The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right 019505086X, 9780195050868

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Contents
Chronological Table
Introduction
1. What Is the Radical Right? A Political and Cultural Profile
2. The Zionist Roots of the Radical Right
3. The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel
4. The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984
5. The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim
6. The Radical Right in Parliament: The Tehiya and Its Political Offspring
7. Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism: Kach and the Legacy of Rabbi Meir Kahane
8. Beyond Routine Politics: The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount
9. The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism: Past, Present, and the Future
Glossary
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right EH U D SPRI N Z A K

Neiv York

Oxford

O X F O R D U N IV E R SIT Y PRESS 1991

O xford University Press Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore H ong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Copyright © 1991 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sprinzak, Ehud. The ascendance o f Israel's radical right / Ehud Sprinzak. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-505086-X 1. Nationalism— Israel. 2. Israel— Politics and government. 3. Religious Zionism — Israel. I. Title. DS126.5.S64 1991 320.5'4'095694— dc20 90-26174

987654321 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

For Rikki

Acknowledgments

The research for this book was started in the summer of 1984 as my immedi­ ate response to two unexpected developments: the discovery in April 1984 of the “ Jewish Underground”of Gush Emunim, and the July election of Rabbi Meir Kahane to the Knesset. At that time I first felt the need to think and talk about the Israeli radical right as a distinct political category, and to survey its social and cultural boundaries. I was very fortunate to have a prompt response to my ideas by the Jerusalem Van-Leer Foundation, which supported an early pilot study of the subject, and even more so to receive a generous grant from the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation to conduct a comprehensive study of the Jewish Underground and its cultural and politi­ cal milieu. A residence fellowship for a year at the Woodrow Wilson Interna­ tional Center for Scholars, in Washington D.C., which was devoted to gen­ eral reflection and writing on the relationship between violence and politics, was most helpful in the crystallization of this book. The actual writing of the first draft took place at the American University in Washington, D.C., where I spent the 1986/87 academic year as a Visiting Research Professor. Another fellowship from the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, a small research grant by the American Jewish Committee, and the generous hospitality of the School of International Service of American University made it possible for me to completely devote myself to research and writing. The names of the individuals whose knowledge and good judgment have helped me to rethink early conclusions, sharpen my arguments, and improve the manuscript are too numerous to be mentioned here. They include several colleagues at the Department of Political Science of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the high quality group of the 1985/86 Woodrow Wilson Fel­ lows, my friends and colleagues from the Israel Study Association in the United States, who commented on an early paper I gave on the subject, my students in Jerusalem and the United States who were very challenging critics, and many more who have heard me talk on the subject in the last five years and made useful comments. I am especially grateful to Karen Colvard of the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, who has demonstrated contin-

v iii

Acknowledgments

ued interest in this project and my work in general, and who has been especially patient about deadlines. Her friendship and continued support has been most important for me in hard times. Thanks go also to Yehuda Elkana and Alouf Hareven of the Jerusalem Van-Leer Foundation for their early encouragement and support, to my dear friend Shula Bahat of the American Jewish Committee and her colleague David Singer, the AJC’ s Director of Research, for their interest and support, and to my friends at the American University, Dean Louis Goodman and Louise Shelly for their gra­ cious hospitality. I am especially grateful to my colleagues Charles S. Liebman, of Bar Ilan University, and Emmanuel Guttman, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who spent many hours reading the entire manu­ script, making useful suggestions and corrections, far beyond the call of duty. Shlomo Avineri, Itzhak Galnoor, and Abraham Diskin, friends and colleagues at my department have been very kind in reading and comment­ ing upon a summary essay of the book. I cannot think of a kinder, more understanding, and helpful editor than Valerie Aubry of Oxford University Press. Not the least of her contributions to this book has been the recommen­ dation to use the superb skills of David Frederickson as a line-editor. And last but not least my wife, Rikki. This book would probably have never been completed without her continued intellectual and emotional involvement. Rikki has served on occasions as my research assistant, academic consultant, and personal counsellor. But most frequently she was my harshest, though loving, critic. 1owe her more than I can express. Washington, D.C. January 1991

E.S.

Contents

Chronological Table, xiii

Introduction,

3

1. What Is the Radical Right? A Poltical and Cultural Profile, 9 The Radical Right: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives, 9 The Radical Right as an Israeli Paradox, 11 The Radical Right as a Political Camp, 13 The Radical Right as a Sociocultural Phenomenon, 15

2. The Zionist Roots of the Radical Right, 23 The Ultranationalist Legacy, 23 The Radical Legacy of Jabotinsky and Betar, 25 The “Activist”Tradition of the Labor Movement, 27 The Maximalist Messianism of Rav Kook, 30 The Political and Historical Marginality of the Old Radical Right, 32

3. The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel, 35 The Longest Month, 35 The Land of Israel Movement, 38

x

Contents

Between Messianism and Fundamentalism: The Roots of Gush Emunim, 43 Rabbi Meir Kahane and the Birth of the Israeli Jewish Defense League, 51 Livneh’ s Israel and the Crisis o f Western Civilization, 56 The Politics and Practices of the Territorial Maximalists, 61

4. The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984, 71 The Crisis of Camp David, 71 From Banai to the Tehiya, 73 The Further Radicalization of Rabbi Meir Kahane and the Rise of Kach, 80 Settler Vigilantism and Violence in Judea and Samaria, 87 The Jewish Underground of Gush Emunim, 94 The Movement to Halt the Retreat in Sinai, 99

5. The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim, 107 Gush Emunim: Twenty Years After, 107 The Political Theology of Gush Emunim, 109 The Invisible Realm of Gush Emunim, 124 Leadership and the Conduct of Politics, 137 Crises and Internal Conflicts, 151 Gush Emunim, the Settler Community, and the Intifada, 160

6. The Radical Right in Parliament: The Tehiya and Its Political Offspring, 167 Making It to the Knesset, 167 Transferring the Arabs, 172 The Ideological World of the Tehiya and Its Satellites, 176 Leadership and Political Style, 191 The Parliamentary Radical Right and the Likud, 206

7. Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism: Kach and the Legacy of Rabbi Meir Kahane, 211 A One-Man Show, 211

Contents

Catastrophic Messianism and Fundamentalist Determinism: The Ideo-Theology of Rabbi Kahane, 215 Political Style: The Dynamics of Quasi-Fascism, 233 From Disqualification to Assassination, 245

8. Beyond Routine Politics: The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount, 251 Neither the Gush Nor Kahane, 251 The “Redemption Movement”: Yehuda Etzion and the Theology of Active Redemption, 252 The Tzfia Association and the Radicalism of Rabbi Israel Ariel, 261 Former Kahane Associates: The Case of Yoel Lerner, 274 The Struggle Over the Temple Mount, 279

9. The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism Past, Present, and the Future, 289 The Radical Right and Israeli Democracy, 289 The Radical Right and Classical Zionism, 296 The Radical Right Returns to History, 300 The Radical Right and the Intifada: From Shock to Recovery, 305 The Future of the Radical Right, 311

Glossary, Notes,

315

319

Bibliography, Index,

379

366

Chronological Table

70 A.D. Jerusalem and the Second Temple are destroyed by the Romans; begin­ ning of two millennia of Jewish exile. 1882 First Aliya to Eretz Yisrael; beginning of Zionism. 1887 August 29-31. Basel, Switzerland, First International Congress of Zion­ ists, Theodor Herzl presiding. 1917 November 2. The Balfour Declaration; British government makes a com ­ mitment for a National Home for the Jews in Palestine December. British conquest of Palestine. 1920 British Mandate established in Palestine. 1925 April. Vladimir Jabotinsky launches the Revisionist Movement. 1928 Brit Habirionim, an ultranationalist group, is established in Palestine. 1929 August. Arab riots start on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem; massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safed.

xiv

Chronological Table

1933 January. Adolf Hitler becomes Chancellor of the Reich. June. Mapai leader Chaim Arlozoroff is assassinated in Tel-Aviv; mem­ bers of Brit Habirionim are arrested as suspect, but released for lack of evidence.

1936 April. Outbreak of Arab Revolt in Palestine, including massive antiJewish terrorism.

1937 David Raziel becomes Commander of Etzel and launches anti-Arab coun­ terterrorism campaign. July. The Peel Commission recommends the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs; first use of term “transfer.”

1939 May. British White Paper repudiates partition, limits Aliya and land pur­ chase, envisages an Independent Palestinian State. September. Outbreak of Second World War.

1940 Spring. Abraham Stern splits Etzel, launches Lehi. August. Jabotinsky dies in New York.

1942 February. Abraham Stern is caught by the British and shot point blank. Summer. David Raziel is killed in Iraq while on intelligence mission for the British.

1943 Itzhak Shamir, Nathan Yelin-Mor, and Dr. Israel Sheib (Eldad) become joint commanders of Lehi.

1944 February. Menachem Begin, new Etzel Commander, declares a revolt against the British. November. Lord Moyne, British Minister of State in the Middle East is gunned down in Cairo by Lehi members; the “Saison”— Hagana, and Palmach operation against Etzel and Lehi terrorism— starts.

Chronological Table

xv

1947 November. U.N. General Assembly passes Partition Resolution, which amounts to recognition of Jewish (and Arab) right for self-determination in Palestine; a civil war between Jews and Arabs breaks out in Palestine.

1948 May 14. The British leave Palestine; Ben-Gurion declares in Tel-Aviv the establishment of the State of Israel; the new state is invaded by five Arab armies. June. The Altalena arms ship, brought by Etzel to Israel, is intercepted by the army, and finally sunk near Tel-Aviv; Etzel is dissolved, and Herut party is established by Menachem Begin. September. Count Folke Bernadotte, the U.N. Mediator in the Middle East is assassinated in Jerusalem by Lehi members.

1949 Foundation of Chug Sulam, an extreme right-wing group, by Dr. Israel Eldad.

1956 October. Sinai Campaign; Israeli army defeats Egypt and captures Sinai; Israel evacuates Sinai in return for its demilitarization and free navigation in the Straits of Tiran.

1967 May IS. Egyptian army goes into Sinai, in violation of the 1957 under­ standing; the “longest month”begins. May 23. Egypt’ s President Nasser unilaterally closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping; war is imminent. June 5—11. The Six-Day War. Summer. The Land of Israel Movement is established.

1968 Passover. Rabbi Moshe Levinger’ s group settles in Hebron’ s Park Hotel; Israeli government decides to establish a city, Kiryat Arba, adjacent to Hebron. Summer. Rabbi Meir Kahane establishes the Jewish Defense League in New York City.

1971 September. Rabbi Kahane immigrates to Israel, establishes JDL-Israel, later to become Kach.

xvi

Chronological Table

1973 Gariin Elon Moreh is established in Kiriyat Arba. October 6-22. Yom Kippur War. 1974 March. Gush Emunim is officially established in Gush Etzion. 1975 The city of Yamit is established in northern Sinai. December. Gariin Elon Moreh is allowed to stay in a military barrack in Kadum after seven previous forced evacuations. 1977 May 17. Likud wins national elections; Menachem Begin becomes prime minister. November. President Sadat visits Jerusalem. 1978 September 17. Camp David Accords are signed between Israel, Egypt, and the United States; Banai is established in order to fight the Accords. First meetings of the Jewish Underground; on the agenda: a plan to blow up the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. 1979 September. The Tehiya party is established in Jerusalem. 1980 May 3. Six yeshiva students are murdered by a PLO squad in Beit Hadassah, Hebron. June 2. The “Mayors Affair”; Cars of two West Bank mayors are blown up by the Jewish Underground. The Knesset passes the Jerusalem Law, annexing Jerusalem to Israel, officially. 1981 November. The Tehiya wins three Knesset seats in national elections. The Knesset passes the Golan Heights Law, officially annexing the Golan Heights to Israel. 1982 January—April. Struggle of the Movement to Halt the Retreat in Sinai; Yamit is evacuated as planned.

Chronological Table

xvii

June. Israel invades Lebanon; the Tehiya joins Begin’ s coalition, with Yuval Ne’ eman as energy and science minister. 1983 July. Members of the Jewish Underground attack Islamic College in Hebron, kill 3, wound 33. 1984 April. The Jewish Underground is caught red-handed while wiring five Arab buses. Tzfia group is established in the summer by Rabbi Israel Ariel to promote the ideas of the underground. July. Rabbi Kahane elected to the Knesset; Tehiya-Tzomet get five seats, become third largest Israeli party, but remain in opposition to first Unity Coalition of Likud and Labor. 1985 Knesset passes anti-racism (anti-Kahane) law. 1987 Tzomet split from the Tehiya. December. Outbreak of the intifada. 1988 Spring. General (res.) Rehavam Z e’ evi establishes Moledet; calls for “transfer.” September. Kach is disqualified by Central Election Committee; Supreme Court upholds decision. November. Radical right parties win seven Knesset seats, but remain in opposition; second Unity Government between Labor and Likud is formed. December. “Algiers Statement”; Yassir Arafat recognizes U.N. 242 Resolu­ tion and agrees to a Palestinian state side by side with Israel. 1990 March—June. Unity Government breaks down; Shamir forms narrow right-wing coalition. Ne’ eman, Eitan, and Cohen become members of cabinet. October 8. Temple Mount eruption; 21 Palestinians killed. November 5. Rabbi Meir Kahane is assassinated in New York City.

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Introduction

Israelis were stunned when they learned on April 27, 1984, that a plot to blow up five buses full of Arab passengers during a crowded rush hour had been only barely averted. Within days, twenty-seven suspected members of an anti-Arab terrorist network were arrested. Soon it was learned that the suspects had been responsible for an unsolved 1980 terror case in which two West Bank Arab mayors were crippled and three others saved only because of a last-minute failure to wire their cars. Several members of the group also claimed responsibility for a score of violent acts against Arabs including the murderous 1983 attack on the Islamic College in Hebron that took the lives of three students and wounded thirty-three. The most shocking discovery was that the group had an elaborate plan to blow up the Muslim Dome of the Rock on Jerusalem’ s Temple Mount, the third most sacred site in Islam. The group had made a careful study of the sanctuary’ s construction, stolen a huge quantities of explosives from a military camp in the Golan Heights, and worked out a full attack plan. Twenty-eight precision bombs were manfactured that were meant to destroy the Dome without causing any damage to its surroundings. The architects of the operation planned to approach the place surreptitiously, but were ready to kill the guards if necessary, and therefore had bought special Uzi silencers and gas canisters. More than twenty skilled Israeli reservists were to take part in the operation. Only a last-minute split within the group kept the scheme from being attempted as planned in 1982. This is fortunate because the damage would have been enormous. A simulated war game at Harvard University concluded that conservatively it would have caused a new phase in the Middle-East conflict, a crisis broader, deeper, and longer-lasting than anything in the past. A less conservative estimation suggested the scheme could have triggered a third world war. What surprised observers in April 1984 was not so much the existence of a terror group, as the identity of its members. They belonged to Gush Emunim (“the Bloc of the Faithful”), a fundamentalist religious group com­ mitted to establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank (biblical Judea 3

4

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

and Samaria). Though Gush Emunim was an aggressive (and sometimes even illegal) settlement movement, it had never openly embraced an ideol­ ogy of violence. Its orthodox leaders asserted a biblically based Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria, but had never advocated deporting the Arab popula­ tion.1Instead they professed the belief that a peaceful and productive coexis­ tence with the Arabs, under a benevolent Israeli rule, was both possible and desirable. That any of these highly educated and responsible men, some of them high-ranking army officers and most of them heads of large families, would resort to terrorism was completely unexpected. The exposure of “respectable”Jewish terrorism was followed, three months later, by another unexpected event: the election to the Knesset (Is­ rael’ s parliament) of Rabbi Meir Kahane, an extreme religious fundamental­ ist and leader of the Kach (“Thus”) party, which called for the expulsion of the Arabs from historic Palestine (Rabbi Kahane was murdered on Novem­ ber 5, 1990, in New York). Nearly 26,000 (1.3 percent) Israelis voted for Kach, including 2.5 percent of Israeli soldiers. Almost everybody remem­ bered that it was Kahane who, since 1974, had publicly advocated T.N.T., which in his terminology stood for Terror Neged Terror, Jewish terrorism in reaction to Arab terrorism.2 Astonished Israelis did not have to wait long to discover what the new party was all about. A day after the elections, Kahane and his supporters held a victory parade to the Western Wall in old Jerusalem. Passing provoca­ tively through the Arab section of the Old City, Kahane’ s excited followers smashed through the market, overturning vegetable stalls, hitting bystand­ ers, punching the air with clenched fists, and telling the frightened residents that the end of their stay in the Holy Land was near, a kind of street brutality that has often been repeated since then, especially following antiJewish terror incidents. But instead of being shocked by the violence— until then seen only in old newsreels of pre-1945 central Europe or in modern scenes from Teheran— some Israelis liked what they saw. In fact, support for Kahane increased substantially. Polls conducted between the summer of 1984 and Kach’ s 1988 disqualification by the Supreme Court steadily gave him between 2.5 to 7 percent of the total vote. Several studies of high school students have shown an exceptional support for Kahane among the young: one found that about 40 percent said they agreed with his ideas and 11 percent said they would vote for him. A general atmosphere of forgiveness and “understanding”of the acts of the Jewish underground has also sur­ faced among many Israelis.3 The rise of religious fundamentalism, extreme nationalism, and aggres­ sive anti-Arab sentiment in Israel since 1984 reveals a significant political and cultural process that has neither been fully recognized nor been named for what it is— the emergence of the Israeli radical right. It now appears that the broader Israeli nationalist right, which had been thriving since the Six-Day War (1967), has undergone a significant political and ideological transforma-

Introduction

5

tion. The apparently unified political and ideological force unquestionably headed by Menachem Begin, the leader of Likud, has since 1978 become fragmented. This process of political and cultural differentiation, which was relatively unnoticed for several years, finally came into full maturation in 1984. This book examines the significance of these developments for Israeli politics and public life. Its purpose is fourfold: to describe the conditions and events that produced Israel’ s radical right; to examine the theory and practice of the movements that compose it and trace their ideological ori­ gins; to gage the radical right’ s impact on Israel’ s political culture and institutions; and to assess the implications of radical right politics for Israeli democracy and national security. The first part of the book traces the 1967-1984 evolution of the radical right. It examines the impact of the Six-Day War on the Israeli psyche and describes the early rise of the new territorial maximalism, the school which believes that Israel is entitled to all the territories it took from the Arabs, by right, and that these territories should be officially annexed. It shows that although the ideological seeds of the right-wing extremism were planted in the Israeli mind immediately following the Six-Day War, the radical right was only articulated politically in 1978, as a reaction to the Camp David Accords. Camp David was a bitter moment of truth for the burgeoning Israeli territorial maximalism. It revealed the great ideological divide be­ tween the moderate members of the nationalist camp, who were ready to make painful compromises for real peace, and the radicals who believe that no peace is more sacred than the territories. The second part of the book focuses on the hard-core movements of the radical right: Gush Emunim (the Bloc of the Faithful), the messianic move­ ment of the settlers in Judea and Samaria; the Tehiya (Renaissance) party, which has been trying to bridge the traditional gap between religious and secular Jews through the idea of the Greater Land of Israel; Tzomet (Cross­ roads), General (res.) Rafael Eitan’ s movement, a maximalist party with great appeal among the hard-core Labor settlement movement; Moledet (Homeland), the new party of General (res.) Rehavam Z e ’ evi, which de­ mands to “transfer”all the Arabs of the West Bank to the surrounding Arab countries; and Kach, Rabbi Kahane’ s violent movement which was barred in 1988 by Israel’ s Supreme Court from running to the Knesset but whose ideas have remained popular among lower-class Israeli citizens. The work concludes that, while the radical right does not pose an imme­ diate threat to Israel’ s democratic system of government, it has made a significant contribution to the erosion of Israel’ s democratic culture, and may be more damaging in the future. The book’ s structure is as follows. Chapter 1 identifies the radical right as a political camp and examines its main features as a distinct sociocultural phenomenon. The radical right is shown to consist of a relatively small number of true believers whose intense

6

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

dedication to their cause, penetration of all echelons of Israel’ s power struc­ ture, and strategic location in the occupied territories make their influence in national politics much greater than their sheer number. Chapter 2 traces the roots of the radical right in pre-1948 Zionist his­ tory. Four schools are examined: the ultranationalist tradition of poet Uri Zvi Greenberg, Brit Habirionim and Lehi; the radical legacy of Vladimir Jabotinsky and Betar; the “activist”tradition within the Labor movement; the maximalist messianism of Rav Kook. The exploration of the old radical right is concluded by an analysis of the decreasing historical relevance of this school after the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel. Chapter 3 examines the impact of the Six-Day War on the Israeli mind and describes the rise of the new territorial maximalism between 1967 and 1978, exhibited in the Land of Israel Movement, Gush Emunim, and the Kahane movement. Also explored are several representative formulations of the new territorial Zionism and the early confrontations of the movements associated with this school and the Israeli government. Chapter 4 traces the political articulation of the radical right. It shows that the radical right emerged out of a split within the nationalist right and was created as a reaction to the 1978 Camp David Accords which implied significant territorial and political concessions by Israel, concessions the radicals were unwilling to accept. The chapter describes the evolution of the Tehiya party, the radicalization of Rabbi Meir Kahane, the emergence of settler vigilantism in the occupied territories, the rise of of the Jewish Under­ ground, and the struggle of the Movement to Halt the Retreat in Sinai. Chapter 5 portrays Gush Emunim, the most vital component of the radical right, its ideo-theology and its unique political style. It follows the evolution of the movement’ s “invisible realm”: the political, cultural, eco­ nomic, and military structures of the West Bank settlers controlled by Gush Emunim members, which make it a most powerful infrastructure for the entire radical right. Also examined are the crises undergone by the move­ ment throughout its history, the current conflicts and divisions within its leadership, and Gush Emunim’ s interaction with the intifada, the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. Chapter 6 describes the three political parties that represent the radical right in the Knesset: the Tehiya, Tzomet, and Moledet, which are shown to be the product of exemplary leaders more than the creation of masses of people and popular action. The analysis includes therefore a discussion of the careers and political styles of the leading figures of the three parties and an attempt to assess their personal contribution to the radical right. The chapter describes the post-1984 legitimization of the idea of “transfer,”a Jewish-Arab population exchange that seeks to achieve the expulsion of the Arabs of the occupied territories “in exchange”for the Jewish refugees from Muslim countries. It also examines the relationships between the parliamen­ tary radical right and the Likud, Israel’ s main right-wing party. Chapter 7 focuses on the legacy of Rabbi Meir Kahane and the politics

Introduction

7

of his party, Kach, which was untill Kahane’ s assassination a one-man show of a true believer who was certain that present-day reality should be gov­ erned according to all the laws and injunctions of the Torah. Kahane’ s unique interpretation of Judaism, his legitimation of Jewish violence and terrorism, and his concrete plans for the expulsion of the Arabs are carefully examined. Kahane’ s political behavior, which combined a special blend of Jewish Social Darwinism with a penchant for violence, is portrayed as “quasi-fascist,”and Kach as a loosely structured protest movement that attracts bitter people moved by fear and a deep sense of social alienation. Chapter 8 deals with the religious individuals and groups whose ideolo­ gies and politics lie between Gush Emunim and Rabbi Kahane, but who feel uncomfortable with both. These are the “cultural radicals”; most are as radical as Kahane, but rather than joining his politics, they have focused on bringing about a cultural revolution in the nation. Exemplars are the ideologist of the Jewish Underground, Yehuda Etzion, with his grand theol­ ogy of active redemption, the Tzfia (Looking Ahead) association and Rabbi Israel Ariel, critics of Gush Emunim, and Yoel Lerner and other former Kahane associates. The contribution of the cultural radicals to the intensify­ ing struggle over the Temple Mount is also examined. The chapter’ s conclu­ sion is that while the cultural radicals may not have a large following or organized political power, they do play an important role in the collective consciousness of the radical right. Chapter 9 examines the attitude of the radical right toward Israeli democ­ racy, attempts to place its various schools in the context of a century of Zionist history, and speculates about its future. It is shown that while most radicals accept the legitimacy of the Israeli regime, the “democracy”they see themselves part of is narrow and incomplete. An inquiry of the Zionist origins of the radical right suggests that most of its movements are rooted in classical Zionism, but that the old radical right was marginal, and played a minor role in the creation of the State of Israel. The chapter is concluded by an examination of the impact of the intifada on the radical right, and by two alternative scenarios regarding its future.

1 What Is the Radical Right? A Political and Cultural Profile

The Radical Right: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives The key concept this work uses in describing the rise of the new Israeli ultranationalist camp is the “radical right,”a common term that has never been satisfactorily clarified. It was first developed in the 1950s and 1960s to denote the populist and anti-Communist extreme right in America, and then expanded backwards to include the large ultranationalist camp that emerged in Europe between the two world wars. But this theoretical expansion pro­ duced two different concepts of radical right which have never been the same. In the European context the concept has been used to characterize the power­ ful authoritarian, militaristic, anti-socialist, and anti-democratic school whose intellectual roots go back to the 1880s, but whose political fortunes only rose after the end of World War I. This classical radical right was an equal party to the great ideological struggle between Socialism, Communism and Liberal Democracy for the “soul”of Western Civilization. The rise of fervent nationalism in newly established states following the dissolution of Imperial Russia and the Habsburg Monarchy, the crisis of the Weimar Repub­ lic in Germany, the emergence of Italian Fascism, Pilsudski’ s victory in Po­ land, the depression of 1929, Hitler’ s 1933 takeover and the Civil War in Spain have all contributed to a great instability in Europe and to a pervasive belief that a new civilization could be created, an alternative to democracy and socialism, based on the supremacy of the nation and the virtuous activity of political elites.1 The most known products of the classical European radical right had been Italian Fascism and German Nazism, but the phenomenon was intellec9

10

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

tually and politically much wider. Not only was the new Weltanschauung extremely hostile to the Soviet Union and its communist message, but it implied a complete delegitimation of bourgeois society and liberal democ­ racy. Having been perceived as representing moral relativism, compromise, and unending parliamentary debate, both were portrayed as soft, sluggish, unable to meet the communist challenge and unfit to serve the national genius.2 The classical radical right was born out of repressed national pride, humili­ ating minority status, and violated geographical borders. It was just natural that its spokespersons reacted by glorifying the nation, sanctifying ancient borders, and practicing aggressive foreign policy and militarism. On occa­ sions they displayed fervent religiosity or a “nationalized”neo-religiosity.3 The American scholars who discovered the radical right in the mid1950s, very much through the unexpected popularity of Senator Joseph MacCarthy, have associated the concept with a somewhat different phe­ nomenon. Sociologists such as Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, Edward Shils, Talcott Parsons, David Riesman, and historian Richard Hofstadter4 used the “radical right”to denote a wide variety of groups and small politi­ cal parties that rekindled a special American tradition of right-wing radical­ ism. This old school of nativism, populism, and hostility to central govern­ ment was said to have developed into the post-World War II combination of ultranationalism and anti-communism, Christian fundamentalism, militaris­ tic orientation, and anti-alien sentiment.5 The American radical right was recognized to be made of “political groupings or ideological coalitions occupying the political terrain between (but not including) Midwestern Republicanism and American Fascism.”6Its most recognized organization was the John Birch Society, and it further included such organizations and associations as The American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, The American Security Council, Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, Veritas Foundation, The Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, The Minuteman, Young Americans for Freedom, and many others. The concept of the radical right had been useful in the American context for two reasons: it was instrumental in accounting for “status politics”— the attraction of “status losers”in society to extremist xenophobic groups,7— and it helped to allocate a special conceptual space to a political school that could neither be put in the same category of the moderate Republican right nor be associated with revolutionary Fascism. While being truly extreme, most of the groups that were gathered under the radical right umbrella were very American. They espoused the constitution (according to their own interpretation), revered the founding fathers, and said they were the true representatives of “the American way of life”which the liberals, the commu­ nists, the Catholics, the blacks, the Jews, and the “big bureaucrats”had conspired to destroy.8 A comparative examination of the European “classical”radical right and the American postwar radical right reveals a very meaningful historical

What Is the Radical Right? A Political and Cultural Profile

11

and conceptual disparity. While the European radical right was in the 1930s a major contender for the ideological hegemony of Western Civilization, both intellectually and politically, American right-wing extremism has al­ ways been a local and marginal phenomenon. Also, the classical radical right was perceived by most of its adherents as an alternative to the entire democratic order while most of the groups belonging to the latter have only been opposed to certain elements o f American democracy. There is no ques­ tion that despite some ideological and behavioral similarities between the two there is also a marked difference.9 While the entire European radical right was close to the model of revolutionary Fascism, the American radical right has been republican, conservative, and reactionary at most. Most right-wing American extremists believe that the desired American revolution has already taken place but that it has been betrayed by modern pluralist democracy and central government. This work follows the American model of the radical right, not the European. There is, to be sure, very little agreement between the Israeli radical right, the American extreme right, and similar present-day European extremist movements that naturally draw upon different intellectual and religious traditions. Yet the term seems useful in the Israeli context for almost the same reasons it was found useful by the American sociologists in the 1950s and 1960s. The political camp that has emerged in the last two decades does not fit the traditional features of the Israeli nationalist right, yet it is also not revolutionary or fascist. Instead it is ultranationalist, ex­ tralegal, hostile to pluralist democracy with the movements and parties of this camp earnestly believing that they are exclusively the true Israelis and the genuine Zionists. While the Israeli right-wing extremists are obviously not anti-semitic as most Christian radical right groups are, they display many xenophobic features and often express ethnic discrimination and So­ cial Darwinism.

