Posts
Jews of Hebron: You Can’t Make Me Shed A Tear
By Cori Chascione / December 9, 2008
Last week, the IDF and Israeli police forces forcefully removed settlers from Beit HaShalom, a disputed home in Hebron. In case you’ve been living under a rock, the story is the same as usual– the Jews claim that they bought the home legally and Palestinians dispute the claim. The court sided with the Palestinians and the settlers were forcefully removed. As Jeffrey Goldberg reminded us in his recent post, the event was marked by extremism on part of the settlers.
Well, some of the settlers. Despite what the media may have you thinking, the small group of young people that carried out these heinous, inexcusable attacks on Palestinian people and their property, in addition to vicious attacks against the IDF soldiers carrying out the evacuation, do not come close to representing the actions of the majority of the Jews in Hebron. Regardless, even if the community rabbis warned settlers that they must protest peacefully, some people didn’t adhere to that advice. What happened in Hebron was a tragedy on more than one level, and it illustrates the mixed feelings that the settlements bring about for Jews in Israel, myself included.
The day before the pullout began, the IDF declared Beit HaShalom a closed military zone. The evacuation seemed imminent and I was fuming. I’d heard this story before, and I was disgusted with the court for its ruling based on a general rejection of the settlements and a denial of their legitimacy. I sat on my bed, in uniform, wondering what to do. I didn’t want to be a part of the IDF on a day in which they removed Jews from a home that they’d purchased– something that I’d naively hoped would never happen again in the Jewish State. Suffice it to say that I didn’t perform my duties in the army during this time and I can confidently say that I did not in any way assist the IDF during this operation. Strangely enough, I’m not feeling content.
Given my feelings about so-called ‘disengagement’, you’d think that I’d be proud of, or at least satisfied with, my actions. It’s not so simple. I don’t doubt my principles related to the settlements, but reading about young extremists and seeing masked Jews looking like members of Islamic Jihad takes its toll. My commitment to the land is unwavering, but it’s a separate issue. I don’t feel strongly for the community of people that allows violence like this to take place. I could almost cry for the settlers that peacefully protested and watched their Jewish brothers and sisters forcefully remove their friends and family– except for the fact that their condemnation of the violent extremism isn’t loud enough. Sure, a few important rabbis have condemned the attacks and I’m thankful for that– but where are the protestors? Why aren’t the residents of Hebron bullying their violent community members like they tried to bully the soldiers that carried out the evacuation?
They aren’t protesting because deep down, they aren’t ready to make the statement that violence targeting the innocent is unjust, even when one is certain that his ideology and his claims are morally sound. My political views aside, until they’re ready to make that statement, I won’t feel much for the residents of Hebron. We don’t have much in common, and our respective visions of what it means to be a state held to the standard of Jewish values can’t coexist.
POST A COMMENT
Including, but not limited to, Israel’s right to defend itself when rockets are being fired at it from Gaza with the intention of killing civilians. In any case, I don’t blindly support the settlers, despite how I feel about the settlements. For those that are peaceful and non-violent, and I’m still ashamed of their willingness to sit quietly and be a part of a community that allows extremism like this to take place.
You are of course aware of the "archeological" operations going on in the Silwan village area of east Jerusalem….Your quotation marks are misplaced. The diggings in Silwan have uncovered the most significant archeological findigns in Jerusalem since the original explorations of Warren in the 19th century
About 55 Palestinian homes have been demolished so far. A committee of Israeli "archeologists" has condemned this work as transparently fraudulent, saying that true scientific investigations proceed far more slowly and carefully, as opposed to the construction-site pace of the Silwan activities, and that few archeologists are known to use pneumatic drills at midnight in their work…. Here is where the quotation marks belong. These "archeologists" are motivated by a mixture of jealousy, and fear that whenever significant Jewish artifacts are discovered in Jerusalem, it complicates their hopes of giving Jersualem away and sticking it to religious Jews. The more evidence of ancient Jewish settlement in Jerusalem, the harder their case is.
Yes, I support the Judaization of Jerusalem. Jews have as much right to live in Jerusalem as Muslims do in Mecca
Fair enough. Check your messages.
Cori C
coriac@gmail.com
"Now you can feel free to insult me, personally."
Now, now. Let’s not be so touchy.
I agree that we see things differently in fundamental ways; I, for example, am ethically outraged by the punishment of infants and the infirm that Israel sees as a legitimate security operation, while you happily don the uniform of the punishers.
