I am sure most readers have heard about the bus shooting in Gaza yesterday. Four deaths… relatively few, as incidents in this conflict go. But the fact that it was “Jewish terrorism” is drawing a lot of attention. It breaks the usual boundaries that govern our understanding of the conflict. In addition to mourning the deaths - as we should all of them, Jewish and Arab, over all these decades - we might reflect a bit on the nature of violence and on our own part in perpetuating it. To dismiss Natan-Zada as “other” is just too easy…
First, in case you didn’t see it on the news, here’s the report on the shooting from YNet:
Four people were killed and at least six others were wounded after army deserter Eden Natan Zada opened fire aboard a bus in the Arab town of Shfaram, in northern Israel.
Eyewitnesses said angry locals, or possibly bus passengers, managed to storm the bus following the attack and killed the shooter. Police reportedly had trouble retrieving the body, which was lying on the stars of the bus, as a result of the angry mob gathered at the scene…
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon issued a special statement following the Shfaram shooting saying, “This is a vile act by a blood-thirsty Jewish terrorist who aimed to hurt innocent citizens.”
Eyewitness Ahayal Jahnawi recounts further gory details in Haaretz, for those who want them.
For once, I agree completely with the Prime Minister. Israel’s leaders - and the Jewish community worldwide - are condemning Natan-Zada wholeheartedly. We are appalled by Natan-Zada’s act, as we are not, for some reason, by military operations that drop bombs on cars and apartment buildings, though such operations have killed far more innocents than the four who died today.
How legitimate is this distinction? Any untimely death and many a timely one is tragic. Do parents grieve less when they lose a child to illness or accident than to a terrorist attack? But the rest of us, unattached to the victims, look for meaning in the way they died.
As voting citizens of complex, compartmentalized societies, we trust that the acts carried out in our name by the military are proper: justified by the needs of the state. We are horrified, however, when we see the same violence stripped of state sanction and applied by renegade individuals - in this case, a soldier gone AWOL.
Violence has a different meaning for the disenfranchised. Being, or feeling, alienated from the democratic process of the state, they may come to see violence as a necessary tool for achieving collective ends. This is the case, I believe, for militant Islam, for some branches of the Palestinian nationalist movement, and for the Kahanists.
Zionism has, unfortunately, disenfranchised a lot of people: most of the non-Jews living within the territory occupied by Israel, for starters. The Kahanists are not actually disenfranchised, but they do not recognize the authority of the state and now feel betrayed by Israel’s about-face on the settlements.
Thus, Zionism has spawned not one, but several militant insurgencies.
The reaction to the bus shooting across Israel’s political spectrum has come in various flavors. The pro-settler right is rushing to distance itself. From YNet:
Finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “This is a severe crossing of all the borders and a terrible blow against democracy. These acts slander an entire public that is trying to protest in a legitimate way. The murder of innocents has no justification.”
Knesset Member Uri Ariel, of the anti-disengagement National Union Party, said, “This is not a Jewish act and it’s not human. This is the insane act of a madman. Whoever carries out an act like this is a cold-blooded murderer. The IDF must find out how a guy like this got hold of weapons.”
And in Arutz Sheva:
The Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (Yesha Council) announced its shock, denouncing the murder as being committed by someone “crazy.” Yesha spokesmen criticized “the cynical use of the incident by certain political entities to try to make a connection between the serious incident and the democratic, legitimate and nonviolent protest against the expulsion from Gush Katif being waged.
I don’t buy it. The leaders of the “democratic, legitimate protest” have fostered a spirit of radical resistance, with divine sanction, through which violence is bound to percolate. In another article, YNet reports:
Natan Zada went AWOL two months ago, after escaping his base with a rifle. Upon leaving his Nizanim base, Natan Zada wrote: “Just as I couldn’t carry out an order that desecrates the Sabbath, I cannot be part of an organization that expels Jews.” He added the anti-pullout slogan, “Jews don’t expel Jews,” to his letter, and concluded the message with the words: “I will consider how I will continue to serve.”