The Radical Right as an Israeli Paradox To understand the political and cultural change brought about in Israel by the rise of the post-1967 radical right, we must first recall Israel’ s unique history. The Jewish state that reached independence in 1948 did not emerge normally out of an indigenous anti-colonial struggle against the British in Palestine. Rather, it was, and still is, one of the most “unnatural”states in modern history— a state of newcomers, the vast majority of whom arrived after the colonial power had clearly established itself. Israel gained state­ hood not only as a result of the political and military skill of its Zionist founders but also because, following the Holocaust, it was recognized as one of the only safe homes for a nation of victims and refugees. Zionism, the earlier liberation movement of the Jews, was never a demo­ cratic movement in the full, constitutional, Western sense. However, by its

12

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

very composition and internal logic it had to be democratic, since it was made of representatives of dispersed communities, many of them constantly repressed and humiliated. Since the end of the nineteenth century it was clear to the founders of the movement that the polity they would one day establish in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) would be open, free, egalitar­ ian, and just. And most of these people were also strongly opposed to the traditional theocratic elements of Judaism, believing that a modern secular, democratic, Jewish state was no contradiction in terms. Israel’ s 1948 Decla­ ration of Independence, which reflected a wide national consensus, spelled these ideas out very clearly: The State of Israel will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries of their dispersion; will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the principles of liberty, justice, and peace as conceived by the Prophets of Israel; will uphold the full social and political equality of its citizens, without distinction of religion, race, or sex; will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, education and culture; will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and will loyally uphold the principles of the United Nations10

The post-1948 Israel was not a perfect democracy. It was ruled for many years by one political party, Mapai (now the Labor party), which controlled most of the positions of power and influence, administered most of the na­ tion’ s labor unions and economic resources, and dominated the political culture of the nation.11 The Arab minority, which could vote and elect its representatives to the Knesset, was for many years kept under strict military government as a security precaution.12 And there were several harsh emer­ gency regulations, a legacy of British colonial rule, which made it possible for the government to suspend ordinary legal procedures in case of emergency.13 Nevertheless Israel was democratic in a great many respects. It catered to the democratic ethos and was unanimously proud of being part of the democratic West. It institutionalized a competitive party system and demon­ strated a high level of political participation. While Israelis did not have a formal constitution, or a comprehensive bill of rights— nor do they yet— the state nevertheless established an elaborate court system that has always been independent and highly respected. And Israel’ s free press made sure that the voice of the opposition was heard and that almost no political organization was barred from the political process.14 It would therefore be no exaggeration to claim that in Israel’ s first twenty years an influential Israeli extreme right was a contradiction in terms, an un-Israeli phenomenon. This was largely because many Israelis, being refugees of the Holocaust, could not even tolerate the thought of extreme ultranationalism and autocracy, and because the vast majority of the other Israelis internalized these values without having gone through the experience. A tiny camp of right-wing extremists, former members and supporters of the small ultranationalist anti-British underground Lehi, did

What Is the Radical Right? A Political and Cultural Profile

13

continue to exist. But they were never part of the national consensus and had no political power or influence. They represented, at the most, a small ideological circle that was formed before World War II and refused to die.15

The Radical Right as a Political Camp Perhaps because of this history, few observers, whether Israeli or not, are willing to recognize the magnitude of the new Israeli radical right and its impact on national politics. When faced with the attitudes and activities of this camp they argue that its members are the lunatic fringe. As disturbing as these activities are, so runs the argument, the radical right has usually no say in the government and its impact on critical national decisions is minimal at best. A numerical examination of the case tends to support this proposition. The hard-core movements and parties of the radical right are small, young, and relatively poor. Their representation in the 12th Knesset does not exceed 6 percent. They are no match for Israel’ s older and larger political parties, such as Labor, Likud, the National Religious Party, or even for the smaller ultra-orthodox parties of Agudat Israel and Shas. They cannot compete with the powerful Histadrut (the General Federation of Labor), or challenge the old and prestigious Kibbutz and Moshav settlement movements. But this argument and this examination miss three elements that make the radical right a most effective agent in present Israeli politics and culture: its sophisticated penetration of the larger parties, the exceptional determina­ tion of its members, and the strategic location of its constituency. One of the great successes of the radical right has been its ability to penetrate the Likud and the National Religious Party. Thus, aproximately a quarter of the leaders and members of the Likud look at the world today through the ideological and symbolic prism of the radical right. The most outstanding example is cabinet member Ariel Sharon, a person with great charisma and a large following, who thinks and talks like the ideologues of the extreme right, and exerts a significant influence in the party’ s coun­ cils.16The National Religious Party, an old power broker in Israeli politics, has also been a target of the radical right, especially of the young and talented activists of Gush Emunim. And indeed, between 1986 and 1988 the NRP underwent a quiet ideological reshuffle that drove it to the bosom of the radical right. Two of the top three Knesset members of the NRP are devoted radicals, and its political platform reads almost like a Gush Emunim pamphlet. The radical leaders of the Likud and the NRP are not isolated in the Knesset; their opinions are shared by several Knesset members of the ultra­ orthodox Agudat Israel and Shas, and enjoy the support of hundreds of thousands of Israelis. A proper measure of the real parliamentary power of the radical right is the “Eretz Yisrael Front”in the Knesset, a caucus of over

14

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

thirty Knesset members, one-fourth of the total, who united in the beginning of 1989 to express concern about the undue moderation of the 1989 Unity Government and to block any compromise over the occupied territories.17 Thus, the radical right should not be seen as an isolated extremist faction that stands in diametrical opposition to both Israeli democracy and the moderate right, but rather as a very influential school that has been pushing the entire Israeli right toward greater ultranationalism, greater extralegal­ ism, greater militarism, greater ethnocentrism, and greater religiosity. The radical right is neither separated historically nor detached politically from the larger Israeli right. It is instead the right pole of the Israeli nationalist continuum, whose left pole is the moderate right. It is a political and ideo­ logical camp of true believers whose values and ideas are sometimes shared by large number of Israelis who are usually not considered radical. Another crucial fact about the Israeli radical right is the high intensity of its operations and the great effectiveness of its activists. Political scientists have realized in the last four decades that power and influence in a democ­ racy are not simply a function of sheer numbers. A small but intense minor­ ity may sometimes counterbalance a large silent or ineffective majority, and have its programs carried out.18 Israelis in general have never been silent, but some have been more vocal than others and much more effective. The hard core of the Israeli radical right is made up of true believers who are also pragmatic and politically skillful. They are totally committed to the defense of “Greater Israel,”and they advance this cause in many sophisticated ways. Their leaders are good communicators, excellent lobbyists, and when needed, skillful demonstrators and extraparliamentary activists. Several illus­ trious generals, scientists, and mainstream Zionist public figures who were converted to the cause of Eretz Yisrael by the traumatic experience of the Six-Day War lead the radical right. They speak in the name of traditional Zionism, of which they believe they are the only remaining representatives, and manipulate national symbols such as pioneering, settlement, and de­ fense. Their leadership and dedication are respected well beyond their imme­ diate constituency. But perhaps the most important asset of the Israeli radical right is the strategic location of its hard core, the settlements of the West Bank. The radical right crystallized around the demand to annex the occupied territo­ ries to Israel, and has grown in response to the political developments that have led Israeli leaders in the opposite direction. The settlers of Judea and Samaria (as they prefer to call the West Bank), and Gaza— for whom the dilemma of annexation versus evacuation is an existential issue of the first degree— have always been the most determined part of this camp. The Jewish Underground of Gush Emunim, which emerged in a reaction to the first Israeli evacuation of Sinai, agreed upon in 1978, was made up of devoted settlers; several supporters of Rabbi Kahane, who are now active in a few conspiratorial groups organized to prevent similar retreat in the West Bank, also come from settler circles.

What Is the Radical Right? A Political and Cultural Profile

15

T he settlers are n o t very n u m e ro u s— nearly 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 in 1 9 9 0 — b u t for m any Israelis they rep resen t th e only tru e heirs o f th e Z io n ist p ioneers w h o ex p an d ed th e sm all Jew ish co m m u n ity in Palestine a n d b u ilt Israel from scratch. F or th e en tire Israeli rig h t, a b o u t h a lf o f th e n a tio n , G ush E m unim especially, rep resen ts th e idealism a n d self-sacrifice o f th e g o o d o ld days. In m any respects it fulfills fo r th em th e sam e role th e tiny K ibbutz m o v em en t once fulfilled for the L a b o r m o vem ent. T he settlers o f Ju d e a , S am aria, a n d G aza are also th e ones w h o m ain tain daily c o n ta c t w ith ov er 1.5 m illion u n h a p p y P alestinians. In th a t cap acity they have a significant im p a c t o n n a tio n a l p olitics, m uch larg er th a n th eir sheer n um b ers. In spite o f th e heavy presence o f the arm y in W est B ank, the settlers, w h o are arm e d a n d w ell o rg an ized , can tu rn th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s into hell, if they only w a n t to. T h e refo re , even cab in ets hostile to the rad ical right c a n n o t a ffo rd to ignore its a ttitu d e s an d d em an d s. R ab b i K a h a n e ’s follow ers m ay still be b ey o n d th e pale, b u t n o t G ush E m u n im , T z o m e t, an d M oledet. T hese m o vem ents a n d th eir leaders are p a rt an d parcel o f th e Israeli body politic, a n d are co n sid ered legitim ate p a rtn e rs in the p o litical process, castin g a large sh a d o w over th e fu tu re o f th e Jew ish state. W h a t the radical rig h t does o r does n o t d o is a q u estio n n o Israeli, A rab , o r an y o n e interested in th e M id d le E ast can a ffo rd to ignore. T he in tifa d a is a case in p o in t. T h e P alestinian u p risin g w as d irected at Israel’s o c c u p a tio n in general, n o t its radical rig h t. B ut th e in tifa d a w o u ld n o t have b ro k e n o u t w ith o u t th e g ro w in g A rab-Israeli frictio n in Ju d e a , Sam aria, a n d G aza, a n d w ith o u t th e P alestinian fear th a t th e Jew s w ere ab o u t to ta k e over th e en tire are a th ro u g h m assive se ttle m e n t.19 T h e settlers and the sp o k esp erso n s o f th e rad ical rig h t have created this fear by w o rd an d deed, p rim arily by estab lish in g o v er a h u n d re d a n d th irty settlem en ts in th e occupied te rrito rie s. Even m o d e ra te critics o f th e settlers m a in ta in th a t they have created a huge tim e b o m b fo r Israel, w h o se safe defusing is b ecom ing h ard er each day th e o c c u p a tio n co n tin u es. W ith o u t d o u b t, th e settlem en ts and the rad ical rig h t are a m o n g th e m o st con crete b a rrie rs to Israeli c o m p ro ­ mise w ith th e P alestinians a n d th e A rab w o rld , a force to reck o n w ith w henever a peace p lan is b ro a c h e d .

The Radical Right as a Sociocultural Phenomenon A nother w ay o f u n d e rsta n d in g th e Israeli rad ical rig h t is to lo o k a t it as a pervasive political c u ltu re th a t p resu p p o ses certain types o f b eh av io r an d o rie n tatio n s. As such, th e rad ical rig h t crosses lines of party, social origin, econom ic s tra ta , a n d ed u c a tio n . M o st o f th e h a rd -c o re m em bers o f the “ p u re ” m o vem ents o f th e new cam p are m iddle-class A shkenazi Israelis, both religious an d secular, b u t th e m ovem ents include m any Sefardi Jew s from p o o r n eig h b o rh o o d s a n d d ev elo p m en t to w n s. T hese p eople ad d p o p u ­ list chauvinism a n d cru d e an ti-A ra b sen tim en t to the ideological radicalism

16

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

of the h a rd core. A nd b o th gro u p s have c o n trib u te d to a cult th a t com bines extrem e attitu d es reg ard in g th e indivisibility o f the L and o f Israel, b itter hostility to w a rd A rabs a n d special expressions im plying never-ending w ar against the PLO , an d a c o n sta n t siege m en tality along w ith en th u siastic utteran ces a b o u t religious red em p tio n . I w o u ld estim ate th a t these attitu d es are shared by a b o u t 20 to 25 p ercen t of the Jew ish citizens o f Israel, in all areas: in schools, universities, m ilitary cam ps, m ark ets, an d synagogues.20 T h o u g h various co m p o n en ts o f th e radical rig h t are engaged in conflicts an d rivalries, they nevertheless speak alm o st the sam e language, have the sam e ideological enem ies, an d share an im age o f a desired Israel. T he Israeli radical rig h t is, as alw ays, an integral p a rt o f th e th riv in g n atio n alist cam p, yet its distinct ideology, m entality, behavior, an d sym bology set it a p a rt from the larger right-w ing cam p w hich w an ts th e L and o f Israel to rem ain g eo­ graphically u n d iv id ed .21 D espite the im age p ro m o te d by its rivals, th e Israeli radical rig h t is n o t fas­ cist. T he political an d social m odel th a t appeals to m o st of its leaders is d raw n n eith er from foreign ideologies n o r from anti-b o u rg eo is, an ti-p arliam en tary , an d an ti-d e m o c ratic ideas. It is, instead, the m odel of a lim ited dem ocracy tak en from th e era before th e 1948 fou n d in g of the State o f Israel. T h o u g h m any in the radical rig h t have an ideal Jew ish u to p ia in m ind, in practice they cherish the values a n d b eh av io r o f the Z io n ist fo u n d in g fathers. Like the A m erican radical rig h t w h o c o n sta n tly h a rk b ack to the fo u n d in g fathers, th e C o n stitu tio n , rugged (pre-FD R ) individualism , an d “ th e A m erican w ay o f life,” the Israeli radicals yearn fo r the old days o f the y ish u v — the Jew ish co m m u nity in Palestine— w hen each Z io n ist settlem en t co u n ted , w hen H agana (defense) w as “ a real th in g ,” an d Jew s w o rried a b o u t Jew s, n o t A rabs. R abbi M o sh e Levinger, G ush E m u n im ’s first settler, recently w ro te: “ In the old days L a b o r people w o rk ed for settlem en t, im m ig ratio n , security, an d peace w ith o u r neighbors. Today th e political p ro g ra m of L ab o r has only one item , an agreem en t w ith th e n e ig h b o rs.” 22 O th e r founders o f G ush E m unim are sim ilarly nostalgic. T hey all d ra w u p o n the b a c k g ro u n d o f H ap o el H a m iz ra h i, an old school o f religious Z io n ists w h o w ere very close to the L ab o r m o v em en t in its high yishuv days; they an d the L ab o r veterans w h o have m oved to the radical rig h t look back on the goo d old days an d w o n d er h o w they w ere all lost. Even the A m erican -b o rn M eir K ahane, w h o n eith er belonged to this tra d itio n n o r sh ared its nostalg ia, occasionally p aid lip service to the o ld m ores. In this sp irit he chose to co m m em o ra te D avid B en -G u rio n ’s an n iv er­ sary by rem em bering th e fo u n d er o f Israel as th e m an w h o did n o t h esitate to expel m any A rabs from the new state a n d p u t the rest u n d er strict m ilitary g o v ern m ent, citing his excellent work concerning the Israeli Arabs— the establishment of a mili­ tary government, the d e f a c to expulsion of Arabs during the War of Indepen­ dence, and statements like “Expel them” in reply to Itzhak Rabin, who

What Is the Radical Right? A Political and Cultural Profile

17

wanted to know what he should do with the Arabs of Lydda and Ramia after the two cities were liberated in 1948; “What a beautiful view,”on seeing the expulsion of Arabs from Haifa, and “What are they doing here?”when he arrived in Nazareth and saw that the Arabs had not been expelled.23

T h e m em bers o f th e Israeli rad ical right, like rig h t-w in g rad icals in o th e r co u n tries, d o n o t really u n d e rsta n d w h a t h a p p e n e d to th eir p eople, w h a t co rru p te d th em a n d tu rn e d th em so soft, so liberal, an d so p lu ralistic. T hey see them selves as p erfect Z io n ists, th e tru e in h e rito rs o f th e o ld settlers an d the fighters o f th e 1948 W ar o f Independen ce. M an y o f th em also co n sid er them selves g o o d d e m o c ra ts, m o re precisely, g o o d Jew ish d e m o c ra ts.24 T h e Z io n ist Yishuv, they argue, w as estab lish ed in a d em o cratic w ay a n d w as o p erated as a dem ocracy. N evertheless it w as a lim ited d em o cracy an d did n o t include term s o f u n iversal p lu ra lism . T h e Z io n ist fo u n d ers w ere th e re ­ fore n o t a n ti-d e m o c ra tic , b u t w ere n o t fools either. In stead o f reh earsin g John S tu a rt M ill o r Jo h n D ew ey all day long, they set o u t to b uild a viable polity for th e ir o w n people. T h e co n clu sio n o f this line o f th in k in g is th u s very clear. W h en the g o v ern m en t o f Israel sta n d s in v io latio n o f th e ten ets o f Z io n ism , w hich im ply a c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e interests o f th e Jew s as p a ra m o u n t, it m u st to be resisted, just as th e B ritish g o v e rn m e n t w as resisted in th e 1930s a n d 1940s by the Z io n ist fo u n d in g fath ers. T h e “ a n ti-Z io n is t” acts o f th e p resen t-d ay g o v ern m en t m u st be o v e rru le d , just as sim ilar acts o f th e official o rg a n iz a ­ tions o f the Y ishuv itself w ere o v erru led by zealous p ioneers. T h e ideologues o f th e rad ical rig h t, to be sure, d o n o t really w a n t to go back to th e o ld , p re-sovereign days. W h a t a ttra c ts them is th e early value system , a fra m e w o rk o f Z io n is t n o rm s free o f legalistic b arriers a n d exces­ sive d em o c ra tic obsessions. Israel’s rad ical rig h t co n ta in s a very prestig io u s fu n d a m e n ta list elem ent, expressed by G ush E m u n im a n d its ideotheology. R ab b i K a h a n e ’s w ritin g s also c o n ta in e d a stro n g fu n d a m e n ta list o rie n ta tio n , a d e m a n d to apply to ­ day th e law o f th e Bible. F or m any Israelis, th e fu n d am en talism o f G ush Em unim is ap p e a lin g because it is a p a rtia l religious system . It co n c e n tra te s alm ost exclusively o n th e te rrito ria l sacredness o f th e “ K ingdom o f Israel in the m a k in g ” th a t is th e p re se n t state o f Israel. U nlike th e H a re d im — the u ltra -o rth o d o x a n ti-Z io n ist ex trem ists w h o live by alm o st every single rule of m edieval H a la k h a as if th e sta te did n o t ex ist an d th e w o rld h a d n o t ch an g ed25— th e fu n d a m e n ta lists o f G ush E m unim are very m o d ern , n a tio n ­ alist, a n d p ra g m a tic . T h ey are full o f a d m ira tio n fo r th e state a n d th e in s tru ­ m ents o f its so v ereig n ty — th e g o v e rn m e n t an d th e m ilitary. T he fu n d a m e n ta lism o f G ush E m unim , w h ich is to le ra n t o f m an y form s of secu larizatio n , c o m m a n d s th em to sanctify every single acre o f lan d th a t w as p ro m ised to A b ra h a m by G o d . It tells th em th a t they are living in an age of red e m p tio n in w h ich they m u st follow th e course o f th e g reat biblical co n q u ero rs, Jo sh u a a n d K ing D avid, by settlin g all th e te rrito rie s th a t w ere

18

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

recovered by the Jo shuas of o u r tim e. Benny K atzover, a leading figure in G ush E m unim , illum inates its special te rrito ria l fundam entalism : In every age and time, there is one point, a special point, through which all that is good sheds light. ... In the beginning of the messianic age, the critical point is Eretz Israel and everything else derives from it. Without its settle­ ment no holiness operates in the world.26

T his new fu n d am en talism fits in ra th e r nicely w ith the psychology o f m any o lder Israelis— som e m axim alists, an d o th ers w h o w ere active in settle­ m ent and defense in the p re-state era. T hey are ch arm ed by the vigor an d vitality of the youngsters of G ush E m unim w h o rem ind them o f th eir o w n glory days. T hey seem to ho ld to a kind o f secular n eo fu n d am en talism , w hich approves of G ush E m u n im ’s theology from a n o n -o rth o d o x angle. This n eofu n d am en talism holds th a t Z io n ism , th o u g h secular, w as never devoid of deeply seated religious beliefs em bo d y in g as it did the centurieslong asp iratio n s of retu rn in g to Eretz Israel. A ccording to n eo fu n d a m e n ta l­ ist th in king, the theologians o f G ush E m unim , the late R abbis K ook (father an d son), discovered the co rrect fo rm u la for fu tu re political Z ionism . A rgu­ ing th a t the secular Z io n ists are legitim ate p a rtn e rs in the process of red em p ­ tion, they m ade it possible for o rth o d o x an d n o n o rth o d o x Jews to ally and strive to g eth er for n atio n al g ra n d e u r.27 Political p ro te st, illicit settlem ent, an d civic disobedience have been the tools o f Israeli right-w ing radicals since 1 9 7 3 .28 A t first, how ever, these actions w ere alm o st tentative. G ush E m unim , w hose political theology h ad alw ays expressed g reat respect for the gov ern m en t, w as highly apologetic ab o u t its extralegalism . Its leaders genuinely tried to lim it excesses. T h eir am bivalence w as shared by som e o f th eir su p p o rters. M en ach em Begin, for exam ple, the leader of the o p p o sitio n , w as especially equivocal. O n the one h an d he truly loved the youngsters o f the G ush, an d visited som e o f th eir illicit settlem ents; on the o th e r h a n d he m ain tain ed a g reat respect for the rule o f law. But the G ush m em b ers’ u n certain ty a b o u t extralegal actions cam e to an a b ru p t end w ith the signing o f the C am p D avid A ccords of 1978. It becam e clear th a t efforts to m ain tain a grip on the to ta lity o f Eretz Israel w o u ld have to involve m ajo r extralegal actions, since the p arlia m e n ta ry n atio n alist rig h t could no longer be tru sted . T h u s in 1982, all the Tehiya K nesset m em bers left the H ouse and w en t to " re se ttle ” Y am it, the center o f Jew ish settlem ents in n o rth e rn Sinai th a t w as to be evacuated w ith in th ree m o n th s in accord w ith the Israeli-E gyptian Peace Treaty. W ith this action, the radical rig h t asserted th a t illegal ex tra p a rlia m e n ta rism w as as legitim ate an avenue o f action as legal p arlia m e n ta rism . This new d o ctrin e has, since the re tre a t from Sinai, been w idely applied. It had becom e the guideline o f K ah an e’s actions in the streets, and it has led m any o th e r Israelis to d isreg ard law an d order. T he extralegal a ttitu d e o f the radicals reached its peak in the fall o f

What Is the Radical Right? A Political and Cultural Profile

19

1985. W hen th e C ouncil o f th e Settlers in Ju d e a , S am aria an d G aza (M oetzet Yesha) learn ed a b o u t th e p rim e m in ister’s new initiative for peace (w hich involved possible te rrito ria l concessions), it issued the u n p reced en ted w arn in g th a t any Israeli g o v e rn m e n t w hich w o u ld give up Jew ish territo rie s w o u ld lose its legal b asis.29 A tto rn e y E lyakim H aetzn i, w h o sto o d b eh in d the p ro n o u n c e m e n t, did n o t h esitate to tell th e Prim e M in ister, M r. Peres, th a t a te rrito ria l co ncession w o u ld p u t him in th e p o sitio n o f th e French G eneral P etain, w h o c o lla b o ra te d w ith th e N azis in W orld W ar II a n d w as later tried fo r tre a s o n .30 A leading segm ent w ith in th e Israeli rad ical rig h t is co nvinced th a t Is­ rael’s m ilitary m ig h t, w hich is co n sid e rab le, can be tra n sla te d a t any given m o m en t in to p o litical p o w e r a n d n a tio n a l achievem ent. T h is co n v ictio n goes b ack to th e Six-D ay W ar. T he 196 7 cam p aig n , in w hich th ree A rab arm ies w ere d efeated in six days, p ro v ed th a t Israel w as a m ajo r p o w e r an d th a t a w e ll-c o o rd in a te d m ilitary o p e ra tio n co u ld change th e b alan ce o f p o w er in th e area. F or th e fu n d a m e n ta lists, Israel’s im m ense m ig h t requires no ra tio n a l ex p la n a tio n . In th e age o f re d e m p tio n , in w hich th e n a tio n is to reclaim th e L and, G o d is m anifestly sta n d in g b e h in d th e arm y. F o r this reaso n R ab b i M eir K ah an e believed th a t it is H illu l H a sh em , a d esecratio n o f th e n am e o f G od, to be fearful o f th e G en tiles.31 T h e secular n e o fu n d a m e n ta lists, on th e o th e r h a n d , d o n o t need th e religious arg u m e n t. Z a h a l, th e Israeli D efense Force, is a highly qualified and w ell-train ed arm y th a t they feel can b e a t any c o m b in a tio n o f its enem ies at any tim e. T h e m ilitary setb ack s o f th e Yom K ip p u r W ar w ere an a b e rra ­ tion, caused by a u n iq u e c o m b in a tio n o f su rp rise a tta c k an d e rro n e o u s o p eratio n o f th e arm y, yet th e w a r w as w o n . T h e sam e th in g h a p p e n e d in L ebanon in 1 9 8 2 ; h a d th e arm y been led by a d eterm in e d g o v ern m en t, the w ar w o u ld have e n d ed in a g re a t victory a n d the possible a n n e x a tio n o f m ore biblical Jew ish te rrito rie s. T h u s, fo r th e m ilitaristic school o f th e rad ical rig h t th ere is only o ne e x p la n a tio n w hy Israel is n o t yet great: its life is d o m in a te d by a h an d fu l o f leftists, Z io n ists w ith o u t vision, a n d w eak an d h e sita n t individuals. A m ong the w eaklings are even som e L ikud m em bers w h o are scared o f th eir o w n shadow s. Israel, acc o rd in g to this school, has never been so stro n g . H a d m ilitary force been used correctly, th e Jew ish state w o u ld n o t n o w be in tro u b le. Ju d e a a n d S am aria w o u ld since have been an n ex ed , an d th e PLO bases all a ro u n d th e M e d ite rre a n d estro y ed . T h e Tem ple M o u n t’s M o slem shrines w o u ld have eith er been d em o lish ed o r k ep t u n d e r tig h t Israeli co n ­ trol, an d th e “ sham eful esc a p e ” from L e b an o n w o u ld have been p re v e n te d .32 T he Israeli rad ical rig h t, d espite its g ro w th in p o w e r an d p o p u larity , is living a p a ra n o ia c life. Its leaders are convinced th a t th ere is an active conspiracy to b e tra y th e peo p le o f Israel a n d th e destiny o f Z io n ism . T he grand co n sp iracy includes th e Jew ish “ A sh afists” (P L O ’ers) w h o c o lla b o ­ rate w illingly w ith th e enem y, leftists w h o care m o re a b o u t th e in te rn a tio n a l