However, I did ask specific questions about the specific matter raised in your post that go to the heart of the questions you raised (see my comment of 12/12), to which you declined to respond. This is of course your perogative, but your reason (the wide gulf between our basic worldviews) does not apply to these specific questions, constrained as they are to quite particular matters . And this seems to me to be an example of the a tendency you’ve shown in other conversations-namely, to quit while you’re behind. You’ll recall, for example, that in our legendary Debbie Almontaser smackdown, you claimed that the board of her school was packed with suspicious jihadi types. In reply, I produced the names of the board, which contained more Jews and Christians than Muslims. You shot back that my "research was completely wrong", and that you couldn’t wait to set the record straight. Then, the sound of crickets. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not rare.
I note again that I’m being quite specific, and I’ll try once more. You are of course aware of the "archeological" operations going on in the Silwan village area of east Jerusalem. About 55 Palestinian homes have been demolished so far. A committee of Israeli archeologists has condemned this work as transparently fraudulent, saying that true scientific investigations proceed far more slowly and carefully, as opposed to the construction-site pace of the Silwan activities, and that few archeologists are known to use pneumatic drills at midnight in their work.
So what’s your stance? Do you support the Judaization of Jerusalem via such beastly methods? Were those homes "legitimately" bulldozed? Despite the fact that you understandably feel more visceral reaction to Jewish suffering, does not your sense of justice compel you to stand against these depredations? You’ll notice a number of similarly specific questions in my earlier post, ones which even those who do not share my anti-Zionism might ask themselves.
So there you are. I’m happy to let this drop, but not without pointing out that your reason-the incommensurate nature of our deepest philosophies-is not the reason.
See, not a single ad hominem remark.
And yet, why do you feel comfortable using the term occupation in scare quotes? I realize that Ismail places a whole host of moral baggage onto that term, more than most of the MOTs would, and much of which I personally feel involves more conflation and a more reductionist framework than I’d ascribe to. But I can’t help but wonder if that isn’t the only reason why you would do such a thing.
I don’t have a moral problem with asserting that responsibilities are incumbent upon a country in occupation of another, as long as the person making that claim accepts that those responsibilities are no less morally binding on the residents and their own leaders were the occupier to leave. I also feel that to the extent that someone is willing to make charges alleging an abdication of responsibility on the part of the occupying country, they must be willing to make the same charges against local leaders for failing to live up to those same responsibilities.
…they’re about as productive as Middle East peace talks, for similar reasons. We disagree on the fundamentals– I don’t see Israel as the villian, and you do– among other things.
This post was about a very specific event and had a small, but personally significant purpose. I simply don’t have the energy to chat with you about why I feel the way that I do about Israel and the so-called ‘occupation.’ Maybe it’ll happen sometime, if it’s in a more appropriate context.
Now you can feel free to insult me, personally.
Cori C
coriac@gmail.com
I don’t enjoy picking on you. I actually prefer reading your more descriptive and artistic volleys with Michael and others. It’s just that when you take the troglodytes to task, I sometimes worry that you might make stretches that have the effect of weakening your own case, near as I can tell. It’s more nit-picking than picking on Ismail, and I realize it can be annoying.
In this instance though, I probably read too much into your previous response, as your comment above clarifies. I see now how you could draw the conclusion you did based on Kaine’s much earlier comment, which I had initially neglected to read. Apologies.
I think the context makes it abundantly clear what I’m talking about; namely, Israel’s policies re the occupation, each and every one of which is slap in the face of humanity, and each of which enjoys Kaine’s full-throated endorsement, near as I can tell.
Why do you enjoy picking on me so?
"Insofar as you speak in defense of Israeli policy"
Is that really what this Kaine guy is doing, Ismail? Or are you conflating his ostensible defense of any single Israeli policy with a defense of every Israeli policy?
"Thnaks for the elegant statement of what most Palestinians believe."
Actually, that the occupation represents a criminal aggression against an entire population is what most of the civilized world believes. Of course, as Kaine will be happy to remind us, most of the world harbors that stubborn anti-Semitism virus, which is just waiting for the right conditions to emerge in full epidemic flower. Their criticism of Israel’s apartheid policies is just the sniffle that precedes the full-blown disease, right? Once they start empathizing with the malnourished infants of Gaza, a pogrom can’t be too far around the corner.
