Unsettling

The residents of Judea Samaria are referred to, generally, as “ the settlers.” Often, this tag is levelled in a derogatory tone or context. They are militant, with a religious fervour and a view of their presence in the heartland of the land of Israel that they are making history, and prompting our redemptive future. 

There are some things about this population that kind of get overlooked, deliberately ignored, or outright inaccurate. While for many there is a sense of duty or a commitment to Jewish connection to the land, there are also people who live out there for more practical reasons — affordable housing, or a more suburban/family-oriented life, for example. Either for simplicity’s sake, or political agenda’s sake, we tend to clump them together. 

Collectively, this population has historically been referred to as “the main obstacle to peace”. If only the settlers were relocated/transferred from “the occupied West Bank”, a just and lasting peace could be negotiated, with the implementation of the two-state solution. I have been thinking about the absurdity of this position for years. Anyone who has been to any of the communities in Judea Samaria can tell you what they look like: When one arrives at the entrance, there is a gate, with a guard. Around the perimeter, there is a fence, with barbed wire. So, here we are, 80 years after the decimation of European Jewry, and Jewish children are still being raised behind barbed wire. I would very much like an explanation as to how that constitutes an obstacle to peace. 

But the real headline grabbers, especially these days, are those who are labelled as extremists.  They are young,  brash and bold, with a religious zeal that allows for brash and bold actions – setting up new outposts, legal and otherwise, and indicating  their displeasure with government and IDF policy through rather demonstrative demonstrations. There is nothing wrong with protesting policy and action with which one disagrees. In fact, regardless of political system, it is critical to a respectable society. That is why some political systems prohibit them. Where this group loses me is the wanton infliction of damage to property, and violence in general. I would include acts of arson and destruction against the actual enemy.  It is counterproductive, because it only has a negative result – we are the evil occupiers the enemy claims we are.

The most significant –  and  dangerous – actions is the violence toward IDF soldiers. This is clearly a case of confusion as to who the bad guys are. The argument  against the government’s policy toward the threat to not only the local residents in Judea Samaria, but to all of us, is a good one. Long before the events in Gaza, Iran, and Syria, the terrorist activity was already boiling in the cauldron. Playing  three-pitch with the violently hostile minority Arab  population in that area has only encouraged them. Protests against this cannot – cannot – include a threat to Israel’s soldiers. It is a reasonable assumption that family members of these people also serve. What could any of these people possibly be thinking they are going to achieve?

In short, civil disobedience has a place; uncivil disobedience does not. Those in uniform who serve and protect should not be subject to physical threat from those they serve and protect.