The article goes on to quote Natan-Zada’s friend, Yakutiel Ben-Yaakov, of the West Bank settlement of Kfar Tapuah:
“Eden was the first victim of this sadistic disengagement brought on us by general Sharon. I didn’t hear him say that he was planning killing people, but I hope he was wasn’t murdered for nothing, and that his murder will bring about the cancellation of the expulsion program.”
This incident made me think of the posts on some of what I would consider the more conservative Jewish blogs last month after the London bombings. For example, on July 10 Rebecca of Mystical Politics, as part of her Islam and Terror Roundup, quoted a NYT article, on Muslim response to the bombings, to wit:
Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of Britain’s Islamic Human Rights Commission, argued that injustice lends legitimacy to extremist discourse. “There needs to be a separation between those who are committing those atrocities and those who are passionate about injustice,” he said, adding that dismissing extremists outright only isolates them and makes them more likely to turn to violence. “We need to encourage that passion and give them avenues within the civil society to deal with injustices.”
She went on to comment (also referencing a recent Salman Rushdie op ed)
This is another excuse for terrorists. Their “passion” needs to be encouraged and given avenues within civil society! How, exactly? Making all women wear burkas? Like instituting the laws about rape cited in Salman Rushdie’s op-ed piece? Like opposing the existence of the state of Israel?
Mystical Politics is an interesting blog, by the way, and worth reading even if you disagree with her politics. From it, I got a link to an extended meditation by Norman Geras on liberal “apologists” for the London bombings. The left, according to Norm, was quick - and wrong - to attribute the bombings to Britain’s Iraq policy. It seems to me that he simply substitutes a “root cause” he prefers (Islamic fundamentalism) for one he he doesn’t like. Nonetheless, I agree in part with his conclusion, and would apply it to the Natan-Zada case as well:
Ever on the lookout for damning causes, the root-causers never seem to go for the most obvious of them, so visibly obvious a one that it isn’t even beneath the surface of things the way roots often are, it’s right out in the open. This is the cause, indeed, which shows - negatively - why most critics of the Iraq war and of other events, institutions, movements, do not go around murdering people they are upset or angry with; I mean the fanatical, fundamentalist belief system which teaches hatred and justifies these acts of murder, justifies them to those who are swayed by it but not to anyone else. It somehow gets a free pass from the hunters-out of causes.
My point here is that Islam is not the only religion to generate a radical fundamentalist philosophy that can be used to justify terrorism. Kahanism is an outgrowth of religious Zionism just as militant Islam is an outgrowth of Islamic fundamentalism.
Religious Zionism has generated less violence than the Islamic movements because, until recently, Israel’s actions were more or less in synch with its philosophy. There was little reason for Jewish extremists to engage in terrorism because they had the apparatus of the state at their disposal. As long as the settlements were expanding and the Palestinians being driven gradually out of Eretz Israel, there was no reason for violent opposition.
With the Disengagement, it has become quite clear that the religious Zionists are willing to pit their interests against those of the state. This has taken the form of non-violent protest, political action and conscientious objection to military service; but, at the edges of the movement, also incitement and disruption.
The movement’s mainstream leaders may try to distance themselves from the extremists; but they, themselves, have made it clear that it is the religious duty of Jews to settle the land and to resist the Disengagement, and that this duty supercedes loyalty to the secular state. Settlement is an inherently violent project since it means displacing the people who were inhabiting the land before the arrival of the Jews. With the waning of state support for some parts of the enterprise, the innate violence of religious Zionism is simply becoming more manifest.
I do not believe Judaism or Islam are violent religions. I believe the exact oposite. And on the Jewish side, I must point out that Orthodoxy takes many admirable forms that have nothing to do with religious Zionism. But like any religion, Judaism can be misinterpreted and abused. In the case of Zionism, it has been used in a propagandistic sense to justify our claim to the land, resulting in activities that I would consider profoundly at odds with our basic beliefs.
We should not be too complacent in denouncing terrorist violence while condoning military operations. Conquest is violent - regardless of whether the violence is carried out by individuals or by the state. We should be as appalled by the acts we have committed collectively in the attempt to possess the land as we are by this individual act of terror.
Jewish Terrorism
Andrew, this is well said. Especially: “My point here is that Islam is not the only religion to generate a radical fundamentalist philosophy that can be used to justify terrorism.”