"If I felt that way, I would have little compunction about killing them in their restaurants or hotels, because they are neither human nor civilians"
No need for the subjunctive. Insofar as you speak in defense of Israeli policy, you already affirm that you accord neither humanity nor civilian status to Palestinians, who have perished in far greater numbers than have Israelis due to the conflict, a fact you and your ideological cohort seem entirely OK with. Per the Right-Zionist playbook, Israel engineers sociocide and its partisans prattle on about the murderous intent of its victims. Quite sickening.
In any event, I’m done with bothering to respond to the delusions of an unlettered wingnut. Back to the comedy club with you.
"For those (settlers) that are peaceful and non-violent…"
There are none. Unless you consider squatting on land that doesn’t belong to you and enjoying benefits that accrue to you only at the expense of displaced, jailed and murdered farmers and shepherds whose groves are destroyed by a belligerent state in order to make room for you and your whole Brooklyn mishpochah to be peaceful and non-violent… Thnaks for the elegant statement of what most Palestinians believe. They also believe that the entire state of Israel is squatting on land that doesnt belong to you,etc. That is the crux of the argument. This is not a conflict about land, it is a conflict about theology, and the fact that many Palestinians see that dogs, pigs, and apes have evicted them from their land, be it Tel Aviv or Hebron. If I felt that way, I would have little compunction about killing them in their restaurants or hotels, because they are neither human nor civilians
"…I’m willing to let my reaction to ‘champion of the occupation’ be reduced to the slight rolling of my eyes."
I thought you were on board with the delusion that what some quaintly refer to as "Judea and Samaria" belonged to Israel; hence, "champion of the occupation". If I am wrong and you, like most of the civilized world, oppose this shameless aggression, then you have my deepest apologies.
"For those (settlers) that are peaceful and non-violent…"
There are none. Unless you consider squatting on land that doesn’t belong to you and enjoying benefits that accrue to you only at the expense of displaced, jailed and murdered farmers and shepherds whose groves are destroyed by a belligerent state in order to make room for you and your whole Brooklyn mishpochah to be peaceful and non-violent.
This is my point about the utility of the cartoonishly brutal thugs in Hebron-they make ordinary land-grabbers look "peaceful and non-violent".
"…Palestinian extremism seems to be way more pervasive in Palestinian society than Jewish extremism in Israeli society"
Again, unless one considers starving and routing entire populations extreme. Consult a Gazan re this.
"About the eviction of people from their homes— when a home is purchased legally (both between the buyer and the seller and according to municipal laws of the region), I don’t support the eviction of ANYONE on the basis of religion, nationality, whatever– including Palestinians."
Glad to hear it. What have you done about this? Have you signed the letter supporting the Shministim? What do you make of the countless Palestinian homes razed to make life easier for the settlers? Don’t they fall into the unfair eviction category?
" I do support the demolition of homes that belong to suicide bombers and their families."
You realize, of course, that collective punishment is contrary to international law, not to mention the moral intuitions of the adequately civilized human being. Would you support a parallel right, e.g., the right of Palestinians to destroy the home of an IDF member who kills a Pali civilian? Oh, wait, I forgot-this never happens; Palis killed by IDFers are either terrorists or unfortunate collateral damage, never the victims of crimes.
"…when a Palestinian is evicted from his home (illegally), I oppose it."
Sadly, there are oceans of wiggle room in that innocent-sounding "illegally". As you know, there is systematic discrimination in the awarding of such things as building permits-Jews get ‘em easily, Arabs almost never. Bingo! You’re illegal, Mohammed! You don’t defend this transparently racist shell game, do you?
Finally, I grant your honesty about acknowledging the difference between knowing and feeling, about having emotional reactions to some varieties of unfairness while being less bothered by others (although this is not automatic-many of your fellow Israelis feel a visceral, emotional repugnancy towards their country’s crimes. You suggest that feeling outrage in one’s gut follows a sort of tribal affiliation, so that you are naturally more sensitive to the interests of Jewish Israelis than you might to, say, Palestinian Israelis. But you are of course aware that not all feel this way; for some, it is precisely the transgression against Jewish values that the occupation represents that animates their horror at Israel’s behavior. Their loyalty to transcendent moral values trumps their cultural/religious identifications. "If I am only for myself, who am I?")