20

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

left th a n a b o u t th eir h o m elan d , President S ad at (w hen he w as alive), w h o fooled Israel in to a p h o n y peace, an d the evilm ongers o f the U.S. State D e p a rtm e n t.33 O ne m ight argue th a t since Israeli leaders co n stan tly discuss possible te rrito ria l com prom ises w ith a Jo rd an ian -P alestin ian entity, these fears are legitim ate. H ow ever, the w o rd s o f radical spokesp erso n s suggest otherw ise. M o st o f the m em bers o f this cam p seem u n ab le to distinguish betw een legitim ate political p ro p o sals an d conspiracy. T h e ir political epistem ology is n o t p lu ralist b u t m onistic. T h e ir w o rld is divided sim ply betw een th e sons o f light (them selves) and th e sons o f dark n ess (anyone w h o disagrees). Such a w orld has no room for legitim ate o p p o sitio n . Every political rival is a co n sp irator. This conspiracy m entality excoriates th e Israeli m edia as well. M o st radical rightists are convinced th a t Israel’s public television, th e only c h a n ­ nel in the country, is full o f a n ti-Z io n ist leftists. T hese tra ito rs p ro je ct a negative im age o f th e right, and instead of b o o stin g public m orale they devastate it by co n stan tly p resenting the case o f the PLO an d avoiding “ co n stru ctiv e” n atio n al p rojections. T he m edia is responsible for Israel’s losing the w a r in L ebanon an d for m uch o f the p resen t gloom y sp irit o f th e n a tio n .34 T here are those w h o argue th a t the m o st im p o rta n t feature o f th e new extrem ism is n o t its “ radical rig h tism ” b u t its religious fu n d am en talism . H aving correctly identified G ush E m unim as the m o st original an d influen­ tial co m p o n en t o f the new radicalism , they argue th a t its fu n d am en talism oversh adow s all o th e r political ch aracteristics of the radical rig h t.35 T he grow ing p o p u larity o f R abbi K ah an e’s ideas provides ad d itio n al s u p p o rt for this arg u m en t, for there is no q uestion th a t K ah an e’s fu n d am en talist reading of the scriptures w as even m ore rigid th a n G ush E m u n im ’s. H ow ever, the c h aracteriza tio n o f the entire new cam p as fu n d am en talist is u n tenable. As influential as the fu n d am en talist centers o f G ush E m unim and K ach are, they are only a sm all p a rt of the new p h en o m en o n . M o st o f the leaders o f the radical rig h t and the vast m ajo rity o f its follow ers are n o t religious fu n d am en talists and th eir s u p p o rt o f the politics of the new ex trem ­ ists does n o t depend on th eir co m m itm en t to the literal texts o f the Torah. T he h ard core o f G ush E m unim m em bers (including teenagers an d children) does n o t exceed 1 5 ,000, an d there are only a few dozens activists o f K ach w h o can be said to act o u t o f fu n d am en talist m o tiv atio n . M o st o f the to p leaders of the Tehiya, M oledet, an d T zo m et, w h o have been playing a c ru ­ cial role in sp reading th e new radicalism , are secular Jew s w h o espouse the cause of the G re a te r Eretz Yisrael for reasons n o t obviously related to fu n d am en talist doctrines. So do the radical leaders o f L ikud. O f the h u n d red s o f th o u sa n d s o f Israelis w h o share the beliefs an d o rie n ta tio n s o f the radical right, alm o st all are u n fam iliar w ith th e fu n d am en ­ talist d octrines o f G ush E m unim and R abbi K ahane, an d precious few fol­ low th eir religious practice. They su p p o rt th eir politics because they feel

What Is the Radical Right? A Political and Cultural Profile

21

unsafe in a sm all Israel, are suspiciously h o stile o f th e A rabs, an d m istru st the n a tio n ’s m o d e ra te leaders. T h e distin g u ish in g featu re o f th e new e x tre m ­ ist cam p is th erefo re n o t its fu n d am en talism b u t its rad ical rightism , a co m b in atio n o f u ltra n a tio n a lis m , m ilitarism , e th n o cen trism , a n d religios­ ity.36 T he religious fu n d a m e n ta lism o f G ush E m u n im an d K ah an e, w hile a very im p o rta n t c o m p o n e n t o f th e new ex trem ism , is ju st one p a rt o f a larg er p o litico -cu ltu ral p h e n o m e n o n .

2 The Zionist Roots o f the Radical Right

T he Israeli rad ical rig h t aro se in reactio n to a series o f events th a t sta rte d w ith th e Six-D ay W ar a n d en d ed w ith th e C am p D avid acco rd s an d th e g o v ern m en t’s ag reem en t to w ith d ra w from som e o f th e te rrito rie s occu p ied in 1967. In th e process o f its fo rm a tio n , th e rad ical rig h t w as very successful in ta p p in g social an d intellectu al resources n o t tra d itio n a lly asso ciated w ith the Israeli R ight. B ut th e em erging u ltra n a tio n a lis t cam p , a new Israeli so cio ­ political p h e n o m e n o n by all sta n d a rd s , is n o t to tally rootless. A long fo rg o t­ ten c h a p te r in Z io n is t h isto ry h as in it a m ark ed u ltra n a tio n a lis t th in k in g and action. N o e x a m in a tio n o f th e new Israeli rad ical rig h t can be co m p lete w ith o u t a s h o rt e x p lo ra tio n o f this m ax im alist tra d itio n , a n d in p a rtic u la r the legacy o f fo u r schools th a t w ere active a n d influential in M a n d a to ry Palestine: th e u ltra n a tio n a lis t tra d itio n o f Uri Z vi G reen b erg , Brit H ab irionim , a n d Lehi; th e rad ical legacy o f V lad im ir Jab o tin sk y a n d B etar; th e “ activ ist” tra d itio n o f th e L a b o r m ov em en t; a n d th e m essianic school o f R abbi A vraham Itz h a k H a c o h e n K ook.

The Ultranationalist Legacy The school m o st identified in th e M a n d a te p e rio d w ith the idea o f a radical right grew u p w ith in th e R evisionist M o v e m e n t o f V lad im ir Jabotinsky, w hich c o n stitu te d th e rig h t w in g o f W orld Z io n ism . It w as the u l­ tra n a tio n a list w in g o f R evisionism , a n d w as a rtic u la te d by o rg a n iz a tio n s such as B rit H a b irio n im a n d Lehi. T h e old radical rig h t w as m oved by tw o fu n d am ental beliefs: th a t th e B ritish w ere oppressive rulers w h o h a d to be expelled from P alestine by force, a n d th a t the em erging ex trem e rig h t o f the 23

24

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

tim e, w ith p erh ap s the exception of th e N azis, p ro v id ed a viable ideology and a relevant m odel o f political action. T he early ideologues of this cam p, Uri Z vi G reenberg, A bba A chim eir, and Y ehoshua H eshel Yevin, represented an im p atien t Z io n ism th a t co n ­ cluded th a t the British h ad betray ed the Jew s an d ab ro g a te d the term s o f the B alfour D eclaration. F ascinated by o th e r n atio n alist m ovem ents, especially the Italian, the Polish, th e C zech, an d th e Irish, all o f w hich h a d reached independence th ro u g h m ilitary effort, they con clu d ed th a t the B ritish h ad to be expelled from Eretz Yisrael by force. T he fact th a t the Jew s in Palestine w ere a sm all ethnic m inority of m ostly new im m ig ran ts, an d th a t a m uch larger native com m unity questio n ed th eir very rig h t to the lan d , w as n o t allow ed to hob b le the great dream . F rom its inception, this u ltra n a tio n a list circle w as characterized by a conviction th a t stro n g will an d d eterm in a tio n co n stitute the m ost im p o rta n t political resource, an d th a t they alone could change the w o rld .1 This sm all g ro u p o f u ltra n a tio n a list ideologues w h o started to w rite an d preach in the late 1920s w as n o t philosophically hom og en eo u s, for each of its m em bers co n stru cted his u ltra n a tio n a lism from different h istorical an d philosophical sources. P rofoundly influenced by th e g ro w in g E u ro p ean ra d i­ cal right, they all agreed on a principled rejection of dem ocracy an d hostility to w a rd socialism . Z io n ist socialism w as perceived as a th re a t to natio n alism . O nly the H ebrew n atio n an d its future in stru m e n t o f pow er, the Jew ish State, w ere sacred. T hus, in a d d itio n to th eir rejection o f the policies o f th e yish u v vis-à-vis the British, the R evisionist u ltra n a tio n a lists w ere driven by a conceptual anim osity to w a rd th e w o rk e rs’ parties. A nd there w as an o th e r im p o rta n t ingred ien t in th eir thinking: a ro m a n ­ tic retu rn to the Biblical p ast o f the n a tio n an d the asp iratio n to reco n stru ct the days o f the early H ebrew s w h o to o k C a n a a n by force an d ex ten d ed it by m ilitary m eans to the large D avidic k in g d o m .2 M o st ap p ealin g to these revolutionaries w as n o t the im age o f the self-sufficient Jew ish farm erpioneer, b u t ra th e r th e m odel of the Jew ish fighter, the H eb rew n atio n al w h o takes his land by force. T h u s in th e 1930s, w hen the Z io n ist socialists h a d already becom e an estab lishm ent in Palestine, w ith o rg an izatio n s an d bureaucracy, these you n g extrem ists becam e th e epitom e of an ti-estab lish m en t revolution. T h eir acute sense o f revolt w as expressed by the nam e they chose for th eir g ro u p in 1931, B rit H ab irio n im (the C o v en a n t o f T hugs). T h e an cien t B irionim w ere the m ost extrem e faction o f the Jew ish Z e alo ts in the first century C.E., w h o fo u g h t against th e R om ans before the d estru ctio n o f the Second Temple. T h eir d evotion to Ju d aism w as so com plete th a t they refused to com prom ise for less th a n to ta l religious and political autonom y. G iven the huge p o w er of the R o m an em pire and its com plete hegem ony in the E ast, th eir attitu d e led to n atio n al disaster. T he Z ealots co n d u cted a b ru ta l te rro r cam paign against b o th the R om ans an d m o d erate Jew s, an d w ere in stru m en tal in heightening the conflict to a p o in t o f no retu rn . T he tragic d estru ctio n o f the Tem ple w as

The Zionist Roots of the Radical Right

25

the b eginning o f th e process th a t led to a tw o -th o u sa n d -y e a r n a tio n a l exile. It w as this d estru ctiv e role in th e events o f th e G re a t R evolt th a t gave th e B irionim , a n d th e Z e a lo ts in general, a negative n am e in Jew ish tra d itio n an d H a la k h ic d isco u rse.3 By calling itself B rit H a b irio n im , th e sm all g ro u p o f G reen b erg , A chim eir, an d Yevin clearly c o m m u n ic a te d rad icalism , an ti-e stab lish m en t sen tim en t, an d defiance. A nd th e rebellion w as d irected n o t only ag ain st th e B ritish, th e A rabs, a n d th e L a b o r esta b lish m e n t, b u t also a g a in st th e religious o rth o d o x y for w h o m th e c o n c e p t B irionim w as an a n a th e m a . T h u s, alth o u g h they read the O ld T estam en t carefully, th e B irio n im ’s en n o b le m e n t o f th e Jew ish p a st w as n eith er h a la k h ic n o r h isto rical. It w as ab o v e all a m y th o lo g ical red isco v ­ ery o f th e g lo rio u s tales o f th e n a tio n , a ro m a n tic g lo rificatio n o f th e o ld days of b lo o d , soil, h ero ism , a n d co n q u est. T h e intellectu als o f B rit H a b irio n im , to be sure, w ere n o t engag ed in any actual rebellion. T hey m ostly w ro te a n d p reach ed , a n d in th e early 1930s w ere involved in several sym bolic d e m o n stra tio n s ag ain st th e B ritish, N azi G erm any, a n d th e A ra b s.4 N evertheless, th e ir p o litico -cu ltu ral influence w as considerable. T h e ir fervent a tta c k s o n th e B ritish a n d th e ir Jew ish “ c o lla b o ­ ra to rs ,” th e leaders o f th e official Z io n ist m o v em en t, cam e a t a tim e in w hich a m a jo r rift in th e Z io n is t m o v em en t w as form ing, the conflict b e­ tw een J a b o tin s k y ’s m o v em en t a n d th e rest o f o rg an ized Z io n ism . M an y follow ers o f Jab o tin sk y , especially th e y o u n g in Palestine, w ere deeply m oved by th e rh e to ric a n d a n tiw o rk e r m ilitan cy o f the new sc h o o l.5 A special role in this radicalism h a d been played by Y o n ath an R ato sh (Uriel Shelah), th e fu tu re fo u n d e r o f th e “ C a n a a n ite ” school. R ato sh , w h o b ro u g h t the U ltra n a tio n a list critiq u e o f official Z io n ism to th e p o in t o f a b su rd ity w as later to d e m a n d th a t th e new H eb rew s (the Z io n ists in Palestine) sever all their relatio n s w ith Ju d a ism a n d D ia sp o ra Jew s a n d create, by force if need be, a huge “ C a n a a n ite ” state m ad e o f all M id d le E astern m in o rities sh arin g ancient biblical ro o ts .6

The Radical Legacy of Jabotinsky and Betar V ladim ir Jab o tin sk y , th e revered leader o f Z io n ist R evisionism , w as never p arty to th e em erging rad ical rig h t o f A chim eir an d G reen b erg , th o u g h he occasionally b ack ed B rit H a b irio n im n o tw ith sta n d in g .7 H is a d m ira tio n for G reat B ritain a n d fo r th e v irtues o f dem ocracy, liberalism , a n d th e rule o f law is w idely recognized to d a y a n d ex p lain s, a t least partially, his co m p lete refusal to fight th e B ritish a n d relieve th em from th e m o ral d u ty o f e sta b lish ­ ing a Jew ish sta te im plied in th e B alfour D e c la ra tio n .8 N evertheless, c ertain rad ical elem ents in J a b o tin s k y ’s th in k in g an d p o liti­ cal style m ad e it possible fo r th e m em bers o f B rit H a b irio n im an d o th e r radical g ro u p s to a d m ire him a n d include him in th eir ex trem ist Weltan­ schauung.9 It is th ro u g h his p a rtia l leg itim atio n o f th e h isto rical radical rig h t

26

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

th a t Jabo tin sk y him self w as an d rem ains a p a rt of th eir legacy to Z ionism . Perhaps his m ost im p o rta n t c o n trib u tio n to y o unger radical follow ers w as his integral n atio n alism , the fervent belief th a t the n atio n is the suprem e fo u n d atio n o f legitim ate political a c tio n .10 Ja b o tin sk y ’s n u m ero u s ex p res­ sions of s u p p o rt for civil liberties, individual freedom s, an d a free econom y show th a t he w as clearly open to pluralistic th in k in g ,11 b u t these expressions rarely guided the m a n ’s concrete political action. M o st o f his follow ers overlooked his so m ew h at esoteric an d theo retical liberalism in favor o f his n atio n alist rhetoric and m ode o f action th a t stressed m onism , m ilitarism , discipline, order, and b itter defiance o f official Z io n ism .12 Jab o tin sk y ’s m ost cherished creatio n w as Betar, the y o u th m ovem ent th a t becam e the m ain politicizatio n agen t of R evisionist activists, pioneers, and fighters. B etar never em phasized p luralism , openness, o r d ebate. It w as, on the contrary, a sem im ilitaristic entity th a t stressed hierarchy, discipline, obedience to superiors, rituals, an d cerem o n ies.13 B etar’s b ro w n shirts, w hich greatly resem bled the N azi u n ifo rm , w ere n o t exactly a sym bol o f peace an d tranquillity. M ilitary values w ere seen as m ore th a n a necessary in stru m en t on the ro a d to self-determ inatio n ; they w ere ra th e r a v irtu e, a sym bol o f n atio n al sovereignty, an d an expression o f collective n atio n al liberation. R o m an tic heroism w as cultivated by Jab o tin sk y to such an ex ten t th a t the m o v em en t’s g reat heroic m yths, Shim on B ar-K ochba an d Joseph T rum peldor, becam e n atio n al fighters w h o fo u g h t an d gave th eir life for freedom . O ld an d new b attle sites like M assad a, Betar, an d Tel H ai w ere m ade sacred pilgrim age sites for th o u sa n d s o f B etar y o u n g sters.14 Ja b o tin sk y ’s u n co n d itio n al d em an d th a t the fu tu re State of Israel be established on b o th sides o f the Jo rd a n river, his p en ch an t for m ilitarism , his ideological co m m itm en t to m onism , his econom ic co rp o ratism , an d his fer­ vent an ti-L ab o r stance w ere in stru m en tal in sustaining the sp irit of th e radical right in B etar long after the dem ise o f B rit H ab irio n im . A nd as Y onathan S hapiro has show n, it w as highly ap p ealin g to a w hole age c o h o rt of B etar activists w h o grew up in P oland betw een the 1920s an d 1930s u n d er the spell of Joseph Pilsudski an d the Polish extrem e rig h t.15 T here w as in fact, as Shlom o Avineri has sh o w n , a built-in p a ra d o x in the th in k in g and politics of Jabotinsky. H is integral n atio n alism led him , o n the one h an d , to stress elem ents of p o w er an d force as the p ro p e r fo u n d a ­ tions of political action. O n the o th e r h an d , beyond the level o f rh eto ric, Jab o tin sk y w as fully aw are o f the trem endo u s w eakness o f the Jew s.16 T his w as the reason w hy he could n o t s u p p o rt the politics o f Brit H ab irio n im in the early 1930s an d w as extrem ely u n co m fo rtab le w ith the anti-B ritish o p eratio n s o f Etzel, the Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d identified w ith the R evisionist m ovem ent, in the closing years of the decade. But this w as also the reason w hy B etar an d Etzel started to d rift aw ay from the aging lead er.17 N eith er o rg an izatio n , an d especially Etzel, w hich since 1937 h a d been engaged in active an ti-A rab terro rism , could accept Ja b o tin sk y ’s p a ra d o x . Being unim pressed by his political realism reg ard in g

The Zionist Roots of the Radical Right

27

the pow erlessness o f th e Jew s a n d by his la te n t a d m ira tio n fo r W estern liberalism a n d dem ocracy, they o p te d for a m o re rad ical d ire ctio n expressed by an active m ilitary struggle ag a in st th e B ritish an d a belief in m ilitary solutions fo r p o litical pro b lem s. In 1940, A b ra h a m Stern (Yair) b ro u g h t this rad ical co u rse to its logical conclusion. R eviving th e legacy o f B rit H a b irio n im , Stern decided to free him self o f Ja b o tin s k y ’s p a ra d o x by challeng in g th e en tire R evisionist p a r a ­ digm . H e sp lit aw ay fro m Etzel, declared an o p en rev o lt ag ain st th e B ritish, an d w e n t u n d e rg ro u n d in th e h o p e o f lead in g th e en tire Jew ish lib era tio n m o v em ent to w a rd th e c re a tio n o f th e “ K ingdom o f Isra e l” free o f B ritish and A rabs. C o m pletely ig n o rin g th e c o n stra in ts o f political reality, Stern started o n a suicide co u rse th a t resu lted in his o w n d eath in 1 942 a n d alm o st com pletely o b lite ra te d his en tire o rg a n iz a tio n .18

The "Activist" Tradition of the Labor Movement T he p re -1 9 4 8 L a b o r m o v em en t w as extrem ely h o stile to th e p olitical rig h t of Ja b o tin sk y a n d w as h a rd ly ready to d istin g u ish betw een R evisionism in general an d th e rad ical rig h t in p a rtic u la r. B ut this o p p o sitio n w as n o t based on a g re a t resp ect for u niversal h u m a n rights, d em o c ra tic p lu ralism , an d tolerance. In fact, o n m an y o f these issues L a b o r d id n o t significantly differ from th e R evisionists. T h e W o rk e rs’ p artie s o f th e 1930s w ere m uch m o re in to le ra n t a n d to ta lita ria n th a n is usually recognized today. T h e ir an im o sity to the rig h t w as a resu lt o f tw o m a jo r realities o f the tim e: th e h o stility o f w o rld socialism a fte r W orld W ar I to th e fascist th re a t of cen tral E u ro p e, and the struggle betw een L a b o r a n d R evisionism for th e h egem ony o f Z io n ­ ism. T h u s, th e R evisionists a n d th e u ltra n a tio n a lis ts o f th e 1930s a n d 1940s w ere fo u g h t n o t because o f th e ir deficient liberalism b u t because they th re a t­ ened to ta k e o v er th e lead ersh ip o f th e Z io n ist m o v em en t a n d refused to play by the rules o f lim ited d em o cracy it im p o se d .19 T h e p o litical o rie n ta tio n o f th e L a b o r m o v em en t a n d its “ civil re lig io n ” differed significantly fro m R evisionism in its em p h asis o n co n stru ctiv e p io ­ neering, h a rd lab o r, a n d p ra g m a tic a n d piecm eal politics ra th e r th a n m ilita­ rism , h ero ism , a n d m o n istic n a tio n a lism .20 B ut o n certain issues, such as th e territo ries o f E retz Y israel a n d th e A rabs, th ere w ere som e su rp risin g ly im p o rta n t sim ilarities. T h e q u estio n o f p a rtitio n in g o f Eretz Y israel, for exam ple, w as h eated ly d e b a te d in L a b o r circles fro m the late 1930s o n ­ w ards. Som e very p ro m in e n t L a b o r leaders such as Berl K atzn elso n , th e ideologue o f M a p a i, a n d Itz h a k T a b en k in , a p ro m in e n t k ib b u tz leader, w ere strongly o p p o se d to th e id ea.21 T a b e n k in ’s m ighty K ibbutz m o v em en t later becam e extrem ely b itte r o v er th e 194 7 p a rtitio n a n d co n tin u e d to cherish the idea o f a re tu rn to th e lo st p a rt o f th e h o m e la n d long after the end o f th e 1948 W ar o f Indep en d en ce. As reg ard s A rab s, n o t m uch a tte n tio n w as p aid to th e ir fate in the fu tu re

28

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

enlarged State o f Israel. In fact, the w hole issue o f P alestinian n atio n al rights w as n o t seriously addressed by any o f the L ab o r m axim alists w ith the exception o f D avid B en-G urion. T hey w ere convinced th a t the local P alestin­ ians w o uld eith er leave for th e s u rro u n d in g A rab states o r be h ap p y w ith in a m od ern and benevolent Jew ish polity. It w as in the co n te x t o f a m ax im alist Jew ish State th a t the co n cep t o f “ tra n sfe r” first em erged in L a b o r circles. T h e term im plied the ev acu atio n o f a significant n u m b er o f A rabs from the fu tu re Jew ish State to assure its hom ogeneity an d freedom from eth n ic conflicts.22 T h e idea of tran sfer, it should be stressed, did n o t evolve in the a b stract. It w as m ostly a reactio n to tw o m ajo r developm ents th a t to o k place in Palestine in the 1930s, th e A rab R evolt an d the 1937 re p o rt o f the Peel C om m ission recom m ending, am o n g o th e r things, the p a rtitio n o f Palestine an d the estab lish m en t of sep arate A rab and Jew ish states. T he L ab o r leaders w h o su p p o rte d the idea o f tra n s ­ fer in the late 1930s an d th e beginning of the 1940s, including B en-G urion, w ere convinced th a t th e B ritish could enforce it in th e co n te x t o f an overall settlem ent o f the P alestinian p ro b le m .23 H av in g no d o u b t th a t the Jew ish cause w as m o re im p o rta n t th a n justice to the A rabs, they paid little a tte n tio n to the real o r p o ten tial plight o f the P alestinians an d ap p ro ach ed th e p ro b ­ lem in p rag m atic political term s. T he d eb ate betw een L a b o r and R evisionism on the fate o f the A rabs p rio r to the esta b lish m en t o f the State of Israel w as n o t based on m o ral an d n o rm ative th in k in g b u t on political an d strateg ic co n sid eratio n s. It w as m ainly concerned w ith h o w the interests o f the y ish u v an d its long-range desire for sta te h o o d w o u ld be best served. W hile the R evisionists, an d espe­ cially the radical right, w ere im p atien t a n d d eterm in ed to push for im m edi­ ate in d ependence irrespective o f the A rab m ajority, the L ab o r leaders, an d especially D avid B en-G urion, w ere very realistic an d cau tio u s. Fully aw are o f the w eakness of th e Jew s an d th eir dependence on G reat B ritain, L ab o r considered th e right-w ing radicals ad v en tu ro u s an d d an g ero u s fascists unfit to deal in n atio n al politics.24 T his difference in a p p ro a c h cam e to the fore in the fam ous H a vla g a (SelfR estraint) debate. F ollow ing the o u tb re a k o f the A rab R ebellion in 1936 an d the intensification o f terro rism against Jew s in Palestine, th ere w as a pu b lic outcry for p ro p e r response and revenge. Etzel, u n d er the co m m an d o f D avid Raziel, resp o n d ed in kind an d developed a m assive co u n te rte rro rist cam ­ paign. Its u n d e rg ro u n d fighters am b u sh ed A rab civilians an d p lan ted bom bs in cro w d ed A rab m ark ets an d public places. But D avid B en-G urion an d m o st of his colleagues urged patience an d m easured response. T hey d em an d ed th a t despite A rab brutality, the Jew s h ad to L eh a vlig (restrain them selves) an d show th a t, unlike the A rabs, they w ere civilized an d h u m a n e .25 H ow ever, m o st L ab o r leaders w ere less con cern ed w ith m o ral co n sid er­ ations th a n w ith political facts. U nlike the co m m an d ers o f Etzel a n d the intellectuals o f the radical rig h t w h o su p p o rte d them , B en-G urion an d his

