Was the Post-1967 Settler Movement a Continuation of the Founding Zionist Project - Essay Example

Was the post-1967 Settler Movement a continuation of the founding Zionist project, or an independent development? Task: Was the post-1967 Settler Movement a continuation of the founding Zionist project, or an independent development? The quagmire of settler movements arose in 1967, a year, which was a turning point for Israel. Many activities took place during the time including the one sided war that involved Israel and the Arab neighbors. The war mainly involved countries like Egypt, Syria and Jordan. With Israel emerging as the victor from the war, territories expanded in areas such as Gaza, west bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan heights. This was in contrary to Arab predictions before the war that Israel would face extinction. The country was now stable to attack its enemies as well as protect its territories from attacks. The win was not taken easily by the religious Zion’s who termed the win as mere miraculous attempt by Israel. Instead of giving credit where it is due, Zionists used divine proof in their favor and praised themselves from the historical achievements in the past occurrences. In the process of trying to confer the new terms of Israel, the religions Zion got transformed into a system, which incorporated nationalism. At the same time, they got the limelight in the center stage showing their power through the secular enterprises. After same war settler, movement arose a move, which got incorporated to fight for the displaced in the society. They used makeshift tents same as those used by the Zionists in the 1930s in a bid to escape from mandatory and forceful power of the Palestinian nationalism1. Many questions, therefore, have arisen as to the source of the settler movement due to the many things that the movement shares with the Zionists. Consequently, the patrons and leaders of the settler movements got identified as leaders from the Zion society, a factor that leaves beyond doubt that settler movement was a product of the Zionists. It is from this perspective that I tend to defend the fact that all the basic similarities found between the settler and Zionists was not coincidental2. Settler movement is, therefore, a product of the Zionists as proven by the following subsidiary points. To start, the settler movement main agenda was, to provide settlement for displaced persons from the war. In addition, it engrossed the nationalists’ impulse, which included mixing religious ideologies such as biblical “Eretz Israel” rhythm. This was a perquisite of the religious redemption of the Christians by the time a move, which aimed at providing sustainable housing as well as settlement for the displaced persons from the six-day strenuous war. From a close analysis of its agendas, settler movement show sighs of shared ideas. This is because some of the settlement ideologies can be traced back to Zionists thinkers like Abraham Isaac Kook who was the first chief of the rabbi pre-state period3. From this perspective settler, movement formulated after the 1967 war gets viewed as a product of the Zionists, as they could not formulate their own ideologies, but took the ideologies from the Zionists movements. Subsequently, it leaves certainty beyond any doubt that the religious legitimacy that prevailed in the settler movement was a product of the Zionists. This, therefore, proves that fact that settler movement erupted from the Zionists. The Zionists made use of secular elements and instruments in the process of reestablishing the land of Israel and motivation of Jewish renaissance. According to Kook, one of the founders of Zionist movements, the move aimed at restoring the civilization match in the people of Israel. Consequently, it geared towards ensuring moral progress and in turn creating a modal society where everybody had transformation. Notably the dream of the Zionists was to transform the whole Israel community and create a barrier from the past in terms of development and emergence. A close observation of the settler movement reveals same trends and goals as of the Zionists4. For instance, the post 1967 settler movement motivated the Zionists into modern transformation where, they made people emerge from mere handmaidens to secular Israelis. Consequently, they motivated limited margins in the society in terms of development with only mundane issues remaining un handled. To make things more stable, the settler movement shaped the religious and national destiny of the whole Israelis a dream of the Zionists5. To some extent this proves settler movement to a force driven by ideologies from external entities like the Zionists. In as much as it is possible to formulate same goals, it becomes extremely suspicious when the goals get implemented in the same way. This becomes another factor, which proves beyond any doubt, the emergence of the settler movement, to be from Zionists. When the founding father of Zionists Kook, Abraham died, it