But my point was not only about emotional inclinations. I wondered about your behavior as an agent of state power. You decline to act as such an agent when Jews are, in your view, being treated unfairly. Does your conscience make the same demand on you when the victims are not Jews, despite your emotional inclinations?
Finally, you are right that I spend more time discussing Israeli aggression than Palestinian suicide bombings (which I oppose). This is for reasons similar to those which pushed the ethically aware person to focus on the evils of apartheid despite the foolish and horrifying actions of some in the anti-apartheid movement. It’s because, in this case, the Israelis are the greater villains.
…that you have not yet called me a sorority girl, and I’m willing to let my reaction to ‘champion of the occupation’ be reduced to the slight rolling of my eyes.
Your questions. Yes, I am aware that there is continued violence by the settlers that targets Palestinians, and yes, I do support their right to defend themselves in those situations. I feel the same way about the IDF soldiers that are attacked by settlers and about anyone on the face of the Earth that might be in physical danger because of a senseless act of violence. Including, but not limited to, Israel’s right to defend itself when rockets are being fired at it from Gaza with the intention of killing civilians. In any case, I don’t blindly support the settlers, despite how I feel about the settlements. For those that are peaceful and non-violent, I’m still ashamed of their willingness to sit quietly and be a part of a community that allows extremism like this to take place. It bothers me as much as Palestinian extremism (though Palestinian extremism seems to be way more pervasive in Palestinian society than Jewish extremism in Israeli society), and I don’t have much respect for the Jews in Israel that don’t see it this way. Those that don’t support the use of violence against Palestinian civilians or IDF soldiers should take serious measures to stop their extremist counterparts; it’s their responsibility and they’ve failed to live up to this. In a community of 500 Jews, surely they could ascertain control.
About the eviction of people from their homes— when a home is purchased legally (both between the buyer and the seller and according to municipal laws of the region), I don’t support the eviction of ANYONE on the basis of religion, nationality, whatever– including Palestinians. I’ll make the distinction between Palestinian terrorists and civilians, though– I do support the demolition of homes that belong to suicide bombers and their families. Aside from that scenario, a legally purchased home is a legally purchased home.
The issue of whether or not it ‘gets under my skin’ is a valid one to raise. The truth is that yes, illegal Palestinian evictions do get under my skin. I feel like Israel has a long way to go in terms of its treatment of Israeli Arabs, Palestinians, and certain groups of Jews and I am certainly not satisfied with that. Still, I admit that it’s difficult to live here and to avoid having emotional reactions to all aspects of the situation (yeah, I know that it’s going to be difficult for you not to respond to that snarkily, but please— try. We’re off to such a good start). The hatred that exists here and the fear of ‘the other’ (from both sides) is pervasive— when a Palestinian is evicted from his home (illegally), I oppose it. I don’t write Jewcy posts about it and it doesn’t ruin my day. At the end of the day, in regards to ‘the situation’ here, we all acknowledge that there are ‘sides’ and we all have our feelings and opinions related to who we think–in general– acts more in line with our own values and morals. For me, that’s Israel– and so while I don’t support criminal acts against Palestinians, my emotional reactions are kept at a minimum. It’s a fact, it’s not an argument or something to be debated. I’m sure that you can understand, as you don’t seem to spend a lot of time being angry at suicide bombers that attack Israeli civilians with the intent to kill.
Cori C
coriac@gmail.com
This is going an entirely different direction now, but here it goes…
At the risk of sounding too theoretical, I would say that understanding the context of violence has a great deal more value in practice than in philosophical discussions. As a student studying conflict and conflict intervention, the first thing I was taught was that you cannot properly address a conflict if you have the wrong analysis. Since you see the conflict through the lens of oppressor and oppressed (I am not arguing against your analysis) and you discount any other possible understanding of the dynamics at play, than the appropriate response as you noted, would be to come to the aid of the victim. But what if its more complicated than that? What if the particular response of coming to the aid of the victim, only makes the scoundrel more insecure and further exacerbates hostility?
I just don’t think its possible to understand the Israeli Palestinian conflict through only one lens or framework. That’s all I will say, and then I am bowing out of this discussion. I have enjoyed it, but it has strayed, and I don’t feel like getting into a larger political conversation.
Cheers,
Eitan
Fair enough, and I surely didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. It was my mistake to use quotation marks to represent ideas that I thought, rightly or wrongly, were implicit in your remarks.
