Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

November 24th, 2005

Tags

, ,

Comments

7 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Test of Hebron

The Washington Post has an article which caught my eye on Jewish settelrs in Hebron and the plans to evacuate them. Having just visited the city, the article spoke to me as I still remember the effects of the settlers first hand.

Hebron Emerges as a Test of Israel’s Pledge on Settlers

HEBRON, West Bank—In a stall where Palestinian merchants once sold vegetables in this ancient city, Gershon Bar-Kochva made a home.A few years ago, the mustachioed army reserve officer and a group of fellow Israeli settlers pushed into two rows of empty stalls that were once a market, expanding the perimeter of the Jewish enclave at the heart of largely Palestinian Hebron. Now the presence of the settlers has emerged as a test of the Israeli government’s pledge to evacuate dozens of unauthorized settlements, as well as offshoot neighbors of government-sanctioned settlements, on land envisioned for a future Palestinian state.

Again, around 100,000 Palestinians live in Hebron and 500 Israeli settlers.

The Old City emptied, and businesses vanished behind shutters. The main commercial street, Shuhada, lined with centuries-old stone buildings, remains off-limits to Palestinian traffic despite a 1997 agreement outlining a partial Israeli withdrawal from the city that stipulated the road be reopened along with the market.

“We know that we are the right owners here, and they know that they are a strange body in this Palestinian residential area,” said Imad Hamdan, acting general director of the Hebron Rehabilitation Committee, a nongovernmental Palestinian group renovating the Old City with funds from European and Arab countries.

Here are additionaly pictures of the Tomb of the Patriarchs and market area controlled by the Israeli military:


The Cave of the Patriarchs where Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob and Leah are said to be buried.

One of the MANY checkpoints as described in the article.

Street life in the occupied sector is next to nothing. Notice the Israeli police further down the street there. Of course, they often only enforce the laws that protect Jews.

When even Western Union is closed, it must be bad.


As one Palestinian correctly notes:

“If you open the market and remove the checkpoints, we will have the same problem we had before,” said Sharabati, a 31-year-old Palestinian who now paints houses for a living. “The settlers will turn over stalls, cause problems, and the military will close the streets down again. The solution is the evacuation of all the settlers.”

More can be found at my page on Palestine in my Syria Diary.

Comments to this entry

Evd.
November 24, 2005
4:30 pm
I think I also support a Hebron withdrawl but it's kind of complicated.

Hebron has had a Jewish community since time immemorial which was only recently eliminated by the Palestinians. These settlers believe they have simply restored what was once there. They believe in their Right to Remain just as strongly as the Palestinians believe in their Right to Return. Obviously, both "Rights" will have to be given up in a final settlement but if Israel makes an early move they may lose some leverage when negotiations resume.

A second issue is that when Israel leaves, Jews will no longer have access to the holy sites in the city. It also doesn't help that memories of the Palestinian's destruction of Joseph's Tomb is still fresh in some people's minds.
Chirol
November 24, 2005
5:47 pm
I'm fully aware Jews have lived there, as far back as the 1500s from what I understand. The problem isn't Israelis living there, but the radical settlers. I'm not aware of how long the current Jewish population has been there, i.e. whether some are "original" and others are actual settlers.

Also, Jews would definitely have access to the city's holy sites. Why? Because look at Bethlehem, probably the most prosperous city in the West Bank. They would never not allow religious tourism because it's all they have. Were Hebron stable enough to visit, not only Jews, but Christians too would flood in to see Hebron. Tourism would be a cornerstone of the future economy of Hebron and with enough security (perhaps mixed Israeli/PA at first) things should get back to normal.

I actually see Hebron as having the best chance because it will have a potentially strong tourist industry that other cities like Ramallah wouldn't.
Evd.
November 24, 2005
7:04 pm
I don't think there are any "original" Hebron Jews living in the city today as by the 1930s the community had dwindled down to nothing. Some of the descendents of those original Jews have actually condemned the settlers back in 1997. There is no doubt that these settlers are exteremists and probably the most extereme of the bunch.

Doesn't Israel control Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem? If so, it wouldn't be an apt comparison. I think you underestimate the dislike for Jews and specifically Israeli Jews in the Palestinian territories. Tourism might one day work but for a long while it won't be safe.

There shouldn't be a problem removing the illegal outposts in and around Hebron (and the greater West Bank for that matter) but Israel has to be careful about the core Hebron settlements. There are ways to get around the access and security issues. For example, for several days a year Israel could send convoys of Israelis and Jews from Israel to visit the Cave of the Patriarchs under strict security arrangments with the Palestinians. But by making a unilateral move Israel would damage its bargaining position. Unless Israel can get something out of the Palestinians, and I don't know what, Israel should probably hold tight until final status negotiations.

Hebron is outside the fence, correct? Perhaps there will be a pull out there anyways as part of the disengagement process.
J.Kende
November 24, 2005
10:13 pm
I do not at all support a Hebron withdrawal. Here's a better idea: Demand in any negotiated settlement that the new Palestinian state protect the lives and livelyhood of Jews/Israelis living in Palestine as much as Palestinians/Arabs are to be protected in in post-conflict Israel. Anything less is unacceptable.
Solomon
November 25, 2005
2:11 am
A close to continuous Jewish presence in Hebron goes back to biblical times and carries through to 1929.

Link

"I don't think there are any "original"Â? Hebron Jews living in the city today as by the 1930s the community had dwindled down to nothing."

They didn't dwindle, they were massacred, and, as pointed out, the Arabs do not have a good record of protecting holy sites or access...or making very rational choices for that matter, or the conflict would have been over a long time ago in favor of an economic win-win situation. Imagining they would make the same choices you or I would make when viewing from a distance is the same cognitive egocentrism that has kept Westerners pursuing bad choices for decades.

I don't know what the solution will be, but J. Kende may be on to something.
Chirol
November 25, 2005
10:11 am
I completley agree Jews should still be allowed to live there. I'm thinking of the settelrs who've moved in and stolen land that didn't belong to them (a long series of legal proceedings will determine this one). They should be evicted and perhaps prosecuted, but if they'd like to buy or build they can surely stay. I definitely can't speak for most Palestinians in Hebron, but I did meet one family who welcomed Jews living there, as long as they stopped attacking him, his family and his house.

I also noted joint Israeli/Palestinian security operations would be necessary for their protection as I do understand and agree, they can't be expected to do it themselves. There would have to be some sort of phased out security presence regarding holy sites and legitimately Jewish areas, where the Army pulls out but the Israeli police come in.
J.Kende
November 25, 2005
6:24 pm
And what of the Arabs who moved in and massacred the Jews? Did they not "steal" the land of the Jews as well? Currently all of the land is Israeli, by means of de facto control and as the spoils of wars which it did not start. There should be a negotiated resolution to the conflict and division of the land yes, because the status quo is bad for both sides, but there is as little reason for the Israelis to halt or reverse settlement activity there as there would be for the Israelis to actively expell the Palestinian Arabs of the area. Let's not bias negotiations by expecting the party with signifcantly more leverage to give up it's leverage out of some contrived sense of equality and fairness, specially when the other side would do nothing of the sort.