The Zionist Roots of the Radical Right

29

colleagues u n d e rsto o d th a t u n re stra in e d A rab violence w as politically useful for the Jew s. It a lie n a te d th e A rab s from th e B ritish, d am ag ed th eir cause intern ationally, a n d forced th e M a n d a to ry g o v ern m en t to use m ilitary m eans ag a in st A ra b s.26 T h u s, w hile Etzel w as forced to go u n d e rg ro u n d an d to o rganize its tro o p s fo r sm all h it-a n d -ru n o p e ra tio n s, th e B ritish g ra n te d a semiofficial sta tu s to th e m ilitary w ing o f th e H is ta d ru t, th e H a g a n a , w h ich w as allow ed to create a m ass defense system th a t later b ecam e th e fo u n d a ­ tion o f th e Israel arm y. But p e rh a p s th e g re a te st c o n trib u tio n o f th e L a b o r m o v em en t to the o ld aggressive Z io n ism w as m ad e by th e L a b o r a c tiv ists. L a b o r activism w as never a rad ical ideological school, a n d did n o t have a te x tb o o k o f co m m o n principles o f ac tio n . It w as in stead a m a tte r-o f-fa c t o rie n ta tio n , a belief th a t the b o rd ers o f Z io n ism w o u ld n o t be d eterm in e d by th o se w h o ta lk an d m oralize b u t by in d iv id u als o f actio n . T h e activists w ith in th e m o v em en t w ere th o se w h o a d v o c a te d a c o n s ta n t ex p an sio n o f Jew ish settlem en t in Palestine, w ith o r w ith o u t official p erm issio n .27 G iven th e h o stility o f th e A rabs a n d th e n o n c o o p e ra tio n o f th e B ritish, L a b o r activists so o n e x p a n d e d from settlem en t to defense, a n d in m any cases to illegal defense. R esp o n d in g to the a tta c k s o f local A rab gangs, th e activists dev elo p ed a very m ilita n t attitu d e a n d reco m m en d ed aggressive resp o n se.28 W hile m o st L a b o r Z io n is t activists w ere follow ers o f Itzh ak T ab en k in , leader o f A c h d u t H a ’a v o d a party, an d identified w ith his general b ra n d o f M arx ist-so cialist Z io n ism , a significant n u m b e r o f M a p a i activists sh ared their m ilitancy w ith respect to th e A rabs. W h a t u n ited th em w ith A ch d u t H a ’av o d a activists w as th a t b o th ten d ed to “ see the A rab q u estio n th ro u g h the rifle’s s ig h t.” L eaving aside th e to rm e n te d d eb ates o f th e 1930s re g a rd ­ ing the rights o f th e P alestinian A rabs a n d th eir n a tio n a l a sp ira tio n s, b o th groups w ere co n vinced th a t every b a rrie r o n th e ro a d o f Z io n ist fulfillm ent h ad to be rem oved. T h e g ro w in g A rab hostility to w a rd th e very existence o f the Jew s in E retz Y israel a n d th e ir 194 7 d e te rm in a tio n to w ip e o u t th e fu tu re Jew ish state d ro v e th e L a b o r activists to th e pessim istic co n clu sio n th a t th e struggle ag ain st th e A rab local p o p u la tio n sh o u ld n o t be c o n stra in e d .29 W h a t w as typical o f th e a n ti-A ra b o rie n ta tio n o f the activists o f th e L abor m o v em en t w as a very sh rew d reco g n itio n th a t unlike th e R evisionist a p p ro ach , th e p ro b le m h a d to be acted u p o n in secret ra th e r th a n p reach ed a b o u t in public. T h e m o st ex trem e a m o n g th em since th e 1930s h a d n o d o u b t th a t th e A rab s c o n stitu te d a m o rta l d a n g er to th e Jew ish fu tu re an d had to be evicted. Josef W eitz, th e d ire c to r o f th e Jew ish N a tio n a l F u nd, th e fo u n d a tio n in ch arg e o f th e re c la m a tio n o f lan d in Palestine, a n d an archL abor activist, w ro te in his d iary in 1940: It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both peoples. ... If the Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us. . . . The only solution [after the end of World War II] is a Land of Israel, at least a

30

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

western Land of Israel [i.e., Palestine], without Arabs. There is no room for compromises. . . . There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbor­ ing countries, to transfer all of them, save perhaps for the Arabs of Bethle­ hem, Nazereth, and old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one tribe. The transfer must be directed to Iraq, Syria, and even Transjordan. For this goal funds will be found. . . . And only after this transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers and the Jewish problem will cease to exist. There is no other solution.30

D u ring the 1948 w ar, W eitz w as involved in the secret Jew ish T ransfer C om m ittee, w hich issued guidelines assuring th a t no A rab refugee from Palestine w as allow ed to com e b ack .31 T h ere w as never, to be sure, an official L ab o r policy o f expulsion o f P alestinian A rabs d u rin g the w ar, and the leaders o f th e new ly created Israeli state w ere careful n o t to m ention in public any such possibility. B ut m any field co m m an d ers, w h o h ap p en ed to share the activist o rie n ta tio n , saw to it in 1948 th a t a large n u m b er o f A rabs did leave P alestine.32 A nd very few o f the Israeli L ab o r leaders regretted the u nexpected d ev elo p m en t.33 V iew ing it as one o f the g reat m iracles of th e w ar, they convinced them selves th a t unlike an in ten d ed tran sfer, p lan n ed an d talked a b o u t in peacetim e, a d e fa c to tra n sfer th a t o ccu rred d u rin g a w ar started by the A rabs w as legitim ate an d irrev o cab le.34

The Maximalist Messianism of Rav Kook O ne o f th e m o st co m m o n beliefs a b o u t G ush E m unim is th a t it changed th e political o rie n ta tio n o f the Z io n ist religious cam p after 1967, m oving it from the m o d erate left to the m ax im alist right. Until 1967, so the arg u m en t runs, the N a tio n a l R eligious Party and the M izrah i m ovem ent, the d o m in a n t o rg an izatio n s o f this cam p, w ere very p rag m atic, non-m essianic, an d m o d er­ ate. They w ere n o t interested in m ajo r n atio n al issues, giving full en d o rse­ m ent to the security a n d foreign affairs policy of M ap ai. It w as only after the g reat and m iraculous victory o f the Six-D ay W ar th a t G ush Em unim cam e to the fore, p reaching m essianism and ideologically tak in g over the m ovem ent. But this in te rp re ta tio n , as Eliezer D on-Y ehiya has recently argued, is only p artially correct, being historically tru e for only the last forty years o r so. D on-Y ehiya show s in fact th a t since its 1902 estab lish m en t, th e political o rie n ta tio n o f the M izrahi, th e m ainstream in religious Z io n ism , has gone th ro u g h several d ifferent phases. W hile m ost o f the tim e the m ovem ent has been m o d erate an d p rag m atic , there w ere tim es in w hich it w as m ax im alist and m essianic. R abbi R eines, for exam ple, the m o v em en t’s first spiritual leader, ad v o ­ cated very cau tio u s and p rag m atic politics. Z io n ism for him w as n o t a m essianic p h e n o m en o n , the beginning of heavenly red em p tio n , b u t a p ra g ­ m atic so lu tio n for the pressing problem s of the persecuted Jew s. O ne could

The Zionist Roots of the Radical Right

31

n o t co n seq u en tly d ra w from th e rise o f secular Z io n ism far-reach in g c o n c lu ­ sions a b o u t th e p a s t a n d th e fu tu re “ K ingdom o f Isra e l.” R eines a d v o cated th erefo re very ca u tio u s a n d p ra g m a tic politics. But this m o d e ra te stan ce, D on-Y ehiya show s, ch an g ed d u rin g th e 1920s and 1930s u n d e r th e influence o f R abbi A vraham Itz h ak H aco h en K ook. This m essianic th in k e r, w h o becam e in 1921 th e first C hief A shkenazi rab b i of the Jew s o f P alestine, in tro d u c e d a stro n g m ax im alist c o m p o n e n t to th e th in k in g o f th e M izrah i m o v em en t.35 W ith K o o k ’s co n v ictio n th a t secular Z ionism in d icated th e b eginning o f re d e m p tio n , th e m o v em en t a d o p te d a very am b itio u s a p p ro a c h to E retz Y israel a n d w as to tally hostile to th e p a rtitio n o f P alestine. W hile n o t rad ical in its actio n s, it sp o k e th e lan g u ag e o f the L an d o f Israel in its entirety, cared little a b o u t the A rabs, an d w as close to th e m a x im a list circles in th e y ish u v on m any issues.36 T h e m ax im alist o rie n ta tio n o f th e M izrah i sta rte d to change in th e 1940s follow ing th e h isto rical dev elo p m en ts o f th e decade. T h e M izrah i becam e en th u siastic a b o u t B e n -G u rio n ’s 1942 B iltm ore Plan, w hich called for th e esta b lish m en t o f a sovereign Jew ish S tate in any av ailab le p a rt o f Palestine.37 A nd learn in g a b o u t th e h o rrib le d isaster o f E u ro p ean Jew ry in th e H o lo ­ caust, th e religious Z io n ists cam e to th e co n clu sio n th a t a Jew ish state in p a rt o f P alestine w as p referab le to n o safe place fo r Jew s a t all. T h e p ain fu l ren u n ciatio n o f th e g re a t d re a m o f th e en tire Eretz Y israel w as p ro fo u n d ly expressed by R ab b i F ish m an , o n e o f th e leaders o f th e M izrah i, w h o sp o k e a t a 194 7 m eeting: “ If G o d in ten d s to leave us w ith o u t Jew s, th en I am read y to give up E retz Y israel a n d th e M essiah. I k n o w this is heresy, b u t if this is the case th en I am an h e re tic .” 38 T h e im p o sin g a n d successful lead ersh ip o f D avid B en-G urion d u rin g Israel’s W ar o f In d ep en d en ce a n d th e tig h ten in g p olitical alliance o f th e M izrah i w ith M a p a i a fte r 1949 led to a g ro w in g co m p lian ce o f th e religious Z io n ists w ith th e policy o f Israel’s m a jo r p arty, an o rie n ta tio n th a t only started to chan g e a fte r 1967. B ut th e change w as closely related to th e so m ew h at fo rg o tten id eo th eo lo g y o f R av K ook, w hich w as quietly k e p t alive in th e R a b b i’s o w n sm all yeshiva in Jeru salem , M e rk a z H arav. W hile m o st o f o rg an ized religious Z io n ism w e n t alo n g w ith L abor, th ere w ere sm all o rth o d o x circles th a t alw ays m a in ta in e d close relatio n s w ith th e R evisionists. In 19 3 5 , a change in J a b o tin s k y ’s a ttitu d e to w a rd Jew ish o r th o ­ doxy facilitated this co n n e c tio n a n d solidfied a long em o tio n al alliance betw een secular an d religious n a tio n a lists.39 T h e fact th a t D avid R aziel, E tzel’s c o m m a n d e r from 1936 to 1941, w as an o b se rv a n t Jew w h o h a d studied for a w hile in Y eshivat M e rk a z H arav , an d th a t A b rah am Stern w as full o f respect fo r o rth o d o x Ju d a ism , w as very significant for y o u n g o r th o ­ d o x m ax im alists w h o co u ld join b o th u n d e rg ro u n d s w ith o u t h e sita tio n .40 O n e o f th e religious circles th a t su p p o rte d th e u ltra n a tio n a lis t rig h t w as Brit H a h a s h m o n a im (the H a sm o n e a n C ov en an t) m ovem ent. B rit H a h a sh m o n aim w as esta b lish ed in 193 7 by several religious y o u n g sters in o rd e r to ed u cate y o u th in th e H a sm o n e a n tra d itio n o f u n c o m p ro m isin g struggle for

32

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

freedom . T he m ost active m em ber of the g ro u p w as R abbi M o sh e H alevi Segal, a m em ber o f Etzel and a form er m em ber of B rit H ab irio n im , an d the person w ho first blew the sh o fa r a t th e W ailing W all in 1931, in an o u trig h t defiance of the B ritish order. W hile th e founders o f the g ro u p w ere p ro ­ foundly influenced by Rav K ook, they w ere actio n -o rien ted an d in stru cted their follow ers to join Etzel. In 1944, L ehi’s co m m an d er Itzh ak S ham ir an d R abbi Segal held a series of talks, an d the latter, convinced o f the g reat sim ilarity betw een the p latfo rm of Brit H ah a sh m o n a im an d the u ltra n a tio n ­ alist Eighteen Principles of Revival of A b rah am Stern, asked all the m em bers of the Brit to join Lehi. M o st of them d id .41 T hey stren g th en ed the u n d e r­ g ro u n d and b ro ad en ed its appeal, becom ing the fo u n d atio n o f Lehi’s reli­ gious w ing. R abbi Segal later becam e th e first Jew ish settler in the freed Jew ish Q u a rte r of O ld Jerusalem after the 1967 w a r an d w as also one o f the 1979 founders o f the Tehiya party.

The Political and Historical Marginality of the Old Radical Right In spite o f the vocal ideological presence o f th e old radical rig h t in Z io n ist politics in the 1930s and 1940s, it w as, until 1967, a m arginal political p h en o m enon. T he m ain force w ithin the y ish u v h ad been L ab o r Z io n ism , pow erful b o th politically an d ideologically, d o m in atin g the Z io n ist v en tu re in Palestine an d the em erging state.42 T he ideas an d p ro g ram s o f the radical right appealed to relatively few Z ionists, w h o w ere n o t only culturally m a r­ ginal in the Z io n ist m ilieu, b u t w ere also politically persecuted. T he allega­ tion th a t m em bers of Brit H ab irio n im w ere responsible for the 1933 assassi­ n atio n of L abor leader H aim A rlozoroff, an d the 1935 estab lish m en t o f an altern ative Z io n ist m ovem ent by Jabotinsky, in clear defiance of the existing m ovem ent, began a long period of in ten tio n al m arg in alizatio n o f the Z io n ist right and u ltra-rig h t. T he “ secession” of Jab o tin sk y an d the later estab lish ­ m ent of tw o “ secessionist” u n d erg ro u n d s in Palestine led to a very intense delegitim ization o f the Z io n ist rig h t.43 To be a Poresh (“ secessionist” ) in the early 1940s w as n o t m erely to belong to the R evisionist m ovem ent, Etzel o r Lehi. It am o u n te d to m em bership in illegitim ate subversive bodies th a t w ere d en o ted by the official interpreters of L ab o r Z io n ism as fascist. P robably n o m ore th an 10 to 15 percent of the y ish u v su p p o rte d the right, an d m o st o f these su p p o rters w ere n o t rad ical.44 T he m ore successful L abor Z ionism becam e in building to w a rd a Z io n ist state, the lesser the historical role o f the rig h t an d the radical right. Etzel an d Lehi w ere highly in stru m en tal in driving the British o u t of Palestine in the 1940s, m ore th an w as recognized by the official in terp reters of “ legitim ate Z io n ism ,” 45 b u t th eir su p p o rt for the grow in g Jew ish polity in Palestine w as m inim al at best. They m ade no co n trib u tio n to the self-governing in stitu ­ tions of the state in th e m aking an d h ad no in terest in building the econom ic

The Zionist Roots of the Radical Right

33

in frastru ctu res o f th e y is b u v S 6 A nd Etzel, Lehi, an d th e w eak R evisionist p arty to o k alm o st n o p a rt in th e g re a t d ip lo m a tic effo rt to gain legitim acy and in te rn a tio n a l s u p p o rt for th e em erging Jew ish state. F u rth erm o re, they w ere b adly p re p a re d to m eet th e real challenge o f the new state: th e w a r w ith th e A rabs. F ix ated as it w as on the B ritish, th e Israeli n atio n alist rig h t becam e irrelev an t th e m o m e n t th e B ritish left Palestine. T he Second W o rld W ar, th e N azi a n d Fascist experience, an d the H o lo ­ caust h ad also c o n trib u te d to th e h isto rical irrelevance o f th e rad ical right. In the 1930s th e h isto rical rad ical rig h t w as a relev an t ideological school, seen by m any as a viable a lte rn a tiv e to w o rld co m m u n ism on the one h a n d a n d “ d e c a d e n t” liberal d em o cracy o n th e o th er. N o t only th e Polish rad ical rig h t b u t also Italian Fascism w ere highly a ttra c tiv e for th e rad ical w ing o f the R evisionist m ov em en t. T he F ascist ap p eal w as p artly resp o n sib le fo r A b ra ­ ham S tern’s b izarre 1941 effo rt to form an anti-B ritish alliance w ith the A xis pow ers.47 B ut th e experien ce o f th e w a r an d especially th e H o lo c a u st d e­ stroyed th e fascin atio n o f Fascism for th e v ast m ajo rity o f th e w o rld . T h e loss of the w a r w as also an ideological d isaster fo r w o rld Fascism , d riv in g it at once to th e very m arg in s o f m o d ern civilization. T his w as even m o re the case for Jew s a n d Z io n ists. Very few u ltra n a tio n a lists rem ain ed loyal to th eir p rew ar political p la tfo rm s, a n d m any o f th em began to deny ever h aving been close to th e E u ro p e a n rad ical right. T he 1947 U .N . P a rtitio n R eso lu tio n , th e 1948 W ar o f Ind ep en d en ce, an d the estab lish m en t o f th e S tate o f Israel m ade th e g ran d vision o f the rad ical right com pletely unrealistic. Even veteran R evisionists w h o w ere m ostly oriented to w a rd a g lo rio u s n a tio n a l w a r o f lib era tio n w ere d iso rien ted . It was th erefo re n a tu ra l th a t d espite som e blo o d y incidents betw een Etzel an d the new Israel arm y, M en ach em B egin’s new party, H e ru t, becam e p a rt o f the Israeli p a rlia m e n ta ry system .48 B ut H e ru t’s p ast rad icalism , ex trem ist rhetoric, a n d c o m m itm e n t to th e d ream o f “S h tei g a d o t la ya rd en z o sh elan u zo gam k e n ” (“ T h e re are tw o b an k s to th e J o rd a n river; this o n e is o u rs a n d the o th e r to o ” ), w hich im plied a p rin cip led rejection o f th e p a rtitio n o f E retz Yisrael an d th e a s p ira tio n for a m ilitary co n q u est o f th e K ingdom o f J o rd a n , was co n tin u o u sly used by M a p a i’s sh rew d p o litician s to keep H e ru t b ey o n d the pale o f legitim acy.49 T h e m ajo rity o f L ehi’s v eteran s, w h o in S eptem ber 1948 co m m itted th e ir last defian t te rro r act, th e assassin atio n o f C o u n t B ernadotte, th e U .N . M e d ia to r in Palestine, also gave up th eir u n d e rg ro u n d life an d in 1949 jo in ed th e new system . O rg an izin g in th e form o f the Fighters Party, they im plied a t least a p a rtia l reco g n itio n o f th e new ly created Israeli state a n d its n o rm s.50 T he only o rg an ized c o m p o n e n t o f the rad ical rig h t th a t rem ain ed loyal to the old ideology a n d c o n tin u e d to fu n ctio n after 1949 w as the sm all ideological g ro u p , C h u g Sulam (the L adder Circle). O rg an ized by Dr. Israel Eldad, a devotee o f Uri Z vi G reen b erg a n d a fo rm er chief ideologist o f Lehi, Chug Sulam vow ed to preserve th e d ream o f the g reater K ingdom o f Israel. For th a t p u rp o se it p u b lish ed a highly ideological m agazine, Sulam , an d

34

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

organized ed u catio n al an d ideological activities for y outh. C om pletely de­ tached from the h istorical reality o f the new State o f Israel, Sulam published anti-B ritish articles “ ex p o sin g ” the B ritish in ten tio n to reoccupy Palestine via Jo rd a n , an tig o v ern m e n t articles attack in g the d ecad en t p arty system o f the tru n c a te d Jew ish State, an d essays on the indivisibility of Eretz Yisrael and its prom ised b o rd ers. In an age o f prestigious dem ocracy it called for the installation of a Jew ish d ic ta to rsh ip and for a w a r of co n q u est ag ain st m o st of the new s ta te ’s neighbors. A celeb ratio n of Israel’s D ay of Independence w as occasionally ended by th e call “ n e x t year in A m m a n .” 51 T he to tal isolation o f C h u g Sulam from the n a tio n ’s public life did n o t prevent the establishm ent, in the early 1950s, o f tw o new sm all u n d e r­ g rounds th a t vow ed to to p p le the regim e: Brit H a k a n a im (the C o v en a n t of Z ealots) and M a c h te re t M a lc h u t Y israel (the K ingdom o f Israel U nder­ ground). T he first o p e ra te d betw een 1949 an d 1951, an d w as m ostly in ter­ ested in fighting the secular c h aracter o f the new state; the second acted from 1951 to 1953, an d w as involved in “ defending an d u p liftin g ” the n atio n al honor. Both w ere ca p tu re d by the Shin Bet (Israel’s secret service) before they caused m ajo r dam age, b u t they left an im p act nevertheless. W hile Brit H a k a n a im b u rn ed n o n k o sh e r b u tch er shops an d set ablaze cars driving on the S ab b ath , the K ingdom o f Israel U n d erg ro u n d w as involved in larger o p eratio n s. R eacting to the 1952 D o c to rs’ Trial in M oscow , it blew up the R ussian C o n su late in Tel Aviv, an d rep eated the sam e act in the Czech consulate in response to the Slansky-K lem entis show trial in Prague. Follow ing the intense public d eb ate over the G erm an rep aratio n s, the u n d e r­ g ro u n d co n d u cted several sym bolic attack s ag ain st artists p erfo rm in g G er­ m an m usic.52 But the a rre st of the m em bers o f these radical u n d erg ro u n d s an d the grow ing irrelevance o f C hug Sulam to the p ro b lem s faced by the State o f Israel of the 1950s slow ly b ro u g h t a b o u t th e final decline of the old radical right. T he a rm y ’s aggressive retalia tio n o p eratio n s ag ain st enem y targ ets in Jo rd an an d Egypt in th e first half o f the 1950s, the 1956 Sinai C am p aig n , and B en -G u rio n ’s and D a y a n ’s haw kish p o stu re becam e attra ctiv e to m any people w ho h ad rightist tendencies an d b ack g ro u n d s. T he illustrious o p e ra ­ tions of C o m m a n d o D etach m en t 101, a n d later the Israeli p a ra tro o p e rs u n d er the co m m an d of m ajo r Ariel S haron, p ro v id ed the old u ltra n a tio n a l­ ists w ith new m yths of Israeli h ero ism .53 By the early 1960s Sulam sto p p ed publishing. Dr. Israel E ldad becam e a professor o f biblical Jew ish history a t the T echnion; his devoted stu d en t, G eula C ohen, started to w rite for M a ’ariv, an d the radical rig h t becam e passé. N e ith e r its ideologues n o r its historical adversaries expected it ever to be resurrected.

3 The Revival o f Territorial Maximalism in Israel

The Six-D ay W ar tra n sfo rm e d th e Israeli p olitical psyche a n d ch an g ed th e political th in k in g o f th e en tire M id d le East. T h e Israel o f Ju n e 11, 1 9 67, w as n o t the an x ie ty -rid d e n n a tio n th a t w e n t to w a r six days earlier. T h o u g h stunned a n d disbelieving, th e Israelis recognized th e g reatness o f th eir m ili­ tary victory. T h e unificatio n o f Jeru salem , th e d e stru c tio n o f th e co m b in ed arm ies o f E gypt, J o rd a n , a n d Syria, a n d th e c a p tu re o f th e W est B ank, Sinai, and the G o lan H eig h ts w ere possibilities only d ream ed a b o u t before. T he occupied te rrito rie s w ere th re e tim es bigger th a n Israel p ro p e r, w hich th e tra d itio n al siege m en tality o f th e Israelis m ad e seem even larger. It is th erefo re n o t su rp risin g th a t n u m ero u s Israelis d eveloped an “ im p e­ rial” conviction th a t th e ir sta te w as th e stro n g est force in th e M id d le E ast, a w orld p o w e r in th e class o f E n g lan d , F rance, o r Italy. M an y w ere q uick to see an inn er logic a n d h isto rical necessity th a t m ade the w a r a n d its results inevitable. T his resu lted in th e revival o f a Z io n ist tra d itio n o f “ te rrito ria l m ax im alism ,” w hich h a d ov er th e prev io u s tw o decades becom e politically obsolete. A nd it is th is o rie n ta tio n th a t sanctifies th e p rin cip le th a t “ never again should E retz Y israel be d iv id e d ” th a t has becom e, since 19 6 7 , a m o st energetic an d influential te n e t in m o d ern Z io n ism .