was extremely difficult for the Zionists to accept and work with the settler movement. This is because of the stringent conditions put but Kook’s son who demanded that for him to join the settler movement, his father’s ideologies had to be embraced and involved in the whole operation of the settler movement. In the contrary, settler movement accepted the deal making the whole movement to be full of Koook’s ideologies6. As proof, some of the Kook’s ideologies, which got implemented by the settler movement, included universal pluralism and secular culture. Instead of focusing on religious nationalism, the movement stripped its ideologies to implement ideology from other institutions like the Zionists. Zvi Yehudah is the son of the founder to the Zionists, who ensured his father ideologies got implemented in the settler movement. As a result, an intellectual bastion in the settlement movement got formulated while at the same time acting as a manpower depot7. This is because of the fact that the movement supplied young religious settlers to work as vanguard, a move that had been proposed by Kook; the founding father of the Zionists. This, therefore, traces symbolic resonance of the settler movement to the Zionists a factor that proves emergence of the settler movement from the Zionists. In as much as the biblical patrimony as well as potential opposition tried to eliminate the inclusion of Kook’s ideologies into the movement, it was extremely difficult for the movement to survive a factor that portrays it as a constituent of the Zionists. England remains in history as the source of settler movements from the 19th century. This was due to the rising poverty as well as widespread unemployment, which left people wondering around. Those who got employed worked for longer hour with little pay a factor that promoted the development of slams. The settler movements led to the development of welfare organizations to fight for the poor residents who could not afford education and childcare8. This was the same situation in Israel although settler movement in Israel was because of war. It was due to the ultra religious land for Israel settlement fidgety which came up in the biblical heartland. The city, which is an origin of ancient patriarchs like Isaac, Jacob and Abraham, become the source of the settler movement that helped in transforming the many lives of individuals. In as much as the movement dates back from ancient times several factors still links it to the formation of Zionists movements. For instance, the movement got formulated as a result of the 1929 massacre, which generated considerable ideological formality9. Gush Emunim as they later called it in 1975 was a movement related to Zionists from this perspective because; it was the Zionists initiated the movement after massacre occurrence, which led to the death of many people. This proves the emergence of settler movements as a product of Zionists. Although not direct, few characteristics and ideologies portray the movements to be from Zionists. The Zionist movement faced many challenges before the 1967 breakthrough. In 1948, for instance, the enterprise has no recognized unity with its members. Maintaining the unity was difficult making implementation of the movement ideologies difficult. Before 1967, the infant government was not committed towards empowering movements. Ben Gurion, for instance, was one of the leaders before 1967, who got committed towards establishing state boundaries10. He partition Israel according to the United Nations partition plan while forgetting west bank. This was due to an agreement with Abdullah to take charge of the region while preventing engagement into war. With too many forces, pushing him Abdullah could not resist getting into the war a factor, which caused the death enormous people. The war mainly affected the Jordan region and the west back after Ben Gurion went back with an aim of claiming the region according to the agreement. When the Zionist movement got formed there were three main objectives. One was to create a Jewish, democratic state, while maintaining the strong and historic ethnicity of the Jewish people; however, with difficulties and wars as well as nonunity, this was not possible. Ben Gurion, for instance, discouraged the movement claiming people often have to settle on less than complete victory. In as much as the chance of realizing, a democratic and the jewish state was a wrong step, further blow to the Zionists was the fact that they could not include the west bank. This promoted the formation of the settler movement, which was mainly guided by Zionists. The radical Israel politics also played a part in the formation of the settler movement a factor, which was due to the easily influenced Zionist movement. This, therefore, makes the settler movement an instrument of Zionists. Liberal Zionists principles became baselines for action for the settler movements a factor, which makes settler movement a product of Zionists. After Israel conquered neighbouring lands, it