Indeed, the examples are all too numerous. The very nature of fundamentalism is such that it naturally leads to extreme acts at its fringes. I am reminded of the “lunatic” fringe of the anti-abortion movement, the lone killers who are supposedly so in love with the sanctity of life that they would take a life to save supposed millions.
The Religious Right condemns such acts and distances itself, as well it should, but doesn’t the crusader zeal of its rhetoric lead unstable individuals to draw their own conclusions about what’s needed? Fundamentalism is in love with heroism, and heroism is a close neighbor to fanaticism. Thanks for this thoughtful post.
Another take on the Zada massacre
While as always I agree with Andrew’s “take” on this, I have a slightly different perspective on the massacre in my blog: Israeli Settler Murders Four Israeli Arabs
Richard
Tikun Olam: Make the World a Better Place (weblog)
I am Jewish to the core…Kahanism is not my religion.
You said, “Kahanism is an outgrowth of religious Zionism just as militant Islam is an outgrowth of Islamic fundamentalism.”
I respectfully disagree. Kahane started out to form a protectionist group for Jews in Brooklyn. According to KACH Jews were not mililtant enough to protect themselves, but Kahane himself spoke softly.
How can KACH be religious Zionism? They do not respect God’s creatures. The Torah very clearly states that we are to respect one another including the stranger that lives amongst us because we were strangers in Eygpt. KACH’s behavior and extremist Rabbis supporting KACH is the problem clearly outlined in HaAretz’s Opinion Page.
I recommend these people read Mishnah Torah and concentrate on the chapter on Repentace so that they can prepare for Yom Kippur.
It is time for all Jews to cry out for “menchlichkeit.” There must be a way to have mutual respect. There must be a way for peace.
Moish Lenow
Andrew, well said. I agree
Andrew, well said. I agree with everything you said, especially with the 5th paragraph from the bottom, “Religious Zionism has generated less violence than the Islamic movements because, until recently, Israel’s actions were more or less in synch with its philosophy. There was little reason for Jewish extremists to engage in terrorism because they had the apparatus of the state at their disposal. As long as the settlements were expanding and the Palestinians being driven gradually out of Eretz Israel, there was no reason for violent opposition.”
I couldn’t have said it any better.
Anyhow, it’s interesting to hear your views on this, but I am left wondering what you think about Israel proper (i.e. not including West Bank & Gaza), which WAS built on settlements and the dispossession of the non-Jews who inhabited the land….
Dan Marsden
Religious Zionism and Kahanism
One of the nice things about blogging is that when I’m wrong or overstep, someone usually jumps in to set me right. I really appreciate your comment.
From what I understand, the core tenet of religious Zionism is that the modern state of Israel represents the realization of a divine promise and the beginning of the Messianic age. On this basis, some Orthodox rabbis have made powerful religious arguments for settlement of the whole territory of Biblical Israel, and thus against even a limited disengagement.
Though Kahanism has different roots than religious Zionism, they have come together in the settlement movement. Religious Zionism provides its believers with an unshakable rationale to enter and hold the land. I suppose it is the combustion of this sense of divine mission with Kahanist paranoia that produces characters like Natan Zada.
I would still peg religious Zionism as one of the key drivers of Israel’s settlement enterprise. I, too, am Jewish - and passionately devoted to my religion. But I will not believe it commands me to drive others from their homes and fields, to build walls and guntowers, to shoot at children…
I believe that Judaism is about the relationship between man and G-d - not mediated by rulers, not centered on places or things (not even on Jerusalem). And for our sins against our fellow men, also G-d’s creations, as you point out - for our sins of greed and cruelty, for failing to honor G-d with our actions - we should definitely repent.
Thank you again for responding. I hope that if you come back to this site, you will consider continuing this discussion. I have much to learn, I am sure.
Andrew Schamess
Legitmacy of Israel Proper
Thank you, Dan - that means a lot coming from someone who I know is principled, passionate and smart. You ask a question that is one of the most difficult for those of us on the left who try to tread a middle ground, critical of the occupation and its abuses, while still supporting Israel’s existence. I’ll do my best, though I don’t know if you’ll find the answer altogether satisfactory.