The Longest Month A full grasp o f th e revival o f Israeli te rrito ria l m ax im alism , b o th as an ideology a n d p o litical m entality, m u st be g ro u n d e d in an u n d e rsta n d in g o f the political situ a tio n th a t p ro d u c e d th e Six-D ay W ar. T his is especially tru e 35

36

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

of th a t period w hich w rite r M ichael B ar-Z o h a r h ad n am ed “ th e longest m o n th ,” the fo u r w eeks from M ay 14 to Ju n e 11, 1 9 6 7 .1 M ay 14, 1967, Israel’s nin eteen th Independence Day, w as th e day the co u n try ’s leaders learned th a t G am al A bd al-N asser, E gypt’s p resident, h ad decided to m ove his tro o p s across th e Suez C an al in to Sinai. A t th a t tim e very few Israelis believed th a t the E gyptians w ere cap ab le o f a challenge o f this m agnitude. All intelligence rep o rts o f the arm y an d the secret services p o rtray ed a tro u b le d N asser, m ilitarily an d politically o v erex ten d ed in the civil w ar in Yemen. T hese conclusions w ere sh ared by the general Israeli public, leading to the p o rtra y a l o f N asser as a “ p a p e r tig er.” This illusion w as sh a tte re d in the space o f ten days. N o t only did the “ helpless” E gyptian p resid en t m ove his tro o p s in to Sinai, b u t in the follow ­ ing w eek he b latan tly violated th e u n d e rsta n d in g reached in 1957 w ith Israel follow ing E gypt’s defeat. N asser declared th e in tern a tio n al w aterw ay o f th e Straits of T ira n closed, an d asked the U nited N a tio n ’s Em ergency Force (UNEF) statio n ed in Sinai an d th e G aza strip to leave. N a sse r’s m essage w as clear: he no longer feared Israel. Believing th a t Israel’s m ilitary sup erio rity w as in fact an illusion, N asser called Israel’s bluff, m oving to relieve Syria o f Israeli pressure. T h e m ove w as so successful, and Israel’s loss of confidence so clear, th a t for the first tim e in fifteen years, the Egyptian leader w as ready to give a serious co n sid e ratio n to an o ld co m m itm ent of his, to settle the final A rab score w ith Israel by m ilitary m eans.2 N a sse r’s sudden m ove stu n n ed th e entire co m m u n ity o f n atio n s. T he Soviet U nion, thrilled by its ally’s success, m ade it clear it w o u ld veto any antiEgyptian m o tio n in the U .N. Security C ouncil. U nited N a tio n s SecretaryG eneral U T h a n t w illingly agreed to w ith d ra w the U N E F tro o p s from Sinai and G aza, leaving no buffer betw een th e Israeli an d E gyptian arm ies.3 A n A m erican p ro p o sal to reduce the tension by sending an in tern a tio n al flotilla to test the E gyptians in the S traits o f T ira n failed m iserably; very few E u ro ­ pean n ations w ere w illing to risk any involvem ent.4 Israel w as thus u n p re p a re d m ilitarily an d isolated politically— em issaries sent to m obilize s u p p o rt a ro u n d the globe retu rn ed hom e em p ty -h an d ed . T here w as a lot o f sym pathy an d u n d erstan d in g , b u t no n a tio n w as w illing to help fight Israel’s w a r o r risk an u n p le a sa n t co n fro n ta tio n w ith th e Soviet U nion. T here w as, how ever, a m oving show of s u p p o rt from Jew s all over th e w orld. N o n -Z io n ist Jew s, w ho h ad never before identified w ith th e Jew ish state, rediscovered Israel. M any o f them sensed a possible H o lo cau st an d w an ted to help. N evertheless, they could do very little. T h e o m in o u s sh ad o w of N asser an d his R ussian-equipped m ilitary loom ed large an d could n o t be offset by petitions, d em o n stratio n s, an d em ergency fund raising. N asser could n o t have picked a b etter tim e for his move. Everyone in Israel, including the political elite, w as cau g h t off g u ard . T he m o o d w as gloom y; an acute econom ic depression included an exceedingly high rate o f u n em ploym ent. M an y people spoke seriously a b o u t the end o f the Z io n ist

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

37

dream . O th e rs v o ted w ith th e ir feet a n d left th e country. T h e m o st co m m o n joke o f th e tim e h a d to d o w ith finding a fool to stay b eh in d to tu rn o ff th e lights at L od, Israel’s only in te rn a tio n a l a irp o rt. Levi E shkol, Israel’s p rim e m in ister a n d m in ister o f defense, h a d n o t yet established his a u th o rity in th e vital area o f security. Living in the w ra th fu l sh ad o w o f his g re a t p redecessor, D avid B en-G u rio n (w ho co n sid ered E shkol unfit to rule), he h a d in itia te d since 1964 a very aggressive policy o f m ilitary retaliatio n ag ain st th e A rab s, a n d especially ag ain st S yria.5 To his dism ay, how ever, this h a w k ish p o stu re did n o t help him politically in 1967. N o o ne w ithin th e n a tio n ’s ru lin g circles m isto o k E shkol for B en -G u rio n , a n d very few w ere c o n te n t to leave him alo n e a t th e helm w hen Israel’s m o st serious ordeal w as a b o u t to u nfold. T h e co n fu sio n a n d insecurity ex ten d ed b ey o n d th e p o litical lead ersh ip to the m ilitary. In fo rm ed Israelis learn ed th a t th e a rm y ’s chief o f staff, Itzh ak R abin, collapsed fro m fatigue a n d h y p erten sio n o n M ay 2 3, th e day N asser closed th e S traits o f T ira n , a n d offered his job to his d ep u ty co m m an d er, Ezer W eizm an.6 If an ex p erien ced chief o f staff b ro k e d o w n , d ism ayed o b ­ servers could only con clu d e th a t th e situ a tio n m u st be extrem ely d an g ero u s. P erhaps Levi E shkol w as n o t really frigh ten ed by N a s se r’s m ove, b u t in the last w eek o f M ay he certain ly conveyed th e im age o f fear. In stead o f acting decisively a n d leading w ith confident stren g th , E shkol p ro je cted c o n ­ fusion a n d indecision. U nlike th e decisive B en -G u rio n , w h o h a d reach ed his m ost critical decisions w ith few adv iso rs, E shkol im m ersed him self in c o u n t­ less d elib eratio n s a n d h a d to k n o w w h a t every b o d y else th o u g h t. H e seem ed to be w aitin g for a collective decision th a t w o u ld relieve him from the grave responsibility o f e ith e r going to w a r o r m ak in g pain fu l concessions. D u rin g a special ra d io ad d ress to th e n a tio n , the p rim e m in ister s tu t­ tered badly. U nable to read th e illegible te x t th a t his aides h a d hastily p rep ared , E shkol h a d to sto p several tim es to co n su lt w ith them . It w as a catastro p h e. All th e fears a n d an xieties o f his listeners, th e v ast m ajo rity o f the n a tio n , w ere confirm ed. Israel w as facing its biggest challenge u n d e r shaky leadership. M u ch o f th e c o u n try w a n te d to have E shkol rep laced by a m o re re a ssu r­ ing an d a u th o rita tiv e leader. T he m o st h u m iliatin g p ro p o sa l cam e from Shim on Peres a n d his sm all Rafi party. T h e ir idea w as to su sp en d th e n a ­ tio n ’s o rd in a ry d e m o c ra tic p ro ced u res a n d form a n a tio n a l em ergency g ov­ ernm ent m ad e up o f rep resen tativ es o f all p o litical p arties a n d h ead ed by eighty-one-year-old D avid B en-G urion. T he ra tio n a le w as th a t N a s se r’s d a r ­ ing m ove h a d d am ag ed Israel’s m o ra le a n d m ad e an im m ed iate m ilitary o p eratio n extrem ely risky; Israel h a d lost th e first ro u n d an d h a d to am ass m ilitary an d po litical s u p p o rt b efore it could regain th e initiative. O nly BenG urion could b re a k th e b a d new s to th e n a tio n an d keep it from falling a p a rt.7 N o t since 1948 h a d Israelis been so conscio u s o f the en o rm o u s v u ln e ra b il­ ity of th eir country, a th in strip o f lan d alo n g th e M e d ite rra n e a n s u rro u n d e d

38

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

by sixteen A rab natio n s. F rightened, isolated, an d deserted, they could n o t b u t h ate the political a rra n g e m e n t o f 1949 th a t left them o pen to a tta c k from all sides. Israel w a s M a ssa d a , a sm all rock in the m idst o f a hostile w ilder­ ness. All rem em bered the h eroic story o f the la st defenders of Jerusalem , w h o com m itted suicide a t M a ssad a, a m o u n ta in fo rt in the Ju d ean desert, in o rd e r n o t fall into the h an d s o f th e R om ans. T he chief m ilitary rab b in ate, the au th o rity in charge o f b urials, w as ru m o red at the end o f M ay 1967 to be p lanning to tu rn p ublic p ark s an d recreatio n areas in to g rav ey ard s.8 Israel finally w e n t to w a r on Ju n e 5, 1967. T he average Israeli soldier did n o t go to w in big. H e w en t only to survive, to m ake sure th a t his sm all state and his fam ily stayed alive. These m ental an d psychological cond itio n s sh ap ed the th in k in g o f the new m axim alists: an im m ense sense o f n atio n al vulnerability, p erso n al insecurity, m em ories o f th e H o lo cau st, an d then, suddenly w ith in a w eek, the d estru c­ tion of all the th re a te n in g A rab arm ies an d a re tu rn o f th e n a tio n to m uch o f its biblical territory. It w as a m ental revolutio n . M o st Israelis w ere shocked and confused by the im m ensity of th eir victory. N o t only w ere they an d th eir cou n try saved, b u t a tw en ty -y ear-o ld political p arad ig m h ad been sm ash ed .9 Some o f them , how ever, w ere very certain a b o u t one critical elem ent: never again w o u ld they let th eir h o m elan d be w eak an d vulnerable; never again w o u ld Israel becom e a M assad a. F or nearly h alf of Israel’s citizens the outcom e of the Six-D ay W ar created a new political psychology an d new identity: Israel’s te rrito ria l m a x im a lism .10

The Land of Israel Movement T he ideological m ovem ent th a t w as to fo rm u late the creed of the new Israeli territo rial m axim alism w as called H a ten u a L etn aan E retz Yisrael H a sh lem a (the M ovem ent for the W hole of Eretz Y israel; in sh o rt, the L and o f Israel M ovem ent, LIM ). Its highly publicized fou n d in g m anifesto o f Septem ber, 1967, laid the fo u n d atio n s o f the new political gospel in very stra ig h tfo r­ w ard term s: Zahal’ s victory in the Six-Day War located the people and the state within a new and fateful period. The whole of Eretz Israel is now in the hands of the Jewish people, and just as we are not allowed to give up the S ta te o f I s r a e l, so we are ordered to keep what we received there from its hands: th e L a n d o f I s r a e l. . . .

Our present borders guarantee security and peace and open up unprece­ dented vistas of national material and spiritual consolidation. Within these boundaries, equality and freedom, the fundamental tenets of the state of Israel, shall be shared by all citizens without discrimination.11

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

39

H ere w as an u n eq u iv o cal assertio n th a t th e co n q u est o f v ast A rab te rrito ­ ries w as irreversible. T h e w a r h a d p ro d u c e d h isto rical justice, re tu rn in g the entire Eretz Y israel to th e h a n d s o f th e Jew s. Israel w as justly en titled to secure b o rd e rs w ith in w hich to accom plish its tw o fu n d am en tal goals, a b ­ so rp tio n o f im m ig ran ts a n d se ttle m e n t.12 H a d th e d o c u m e n t been signed solely by rep resen tativ es o f tra d itio n a l Z io n ist m ax im alism , it w o u ld h a rd ly have been as significant. T h e Six-D ay W ar did n o t in v en t th e Jew ish d o c trin e o f th e indivisibility o f Eretz Y israel. An old school o f te rrito ria l m ax im alists belonging to th e R evisionist m o v e­ m ent, fo u n d ed by V lad im ir Ja b o tin sk y in th e tw en ties, an d its o ffsh o o ts already existed in Israel, ready to em b race th e consequences o f th e 1 967 w a r w ith a fo rty -y ear-o ld ideology. T hese m ax im alists included M en ach em Begin’s p a rty H e ru t (F reedom ), old follow ers o f Brit H a b irio n im an d fo rm er m em bers o f th e Lehi u n d e rg ro u n d . T h u s it w as n o t su rp risin g to find am o n g the LIM sig n ato ries such nam es as P rofessor Eri Jab o tin sk y , V la d im ir’s son; Dr. R euven H e c h t, a v e te ra n R evisionist; Uri Zvi G reen b erg , th e p o e t la u re ­ ate of th e ex trem e Z io n is t rig h t since th e 1930s; an d Dr. Israel E ldad, a form er c o m m a n d e r o f Lehi a n d a w ell-k n o w n ideologue o f M a lc h u t Y israel (the K ingdom o f Israel). T hese people h a d alw ays been n o stalg ic a b o u t the indivisible E retz Y israel a n d hostile to th e 1948 p a rtitio n o f Palestine. Before 1967, th o u g h , very few o th e r Israelis to o k th e m ax im alists seriously. A fter the 1 947 U .N . P a rtitio n R eso lu tio n , th e 1948 w ar, a n d th e c o n so lid a tio n o f the State o f Israel in th e te rrito rie s it salvaged from th e A rabs in 1949, the issue o f th e indivisibility o f Palestine becam e academ ic. It h a d no electoral appeal an d w as rarely discussed in any p u b lic fo ru m . W h a t m ade th e L an d o f Israel M o v e m e n t m an ifesto im p o rta n t w ere the m any signers identified w ith th e L a b o r m o v em en t o r its fu n d am en tal tenets. The m ost significant a n d active g ro u p w ere p eo p le w h o h a d follow ed D avid B en-G urion w h en he left M a p a i in 1965 to form Rafi. T hey included the fam ed p o e t N a th a n A lterm a n ; th e essayist an d w rite r Zvi S hiloah, Isser H arel, Israel’s legendary first h ead o f M o ssa d ; an d R achel Y anait B en-Z vi, the w id ow o f Israel’s second p resid en t, Itzh ak Ben-Zvi. T hey w ere joined by notables asso ciated w ith M a p a i: C h aim Yahil, fo rm er d irecto r-g en eral o f the m inistry o f F oreign A ffairs; a n d Uzi F ein erm an , th e secretary-general o f the M o shav m ov em en t. T hese rep resen tativ es o f Israel’s political elite w ere joined by a gallery o f illu strio u s reserve generals: M a jo r G en eral Yaacov D ori, the a rm y ’s chief o f staff d u rin g th e W ar o f Ind ep en d en ce, an d B riga­ dier G enerals D an Tolkovsky, E liyahu B en-H ur, A b rah am Yaffe, an d M eir Z orea. Israel’s fu tu re N o b e l L a u reate, w rite r S. Y. A gnon, w as also p resen t, as w ere m any o th e r a u th o rs, p o ets, a n d critics. Taken alto g eth er, th e seventy-tw o sign ato ries o f th e m an ifesto w ere p robably th e m o st d istin g u ish ed g ro u p o f nam es ever to have joined a public cause in Israel. A nd w h a t w as m o st strik in g w as th a t this d o c u m e n t united m any fo rm er o p p o n e n ts: before 1967, the LIM w o u ld have been

40

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

im possible.13 R ight from its sta rt, therefore, it becam e a significant p o liti­ cal force. T he Land of Israel M ov em en t, it is im p o rta n t to stress, w as n eith er an o p p o sitio n g ro u p n o r an ex trem ist p ro te st m ovem ent. O n the co n trary ; its m em bers w ere p ro u d o f b o th the gov ern m en t an d the m ilitary for the g reat victory o f the Six-D ay W ar. T hey w ere alarm ed by the g row ing voices w ithin Israel, an d the m o u n tin g pressures from o u tsid e, to tra d e th e o ccu ­ pied territo ries for a peaceful so lu tio n w ith the A rabs acco rd in g to som e p re-1 9 6 7 conceptions, an d they believed th e g o v ern m en t needed th eir help to strengthen its political resolve. C onsequently, the LIM saw itself as an “ ideological interest g ro u p ” in charge of defending an d p ro m o tin g the issue of Eretz Y israel.14 N a th a n A lterm an, the cen tral figure o f the m ovem ent, did n o t w a n t to involve active p oliticians, for fear th a t they w o u ld use the m ovem ent to advance th eir political c a re e rs.15 H e co n cen trated instead on recru itin g w rit­ ers and poets w h o could give the new m ovem en t a m etapolitical quality. T he ro ster A lterm an p u t to g eth er o v ersh ad o w ed an y th in g the Israeli intellectual left could com e up w ith .16 T he lack o f active politicians did n o t, o f course, preclude politics. M o st of the m o v em en t’s m em bers w ere identified w ith established political p a r­ ties. T he d o m in a n t g ro u p w ith in the LIM , fo rm er Rafi m em bers, w ere espe­ cially pleased w ith the new situ atio n . O n e o f R afi’s leaders, M a jo r G eneral (res.) M oshe D ayan, w as p o p u larly seen as the arch itect an d hero o f the SixDay W ar. N o t only h ad he pulled Israel to a g reat victory, b u t he h ad b ro u g h t this splinter p arty from political isolation to the center of n atio n al action. A nd M o sh e D ayan w as the m an w h o , u p o n reaching the W ailing Wall on the w a r’s fo u rth day, u ttere d the u n fo rg ettab le w o rd s: “ We have retu rn ed to all th a t is holy in o u r land. W e have retu rn ed never to be p a rte d a g a in .” 17 In a n o th e r em o tio n al cerem ony th a t follow ed the w ar, the b urial of the casualties o f 1948 on Jeru salem ’s M o u n t o f O lives, D ayan rep eated the them e: We have not abandoned your dream and we have not forgotten your lesson. We have returned to the mountain, to the cradle of our people, to the inheritance of the Patriarchs, the land of the Judges and the fortress of the Kingdom of the House of David. We have returned to Hebron and Sehern [Nablus], to Bethlehem and Anatot to Jericho and the fords of the Jordan at Adam Ha’ ir18

T his sense o f fulfillm ent an d satisfaction w as shared by all the c o m p o ­ nents of the new m ovem ent. V eteran R evisionists, like Eri Jab o tin sk y an d Sam uel K atz, h ad alw ays been hostile to the 1948 p artitio n o f Palestine an d repeatedly argued th a t d arin g policy could place the entire Eretz Y israel in the h an d s o f th e Jew s. F or m any years, how ever, they h ad h ad no political

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

41

forum for th e ir view s. P ersonal conflicts w ith M en ach em Begin h a d driven them o u t o f H e ru t, th e only p a rty th a t still su b scrib ed to th e old R evisionist creed. T he new m o v em en t n o t only fitted th eir old ideology, b u t m ade it possible for th em to rejoin Israel’s p u b lic life w ith o u t su b m ittin g to the dictates o f B egin.19 T he m o st ecstatic m em bers o f th e LIM w ere p ro b a b ly the fo rm er leaders of Lehi an d th e old Z io n is t ex trem e rig h t, the p o et Uri Z vi G reen b erg an d Dr. Israel E ldad. G reen b erg , E ldad, a n d o th e r ideological ex trem ists h ad , from th e 1930s th ro u g h th e early 1950s, d ev eloped, as will be recalled, a unique set o f ideas th a t m o st Israelis consid ered m ystical insanity, the vision of the “ th e K ingdom o f Isra e l.” Its m ain th em e w as th a t the re tu rn in g n a tio n had to c o n q u e r th e en tire P rom ised L and by force, in a process th a t n ecessar­ ily involved b lo o d , glory, a n d h o n o r.20 T h e tru n c a tio n o f Israel in 1948 w as to them a n a tio n a l h u m ilia tio n a n d disgrace. U ntil 196 7 this g ro u p , o p p o sed to the d o m in a n t p o litical eth o s o f L a b o r Z io n ism , sh u n n ed even by the Revisionists, w as co n sid e red a n a th e m a an d p u sh ed to th e very fringes o f society.21 T h o u g h th e follow ers o f Ja b o tin sk y sh ared m any o f th e sam e beliefs, they could n o t fo rg et th a t A b ra h a m Stern (Yair) h ad defied J a b o tin s k y ’s last co m m and in 194 0 a n d sp lit th e Irg u n by creatin g his o w n u n d e rg ro u n d m ovem ent. A nd they w ere never im pressed by th e m ystical vision o f “ the K ingdom o f Isra e l.” A fter 1948 th e R evisionists h a d been able, u n d e r Begin’s leadership, to e n te r legitim ate political life, b u t E ldad an d his follow ers rem ained o u tsid e m a in stre a m rig h t-w in g politics. O n ly after th e Six-D ay W ar an d th e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e L IM w ere E ld a d ’s view s accep ted as relevant an d legitim ate. A t first E ldad, con v in ced th a t his u ltra n a tio n a list rep u tatio n w o u ld d am ag e th e new m ov em en t, refused to join the LIM . H e could n o t believe th a t fo rm e r ad versaries w ere ready to sh are w ith him a com m on ideological h o m e .22 A nother im p o rta n t c o m p o n e n t o f th e L and o f Israel M o v em e n t cam e from the A chdut H a ’a v o d a party , affiliated w ith H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d (the United K ibbutz) m ovem ent. T hese people b ro u g h t to th e LIM a u n iq u e ideological legacy a n d a stro n g political o rie n ta tio n . T hey w ere disciples an d follow ers o f Itz h ak T a b en k in , th e legendary k ib b u tz leader w h o alo n e am ong th e fo u n d ers o f Israel’s L a b o r m ov em en t never a b a n d o n e d th e ideal of Eretz Y israel. T he idea o f th e p a rtitio n o f P alestine, first b ro ach ed in the late 1930s, was n o t easily accep ted by th e L a b o r leadersh ip . It to o k D avid B en-G urion m any years to convince his colleagues th a t this w as th e only chance for independence a n d in te rn a tio n a l reco g n itio n fo r the Jew s o f Palestine.23 T he 1947 U .N . P a rtitio n R eso lu tio n a n d Israel’s success in th e w a r of 1948 seemed to p rove B en-G urion right. N evertheless, T a b en k in , w hose p erso n al ch arism a w as alw ays m uch

42

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

stronger th an his eclectic political theory, believed th a t a tru e Jew ish red em p ­ tion could take place only in the co n te x t o f co m m u n al settlem en t in the entire Eretz Yisrael. T he religious, natio n alistic, an d chauvinistic aspects o f redem ption played no role in his convictions; instead he believed in a g en u ­ ine p ioneering spirit an d a m ystical socialist vision o f red em p tio n . T his au th o ritativ e an d unchallenged leader o f H a k ib b u tz H am eu ch ad never ceased to th in k th a t the best w ay to regenerate the Jew ish people in Eretz Yisrael w as to tu rn th e entire n a tio n in to one big association o f kibbutzim . O nly such rev o lu tio n ary socialization could overcom e the D iasp o ra m en tal­ ity and create a new Jew .24 This vision of ag ricu ltu ral, co m m u n al, an d pio n eerin g socialism , w o rk ed o u t by T abenkin beginning in th e 1920s, w as n o t universalistic. It w as very Jew ish and p artic u la ristic. It w as n o u rish ed by a deep suspicion o f the A rabs, the B ritish, an d the rest o f the w o rld . A nd it w as based o n T a b en k in ’s u n sh ak ab le conviction th a t th e g reat tra n sfo rm a tio n could tak e place only in the en tirety of Eretz Y israel. T abenkin, w h o h a d no in terest in p ractical politics, never forgave B en-G urion for en d o rsin g the p a rtitio n o f Palestine. T he U.N. P artitio n R eso lu tio n w as an agonizing event for m any o f T ab en ­ k in ’s follow ers; they refused to rejoice w ith the rest o f the n atio n , since m uch o f th e land w as left in A rab h a n d s.25 We c a n n o t say th a t T a b en k in ’s follow ers— including his sons M o sh e and Yosef, an d individuals like M enachem D o rm a n an d Benni M a rs h a k — h ad been w aiting im patiently since 1949 for the co n q u est o f the W est B ank, b u t it is clear th a t H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d never gave up the idea o f g reater Israel. In its F eb ru ary 1955 conven tio n , H a k ib b u tz H am eu ch ad passed reso ­ lutions th a t m ade its p o sitio n clear: Article 2: Eretz Yisrael in its natural boundaries is the historical homeland of the Jewish people and the space for immigration, settlement, and fulfillment of the Zionist endeavor Article 20: Socialist Zionism, in its full meaning and framework, cannot be fulfilled in a divided Eretz Yisrael but only in a complete Eretz Yisrael, in the Hebrew socialist state of the Jewish people . . . and the Arabs living in the land.26

A nd w hile the urgency of reun itin g E retz Yisrael h ad lost m uch o f its m o m en tu m after the 1956 Sinai cam paign, T abenkin an d his close follow ers never gave up o n the ideal. Ju st a year before the 1967 w a r T abenkin reiterated his co m m itm en t in a sem inar held at E f’al, the ideological center of H a k ib b u tz H a m eu ch ad . D iscussing th e p resen t political irrelevance o f the issue, he stressed th a t it w as nevertheless extrem ely im p o rta n t th a t “ the son, the d au g h ter, the stu d en t, w h o go to th e arm y, see this m a tte r as a g o a l,” an d co n tin u ed, “ w hen Jew s are to ld a b o u t Z io n , they th in k a b o u t the entire Eretz Y israel.” T abenkin said th a t if w a r cam e (though he h o p ed it w o u ld not), “ in every place w here the w ar w o u ld m ake it possible, we w o u ld push for the re sto ra tio n of the integrity o f th e la n d .” 27 C uriously, T abenkin did

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

43

n o t sign th e first L IM m an ifesto , th o u g h he fully en d o rsed th e m o v em en t and its ideas.28 It should be n o te d for th e reco rd th a t th e LIM w as briefly joined by a n o th e r literary-ideological circle, th e C a n a a n ite s, w h o w ere never co n te n t w ith Israeli Z io n ism a n d dem ocracy. Led by p o e t Y o n ath an R ato sh , th e C a n a a n ­ ites believed th a t Israeli Jew s sh o u ld sever th eir relatio n s w ith D iasp o ra Jewry, a b a n d o n Z io n ism , a n d invest th e ir po litical energy in th e creatio n o f a huge “ C a n a a n ite a llia n c e ” in th e M id d le E ast, m ade o f all th e n o n -M u slim and a n ti-A rab m in o rities in th e area. T hey h a d n o o b jectio n to p u rsu in g this goal by force a n d suggested th a t Israel estab lish a m ilitary d ic ta to rsh ip . Before long, how ever, they w ere kicked o u t o f LIM , the excuse being th eir to tal n o n a ccep tan ce o f th e Z io n is t ideology an d th e Israeli regim e.29 At first th e L and o f Israel M o v e m e n t w as m o re o f an in tellectu al club th a n a fighting m ass o rg a n iz a tio n — a typical elite g ro u p m ad e up o f elderly n o t­ ables w h o gave n o th o u g h t to , a n d w ere in cap ab le of, actu ally lead in g a radical m o v em en t o f p ro te st. N o n e o f th em w ere y oung, angry, o r p o w e r­ less. All w ere successful achievers w h o h a d full political a n d m edia access, and m o st accep ted th e Israeli system o f g o v ern m en t an d th e p rev ailin g norm s o f dem ocracy. T hey w ere convinced th a t th e y w ere th e n a tio n . T hey truly believed th a t th e re w as no c o n tra d ic tio n betw een th e new Israel th a t had just been fo rm ed by th e Six-D ay W ar a n d th e principles o f th e o ld Israel. T heir re ite ra tio n , in th e ir fo u n d in g m an ifesto , o f th e principles o f equality, freedom , a n d th e “ ten ets o f th e state o f Isra e l” w as genuine an d sincere. T h e m ovem ent did n o t asp ire to be m o re th a n a single-issue ideological g ro u p , o p erating w ith in a fully legitim ate regim e. If th e new te rrito ria l m ax im alism carried w ith in it th e seeds o f th e fu tu re rad ical rig h t, m o st o f its fo u n d ers were u n a w a re o f it.

Between Messianism and Fundamentalism: The Roots of Gush Emunim Z ionist religious Jew s w ere especially stu n n e d by th e o u tco m e o f the SixDay W ar. It did n o t sq u a re w ith th e n on-m essian ic, p ra g m a tic stance m o st o f them h ad m a in ta in e d for years. It could only be co m p reh en d ed as a m iracle: The G od o f Israel h a d once again show ed H is m ight. H e h ad com e to th e rescue o f H is peo p le in th e ir w o rst m o m e n t o f fear an d anxiety, an d , as in the days o f old, h a d tu rn e d an u n b e a ra b le situ a tio n upside d o w n . In one blow H e p laced th e w h o le o f E retz Y israel— th e o b ject o f y earn in g an d prayers for th o u sa n d s o f y ears— in to th e h an d s o f H is loyal servants. W hile m ost religious Israelis reacted to th e o u tco m e o f the Six-D ay W ar w ith as m uch b ew ild erm en t as joy, one g ro u p h ad expected just such an event.