was not able to control as the justice minister said Zionists would die with the Israel government in power11. A visit by the Jewish agency revealed the same causing fear and havoc in the whole country as israel settlements would be incomplete. The decision that arose from the fear was the formation of the settler movement a body that meant to complete and fast track the implementation of settlements. The creation of the movement facilitated a series of spontaneous changes in the Israel settlement aspiration. As Karl Marx proposes, the second time is a farce while the first remains a tragedy formation of the settler movement got initiated by tragedy by the Zionists who could not keep the movement united. This creates a relation between settler movements and the Zionists. Therefore, settler movement was an inspiration from the failure of Zionists and not a newly initiated venture. Historical incarnation of Israel reveals many things showing a close sense of liberty and equality through movements. The formation of the settler movement was aimed at incorporating welfare support of members and providing other requirements. Zionists, on the other hand, view the disengagement of political miscalculation as a political problem, which lead to a serious problem. The religious ideologies of the nationalist impulse initiated biblical resettlement of people a factor, which was seen as the simplest way of solving the quagmire. Settler movements, therefore, played an imperative role in initiating the settlement of people. After finding allies such as Ariel Sharon, the movement was able to maneuver through the hard political time and initiate various objectives. As a result, it gets portrayed as one of the most active movement groups in the world, which was stable and initiated many programmes. For instance, it was able to convince the Israel government to formulate southern Gaza settlements, which later motivated the formation of Palestinian states. Consequently, the movement helped in stabilizing the whole Israel economy after regaining from instability due to previous wars. It, therefore, played an imperative role towards motivating the development of the current Israel12. In as much as it is vital to know the exact source of the settler movement, it is also necessary to assert its role in motivating the peaceful Israel. Close analysis of the movement reveal various linkages with the Zionists a factor that convinces people beyond any reasonable doubt that it originated from the Zionists. For example, most of the ideologies implemented by the settler movement originated from the Zionists. This gets evidenced through various means, for instance, they had to accept Kook’s son and his father’s ideas for continued operation. In addition, it was formed at a time when the Zionists faced many problems and the movement; therefore, served as an option of implementation various ideologies formulated by Zionists. It is from this perspective that settler movement finds a linkage with the Zionists hence making it a continuation of Zionists projects. References Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, the Jerusalem Metropolis – A Master Plan and Development Plan (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1994) For details of this policy as implemented in the Gaza Strip, see: B’Tselem, A Policy of Destruction: House Demolitions and Destruction of Agricultural Land in the Gaza Strip (Information Sheet, February 2002). The Beginning of the Hebron Disaster”, interviews with Moshe Dayan by Rami Tal, 1 January 1977, excerpts published in Yediot Ahronot, 27 April 1997, translated by Reuven Kaminer. Figures given by B’Tselem in: “Hebron, Area H-2: Settlements Cause Mass Departure of Palestinians,” Status Report, August 2003, p. 2. See the report of the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem (ARIJ), available at . See: “Hebron, Area H-2: Settlements Cause Mass Departure of Palestinians,” B’Tselem, Status Report, August 2003. “The Master Plan,” The Committee for the Renewal of Jewish Settlement in the City of the atriarchs, 1984, cited in “The Old City of Hebron: Can it be Saved?” Patricia Sellick, p. 75. “The Old City of Hebron: Can it be Saved?” Patricia Sellick, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXIII, Issue 92, Summer 1994. The TIPH agreement, signed by Israel and the PA on 21 January 1997, is available on the TIPH website at . Avishai Margalit, “Settling Scores,” New York Review of Books, September 20, 2001. Karen Armstrong, “Zion?” in A History of Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths (London: HarperCollins, 1997), 398–415. Meron Benvenisti, “Border or Frontier?” in Intimate Enemies: Jews and Arabs in a Shared Land (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 52–71. Ehud Sprinzak, “From Pioneering to Terrorism: Gush Emunim and the Underground,” in Brother Against Brother: Violence and Extremism in Israeli Politics From Altalena to the Rabin Assassination (New York: Random House, 1992), 145–179. Read More