Skip

Non-religious Israeli settlers are financially trapped,
June 25, 2002 5:59 PM   Subscribe

Non-religious Israeli settlers are financially trapped, argues a sympathetic Tel Aviv University professor. He slams Ha'aretz Daily for constantly urging Jewish settlers to just move out, "as if people who somehow managed to buy a cheap housing unit in a settlement could simply leave it behind and buy another house somewhere else." Seems that for a lot of settlers, financial benefits like reduced income taxes and generous loans are more important enticements than appeals to biblical righteousness. Too bad the "doubly cheated" and heavily villified settlers can't get any financial help when they decide to move back. The solution? "Jews in America and world-wide should therefore use their money to support settlers who wish to leave the occupied territories and return to Israel."
posted by mediareport (11 comments total)

 
I tried to post something at least slightly atypical on this hoary topic. Here's another link that seemed a little unusual: a Cato-style Israeli think tank dedicated to "the limitation of Israeli socialist statism supported by US aid, by means of free market reform and a robust missile defense."
posted by mediareport at 6:04 PM on June 25, 2002


Nice to see my tax dolars are being put to good use.
posted by delmoi at 6:08 PM on June 25, 2002


I agree that the Israeli government (dunno about ours so much, but let's not go there) needs to facilitate the withdrawal.

That said, these people knew what they were getting into. Were the financial enticements really that much greater than the constant threat of terrorism? Doubtful.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:17 PM on June 25, 2002




sheauga: Thanks for the interesting new blog link. I'd love to see other thoughtful entries that acknowledge the horror caused by Israeli settlements. How can any intelligent analyst consistently ignore the disgusting, unhelpful nature of these things? But never mind that; bring on the WaR BLoGgERS, who'll amuse us all with a few tossed-off cracks and simplistic assertions about Palestinian suicide bombings. Rah.

donkeyschlong:
these people knew what they were getting into. Were the financial enticements really that much greater than the constant threat of terrorism?

Point taken. But if HaCohen's article is accurate, a long series of Israeli Prime Ministers has refused to meet with settlers looking for a way out of the mess they (perhaps stupidly) didn't anticipate. Why is that? The Dugit families who wanted to move back into Israel in 1993 were refused by Rabin--a man assassinated by fundamentalist settlers two years later for being too soft. Tell me that doesn't speak volumes about the permanence of blatantly provocative Israeli settlements. And people are surprised that the result's been a constant stream of violence?

Israel's leaders are pursuing a psychotic, aggressive and idiotic policy--a characterization that remains true independent of the psychotic, aggressive and idiotic policies Palestinian leaders are pursuing. Luckily, there's still a tiny bit of hope for peaceful cooperation. I guess humans can't help but see each other as human sometimes.
posted by mediareport at 1:13 AM on June 26, 2002


Israel's leaders are pursuing a psychotic, aggressive and idiotic policy--a characterization that remains true independent of the psychotic, aggressive and idiotic policies Palestinian leaders are pursuing.

That, sir, sums up the whole mess perfectly.
posted by artifex at 2:26 AM on June 26, 2002


"Sympathetic" is one way to describe HaCohen, but don't mistake sympathy for the absence of an agenda. For example, he also wrote: "In the junta's [i.e., the Isreali government's] eyes, there are three kinds of human beings. First Palestinians, whose life is a nuisance one should get rid of. Second Israelis, whose life is a national asset one can liquidate when necessary. Occupation can be served by sacrificing civilians in terrorist attacks and using their death to launch a war. The third kind is settlers: an incarnation of the occupation, hence sacred." Just to put his words in a slightly broader context....
posted by subgenius at 8:10 AM on June 26, 2002


"Israel's leaders are pursuing a , aggressive and idiotic policy--a characterization that remains true independent of the psychotic, aggressive and idiotic policies Palestinian leaders are pursuing. Luckily,"

luckily few listen to your dribble. come on- just run that statement through the ole logic mobile there sister. What are you distinguishing, independent methods of madness.
"psychotic"-how?
"idiotic"-how?
i agree with aggressive.
mediareport, besides your name being an oxymoron, what in the hell are you getting too in all this dribble. That settlers are rabid?, they kill peace makers? then you through in warbloggers like its your term. Few even have a cogent answer to what a warblogger is. I like your being on meFi, don't get me wrong, it's entertainment. but lately it has been to much bumpersticker morality.
posted by clavdivs at 8:32 AM on June 26, 2002


The latest settlement report from the Foundation For Middle East Peace lays out Sharon's designs clearly, btw:

"...the objective of Israel's unprecedented military operation was to deploy the IDF in security zones in the Jordan Valley and in the region east of the Green Line separating Israel from the West Bank...the logic of his plan was this: a military defeat would convince the Palestinians and the international community to leave these security zones, including major Palestinian population centers, under effective Israeli control for many years."

Anyone care to discuss the information on that page? I'm curious what any Sharon supporters might have to say after reading it.

subgenius: you're right, I should have noted the piece was sympathetic (and I hope you agree it is) rather than the author. But the "absence of an agenda" question really should be moot for everyone by now, don't you think? And it is up at antiwar.com.

clavdivs: "idiotic"-how?

From the first link in my comment, here's Den Beste: "Every rational solution for the situation that anyone's proposed involves pulling all the existing settlements out of the West Bank, and here they are making that as difficult as they possibly can."

That's how.

"psychotic"-how?

Pursuing a violent political strategy that robs land, water and dignity from refugees who already have almost nothing to lose while committing yourself to a massive occupation your economy can't afford in the name of a promise allegedly made to your people by a magical old man with a beard 2500 years ago? That's not psychotic? Novak says even some U.S. Senators were surprised by Sharon's, er, intensity.

i agree with aggressive.

How could you not?

Few even have a cogent answer to what a warblogger is.

Oh I dunno, I think rcade nailed it pretty nicely.
posted by mediareport at 2:12 PM on June 26, 2002


"man with a beard 2500 years"
you fail. start at 47'
i like rcades def but it still does not make much sence.
posted by clavdivs at 7:19 AM on June 27, 2002


you fail. start at 47'

I love it. Faced with a detailed response? No problem! Just pick out the least important element you can find and respond only to it! Sheesh. Ok, clavdivs, I'm sorry; I should have checked the timetable more closely for when the old man with a beard promised the land to the Jews forever.

Now, how about addressing the question of the Israeli government's obvious and longstanding policy of steady encroachment into the Occupied Territories at the expense of the homes and crops of the people who live there?
posted by mediareport at 12:49 PM on June 27, 2002


« Older Sound to make an army flee   |   How many more accounting scandals to go? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post