44

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

This w as the g ro u p g ath ered a ro u n d Y eshivat M erk az H arav in Jerusalem . T he head o f the Yeshiva, R abbi Z vi Y ehuda H aco h en K ook, w h o h ad suc­ ceeded its founder, his revered fath er R abbi A vraham Y itzhak H aco h n K ook (the first C hief R abbi o f the Jew ish co m m u n ity in m a n d a to ry Palestine), h ad long been preoccupied w ith the in c o rp o ra tio n o f the entire Eretz Yisrael into the State of Israel.30 H is d ream s w ere w idely sh ared by his stu d en ts before the Six-D ay W ar, an d w ere discussed in m any courses an d H alak h ic d elib era­ tions (discussions o f o rth o d o x Jew ish law an d tra d itio n ). F ollow ing th e teaching o f his fath er th a t o u rs is a m essianic age in w hich the L and of Israel is to be reu n ited an d redeem ed, R abbi Zvi Y ehuda left no d o u b t in th e m inds o f his stu d en ts th a t in th eir lifetim e they w ere to see the g reat event. T h u s, unlike the rest o f th e Z io n ist religious com m unity, the g rad u ates o f M e rk a z H a ra v w ere m entally an d intellectually ready to ab so rb the consequences o f th e w a r— b u t n o t before w itnessing a u n iq u e, seem ingly m iraculous event. O n the eve o f Independence D ay in M ay 1967, ju st one day before th e beginning of the crisis th a t led to th e w ar, g rad u ates o f M erk az H arav m et a t the yeshiva for an alum ni reu n io n . As w as his custom , R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook delivered a festive serm on, in the m idst o f w hich his quiet voice suddenly rose and he bew ailed the p a rtitio n o f histo ric Eretz Yisrael an d the inability of th e Jew s to re tu rn to the holy cities o f H eb ro n and N ab lu s. H is faithful disciples w ere to ld th a t the situ atio n w as in to le ra ­ ble an d m ust n o t last.31 W hen just three w eeks later, in Ju n e 1967, som e of them reached the W ailing W all as soldiers an d found them selves citizens o f an enlarged Israel, th e g rad u ates o f M erk az H arav w ere convinced th a t a genuine spirit o f p ro p h ecy h ad com e over th eir rabbi. Ju st m inutes after the co n q u est o f th e W all, a p la to o n co m m an d er sent a jeep to b ring R abbi K ook to the holy site. T here he w as m et by tw o of his overw helm ed stu d en ts, p a ra tro o p e rs H a n a n P o rat an d Israel Shtieglitz (Ariel), fu tu re activists o f the radical right. In fro n t o f his stu d en ts an d the entire b a tta lio n R abbi Zvi Yehuda solem nly declared We hereby inform the people of Israel and the entire world that under heavenly command we have just returned home in the elevations of holiness and our holy city. We shall never move out of here.32

T h u s, in one stro k e a flame h ad been lit an d the co n d itio n s m ade ripe for im p artin g a new m essianic a n d fu n d am en talist ideology to a w ide religious public, especially to young Z io n ist Jew s. A to tally new kin d o f religious spirit and literatu re em erged th a t focused on the m essianic an d esch ato lo g i­ cal m eaning o f the Six-D ay W ar. T he w a r w as seen as a m iracle em bodying all the signs cited by the P rophets an d the H alak h ic au th o rities as indicating the com ing o f th e M essiah .33 T he new o rie n ta tio n m ade it clear th a t the territo ries o f Eretz Yisrael w ere physically an d spiritually inseparable from the people o f Israel. Zvi Y ehuda K ook, th e u n k n o w n rab b i w h o sp earh ead ed the new in ter­ p re ta tio n , w as elevated to th e statu s o f a ch arism atic guru. H is disciples

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

45

becam e m issionaries eq u ip p ed w ith an u n sh a k a b le co n v ictio n in the divine au th o rity o f th eir cause. In tim e they w ere to tra n sfo rm a passive religious com m unity in to an active a n d excited political constituency. H ow does th e m essianism o f th e new ideology relate to its fu n d am en talism ? Let us co m p are th e theologies o f its tw o sp iritu al fa th e rs— R ab b i A vraham Y itzhak H a c o h e n K ook, th e m an w h o estab lish ed Y eshivat M e rk a z H a ra v — and his son R ab b i Z vi Y ehuda K ook, w h o becam e h ead o f th e Yeshiva an d lived to see th e Six-D ay W ar. T h e elder R ab b i K ook, by far th e m o re o rig in al th in k er, believed th a t the era o f re d e m p tio n o f th e Jew ish peo p le h a d alread y begun. It w as c h a ra c te r­ ized by th e rise o f m o d e rn Z io n ism , th e B alfo u r D eclaratio n , a n d th e g ro w ­ ing Z io n ist en terp rise in Palestine: And there is no doubt that this great movement [Zionism] is A t c h a l t a D ’g e u la (the beginning of redemption), which is about to come soon, in our own days. And for our people and the cities of our G od we have to be strong.34

A lth ough n o t u n p re c e d e n te d , K o o k ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f re d e m p tio n w as unco m m on a n d d arin g . It dev iated fro m th e tra d itio n a l Jew ish belief th a t the m essiah could com e only th ro u g h th e single m etah isto rical a p p e a ra n c e o f an individual redeem er. A nd th e re w ere clearly som e elem ents o f heresy in the new in te rp re ta tio n , for it assigned a holy an d red em p tiv e statu s to the Z io n ists— th e m o d e rn Jew ish n a tio n a lists w h o w a n te d to establish in th e H oly L and a secu la r sta te .35 K o o k ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e secu lar Z io n ists w ere G o d ’s u n k n o w in g em issaries subjected him to th e ho stility o f the o ld reli­ gious co m m u n ity in Palestine, especially th e u ltra o rth o d o x , w h o co n sid ered Z ionism a heresy.36 But th e eld er K ook h a rd ly ad v o c a te d political fu n d am en talism o r “ o p e ra ­ tive m essianism .” A cting a n d w ritin g in th e 1920s a n d 1930s, he su p p o rte d the political a p p ro a c h o f th e secular Z io n ist m o v em en t, o n e o f slow an d p ru d en t pro g ress to w a rd n a tio n a l fulfillm ent. H e did n o t establish a political m ovem ent a n d never called fo r a p o licy m ak in g process b ased o n th e To­ rah .37 T he theo lo g y ta u g h t in Y eshivat M e rk a z H a ra v h a d n o im m ed iate policy consequences a n d m ad e n o po litical d e m a n d s.38 Israel’s v ictory in th e Six-D ay W ar tra n sfo rm e d th e statu s o f th e th eo lo g y taught a t M e rk a z H a ra v as w ell as th e ex isten tial reality o f its stu d en ts an d graduates. Suddenly it becam e clear to these y o u n g p eople th a t they w ere indeed living in a m essianic age a n d th a t m essianism h ad a co n crete m ean in g in their everyday life. O rd in a ry reality assu m ed a sacred aspect, in w hich every event possessed th eo lo g ical m ean in g a n d w as p a rt o f the m e ta h isto ri­ cal process o f re d e m p tio n .39 T h o u g h this view w as sh ared by several a u th o ri­ ties such as R ab b i Shlom o G o re n , th e C hief R ab b i o f th e arm y, an d R ab b i Zvi M o she N e ria h , th e sen io r rab b i o f th e Bnei A kiva yeshivot, it w as m o st effectively e x p o u n d e d by K o o k ’s son, R ab b i Z vi Y ehuda, h ereto fo re only an

46

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

u n k n o w n in te rp re te r o f his fa th e r’s w ritings, w h o no w becam e an active ideologue and th e spiritual leader o f a new m essianic m ovem ent. R abbi K ook defined the State o f Israel as the H alak h ic “ K ingdom o f Israel in the M a k in g ” an d th e “ K ingdom o f Israel as the K ingdom o f H eaven on E a rth .” R eferring to th e Six-D ay W ar an d its experience he said: “ W e are living in the m iddle o f red em p tio n . T he K ingdom o f Israel is being rebuilt. T he entire Israeli arm y is holy. It sym bolizes the rule o f the people on its la n d .”40 Every Jew living in Israel w as, acco rd in g to Rav Zvi Y ehuda K ook, holy, all p h en o m en a, even th e secular, w ere im bued w ith holiness. N o t only K ook’s stu d en ts, b u t all Israelis, w ere expected to recognize the tra n sfo rm a ­ tion an d behave accordingly. T he go v ern m en t w as to co n d u ct its affairs according to M a im o n id e s’ “ Rules of K ings” an d to be judged by these rules and T orah p rescrip tio n s.41 As for Eretz Y israel, the L and o f Israel, the la n d — every grain o f its soil— w as declared holy in a fu n d am en talist sense. In th a t respect K ook differed from the new te rrito ria l m ax im alists— the occupied territo ries w ere inalienable n o t for political o r security reasons, b u t because G o d h ad p ro m ­ ised them to A b rah am 4 ,0 0 0 years ago, shap in g the identity of the n atio n . R abbi Zvi Y ehuda w as so a tta c h e d to this fu n d am en talist fo rm u la th a t in spite of his great enth u siasm for the L and o f Israel M o v em en t he refused to sign its m anifesto. Its p ream b le p ro claim ed th a t “ the w hole of Eretz Yisrael is no w in the h an d s of the Jew ish p e o p le ” ; b u t this w as, in a fu n d am en talist sense, false. A b ra h a m ’s P rom ised L and w as bigger th an Palestine, it included p arts of p resent-day J o rd a n , Syria, a n d Ira q — territo ries to w hich the Jew ish n atio n w as n o t allow ed, in principle to forsake its claim .42 W hile he never called for a new w a r to co n q u er these farth er territo ries, R abbi Zvi Y ehuda ad v o cated keeping th e areas already occupied. In an early “ ca ll” to his students, “ Lo T a g u ru ” (Be n o t afraid), he said, “ T his lan d is o u rs; here are no A rab territo rie s o r A rab lands, b u t only Israeli territo rie s— the eternal land of o u r forefathers, w hich belongs in its Biblical b o u n d aries to the g overnm ent of Israel.” 43 C om plete n atio n al salvation, K ook in stru cted his stu d en ts, could only tak e place in the co n te x t of the G reater Israel; w ith ­ d raw al from the new territo rie s w o u ld be ag ain st G o d ’s in ten tio n (clearly d em o n strated in th e Six-D ay W ar) an d w ou ld m ean forfeiting red em p tio n . W hile R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook an d his follow ers w ere very clear a b o u t the requirem ents o f the tim e an d the p a th to follow , they saw no need in 1967 to establish a political m ovem ent o f th eir ow n. T hey w ere, in fact, very pleased w ith th e governm ent, the legitim ate carrier o f the n a tio n ’s redem ptive call­ ing, an d the arm y. T he L and o f Israel M ovem en t, w hich received K o o k ’s full su p p o rt, w o u ld tra n sm it the Eretz Yisrael idea to the n atio n , an d since G od w as active beh in d the scenes, there w as no reason to w orry. M o st of th e im m ediate political activity o f th e w ould-be G ush E m unim in the p o s t-1967 years to o k place w ith in th e N a tio n a l Religious Party. It w as co n d u cted in th e c o n te x t o f the struggle o f a new age c o h o rt to assum e

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

47

leadership p o sitio n s a n d influence w ith in this p ra g m a tic p a rty th a t w as an old ally o f the ru lin g L a b o r co alitio n . T he y o u n g g en eratio n o f th e N R P w as extrem ely u n h a p p y w ith th e tra d itio n a l passive role th e p arty played in th e g o v ern m ent o f Israel o n n a tio n a l issues such as security an d th e c o n d u c t o f foreign affairs. Its leaders, fo rm er B ar Ilian stu d e n t activists such as Z e v u lu n H am m er a n d Y ehuda B en-M eir, d em an d ed th a t th e N R P p a rtic ip a te actively in all the critical issues facing th e n a tio n , an d the em erging Eretz Y israel ideology w as a g o o d place to s ta rt.44 W hile th e y o u n g g ra d u a te s o f M e rk a z H a ra v helped fo rm a rab b in ic al c o n ­ sensus on th e san ctity o f E retz Y israel an d th u s helped refo rm u late th e p o liti­ cal p latfo rm o f th e N R P, th e ir real c o n trib u tio n w as to lau n ch the actu al Jewish re tu rn to th e W est B ank. K o o k ’s follow ers p u sh ed th e g o v ern m en t to resettle G ush E tzion, a p re-1 9 4 8 Jew ish ag ricu ltu ral area th a t h ad been c a p ­ tured by th e J o rd a n ia n A rab Legion d u rin g the W ar o f In d ep en d en ce.45 In 1968 R abbi M o sh e Levinger, one o f R ab b i Zvi Y ehuda’s m o st d e ­ voted stu d en ts, led seventy-nine follow ers in th e first Jew ish re tu rn to H e ­ bron. T he o p e ra tio n began in illicitly m oving in to th e P ark H o tel in H e b ro n , to M o she D a y a n ’s g re a t an n o y an ce. T his b ecam e the m odel for G ush E m unim ’s illicit o p e ra tio n s. T h e u n a u th o riz e d settlem en t, w as follow ed by a declaration th a t th e settlers w ill never leave, an d finally by an ag reem en t to be m oved to a n e arb y m ilitary c o m p o u n d . It involved tre m e n d o u s d e d ic a ­ tion, g reat political pressu re, a n d intense lobbying. Soon th e g o v ern m en t decided to estab lish K iryat A rb a, a new Jew ish city n ex t to H e b ro n .46 T h u s th e y o u n g follow ers o f the new theology o f Eretz Y israel fo u n d o u t ab o u t n a tio n a l politics. T hey learned firsth an d a b o u t d ip lo m atic p ressure, political m a n ip u la tio n , p o litic ia n s’ p erso n al am b itio n s, a n d in tern al riv al­ ries. A nd they fo u n d o u t th a t one could n o t rem ain a p u re tru e believer if one w an ted to get th in g s do n e. Even in th e m essianic age th ere w as ro o m for shrew d lobbying, ch eatin g , a n d bluffing. R abbi M o sh e Levinger, lead er o f the new settlem en t o f K iryat A rb a, becam e th e role m odel: learn ed , highly observant, realistic, inn o v ativ e, a n d m a n ip u la tiv e .47 Levinger an d his co l­ leagues p ro v ed a stu te stu d e n ts o f Israeli politics. T hey quickly realized th a t the Israeli co alitio n g o v ern m en ts, th o u g h u n ited in tim es o f w ar, w ere d i­ vided in p eace— an d th a t it w as easy to m an ip u la te am b itio u s cab in et m in is­ ters ag ainst each o th e r.48 To th eir g re a t d isa p p o in tm e n t they fo u n d th a t the governm ent, th e “ K ingdom o f Israel in th e M a k in g ,” w as u n a w a re o f its role in the process o f re d e m p tio n , an d w as n o t even sure a b o u t its sh o rt-ra n g e goals. In this c o n te x t, y o u n g people, arm ed w ith u n w o rld ly religious ex cite­ m ent, u n sh a k a b le conv ictio n in th eir cause, ex isten tial resolve, a n d som e political savvy could w o rk m iracles. By 1973 they w ere read y for a new , m ore d a rin g v en tu re, th e first Jew ish p enetration o f S am aria , th e densely p o p u la te d n o rth e rn p a rt o f th e W est Bank. T he acto rs w ere a sm all g ro u p called G ariin (nucleus) Elon M o re h , led by students from th e sm all yeshiva o f K iryat A rba. Im p a tien t w ith th e slow progress o f th e Jew ish settlem en t o f th e W est B ank an d especially w ith the

48

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

h esitation of the gov ern m en t on settlem ent in S am aria, the g ro u p , u n d er the leadership o f Benny K atzover an d M enachem Felix, decided one day to lay aside the holy b o o k s — “S ogrim e t h a g m a r o t.” T his decision, w hich has already a tta in e d m ythical statu s in the sh o rt h isto ry o f G ush E m unim , m ean t th a t alth o u g h studying T orah at the new ly established K iryat A rb a w as extrem ely significant, an even g reater calling w as the settlem en t o f Sa­ m aria .49 T hey believed th a t w h a t w as n o w needed w as to challenge the inaction o f the Israeli g o vernm ent, b reak the stalem ate on settlem ent, and m ake sure the process of red em p tio n co n tin u ed . Elon M o reh w as the bibli­ cal nam e of N ab lu s, an d form ing a G a riin — a social nucleus for a fu tu re settlem ent— w ith this nam e m ean t th a t N ab lu s, the biggest Palestinian cen­ ter on th e W est B ank, w as a ta rg e t for Jew ish settlem ent, w ith o r w ith o u t official sanction. W hile the new Z io n ist fu n d am en talism blossom ed after the Six-D ay W ar, it is im p o rta n t to recognize th a t it grew o u t o f social an d political processes th a t h ad been in the m ak in g long before 1967. T he disciples o f R abbi Zvi Yehuda K ook, w h o studied at M erk az H a ra v since th e early 1950s, w ere n o t isolated individuals w h o discovered the light th ro u g h m ystical revelation. They cam e to M erk az H a ra v from the co m m u n ity o f the so-called “ k n itted sk u llcap s,” the Bnei A kiva y o u th m ovem ent, H ap o el H am izrah i, an d a d h e r­ ents of the T orah V a’av o d a (Torah a n d L abor), the founders o f th e religious k ib b u tz m ovem ent. Bnei A kiva, the religious parallel to several o th e r Israeli p ioneering yo u th m ovem ents, p ro v id ed the quality m a n p o w e r for m any o f Israel’s kibbutzim . Its g rad u ates w ere involved in establishing m any Z io n ist enterprises in Pales­ tine an d w ere closely connected to the L ab o r m ovem ent an d its p ioneering ethos. Religious Z io n ists w ere p a rt o f th e political, econom ic, an d cu ltu ral fabric o f the country, w ith th eir ow n varieg ated sem i-private ed u catio n al system .50 F or m any years, how ever, these people suffered from a m ajo r cu ltu ral d raw b ack : as o b serv an t o rth o d o x Jews w h o w o re k n itted skullcaps, they w ere outsiders. A m ain feature of m o d ern Z io n ism h ad been its secular­ ism an d anti-clericalism . M o st m o d ern Z io n ists revolted ag ain st th e Jew ish sh tetls of E astern E urope, w hich represented for them all the m aladies of the D iaspora. A nd th e sh tetls w ere m ade up, acco rd in g to the Z io n ist caricatu re, p rim arily of o rth o d o x je w s w ho, instead o f p ro te ctin g them selves ag ain st a hostile an d antisem itic w o rld , lived m argin al an d u n p ro d u ctiv e lives an d prayed all day long. T he Z io n ist m axim o f S h elilat H a g a lu t (the n eg atio n o f D iaspora) im plied for the vast m ajo rity o f Israeli Z io n ists the rejection of o rth o d o x Ju d aism , its p ractitio n ers, an d its sym bols.51 This p rev alen t o rie n ­ tatio n created tre m en d o u s identity problem s for the religious Z io n ists w h o believed there w as no c o n tra d ic tio n betw een th e tra d itio n a l Jew ish yearning to retu rn to Z io n an d m odern Z ionism . T hey w ere p a rt o f all the exciting developm ents in Israel, b u t they w ere den ig rated as secondary p artn ers.

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

49

T h u s, th e y o u n g sters o f Bnei A kiva h a d in tern a lize d a p ro fo u n d sense o f bitterness an d fru stra tio n . Truly Z io n ist a n d idealistic, they h a d developed tw o hidden a m b itio n s: to erase th e sham e o f th eir p a re n ts, w h o h ad agreed to play a h u m iliatin g au x iliary role in bu ild in g th e Jew ish state, a n d to o u td o the secular Z io n ists. W itn essin g th e c o n sta n t decline o f Israel’s secu lar p io ­ neering an d p u b lic sp irit a n d th e g ro w th o f m aterialism a n d self-interested individualism , they fo u n d it easy to im agine a n o th e r k in d o f Z io n ism , m o re Jewish a n d closer to th e tru e sp iritu al sources o f th e n atio n . Long after G ush E m unim w as fo u n d ed , it w as learn ed th a t its leaders cam e from a secret G ariin , form ed in 1952 by teenagers fro m Y eshivat K far H aro e w h o vo w ed to w o rk for a sp iritu al an d cu ltu ra l tra n sfo rm a tio n o f th e nation. T hey called them selves G a h e le t (em bers), w hich also sto o d for G ariin H a lu tzi L o m d e i Torah (a p io n eerin g nucleus o f T orah stu d en ts). T h e G ahelet c h a rte r said, “ W e m u st kindle th e flam e o f the fu tu re g en eratio n s, to look fo rw a rd to th e day in w hich every m an in Israel will sit u n d e r his vine and fig tree in full o b serv an ce o f th e T orah o f Israel.” 52 W hen th e tw elve m em bers o f this secret g ro u p discovered th e w ritin g s o f th e elder R ab b i K ook, they joined M e rk a z H a ra v a n d becam e d ev o ted stu d en ts o f the y o u n ­ ger R abbi K ook. Until th e 1950s M e rk a z H a ra v w as a sm all a n d u n im p o rta n t religious sem inary in Jerusalem . T h e d eath o f R av K o o k , in 1935, h a d left th e yeshiva w ith o u t a leader. N o n e o f his successors w as as ch arism atic a n d o rig in al as the founder, an d few stu d e n ts w ere a ttra c te d to the place. B ut th e o rie n ta ­ tion of M e rk a z H arav , b ased on th e u n iq u e legacy o f the late R ab b i, w as nevertheless d ifferen t fro m th e a p p ro a c h e s a d o p te d by o th e r yeshivas. T he heads o f th e y eshiva— R ab b is H a rla p , R a ’a n a n , a n d Z vi Y ehuda K o o k — had never been a m b iv a le n t a b o u t th e new ly created State o f Israel. Its secu­ lar n a tu re h a d n o t d istu rb e d th em , fo r they h a d been convinced th a t in du e course the Israelis w o u ld re p e n t a n d re tu rn to tra d itio n a n d T orah. T h e very attain m en t o f n a tio n a l in d ep en d en ce w as seen by th em as a fulfillm ent o f th e prophesies o f th e ir revered m en to r. T hey w ere especially excited a b o u t th e arm y of th e new sta te , a n d u nlike m any rab b is, they m ade Yom H a tz m a u t (Israel’s Independen ce D ay) a high religious h o lid ay full o f sp iritu al m e a n ­ ing.53 Every Yom H a tz m a u t, M e rk a z w o u ld have an alu n n i get-to g eth er, a t w hich a m ajo r serm o n by th e rab b i w o u ld be delivered. This positive a ttitu d e to w a rd th e S tate o f Israel h a d a p p a re n tly a ttra c te d the young m em bers o f G ahelet. H ere w as a yeshiva th a t conceived itself as an integral p a rt o f th e n a tio n ’s Z io n ist reg en eratio n a n d did n o t feel a p o lo ­ getic a b o u t its religious c h aracter. T hese w ere rab b is w h o did n o t th in k th a t reading an d reh earsin g th e T orah an d H a la k h a w ere an tith etical to state m atters: security, foreign policy, o r econom y. S tarting in th e m id-fifties, Y eshivat M e rk a z H a ra v slow ly becam e th e spiritual center o f th e new a p p ro a c h to religious Z io n ism . T h e new stu d en ts listened attentively to th e idealistic an d n a tio n a list serm ons o f R abbi Zvi Yehuda and to his very Israeli in te rp re ta tio n o f his fa th e r’s b o o k s. In addi-

50

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

tion to their scholarly a ttra c tio n to this perso n , the stu d en ts developed a very em otional a tta c h m e n t to him . T he childless rab b i gave the y o u n g stu ­ dents all his love an d a tte n tio n , an d M erk az H a ra v becam e for them a second hom e and a fam ily.54 A fter they g ra d u a te d , K o o k ’s stu d en ts co n tin u ed to preach the M erk az H arav gospel in and o u t o f Bnei A kiva circles. W ith o u t being aw are of th eir co n trib u tio n , they h ad p a rtic ip a te d in an u n d eclared cu ltu ral co m p etitio n betw een Israel’s secular ed u catio n al system an d th eir ow n. A lthough th ere w as no o u trig h t w a r betw een th e tw o system s in the 1950s an d 1960s, th ere w as an im m ense tension. T hey represented o p p o sin g ap p ro ach es to public and private life, and in the 1950s th ere w ere m any ind icatio n s th a t th e religious w ere being overcom e by the g ran d process o f secularization. Today w e k n o w th a t this never h ap p en ed . T he victors in this p o w er contest w ere th e religious ed u catio n al system an d the su b cu ltu re o f th e H ap o el H am izrah i and th e “ k n itted sk u llc a p s.” In c o n tra st to the o th e r sectors of the Z io n ist ed u catio n al system , w hich in th e course of being nationalized lost th eir specific n o rm ativ e ch aracters an d u n d e rw e n t an a sto n ­ ishing ideological d ilu tio n , th e religious Z io n ists developed an ed u catio n al system th a t created n o rm s of life and beh av io r o f the highest o rd e r for a q u a rte r of the school p o p u la tio n . T h u s the religious Z io n ist public w as spared the general decline th a t beset the c o u n try ’s secular ed u catio n al sys­ tem an d, indeed, m ay have even been con so lid ated by it. A ro u n d th a t ed u catio n al system , com plete life p a tte rn s w ere created for an entire public, w hich reinforced its religious life n o t only at h o m e an d in the synagogue b u t also (for its children) in the n eig h b o rh o o d k in d erg arten an d in the u lp an ah (religious academ y for girls) an d yeshiva.55 T he ideologi­ cal leadership o f this system w as p artly being tak en over in the 1960s by the g rad u ates o f M erk az H arav. This process o f p re -1 9 6 7 ideological discovery o f Eretz Israel, in w hich a w hole Bnei A kiva g en eratio n m oved slow ly in a n atio n alist d irectio n , w as n o t revolutionary. It w as g rad u al, an d consistent, an d it h ad b o th ed u ca­ tional and political aspects. T he m o st significant dev elo p m en t in the ed u ca­ tio n al sphere w as the em ergence of Y eshivot H esd er (arrangem ent) w hich com bined an advan ced religious ed u catio n w ith m ilitary service in th e Israeli army. H esder (arrangem ent) refers to agreem ents betw een the yeshivas an d the M inistry o f D efense. T he new type o f yeshivas b ro u g h t religious y o u th in to d irect c o n ta c t w ith n a tio n a l issues they w ere n o t aw are o f before. Young people o f m ilitary age w o u ld n o w go for one year o f yeshiva study, w ith som e m ilitary exercise, an d later join th e arm y for an intense p erio d o f train in g. W hile n o t com prehensive o r num erically large before 1967, the new a rra n g e m e n t w as p a rt of a larger process th a t helped close the gap betw een th e secular side of the Israeli life a n d the religious.56 T h u s, it is possible to conclude th a t by the m id -1 9 6 0 s, a w hole g en eratio n o f im p atien t Bnei A kiva g rad u ates an d y o u th , w ith a M erk az H a ra v sp iritu al elite, sto o d

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

51

ready to change th e co u rse o f m o d e rn Z io n ism if th e rig h t events sh o u ld tak e place. A nd they did w ith in one Ju n e w eek, 1967.