As far as "…saying that violence and its motivations are complex, doesn’t absolve its perpetrators from blame" goes, I’m sure that there are contexts-philosophy classes, for example-in which this observation is useful, but when it comes to the politics of oppression, the relevant posture is the one which identifies the scoundrel and comes to the aid of the victim. The fact that scoundrels are animated by a congeries of factors may be true, but it’s a distraction when sociocide is being committed.
As for whether settlers are bad people or not, I expect that they come in the same array of ethical coloration as most of us do. But I am absolutely certain that, whatever their individual characters may be, they are doing bad things, and I do criticize those who maintain a complicit silence about their crimes.
Ismail, just for the record, I don’t want to be misunderstood as trying to suggest the settlers activity is morally neutral. My comment regarding "good vs. bad" meant to say that I wasn’t trying to make an argument about morality. Also, saying that violence and its motivations are complex, doesn’t absolve its perpetrators from blame. I also never said anything about evenhandedness, or shades of gray with regards to the crimes that were committed, or even what I think should happen now, other than my hope that Jews will be more aware of the common occurrence of such violence.
If you want to criticize me for not weighing in on whether or not settlers are bad people, you can do that, but it was never my point.
I dont approve of Jews using violence against the IDF or random Palestinians. The reason why you felt uneasy is because you have some decency and have doubts about the process. You may have doubts because you know the court process that decided against the settlers was rigged to have leftist judges. A religious judge, Edmond Levy, was removed from the case in order to stack the deck. Your conflict is as such. As a soldier in the IDF, you are duty bound to support it. However, you are also aware that the recent decisions of the state are influenced by corruption
"Although I do feel as though the media makes settler violence against Palestinians out to be more mainstream than it is (meaning– most settlers don’t commit these acts)…"
And neither did most southern whites lynch African-Americans or burn down churches. But they did do something arguably even more damaging; they dehumanized their neighbors in a thousand subtle and overt ways, with the predictable deleterious result to the lives and souls of both their victims and themselves.
I appreciate Eitan’s moderate and good-hearted counsel, but I remain very wary of talk about "complexity" and "shades of grey" and "no good guys or bad guys" when it comes to the occupation. Of course villains are to be found on both sides, and heroes too, but this is a trivial observation. Directing ourselves only to the issue of Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza, there are only good guys and bad guys. One side occupies, one is occupied. This does not mean that every Pali is spotless and every Israeli evil, only that there is a right and a wrong with reference to this policy.
I don’t imagine this will mean much to Cori, who appears to countenance the behavior of settlers as long as it doesn’t approach Freddy Krueger-ish proportions, and I hate to antagonize Eitan, who seems a sensitive and thoughtful fellow, but talking about even-handedness when it comes to a crime just won’t do.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I think the most feral of the settlers function very nicely to normalize the everyday brutality of the occupation. Who would support the "Arabs to the gas chambers" graffiti or the shooting of unarmed farmers? Even a champion of occupation like Cori can safely express her humanitarian bona fides by denouncing these marginal lunatics.
I have two serious questions for Cori; First, you say
"…I do not comdemn settlers that are violent in retaliation to Palestinian aggression. There is most certainly Palestinian violence against settlers and I support the settlers’ right to defend themselves."
Do you think that there is "most certainly" settler violence against Palestinians? Do you support violent retaliation on the part of Palestinians to such aggression?
Second, you say
"I didn’t want to be a part of the IDF on a day in which they removed Jews from a home that they’d purchased–…"
Ignoring for a moment the legal status of that home, about which reasonable people disagree, suppose the IDF were charged with removing a Palestinian family from a home it owned (not hard to suppose, of course, since this is a normal feature of the policy you support). Under what conditions would you likewise refuse? Is it the unjust removal of families in general that gets under your skin, or only the unjust removal of Jewish families? Do you think that Palestinian families are never the victims of unjust eviction?
I ask this question because, the preposterous Abbas and his cronies notwithstanding, Israel is the de facto sovereign of the West Bank. As such, it ought to discharge its obligations to those under its sovereignty in a fashion congruent with its self-representation as a democratic state.
Yet from you I see a great deal of fuss made over the (possibly) unfair eviction of the House of Peace guys, and not a peep about the countless evictions suffered by Palis. Either you think that each of the latter is entirely justified, or you, as an agent of a powerful state apparatus, are happy to act in a manifestly undemocratic fashion.