As you of course know, the early Zionists believed that the historical persecution of the Jews, and more immediately the anti-Semitism sparked by the Dreyfuss trial, justified a Jewish state. They may have been right from a Eurocentric perspective. But, in choosing Palestine, they seem to have given precious little thought to the moral implications of incorporating the native population into the projected Jewish state (as was the early intent of the labor Zionists) or of displacing it.
The original settlers purchased their land legally, but were not forthright about their motives. Once the Arab population gleaned these, it roundly rejected the Zionist ideal.
When the Zionists had established a beachhead, both sides laid claim to Palestine. The conflicting claims played out in political intrigue, unrest and violence under British rule. Was the Zionist claim at all valid? In terms of European history, yes. In terms of Arab history, no.
With hindsite, I am inclined to reject the Zionist ideal because I oppose ethnic statism. I would also condemn, on the same grounds, Arab resistance to incorporating Jews as equals in Arab states. But I don’t think that, after 1930 or so, a multiethnic democracy was on anyone’s radar.
In any case, the United Nations settled the conflicting claims by partitioning British Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The partition did not provide moral justification to the whole Zionist endeavor; but in my opinion it conferred international legitimacy on the Jewish state - and on the projected Palestinian state, though it never emerged.
Thus, I consider Israel to be a legitimate state within the borders established by the U.N. in 1947. What the Zionists did to get the state may have been morally wrong, but the state nevertheless gained international sanction.
Israel expanded its borders considerably in the War of Independence. Although Israel’s revisionist historians have documented quite well that the military carried out a deliberate, planned campaign of ethnic cleansing during the war, leading to the refugee crisis, Israel has never acknowledged this officially.
Israel’s borders after 1948 were established provisionally by armistice agreements with Jordan, Egypt and Syria; and I would consider these borders to have a lesser degree of legitimacy, except in the case of Egypt, where they were subsequently ratified in a peace treaty.
The gains of 1967, of course, are not recognized by anyone but Israel itself. Even Israel has not annexed the territory formally, though it has tried to do so for a significant portion in practice.
To me, the only way that Israel could legitimitize any borders beyond those assigned by the U.N. is through peace treaties with the affected nations and (to include the Palestinians) national entities.
A case can be made - you, yourself, make it very convincingly - that Israel came into being through deception and violence practiced on an indigenous population. From the perspective of that population, whatever virtues the Zionists brought to the task are irrelevant.
I think it is up to Israel to acknowledge the wrongs it has committed, make satisfactory restitution, and negotiate borders that are acceptable to both sides. With regard to the right of return: Israel ought to recognize it, in principle at least. Its practical resolution should be included in the negotiations between the Palestinian and the Israeli leadership.
As far as Israel’s future - I guess you could consider me a long-term one-stater. As I mentioned, I think theocracy and ethnocracy are weak and unjust forms of government. I do not see how Israel can survive as either. But I would not oppose a peacable binational solution if one emerged. I would hope for it to be a transitional stage on the way to a multiethnic, multireligious state.
Andrew Schamess
Binationalism
I had heard that when the decision was made to declare independence (and fight with the Arab nations to enforce a partition), that there was an offer from the King of Jordan to allow the Israelis hold Tel Aviv, Rishon l’etzion and the surrounding area as an autonomous zone within his kingdom. I’m sorry I don’t have a source for this other than what I remember from something I once saw on the History Channel. This offer, though minimal, was considered by the Yishuv’s leaders, and in fact almost accepted (Golda Meir did not want her sons to have to fight in the war, and sought to avoid it; had she voted the other way there would have been no Declaration of Independence), but was turned down out of skepticism that they would not in fact be granted the rights promised to them.
Essentially, if assured of immigration rights, land purchase rights and basic human rights, many Zionists were prepared to accept any offer in the early years.
I didn’t mean to sound in any way polemical or partisan in defense of the (Statist) Zionists. I oppose the notion of a national state, based on the same principles by which a religious state is rejected. I oppose the notion of a Jewish state (as well as a Palestinian state) and find the use of military force to be most abhorrent. I hope to see (actually nearly a more balanced version of the Jordan’s offer) an autonomous Jewish region around Tel Aviv and a free Palestinian region of comparable size and population within a unified liberal state encompassing all land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.
-Isaac
Emet v’Shalom