Rabbi Meir Kahane and the Birth of the Israeli Jewish Defense League In S eptem ber 197 1 , th e g ro w in g Israeli te rrito ria l m ax im alism m o v em en t got an u n ex p ected rein fo rcem en t. R ab b i M eir K ah an e, th e n o to rio u s h ead of the Jew ish D efense L eague (JD L ), an A m erican Jew ish vigilante o rg a n iz a ­ tion, m oved to Israel. K ah an e, an o rth o d o x ra b b i, did n o t conceal his sy m p a­ thy for th e m o st e x trem e in te rp re ta tio n s o f th e L an d o f Israel M o v e m e n t an d the g ro w ing Z io n is t m essianism . A lready a t th a t early day he w as th e m o st radical a m o n g th e m ax im alists, a p o sitio n he never re lin q u ish ed .57 U nlike th e o th e r te rrito ria l m ax im alists, K ah an e h a d his ro o ts in A m er­ ica an d in th e A m erican scene o f th e 1960s. In 19 6 8 , he a n d a few o th e r young o rth o d o x Jew s esta b lish ed th e JD L as a self-p ro claim ed vigilante m ovem ent aim ed a t defen d in g Jew ish n e ig h b o rh o o d s in N ew Y ork City. A t first th e league w as m o stly co n cern ed w ith local issues: “ crim e in th e streets,” “ b lack an ti-S em itism ,” “ d o -n o th in g g o v e rn m e n t,” a n d “ ch an g in g n e ig h b o rh o o d s.” 58 P aradoxically, th e inactiv ity o f th e Jew ish e sta b lish m en t helped K ah an e, w h o se p e n c h a n t for violence w as o b v io u s from th e sta rt. T he leadership o f th e A m erican Jew ish co m m u n ity d isso ciated itself from the vigilante ra b b i w ith o u t offering a single so lu tio n to th e p ro b le m s he addressed. C o n sequ ently, K ah an e becam e a ttra c tiv e to low er-m id d le-class u rb an Jew s, w h o suffered fro m anti-S em itism a n d violence in th e streets. And he also fo u n d a y o u n g Jew ish m iddle-class g en eratio n lo o k in g fo r an an ti-e stab lish m en t hero. T h e a m b itio u s rab b i from B rooklyn, a ta le n te d speaker, k new h o w to pluck the sensitive c h o rd s o f Jew ish anxiety. H e sp o k e b lu n tly a b o u t A m eri­ can anti-S em itism , m an ife st a n d la te n t, an d helped assuage his listen ers’ guilt a b o u t th e H o lo c a u st. T h e Jew ish esta b lish m en t w as his p rim e ta rg e t; he co n sta n tly rem in d e d his aud ien ce h o w little th e Jew ish lead ersh ip h a d done d u rin g W o rld W ar II to sto p th e killing o f Jew s in E u ro p e an d o f h o w h esitan t they n o w w ere in fighting b lack anti-S em itism . “ N ev er A g a in ” becam e th e slogan o f th e JD L : never again w ere Jew s to be defenseless.59 K a h an e’s success in activ a tin g y o u n g Jew s fo r aggressive self-defense against anti-S em itism in A m erica did n o t escape th e a tte n tio n o f several u ltra n a tio n a list Israelis w h o believed th ere w as an even m o re im p o rta n t Jew ish cause to fight for, th e p lig h t o f R ussian Jew s. A cco rd in g to R o b e rt F riedm an, K a h a n e ’s b io g ra p h e r, it w as G eu la C o h en , fo rm er Lehi activist, and H e ru t K nesset m em b er since 1969, w h o first in tro d u c e d K ah an e to th e subject, a n d w h o w as also in stru m e n ta l in forging a secret, sem i-official su p p o rt g ro u p fo r K ah an e in Israel.60 Since 1 9 6 9 , th e rep ressio n o f Soviet Jew ry a n d th e refusal o f th e Soviet U nion to let Jew s em ig rate becam e th e

52

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

m ajo r item on the agenda o f the JD L. R ussian d ip lo m ats w ere a ttack ed , first in the U nited States th en in E uro p e, R ussian artists w ere h arassed , an d d em o n stratio n s w ere held in fro n t and inside o f R ussian agencies. K ahane had ap p aren tly identified a very sensitive issue for w hich it w as possible to m obilize considerable su p p o rt. T he R a b b i’s e x tra o rd in a ry ability to d ra m a ­ tize this struggle by th e use of sym bolic an d real violence, an d to gain m edia atten tio n , p o p u lariz ed th e JD L an d facilitated fu n d raising an d recru itm en t. In the beginning o f th e 1970s the JD L h a d m any th o u san d s o f activists all over the U nited States, branches in E urope an d S outh A frica, an d ad m irers in Israel.61 For his en th u siastic su p p o rte rs, K ahane lau n ch ed a new gospel o f Jew ish self-tran sfo rm atio n an d m u tu al responsibility: “ T h e A m erican Jew, from n o w o n, will becom e a new perso n , p ro u d o f his origins, cap ab le o f defend­ ing him self a n d fully devoted to the cause o f his b ro th e rs all ov er the w o rld .” 62 A ction quickly follow ed. T h o u g h until 1969 m ost JD L activities included only s y m b o lic violence p e rm itte d by law, th e league soon becam e involved in illegal acts a n d actu al violence. A fter attack in g an anti-Sem itic rad io sta tio n , JD L m em bers w ere sent to jail. In 1970 an d 1971 they c o n ­ d ucted a score o f violent assaults an d b o m b in g o f R ussian in stitu tio n s in th e U nited States, including A eroflot, In to u rist, several Soviet cu ltu ra l centers, A m torg, R ussian d ip lo m atic m issions, and the residences o f Soviet officials in N ew York an d W ashington. A m erican firm s, d o in g business w ith the Soviet U nion an d in stitu tio n s involved in Soviet-A m erican cu ltu ral exchange w ere also subjected to JD L aggression.63 T h e JD L th u s evolved a un iq u e ideology an d style, claim ing the rig h t to defend fellow Jew s w herever th ere w as tro u b le. T h e young rab b i from B rooklyn, as associate e d ito r o f the B rooklyn Jew ish Press, the largest selling A nglo-Jew ish new sp ap er in A m erica, could use his w eekly colum n to d e­ velop a full-fledged ideology; books based o n these essays sp read his influ­ ence. T he key co n cep t o f th e new philo so p h y w as A h a v a t Y isroel (Love o f Jew ry), a m u tu ality th a t im plied the ob lig atio n to help Jew s in tro u b le, w ith no reservations an d conditions. The pain of a Jew, wherever he may be, is our pain. The joy of a Jew, wherever he may be is our joy. We are committed to going to the aid of a Jew who is in need without distinction, without asking what kind of Jew he is. . . . We do more, however, than pay lip service to the concept of love of Jewry. We act upon it. There is no limit to the lengths to which we will go when necessary to aid a fellow Jew. We must be prepared to give our efforts; we must be prepared to give our moneys; and, if need be, we must be prepared to give our lives for the Jewish people.64

But the new elem ent in the JD L ’s m essage w as n o t its readiness to help o th e r Jew s, b u t to d o it violently, unconditio n ally , an d w ith “ no lim it.” Even th en K ahane m ade it clear th a t no g eograph ic b o u n d aries o r legal p ro h ib i-

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

53

tions w ere to sto p him fro m “ d efending Je w s.” H e also stated b lu n tly th a t “Jew ish violence to p ro te c t Jew ish interests is n ever b a d .” 65 K ah an e rarely deigned to play a c c o rd in g to rules im p o sed by a u th o ritie s he did n o t reco g ­ nize, an d he seldom re stra in e d him self o r criticized his follow ers for violence. In ideology, K ah an e w as greatly influenced by V lad im ir Jab o tin sk y , the founder o f R evisio n ist Z io n ism . K ah an e h a d p a rtic ip a te d in J a b o tin s k y ’s youth m o v em en t, B etar, a n d w as especially tak en by th e m a ste r’s fav o rab le attitu d e to w a rd Jew ish self-defense a n d Jew ish dig n ity ; he a d o p te d tw o o f B etar’s m o st fam o u s slo g an s — h a d a r (glory, self-pride) a n d b a r ze l (iron, iro n fist)— as slogans o f th e Jew ish D efense L eague.66 W h a t K ah an e ig n o red w as Ja b o tin sk y ’s co m p reh en siv e liberal o u tlo o k a n d g reat resp ect for legality, w hich h a d greatly re stra in e d B e ta r’s m ilitancy. T h e JD L y o u n g sters w ere in stru cted to be d e m o n stra b ly p ro u d o f th e ir Jew ish o rig in s a n d have n o guilt a b o u t using th e “ iro n fist” ag ain st th e enem ies o f Jew s. T hey w ere to ld , in ad d itio n , to be o b e d ie n t to th e ir lead er (M ish m a a t Y isro el — Jew ish disci­ pline a n d u n ity ), a n d to be fully co n fid en t th a t G o d w as b eh in d th em an d their n a tio n (B ita c h o n — faith in th e in d estru ctib ility o f th e Jew ish p eo p le).67 It is h a rd to identify th e sources o f K a h a n e ’s m o st n o to rio u s ideological c o n trib u tio n to th e A m erican JD L , th e g lorificatio n o f Jew ish violence. J u d g ­ ing from his early w ritin g s, it a p p e a rs th a t K a h a n e ’s in satiab le urge to re so rt to ex h ib itio n ist violence h as been his resp o n se to th e rep ressio n s an d h u m ilia ­ tions o f Jew s since tim e im m em o rial, a n d especially d u rin g th e H o lo c a u st. All o f K a h a n e ’s early w ritin g s co m m u n ic a te a p ro fo u n d in te rn a liz a tio n o f the evils c o m m itte d ag a in st Jew s, a n d a deep re se n tm e n t th a t th is experience had d estro y ed th e ir readiness to fight back. By legitim izing u n m itig ated violence ag a in st th e enem ies o f th e Jew s, K ah an e seem s to believe he is destroying th e g h e tto m e n ta lity o f th e Jew an d re c o n stru c tin g gen u in e Jew ry, “ the Jew s o f o ld ” : Once upon a time, the Jew was not a member of the ADL [the American liberal Anti-Defamation League, an organization highly critical of the JDL’ s violence]— neither in form nor in spirit. It was not in the role of Mahatma Gandhi that the Jews fought at Massada; the men of Bar-Kochba and Judah Macabee never went to a Quaker meeting. The Jews of old— when Jews were knowledgeable about their religion, when they turned the page of the Jewish Bible instead of turning the Christian cheek— understood the concept of the Book and the Sword. It was only in the horror of the ghetto with its fears, neuroses, and insecurities that the Jew began to react in fright rather than with self-respect. That is what the ghetto does to a Jew.68

M ean w h ile, K ah an e w as develo p in g his o w n version o f c a ta stro p h ic Z io n ism , an ideology th a t p re d ic te d a new h o lo c a u st an d called u p o n th e Jews o f D ia sp o ra to re tu rn to Israel before it w as to o late. N in eteen th century Z io n ism , it sh o u ld be recalled, h a d a very stro n g c a ta stro p h ic c o m ­ p o n en t. Leo P in sk er a n d T h e o d o r H erzl, its m o st influential th eo retic ia n s,

54

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

cam e to th eir conclusion th a t Z io n ism w as inevitable as a result of the th re a t to the physical security of the Jew s in E astern E u ro p e a t the tu rn o f the century. T hey convinced them selves, an d m any g en eratio n s of y o u n g Z io n ­ ists, th a t anti-Sem itism w as so severe th a t it w as just a m a tte r of tim e before the entire n a tio n w as elim inated by either physical d estru ctio n o r sp iritu al assim ilation.69 T he d o ctrin e o f S h elilat H a g a lu t (the N eg atio n o f th e D ias­ pora) w as a direct p ro d u c t o f this c a ta stro p h ic Z ionism . C a ta stro p h ic Z ionism declined as the Z io n ist en terp rise in Palestine evolved and political Z io n ism succeeded after 1917; Ja b o tin sk y ’s w arnings of grow ing E uropean anti-Sem itism in the 1930s w ere the exception. T he estab lishm ent o f the State o f Israel, the em ergence of the pow erful A m erican Jewry, an d the respectable presence o f Jew ish com m unities all over the dem o cratic W est have left the thesis of c a ta stro p h ic Z io n ism w ith little ex p lan ato ry pow er. K ahane could n o t care less. Since 1968 he talk ed a b o u t the g ath erin g storm , the incipient disaster. Soon the enem ies o f the Jew s w o u ld overcom e their guilt a b o u t the d estru ctio n o f E u ro p ean Jew ry an d s ta rt to p lan the new holocaust. A m erica o f the m elting p o t, the d ream o f m illions of Jew ish im m igrants, K ahane to ld his audience, w as beginning to u n dergo in the 1960s b o th an econom ic recession an d a severe m oral an d social crisis. Inevitably, the classical scapegoats, th e Jew s, w o u ld be a ttack ed once more."70 K ah an e’s c a ta stro p h ic Z ionsim w as the ratio n a le beh in d his “ p ro g ram for Jew ish su rv iv al,” the subtitle o f his b o o k N e v e r A gain an d his call for a com prehensive series o f steps to save A m erican Jew ry from ex tin ctio n . W hile m ost of the suggestions so u g h t to reform Jew ish life in A m erica— by reform ing the Jew ish ed u catio n al system , fighting the c o rru p tin g influence of assim ilation, and defending Jew ish rights, by force, if necessary— the ultim ate step called for w as em ig ratio n to Israel. T h o u g h Jew s in the D ias­ p o ra could help them selves by retu rn in g to full Ju d aism an d defending th eir rights and dignity, th e D iasp o ra itself w as do o m ed ; th ere w as no chance for a long-range Jew ish survival o u tsid e the State o f Israel.71 F u rth erm o re, K ahane saw the A m erica of the 1960s as a tro u b led lan d , a m odern Sodom o r G o m m o ra h , b u t Israel, the lan d of the p ro p h ets an d co n q u erors, w as all go o d , the tru e an sw er to all the presen t Jew ish m iseries. T he young state th a t freed itself b y fo rce from British colonialism an d b u ilt a m ilitary m achine capable o f defeating all the A rab anti-Sem ites w as the m anifestation o f K a h a n e ’s early dream s. O nly Israel could p ro d u ce the new Jew, a healthy and com plete H eb rew n a tio n a l.72 M eir K ahane em igrated to Israel, arriving on 12 Septem ber 1971. H e an d his su p p o rters have alw ays m ain tain ed th a t this w as the logical n ex t step in the realization of his Z io n ist ideology. B ut less favorable in terp retatio n s p o in t o u t th a t by 1971 K ahane h ad com e to a dead end: in the spirit o f détente the A m erican a d m in istra tio n w as by th en d eterm in ed to rein in

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

55

extrem e anti-S oviet activity, a n d th e FBI h a d m ade it clear to K ah an e th a t it had sufficient evidence to send him to p riso n . H e h a d in fact been given a suspended sentence o f fo u r y e a rs’ p ro b a tio n . T h e critics m ain tain th a t K ahane, u n ab le to face th e c o n se q u e n t decline o f his m o v em en t, decided to em igrate to Israel, claim ing ideological g ro u n d s.73 In Israel, K ah an e w as w arm ly w elcom ed by th e political rig h t an d th e m edia. H e said he did n o t in te n d to get involved w ith n a tio n a l politics o r run for the K nesset; he w o u ld in stead devote him self to ed u catio n . H e w a n te d to found his o w n k iry a (ed u catio n al center) a n d a k ib b u tz. Jeru salem w o u ld be the in te rn a tio n a l cen ter fo r th e JD L , a n d p ro sp ectiv e JD L m em bers w o u ld com e to Israel for a lead ersh ip tra in in g course. K ah an e also stated his w ish to replace th e “ in te rn a tio n a lis t” o rie n ta tio n o f y o u n g Israelis w ith a h ealth y n atio n alism .74 H ow ever, R ab b i K ah an e w as n o t d estin ed to p u rsu e a career in e d u c a ­ tion. H e craved publicity a n d needed actio n in th e streets. H e also co u ld n o t be co n te n t w ith th e ideological politics p u rsu ed by m o st o f the te rrito ria l m axim alists in th e early 1970s. Even th e m o st ex trem e o f th em co u ld n o t quite figure o u t this stra n g e a n d im p a tie n t p erso n w h o did n o t join th e ir m ovem ents a n d w o u ld n o t su b m it to any p erio d o f in itiatio n in to th e Israeli political style. T he Israeli p u b lic learn ed in 1972 th a t th e JD L h ad becom e fully o p e ra ­ tive in Jerusalem . S u rro u n d e d by a h an d fu l o f y o u n g A m erican su p p o rte rs w ho h ad follow ed him to Israel, an d by a sm aller g ro u p o f y o u n g R ussian ém igrés, K ah an e to o k to th e streets. Besides d e m o n stra tin g ag ain st th e So­ viet U nion, he e x p lo ite d tw o new issues: C h ristian m issionary activities in Israel a n d th e sect o f A m erican blacks in D im o n a. T h o u g h in p rin cip le Israelis reject any k in d o f C h ristia n m ission ary activity a n d co n sid ered it a m an ifestation o f religious hostility, th ere h a d rarely been any serious tro u b le over this issue. H o w ev er, never shy o f publicity, K ah an e w as d eterm in e d to apply the stric te st rules o f th e H a la k h a (w hich p ro h ib it th e presence o f C hristians in th e H o ly L and) a n d evict th e m issionaries from the c o u n try — and to do it noisily. Sim ilarly he an d his follow ers aggressively d e m o n stra te d against a sm all black sect w h o recently settled in the so u th e rn d ev elo p m en t tow n o f D im o n a, an d claim ed to be genuinely Jew ish, th o u g h it certainly was not. Sm all an d highly iso lated , it w e n t alm o st u n n o ticed u ntil K ahane m ade h eadlines by d ra w in g a tte n tio n to it.75 But it to o k K ah an e less th a n a year afte r his arriv al in Israel to focus o n his prim e ta rg e t— th e A rabs. In A ugust 197 2 , JD L leaflets w ere d istrib u te d all over H e b ro n . T h e a sto n ish ed A rab residents learn ed th a t M eir K ah an e was su m m o n in g th e ir m ayor, M u h a m a d Ali J a ’a b a ri, to a p u b lic sh o w -trial for his p a rt in th e 1929 m assacre o f th e an cien t Jew ish co m m u n ity o f H e ­ bron. T he m ilitary a u th o ritie s w ere fully a w a re th a t this w as a very sensitive issue, given th a t tre a tm e n t o f th e in h a b ita n ts o f th e o ccu p ied areas w as carefully m o n ito re d by in te rn a tio n a l agencies. D espite strict o rd ers to p re ­ vent his p ro v o cativ e visit, o n 2 7 A ugust, K ah an e, esco rted by tw o o f his

56

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

follow ers, ap p eared in fro n t o f the m a y o r’s office in H e b ro n a t exactly the an n o u n ced tim e o f the p ublic trial. H e w as sto p p ed an d sen t back to Jeru sa­ lem, b u t the shock w aves created by his visit w ere deeply felt.76 O f course, no public show -trial w as ever held in H e b ro n o r any o f the num erous A rab to w n s an d villages K ahane visited over the years. T h ere have alw ays been police o r m ilitary units on h a n d to sto p him from p ro v o k in g a c o n fro n tatio n w ith the local residents. But H eb ro n established K ah an e’s re p u ­ tatio n for expertise in p ro v o c a tio n an d h ead lin e-m ak in g in Israel. R ecogniz­ ing full well th e great im p act o f these tactics on the A rab p o p u la tio n o f Ju d ea and S am aria, as well as on Israeli A rabs, K ahane pro v ed resourceful an d im aginative. His m essage w as alw ays th e sam e: “ T he A rabs do n o t belong here; they m ust leave.” In this spirit, in 1972 K ahane in itiated an o rganized o p eratio n to en courage the A rabs to em ig ra te .77 Prom ising full co m p en satio n for p ro p ­ erty, he developed his them e th a t only m assive A rab ev acu atio n w o u ld solve Israel’s problem s: just as tw o people c a n n o t sit on the sam e chair, so it is im possible for the tw o n atio n s, Israeli an d Palestinian, to coexist in the L and of Israel. W hile specializing in sym bolic action, K ahane did n o t ab sta in from in ­ volvem ent in acts of violence against A rabs. In 1972, follow ing the te rro rist m assacre of the Israeli athletes at the O lym pic gam es in M u n ich , he lau n ch ed an atte m p t to sab o ta g e the L ibyan Em bassy in Brussles. H e secured the su p ­ p o rt of A m ichai Paglin, w h o h ad been chief of o p eratio n s o f the Irgun u n d e r­ g ro u n d d u rin g the British m an d ate. T he p lo t w as ex posed a t B en-G urion A irp o rt w hen a c o n ta in e r of arm s an d explosives w as discovered.78 P rior to the Yom K ippur W ar of O c to b e r 1973, no o th e r territo ria lm axim alist g ro u p used tactics like K ahane an d his JD L ; they did n o t special­ ize in direct action o r consider system atic e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry politics p ro p e r behavior. N eith er the L and o f Israel M o v em en t n o r the incipient G ush Em unim asked the A rabs to leave. K ah an e’s radicalism w as u nique. B ut th o u g h the extrem e rab b i w as isolated, he a ttra c te d co nsiderable a tte n tio n . This w as p ro b ab ly the reason he decided to ru n for the K nesset an d th e ex p lan atio n for his successful fundraising. T h e result w as an “ a lm o st” suc­ cess. K ahane polled 12,811 votes, just a few th o u san d s sh o rt of th e req u ired n u m b er for a K nesset seat.

Livneh's Israel a n d th e C risis o f W estern C iv iliz a tio n W hile m o st of the secular te rrito ria l m axim alists avidly believed th eir new Eretz Yisrael gospel, they w ere un ab le to give it a co h eren t th eo retical fram ew ork. Each of th e secular schools th a t joined the L and o f Israel M o v em e n t— from H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d ’s activists to Ja b o tin sk y ’s Revi­ sionists to sm aller g roups an d individuals— m ain tain ed th eir old convictions w ith slight m odifications.

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

57

T hey all agreed o n th re e fu n d a m e n ta l p o in ts: Israel’s u tm o st need for secure b o rd e rs, th e n o n ex isten c e o f a P alestin ian n a tio n , a n d th e insignifi­ cance o f th e “ d e m o g ra p h ic p ro b le m ” — th e d a n g er th a t if the occupied te rri­ tories w ere a n n e x e d , th e Jew s w o u ld lose th e ir m ajo rity in E retz Y israel. Z o t Ha’ aretz (This Is th e L an d ), th e new ideological m agazine o f th e LIM , co n tin u ously reh ash ed these to p ics in all possible v ariatio n s. T hey w ere repeatedly p u b lish ed in Isra e l’s m o st distin g u ish ed dailies a n d discussed in countless sym posia a n d sem inars. T h ree o f th e lead in g ideologues o f th e m o v em ent— Sam uel K atz, M o sh e Sham ir, a n d Z vi S h ilo ah — p u b lish ed lengthy b o o k s a b o u t th e p o s t- 19 6 7 Israeli reality, b u t n o n e w as ideologically new. A rabs w ere to ld , o n e w ay o r a n o th e r, th a t they w ere w ro n g all alo n g and th a t they co u ld n o lo n g er tru s t th e ir leaders, w h o h a d b ro u g h t d isaster u pon th em . Israelis w ere e x h o rte d to recognize h o w m ighty a n d w o n d erfu l their c o u n try really w a s .79 T h e only e x cep tio n to this c o m b in a tio n o f intense tactical polem ics an d u nsystem atic th in k in g w as a com preh en siv e a n d o rig in al b o o k by Eliezer Livneh, Israel a n d th e C risis o f W estern C iv iliza tio n , 80 p u b lish ed in 1972. Livneh, seventy, w as a typical LIM elder statesm an w ith an im pressive Z io n ist reco rd . A fter e m ig ra tin g to P alestine in 192 0 a n d jo in in g T a b e n k in ’s kib b u tz E in -H a ro d , Livneh so o n rose from d ay la b o re r to la b o r leader. H e held m any p u b lic offices, in cluding a sensitive p olitical job for th e Z io n ist m ovem ent in p re w a r N azi G erm any. B etw een 1940 an d 194 7 Livneh d i­ rected th e po litical section o f th e H a g a n a , th e sem i-m ilitary o rg a n iz a tio n o f the yish u v's lead ersh ip . A p ro m in e n t m em b er o f M a p a i, Israel’s ru lin g so ­ cialist p a rty (later to becom e th e L a b o r p a rty ), he served in th e K nesset from 1948 to 1955 an d w as an e d ito r o f H a d o r, an influential M ap ai n ew sp ap er. But in th e 1950s L ivneh s ta rte d to d rift aw ay from M ap ai. T his learn ed an d in d ep en d en t p erso n grew critical o f M a p a i’s m o n o p o listic, “ B olshevik,” way o f ru n n in g th e country. In tim e he left th e party, fav o rin g less a n d less central p la n n in g a n d a freer m a rk e t. In th e 1960s an d early 1970s Livneh w as a d istin g u ish ed co lu m n ist for Israel’s m o st influential n ew sp ap ers an d m agazines. Like m any o f his new colleagues in th e L and o f Israel M o v em e n t, Livneh w as p ro fo u n d ly tra n sfo rm e d by th e experien ce o f th e “ lo n g est m o n th ” in 1967. A nd very m uch like th em he cam e to th e co n clu sio n th a t p o s t- 1967 Israel could n o t be secure w ith o u t a m assive A liy a (“ a sc e n t” — i.e., Jew ish im m igration). N everth eless, only Livneh seem ed to u n d e rsta n d th a t th e state of Israel they all w ished for needed a to tally d ifferen t ideological fram ew o rk . Livneh realized th a t th e L IM w as actually a d v o catin g a new kin d o f Z io n ism and Z io n ist justification, a set o f o rie n ta tio n s a n d asp ira tio n s th a t co u ld n o t be ex h a u ste d by ta c tic a l a rg u m e n ts a b o u t th e w icked A rabs, th e u n frien d ly w orld, a n d th e need fo r a te rrito ria l space for defense. T h e refo re he set o u t to w rite an am b itio u s essay, a b o o k th a t w o u ld u p d ate Z io n ist ideology a n d develop a new logic to legitim ize th e Israel o f the 1970s. Such a b o o k , o f necessity, w o u ld reex am in e classical Z io n ism in

58

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

the light o f m ore recent developm ents: th e estab lish m en t o f the State o f Israel, the H o lo cau st, th e em ergence o f the pow erful A m erican Jew ish co m ­ m unity, and the m isery o f Soviet Jewry. F urth er, it w o u ld review the IsraeliA rab com plex in the perspective o f the Six-D ay W ar. Livneh u n d e rsto o d th a t a new Z io n ism h ad to rep resen t Israel as th e only alternative for all Jew s, an d m u st presen t a b etter a rg u m en t for the existence o f th e state th a n the old an d an ach ro n istic Z io n ist clichés a b o u t anti-Sem itism . H e set o u t to show th a t after 1967 Israel h a d acquired a spiritual quality su p erio r b o th to th e old er Israeli co n d itio n an d to th e Jew ish D iasp o ra existence in th e affluent W est. T he result w as a new an d sw eeping theory: Ninety years have passed since the rise of the present secular return to Zion. . . . Shouldn’ t we recognize that the foundations of the Jewish exis­ tence have totally changed since that time? The Diaspora is not the same Diaspora, Eretz Yisrael of the 1970s is not the Eretz Yisrael expected then, and the Western Gentile environment of Diaspora Jews is completely differ­ ent from the environment seen by the Zionist thinkers in their time. Western civilization has entered a new age which differs from the previous ones no less than they differed from the Middle Ages.81

A ccording to Livneh, the Six-D ay W ar w as significant n o t only for its visible political and m ilitary achievem ents, b u t also for illu m in atin g th e new existential reality o f the Jew ish people. In a single m o m en t o f tru th it helped identify three m ajo r historical developm ents: th e rise o f the “Judeo-Israeli civ ilization,” the decline o f the perm issive an d d ecad en t W estern-liberal civilization, an d the dem ise of the viability an d creativity o f the Jew ish D iaspora. T his w as indeed an am b itio u s theory. The Jewish people is not a nation that belongs to one of the great civilizations— the Christian-humanist, the Buddhist, the Hindu, or the Muslim— but is a distint human phenomenon. Yisrael determines its own modes of interaction with the natural and human environment, and demands of its daughters and sons different mores. Its experience is not limited to the spiritual, emotional or social spheres— belief, beauty, morality, mundane and social contact— but touches upon everything.82

T he co n stru ct o f the “Judeo-Israeli civilizatio n ” is essential for L ivneh’s theory, for it helps him to a tta c k the “ d e c a d e n t” W estern civilization from a p o sitio n of stren g th . N o t only sh o u ld Israelis face W estern civilization w ith prid e b u t D iasp o ra Jew s as w ell; in the State of Israel they have a cu ltu ral sanctuary, an address to retu rn to , a civilization of th eir ow n. A nd w hen “ the D iasp o ra as an in d ep en d en t an d viable p h en o m en o n has com e to its e n d ,” they can com e h o m e .83 T he Six-D ay W ar, according to Livneh, p ro d u ced a sp iritu al b re a k ­ th ro u g h . In one intense w eek, it exposed the existential w eaknesses o f b o th Israeli an d D iasp o ra Jew s, and d e m o n stra te d th e relevance of fo u r th o u sa n d years of Jew ish history in the co n d u ct o f public affairs.84 T he d o m in a n t

