watertight security.
Secondly, the nature of warfare has transformed since the 1960s
and 1970s. Israel no longer faces the threat of mass armoured
attack. Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, and is tied in
to the USA; Ba’athist Iraq has been neutralised by the
US-led invasion, and the Jordanians also have a peace treaty
According to this argument, the idea that Israel needs “strategic
strength in depth” by means of extra populated hills or
valleys is out-of-date. What matters more is how Israel should
deal with the real threats which Israel faces, from unconventional
missile-launched weapons, and from Al Qaeda-type terrorism.
Neither of these can be defended against by settlements. But,
say the critics, a resolution of the Palestinian conflict would
enable Israel to refocus on how to deal with these most serious
The purpose of this Briefing has been to show that there are
arguments in Israel in favour of the settlements, and against
them. The arguments are religious, political and ideological.
Many Israeli residents in the settlements now realise that
public opinion in Israel has steadily moved in favour either
of freezing settlements or uprooting some of them. Mr Sharon
himself has indicated this (see Beyond Images
Briefing 32: Ariel Sharon – Unwilling to Compromise?).
It will be easier for the Israeli people to achieve a peaceful
transition away from continued settlement activity if supporters
of Israel and the Palestinians each acknowledge the sincerity
and authenticity of the settlers’ beliefs.