Behind the Headlines Israeli Religious Settlers Would Commit Civil Disobedience to Prevent Trading O

While the Middle East peace process appears to be on hold, the future of the West Bank and Gaza continues to be a major topic of argument in both Israel and the United States.

In the U.S. especially, even in the Jewish community, the assumption is that a solution requires Israeli withdrawal at least from part of the West Bank.

But Elyakim Haetzni, a member of the Kiryat Arba Municipal Council and a leader of the Judaea and Samaria settlement movement, is in the U.S. to stress that if the Israeli government would agree to withdrawal, thousands of Jewish settlers would refuse to leave.

“I will remain,” he said in a talk last week at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington-based think tank.

Haetzni, a lawyer and founder of Elisha (Citizens for Judaea, Samaria, Gaza, Jerusalem and Golan), said any Israeli withdrawal would be “illegal” and that any Israeli leader who agreed to such a step would be a “traitor.”

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CLAIMED

If the Israeli army were to try to evict the Jewish settlers there would be no “bloodshed” between Jews. Instead, he said, the settlers would engage in “civil disobedience.”

Haetzni was joined at the AEI by Ehud Sprinzak, a senior lecturer in political science at Hebrew University who is currently a visiting professor at American University here.

Sprinzak said Haetzni represents what he calls the “radical right” in Israel. The “bad news” is that this group represents “a very significant and influential stream in Israel’s political culture” with the support of 20-25 percent of Israelis, Sprinzak said.

He said the radical right was the most “dynamic camp” in Israeli politics. He said they have a particular appeal to the youth, who recognize that these people, unlike others, believe what they say.

In addition, Sprinzak said that non-political Israelis have been encouraged to move to the West Bank by the offer of inexpensive housing. Once there they become quickly involved in supporting the views of the radical right.

FIVE ELEMENTS OF RADICAL RIGHT

Sprinzak said the radical right is made up of five elements. The first and most important is Gush Emunim, which spearheaded the settlement movement. The second is the Tehiya Party, which enjoys the support of 7-8 percent of Israelis, according to Sprinzak.

Next comes Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Kach group, he said. The fourth group are “extreme rabbis and intellectuals” who speak like Gush Emunim but think like Kahane, Sprinzak said.

He said the final group is made up of Trade and Industry Minister Ariel Sharon and his followers in Likud. He said they remain in Likud in hopes that Sharon can become Prime Minister.

Sprinzak said the radical right has grown since 1977 and the signing of the Camp David Accords, which they opposed. He attributed this to the lack of a Likud leader who has the personal authority to make international agreements and then tell those opposed, “You are not going to tell me how to defend Israel.”

Haetzni did not directly reply to Sprinzak’s analysis, although he called the Camp David agreements a “sellout.”

But he made a strong defense of the Jewish right to live in Judaea and Samaria. “It is difficult to understand the difference between Jaffa and Hebron or if you like Ramle and Ramallah,” he said. He noted that Israel captured Ramle and Jaffa in 1948 and Hebron and Ramallah in 1967.

He said that as Israel did when East Jerusalem was liberated in the Six Day War, “we should have made it clear in 67 that Judaea and Samaria are the real goal of our return to the Land of Israel. This is the place where the Bible took place.”

“Do we live in the time of the Bible or do we live today?” Sprinzak responded. He said that he and many other Israelis do not want to live like the rest of the Middle East, but in a democracy, something which he suggested the radical right does not want.

SUPPORTS EVENTUAL ANNEXATION

Haetzni said that while he favors annexing Judaea and Samaria, he would not do so until a quarter of a million Jews live there. About 70,000 Jews do now. Then he said he would favor autonomy for the Palestinians living there. He said the more Jews in the area “the less anxiety, the less nervous” the Jewish settlers will be and the more self-government the Palestinians could have.

But Sprinzak said that Jews and Arabs living side-by-side does not guarantee friendship. He noted that in the West Bank there is Jewish vigilantism and Jewish terrorism for the first time in 40 years.

Asked if Arabs on the West Bank under his plan would be allowed to vote for the Knesset, Haetzni said he would agree to that when Jews could vote in Jordan. He noted that Jordan allows no Jews and no one challenges this.

Haetzni pointed out that there are several towns called Hebron in the U.S. “Imagine if the mayor there or the central government would decide that Jews there cannot buy land or buy a home or open a shop or live in Hebron,” he said. He added that in the “Original Hebron” that was the situation.

He gave a long legal argument for Israel’s right to the West Bank and Gaza. He noted that both the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate listed Palestine as what is now Israel, the West Bank and Jordan. But Britain broke off Eastern Palestine in 1922 to give to King Abdullah and in the 1939 White Paper forbade any Jewish settlement in Judaea and Samaria as well as immigration. He said the new Israeli government dissolved the White Paper, which meant that settlement in the West Bank was no longer illegal.

In addition, Haetzni stressed that after conquering the West Bank in 1948, Abdullah passed a new law that the Arabs on both sides of the Jordan are “one people.” Noting that the majority of Jordanians are Palestinians, Haetzni said that there is already a Palestinian state.

He said that fear of what would happen if Jordan had added to it the 1.3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is one of the reasons that King Hussein could not answer the invitation to negotiations during the two years Shimon Peres was Premier.