You will note that, in deference to your distaste for such things and with the hope that by so doing I have established my good faith in your eyes, I have refrained from uttering even the tamest snarky remark.
And it wasn’t easy.
As I said before, I do agree that people who allow criminal, violent acts to take place are as guilty as the perpetrators of violence. That was part of my reason for writing this post in the first place– until the comdemnation of violence is as loud as the support for the settlements, I can’t say that I am a supporter of the settlers, regardless of how I feel about the settlements.
That being said, I don’t think that it’s fair to say that settlers, in general, condone violence. Many of the community’s political and religious leaders spoke before and after the attacks and they spoke out against violence targeting both Palestinian neighbors and the IDF. Then, there were a few (and yes, it is fair to say a few) that made threats of violence before the pull-out– mostly geared towards the IDF, not the Palestinians, and even more settlers that simply didn’t speak. Again, the situation is complex and it isn’t fair to say that these people simply condone violence– things like the shrine to Goldstein are significant, but so are the kids and adults that simply sat on the floor of Beit HaShalom in protest of the expulsion. They didn’t build a shrine and they barely made the news, but they were still the majority. The settlers, it seems, have a problem looking beyond their emotional and spiritual attachment to their cause. In some cases, it interferes with their moral judgement, and what happened last week is a solid example of that. Calling it a violent sub-culture is too much, and it doesn’t leave much room for change. They don’t yet have their kids watching TV shows of Palestinians drinking the blood of Jewish babies, and so I’d like to think that there is still hope.
Cori C
coriac@gmail.com
I am not arguing that this is a good guys vs. bad guys situation, but I do think that settler values and attitudes towards violence play role in explaining a larger phenomenon. You are right, violence can be complex, and the justifications for violence can be complex. Clearly violence goes back and forth between Jewish settlers and Palestinian residents in the West Bank. Depending on where you stand politically and ideologically, you may see that exchange from different perspectives. Some would argue that the presence of settlers in Beit HaShalom was itself an act of provocation, and the existence of settlements as part of a larger occupation are an act of violence, but that’s not my point. Its not judicious to say that an entire group of people is innocent, guilty, good or bad. However, you can look at the collective values of a group to understand their actions.
My point is that there is a larger context and history to the violence in Hebron, going back Moshe Levinger and the way Kiriat Arba was established. You suggest that the mainstream of those settlers are non-violent and the media portrays extremists as the norm. While you may be right that it is a statistical minority of those settlers who physically attack innocent Palestinians with weapons, I argue that the majority of the Hebron settlers are in a Jewish subculture that not only condones violence against innocents, but openly praises it. One clear case of this is in the shrine that was built at Baurch Goldsteins gravesite back in the late 90’s (and later torn down by the IDF). Arguing history is generally unproductive. I only bring this up because it seems to me that even moderate Jews have a short memory when it comes to physical violence perpetrated against Palestinians by other Jews, and a long term memory when it is the other way around.
I admit, I have not spent allot of time talking to settlers from places like Hebron. If you have personal insight about their values, I would be truely interested in understanding them better.
Eitan– yeah, it’s true. Although I do feel as though the media makes settler violence against Palestinians out to be more mainstream than it is (meaning– most settlers don’t commit these acts), I recognize that this occurs often, not only during disengagement and feel that those that don’t protest these acts are as guilty as those that commit them. In Hebron, the Jews live in a small community– the violence could be put to an end if they willed it. That being said, I do not comdemn settlers that are violent in retaliation to Palestinian aggression. There is most certainly Palestinian violence against settlers and I support the settlers’ right to defend themselves. It’s important to acknowledge the complexity of violence and aggression in the settlements– it simply can’t be deduced to good guys vs. bad guys.
Cori C
coriac@gmail.com
Cori, I certainly appreciate your non-sympathy for the Jewish residence of Hebron after last week, and I am glad that you can put your political views in support of settlements aside in the name of proclamations of non-violence against innocent civilians. My comment however, is that even though you recognize forceful evacuation of settler homes as being "same as usual", your shock at the failure of Hebron’s Jewish residents to condemn the shooting, fails to recognize the "same as usual" violence that the settlers use against innocent Palestinians in Hebron all the time. This wasn’t an isolated incident. I hope that the recent shock about this incident will provoke more Jews with mixed feelings about settlers and settlements to understand that this wasn’t the first time things like this have been perpetrated, and it wont be the last time.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!