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

59

Jew ish n a tio n a lism b efore 19 6 7 (L ivneh’s o w n Z io n ism ) w as m istak en b e­ cause it w as ath eistic, d eta c h e d fro m the gen u in e sp iritu al w ellsprings o f th e n ation. M o st secu lar Israelis felt su p e rio r to religious Jew s, b u t th e an x iety of M ay 196 7 b ro u g h t th e tw o g ro u p s to g e th e r a n d b rid g ed ov er all prev io u s differences. A nd it p ro d u c e d , th ro u g h its g re a t success, th e fu tu re m odel for Jew ish living in Israel, a c o m b in a tio n o f an o rth o d o x Jew ish cu ltu re w ith a secular n eoreligious resp ect fo r th e h eritag e o f th e n a tio n .85 A lth ough Livneh does n o t call for a to ta l d esecu larizatio n o f Israel an d does n o t use th e term in o lo g y o f re d e m p tio n , th e affinity betw een his new Z ionism a n d th e id eo -th eo lo g y o f M e rk a z H a ra v is clear. Israel a n d th e Crisis o f W estern C iv iliza tio n is full o f references to R ab b i A v raham Itzh ak H aco h en K ook a n d q u o ta tio n s fro m his O r o t. L ivneh’s h isto rical analysis o f the m o d ern re tu rn to Z io n is rem in iscen t o f K o o k ’s h isto rio so p h ic acco u n t. It speaks a b o u t Z io n ism as a teleological process o f re tu rn to Eretz Y israel, as m uch sp iritu al as concrete. It is a process o f a g ro w in g religious e x p e ri­ ence, an in creasin g aw aren ess o f th e n a tio n ’s tru e heritag e. It is a p ro g ress to w a rd elim in atin g th e gap th a t divides religious a n d secu lar Jew s, fo rm in g a new n o rm a tiv e consensus th a t w o u ld go b ey o n d p olitical issues an d p u b lic c u ltu re .86 L ivneh is o b essed w ith th e perm issive W est an d its licentious life and discusses such issues as free sex, th e p u rity o f th e fam ily, a n d th e san ctity of the S ab b ath a t g re a t length. H is c h a p te r on “ T h e Ecology o f the R e tu rn ­ ees to Z io n ” is full o f neo relig io u s them es a n d th e co n v ictio n th a t only a genuine resp ect o f th e rich tra d itio n o f Jew ish o rth o d o x y w o u ld solve th e n a tio n ’s p ro b le m s.87 L ivneh’s affinity w ith th e in cip ien t G ush E m unim show s m o st clearly o n the issue o f E retz Y israel. O n e ch a p te r, “ T h e Six-D ay W ar a n d Its S piritual M e a n in g ,” en th u siastically describes th e Israelis w h o re tu rn e d to Ju d e a an d Sam aria, Sinai a n d th e G o lan H eights. T he im m ense ex citem en t felt to w a rd the occupied te rrito rie s serves him as an u n c o n te ste d p ro o f th a t th e te rrito ­ rial co n q u ests o f th e Six-D ay W ar w ere b o u n d to h a p p e n an d w ere m orally just. The territories liberated in the Six-Day War are officially called “Occupied.” But more than they are occupied by Israel they have Israel under occupation. Not only had the integration of the nation with its most historic places taken place, but Israel was now once again whole in both a spiritual and physical sense. Israel was now the deep and burning Jordan valley, the snowy tops of Mount Hermon which feed the valleys with their water, the varie­ gated mountains of Judea and Samaria and the spacious deserts of Sinai which provide a sense of security.88

T he new Israeli em p ire th rilled Livneh. Security w as one reaso n for holding o n to th e new te rrito rie s, b u t n o t th e p rim ary one. Even m o re th a n the em erging G ush E m u n im , he re p re se n ta te d the new Eretz Y israel m ys­ tique. T his school saw in every inch o f th e new te rrito rie s, including even p arts th a t G o d h a d n o t p ro m ise d to A b ra h a m , so m eth in g holy a n d inalien-

60

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

able. It w as as if th e process itself, th e incredible response to the E gyptian challenge o f M ay 1967, th e victory in th e w ar, h ad sanctified the territo ries. T hus, only the Israelis h a d any rig h t to these lands. A nd no force in th e w orld could m ake Israel ever give them back. Israel a n d th e C risis o f W estern C iv iliza tio n w as never p resented as the official creed o f the L and o f Israel M ovem en t; m uch o f it, especially L ivneh’s p erception o f the non-Jew ish w o rld , w as exclusively his. B ut it w as far from being an isolated tre atise by a d etach ed intellectual; ra th e r it w as a m atu re p ro d u c t o f one o f the m o st prolific ideologues o f th e LIM , an a u th o rity to everyone w ith in th e m ovem ent. T h o u g h the o th e r lum inaries of the m ove­ m ent h a d n o t a p p ro v ed th e b o o k in advance, it certainly appealed to them . It w ould have been h a rd n o t to ap p reciate w h a t Livneh did for the m ovem ent by p ro v iding it w ith a com prehensive p o s t-196 7 ideology. T his w as, th en , th e new ideology o f the secular te rrito ria l m axim alists: u ltra n a tio n a list, ex p an sio n ist, intellectually m egalom aniac, neoreligious, self-confident, an d o p tim istic. T ogether w ith th e new theology preach ed from Yeshivat M erk az H a ra v an d its w idening circle, an d the polem ical literatu re published in Z o t H a ’a r e tz an d o th e r p eriodicals, it indicated the com ing o f age o f a new Israeli Z ionism . T he new territo ria l m axim alism w as m uch m ore th a n a relic from the p ast. It w as a vigorous cu ltu ral an d social school, one b o u n d to have a lasting effect on th e fu tu re of Israel’s cu ltu re an d politics. A careful reading o f L ivneh’s b o o k , as well as o th e r less system atic literatu re of the new school, is im p o rta n t n o t only for w h a t it says, b u t also for w h a t it does n o t say: in 1 9 7 2 th e secu lar m a x im a list ca m p h a d n o criticism o f th e Israeli p o litic a l p ro cess a n d n o co n scio u s q u a rrel w ith th e d e m o cra tic values o f the n ation . N e ith e r Livneh n o r any o f his colleagues q u estio n ed , for exam ple, the provisions in Israel’s D eclaratio n o f Independence securing th e social and political rights of the A rabs. T hey sincerely believed th a t these principles w ere as applicable to the g reater L and of Israel as they w ere to th e p re-1 9 6 7 Jew ish state. Livneh w as o ptim istic a b o u t the future relationships of Jews and A rabs in Israel. H e clearly felt th a t “ the civic-personal o p tio n s ” regarding their future should be left in the h an d s o f the A rabs o f Eretz Yisrael. All the A rabs (Livneh m ade no distin ctio n betw een Israeli A rabs an d those of the new territories) h ad the rig h t to full Israeli citizenship, including the electoral process. They w ere entitled to official p o sitio n s w ith in the g o v ern m ent and the n a tio n ’s o th e r public do m ain s. T hose w h o w an ted to m ain tain dual citizenship in Israel an d one o f the n eighboring countries w ere to do so. A nd Israel w as n o t, o f course, to sto p the A rabs interested in em ig ra tio n .89 L ivneh’s o ptim ism and liberalism show ed very clearly in the conclusion o f his ch a p te r on A rab-Jew ish relations: The historical processes of S h iv a t T z io n (the return to Zion) make a favor­ able policy towards the Arabs necessary and possible. The Zionist thinkers

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

61

knew that the Jews were not returning to an unpopulated country. The Arabs are part of the Israeli state and belong to its nature, including its cultural nature. Israel without the Arabs would be missing an important component. M ost Israeli Jews feel that in their guts, although many of them are unable to explain it.90

The Politics and Practices of the Territorial Maximalists At first th e new te rrito ria l m ax im alists (the K ah an e g ro u p excepted) did n o t intend to org an ize politically, b u t they w ere soon pulled in to the very h e a rt of Israeli politics. T h e occu p ied te rrito rie s w ere n o t an n ex ed to Israel, an d their rate o f settlem en t by Jew s w as very slow. In a d d itio n , the g o v ern m en t faced m any e x te rn a l pressu res to w ith d ra w . T h e new m ax im alists also d is­ covered th a t a b o u t h a lf o f th e Israelis did n o t agree w ith w h a t they c o n sid ­ ered the m ain lesson o f th e w ar: th a t no single sq u are inch of th e occu p ied territories sh o u ld be re tu rn e d to the A rabs. Politically m o d erate in tellectu als p ro p o sed im aginative peace plan s, a t th e core o f w hich sto o d m a jo r te rrito ­ rial concessions. Influential m inisters, includ in g Prim e M in ister Levi E shkol and Foreign A ffairs M in iste r A b b a E b an , listened attentively. A M o v em e n t for Peace an d Security w as estab lish ed to p u rsu e these g o als.91 U nder these circum stances, th e activists o f th e L IM an d th e fu tu re m em bers o f G ush Em unim h a d n o choice b u t to join th e po litical fray an d s ta rt lo b b y in g decision-m akers a n d p o litician s. L ater they w o u ld h it th e streets. T he L an d o f Israel M o v e m e n t’s initial strateg y p resu p p o sed th a t it w as associated w ith th e ru lin g L a b o r alig n m en t an d th a t its loyalists w ith in the g o v ernm ent m ad e it un n ecessary to org an ize politically. F or th e m o st p a rt the assu m p tio n w as c o rrect, for th e m o st o u tsp o k e n leaders o f th e m o v e­ m ent w ere old L a b o r h a n d s, closely co n n ected w ith eith er D efense M in ister M oshe D a y a n o r D ep u ty Prim e M in iste r Yigal A llon. B oth A llon an d D ayan h a d , a t first, m a x im a list a n d h aw k ish re p u ta tio n s. D ay an , Israel’s N o. 1 soldier, w as perceived as th e arc h ite c t o f the Six-D ay W ar a n d know n fo r his e m o tio n a l a tta c h m e n t to th e L an d o f th e Bible in its e n tir­ ety.92 A llon, an illu strio u s general from th e w a r o f 1948 an d one o f the m ost p ro m in e n t rep resen tativ es o f H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d in p olitics, h a d long been recognized as a m ax im alist an d a g reat believer in te rrito ria lstrategic d e p th .93 N evertheless, b o th m en p ro v e d to be, fro m th e L IM ’s perspective, u n p re ­ dictable a n d u n reliab le. D ay an , skeptical o f th e ability of the A rab s to m ake form al peace a n d stick to it, w as o n o ccasion sy m p ath etic to th e new te rrito ­ rial m axim alism . B ut he w as also very p ra g m a tic an d cau tio u s. H e never used th e lang u ag e o f th e L an d o f Israel M o v em e n t an d m ade it clear th a t a de ju re a n n e x a tio n o f th e te rrito rie s w as o u t o f th e q u e stio n .94 If th ere w as to be a de fa c to a n n e x a tio n , it w o u ld h a p p e n on ly by d efau lt, because no A rab

62

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

ruler agreed to talk to Israel directly. A nd D ayan w as, in general, d u b io u s of the n o tio n th a t excited settlers m ight d eterm in e the security policy o f Israel. He therefore only ap p ro v ed lim ited settlem en t in Ju d ea an d the Jo rd a n R iver Valley. But Yigal A llon w as a g reater d isap p o in tm en t. T his veteran stu d e n t of T abenkin, w h o in 1948 h ad d em an d ed th a t Israel’s p erm an en t b o rd ers be set on the J o rd a n river and in the m iddle of Sinai, ad o p ted a different position after 1967. A llon, like m any m oderates, w o rried a b o u t the “ d em o ­ graphic p ro b le m ” ; th e plan he w o rk ed o u t w as a n ath em a to the LIM ideologists. T he A llon Plan called for Jew ish settlem en t of the Jo rd a n R iver Valley and a few areas in th e H e b ro n vicinity for security reasons, retu rn in g m ost of the o th e r A ra b -p o p u la te d areas to Jo rd a n in the co n tex t of a co m p re­ hensive peace.95 T h u s, w hile D ayan an d A llon could be tru sted on som e issues, th eir presence in the cabinet could n o t provide the iron-clad g u aran tees the Land of Israel M ov em en t needed. Even the settlem en t o f G ush Etzion an d K iryat A rba, tw o initiatives th a t w ere finally ap p ro v ed by bo th m en, first required several LIM illicit o p eratio n s. W hen Dr. Israel E ldad decided to run for the K nesset in 1969 as the head o f the Eretz Yisrael List, it w as clear th a t the n o n -L a b o r m em bers of the L and of Israel M ov em en t h ad decided to becom e m ore political. N o t all the m o v em ent’s activists w ere h appy a b o u t the step, b u t several p ro m in en t L ab o r-m ovem ent m em bers— H aim Yachil, N a th a n A lterm an, Eliezer Livneh, and M oshe S h am ir— endorsed it enthusiastically. T h eir s u p p o rt im ­ plied a call n o t to vote for the L ab o r a lig n m en t.96 E ldad w as n o t elected, b u t o th er LIM m em bers, ru n n in g on various tickets, w ere. Isser H arel an d Yigal H o ro w itz w ere elected on the State List, B enjam in H alevy w ith G ahal (the H erut-L iberal Bloc), and R abbi N eriah an d Dr. Avner Shaki th ro u g h the N atio n al R eligious Party. By 1969 the LIM h ad a significant K nesset rep re­ sen tation; no longer solely an ideological entity, it w as in no o n e ’s political pocket. T he grow ing rift betw een the LIM and the L ab o r alignm ent w as revealed in 1970 w hen Begin’s G ahal left the U nity G overnm ent. T he issue a t stake w as an A m erican-proposed cease-fire on the Suez C an al, p a rt o f the R ogers Plan for an Israeli-E gyptian settlem ent. W hen the cab in et of G olda M eir agreed, Begin, an o ld tc n ito ria l m axim alist, saw the beginning of Israeli w ith d ra w al from the occupied te rrito rie s, an d he angrily resigned. A larm ed by the A m erican pressure and Israeli acquiescence, he suggested th a t the LIM , G ahal, and o th e r “ Eretz Y israel p a trio ts ” join forces in a n o n p a rtisa n C om m ittee to Prevent W ith d ra w al. Begin w as even ready to let Itzhak T abenkin, an old rival, head the new body. T abenkin w as n o t im pressed. N o t only did this old rev o lu tio n ary social­ ist refuse th e offer b u t he decided to leave the L and o f Israel M o v em en t

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

63

altogether. U nable to fo rg et th e p re-1 9 4 8 rivalries w ith the “ fascists,” he m istrusted w h a t he a n d a few follow ers u n d e rsto o d as a m ove to tu rn th e LIM in to a R evisionist fro n t.97 But T a b e n k in ’s secession did n o t h u rt th e LIM . O n th e co n trary , it helped its g ro w in g rig h t-w in g co n fig u ratio n . M o st o f th e LIM leaders, including m any fo rm er L ab o rites, w ere d isa p p o in te d w ith the p ra g m a tic an d indeci­ sive L a b o r alignm ent. T h e ir prim e concern w as th eir te rrito ria l m ax im alism ; they view ed every th in g else th ro u g h this prism . By 1970 m o st m em bers o f the LIM felt th e old te rrito ria l m ax im alism o f M en ach em Begin m uch m ore to th eir liking th a n th e ir p re -1 9 6 7 L a b o rite asso ciatio n s, an d th a t th e tra d i­ tional R evisionists, w h o m they h a d fo u g h t to o th an d nail in th e 1930s and 1940s, w ere n o w th e ir n a tu ra l allies. P o st-1967 reality w as to change som e of the m o st fu n d a m e n ta l ideological alignm en ts o f Z io n ist politics. As d isa p p o in te d as th e te rrito ria l m ax im alists w ere w ith th e indecisive p u b ­ lic p o sitio n o f th e L a b o r alig n m e n t on th e fu tu re o f the territo rie s, they could n o t ignore th e fact th a t creeping a n n e x a tio n h a d actu ally been ta k in g place since 1967. T h e 1967 “ th re e n o ’s ” reso lu tio n passed a t K h arto u m by th e leaders o f th e A rab n a tio n s a fte r th e w a r (no peace w ith Israel, no n e g o tia ­ tions w ith Israel, a n d no reco g n itio n o f Israel), stren g th en ed the h a n d o f those cab in et m inisters w h o favored a g re a te r Israeli presence in th e te rrito ­ ries.98 An early, secret reso lu tio n o f th e g o v ern m en t to tra d e Sinai an d the G olan H eights for peace w ith E gypt an d Syria, an d to in itiate n e g o tiatio n s w ith J o rd a n o n m uch o f th e W est B ank, w as a b a n d o n e d .99 In 1969 an “ o ral d o c trin e ” w as a p p ro v e d by the central co m m ittee o f the L a b o r alig n m en t. It sta te d th a t th e J o rd a n R iver w o u ld rem ain Israel’s security b o rd e r a n d th a t Israel w o u ld keep th e G o lan H eig h ts, the G aza Strip, an d th e S traits o f T ira n . T h e d o c trin e w as e x p a n d e d u p o n in th e G alili D o cu m ent o f S eptem ber 1973, w hich o u tlin ed a co m p reh en siv e fo u r-y ear dev elo p m ent p lan in th e o ccupied territo rie s. Israel w as to s ta rt new settle­ m ents in th e J o rd a n Valley, th e G o lan H eig h ts, an d N o rth e rn Sinai. Industry, ag ricu lture, an d w a te r resources w ere to be d ev eloped, an d several o f the early settlem ents w ere to becom e Jew ish cities. T h e d o cu m en t, presen ted as a re c o m m en d atio n to th e cen tral co m m ittee o f the L ab o r party, o p en ed the w ay for a v ast c o n c e n tra tio n o f W est B ank lands in th e h an d s o f J e w s.100 T h e G alili D o c u m e n t did n o t com pletely en d o rse the ideological creed o f the LIM , since it im plied th a t Jew ish settlem en t w o u ld tak e place only in lim ited security areas (for th e m o st p a rt th o se identified in the o rig in al A llon Plan), b u t it w e n t a long w ay in th e d ire ctio n o f th e LIM . It b esto w ed a sense of stability on th e Jew ish presence in th e te rrito rie s. N o one could ignore the massive Israeli drive in to th e te rrito rie s — th e huge ex p an sio n of Jeru salem , settlem ents in th e G o lan H eights a n d th e J o rd a n Valley, an d th e p e rm a n e n t m ilitary g o v ern m en t o f Ju d e a , S am aria, an d G a z a 101 A nd the co m p etitio n betw een th e c a b in e t’s tw o leading figures, M o sh e D ay an an d Yigal A llon,

64

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

only helped the process; each tried to score political p o in ts by backing various settlem ent projects. The tra n sfo rm a tio n of the L and o f Israel M o v em en t w as com pleted in 1973 w hen it decided to establish a fro n t o rg an izatio n . L ab o r for the W hole o f Eretz Yisrael, and en dorse th e new ly created L ikud (expanded from the form er G ahal) for the com ing general electio n s.102 T he old an d the new territo rial m axim alists w ere now p o litic a lly u n ited , the result o f a g rad u al ideological and political ev o lu tio n .103 T he 1973 LIM w as an u ltra n a tio n a list m ovem ent w hose n a tu ra l location on the Israeli political m ap w as to the right of M enachem Begin. It still m ain tain ed a w arm relatio n sh ip w ith som e of its form er L ab o r allies (Israel G alili), and said it w as fully co m m itted to the tra d itio n o f L ab o r Z ionism . N evertheless, its political fu tu re w as n o w b o u n d w ith M enachem Begin, th e chief public p ro ta g o n ist o f Eretz Yisrael. And the new territo ria l m axim alists could legitim ately feel th a t never before had th eir ideas been so acceptable to so m any Israelis.104 T he 1973 Yom K ippur W ar cau g h t the te rrito ria l m axim alists, like the rest of the n atio n , by surprise. But it did n o t change th eir political doctrines o r ideological convictions. O n the contrary, the leading ideologists o f the L and of Israel M ovem ent w ere certain the new b o rd ers h ad saved the Jew ish state from e x tin c tio n .105 Since th eir thesis h ad n o w been tested u n d er real fire, an d in their view proven to be correct, they w ere stren g th en ed in th eir d eterm in atio n never to relinquish any land. T he religious territo ria l m axim alists w ere equally determ ined. R abbi Yehuda A m ital, a g reat ad m ire r o f the teachings o f Rav K ook, pu b lish ed an im p o rta n t theological essay, “ O n the Significance o f the Yom K ippur W a r.” The w ar, according to A m ital, did n o t h u rt th e m essianic process of red em p ­ tion b u t w as, on the contrary, its reaffirm atio n . It w as an a tte m p t o f the G entiles to survive, an d p erh ap s unknow ingly, to sto p the com ing o f the M essiah. B ut the a tte m p t h ad no chance, for it w en t ag ain st G o d ’s o w n p lan. T he w a r’s function for the Jew s w as “ the p u rificatio n . . . of the cong reg a­ tion of Israel.” 106 T he 1973 w a r w as in A m ital’s w o rd s one step fu rth er in the “ elevation of H o lin e ss,” p ro fo u n d w ith sp iritu al m eaning. But the Yom K ippur W ar created a p ro b le m the territo ria l m axim alists w ere u n p re p a re d for. It paralyzed th e Israeli g o v ern m en t an d w eak en ed the m orale o f the Israeli people. N ever before h ad all the to p policym akers o f Israel been so discredited. In the end, Israel w o n the m ilitary b attle b u t lost the political w ar. T he overconfident political an d m ilitary estab lish m en t h a d n o t believed the A rabs capable of launchin g a serious a ttack ; as a result, m ore th a n 2 5 0 0 Israelis died in b attle an d 5 0 0 0 w ere w o u n d ed . T he air force, w hich h ad w o n the w a r in 1967 in eight h o u rs, this tim e lost nearly 25 percen t o f its planes. T he IDF w as in to ta l d isarray — m any units w ere destroyed; o th ers suffered im m ense losses. A m assive A m erican airlift w as needed to keep th e arm y going.

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

65

A new term , m e c h d a l (culpable b lu n d er), w as on ev ery o n e’s lips even before th e end o f th e w a r.107 Several d istin g u ish ed generals blam ed each o th er for failures, a n d th e ir feuds w ere ven ted freely in th e press. So d a m ­ aged w as th e c a b in e t’s a u th o rity th a t n eith er G o ld a M eir, the p rim e m inis­ ter, n o r M o sh e D ay an , h er m in ister o f defense, w as eith er able o r ready to silence th e b itte r generals. Less th a n th re e m o n th s after th e w a r’s end, large p ro te st m ovem ents o f civilians a n d soldiers called for th e resig n atio n o f th e m inisters respo n sib le for th e m e c h d a l — D ay an a n d M eir in p a rtic u la r.108 T h e A g ra n a t R e p o rt, th e first interim re p o rt o f an investigative c o m m it­ tee, w as p u b lish ed in A pril 1974. It d e a lt exclusively w ith th e m ilitary, b u t it w as clear th a t th e M eir c a b in e t h a d reached its end. T h e p ro te st m ovem ents, a n o n -ideological cross section o f th e p o p u la tio n , w o u ld n o t let th e p o liti­ cians m ake scap eg o ats o f th e soldiers. A nd th u s, in A pril 1974, less th en fo u r m onths after they h a d w o n th e election, G o ld a M eir a n d h er to p m inisters, D ayan (defense), E b an (foreign affairs), a n d S apir (finance) step p ed d o w n . The new te rrito ria l m ax im alists w a tc h e d th e evolving crisis w ith g ro w in g unease. Like ev erybody else, they w ere a p p alled by th e intelligence failure to an ticip ate th e A rab a tta c k a n d w ere d isa p p o in te d w ith the g o v ern m en t. M any joined th e p ro te st m ovem ents. B ut th e collapse o f th e g o v ern m en t w as im m ensely d isquieting. T he new c a b in e t o f Itz h a k R ab in did n o th in g to reassu re the LIM lead ­ ers. T hey w ere especially tro u b le d by th e aggressive d ip lo m acy o f H en ry Kissinger, th e A m erican secretary o f state, w h o p u sh ed Israel in to a m inor, b u t strategically significant, te rrito ria l co m p ro m ise w ith E gypt a n d S y ria.109 As the g o v e rn m e n t a p p ro a c h e d th e disen g ag em en t agreem ents w ith E gypt and m oved closer to som e re tre a t in th e G o lan H eig h ts, K issinger becam e, in the eyes o f th e L IM ideologues, a m onster, a self-hating Jew, a n d a very serious th re a t to th e safety a n d integrity o f th e State o f Israel. T h e R ab in cabinet quietly rescinded th e G alili D o c u m e n t an d assum ed a defensive posture. R a b in ’s concessions to S ad at w ere a tta c k e d in Z o t H a ’a retz, th e LIM journal, a n d c o m p a re d to C h a m b e rla in ’s 1939 concessions to H itle r a t M u ­ n ich.110 T he real b lu n d e r o f th e M e ir cab in et, acco rd in g to the LIM critiq u e, w as its failure to settle th e occupied te rrito rie s o n a m assive scale w hen it held all th e card s. B ut even th en , in m id -1974, it w as n o t to o late. T h e Israeli m ilitary h a d w o n th e w a r a n d w as still stro n g en o u g h to dism iss all the threats a n d p ressures. All th a t w as needed w as resolve an d d e te rm in a tio n . Instead o f m ak in g concessions, th e g o v ern m en t sh o u ld have sta rte d a new settlem ent drive all o v er Eretz Y israel, so th a t th e w o rld co u ld recognize Israel’s real s tre n g th .111 A m o st significant resp o n se to th e crisis o f th e Yom K ip p u r W ar w as the birth o f G ush E m unim in M a rc h 19 7 4 , am id the gloom o f th e first te rrito ria l concessions in Sinai. T h e fo u n d ers, all fo rm er stu d en ts o f M erk az H arav, were d eterm in e d to o p p o se fu rth e r concessions a n d in stead to help ex ten d

66

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Israeli sovereignty over the occupied te rrito rie s.112 A t first, G ush Em unim w as a faction w ithin the N a tio n a l Religious Party, then a p a rtn e r in the L abor coalition governm ent; the faction included Z ev u lu n H am m er and Yehuda Ben-M eir, tw o leading figures o f the y oung g en eratio n o f the N R P.1U But the new m ovem ent soon gave up its p arty alignm ent. T he m em bers of G ariin Elon M o reh , the religious nucleus established in K iryat A rba to sp earhead the settlem ent o f Sam aria, w ere asked to join; they required th a t the G ush sever its relations w ith the N R P.114 T he em phasis on settlem ent instead o f politics echoed the p ositio n of R abbi M oshe Levinger, the unchallenged leader of K iryat A rba. A fter leaving the N RP, the m em bers of G ush E m unim refused to identify w ith any party, even the LIM . Strongly m otivated and led by talen ted young rabbis an d activists, they w ere confi­ den t in th eir m ission, and equally confident th a t they genuinely represented the n atio n al interest. T he G u sh ’s m anifesto, w ritten by the th o u g h tfu l H anan P orat, stated its inten tio n to revive Z io n ism an d p ro m o te a n atio n al reaw akening. It found no c o n tra d ic tio n betw een Z io n ism — tra d itio n ally a secular m ovem ent— an d o rth o d o x Ju d aism , since the sh ared objective w as redem ption. The purpose is to bring about a grand movement of reawakening within the people of Israel in order to fulfill the Zionist vision in its entirety, with the recognition that the origins of the visions are rooted in Israel’ s tradition and in the foundation of Judaism and its goal— the full redemption of the people of Israel and the rest of the world.115

It is im p o rta n t to stress th a t at first G ush E m unim , like the LIM in 1967, did n o t perceive itself as an extrem ist m ovem ent an d did n o t foresee a serious conflict w ith the g o vernm ent o r the L ab o r alignm ent. R abbi Zvi Yehuda K ook, the head o f M erk az H arav, w h o m ain tain ed his sp iritu al au th o rity over the m ovem ent w ith o u t actually p artic ip a tin g in its daily deci­ sions, never retracted the full legitim acy he acco rd ed the g o v ern m en t o f Israel, the K nesset, an d the army. These in stitu tio n s w ere to rem ain holy and unchallenged. T he m em bers of G ush E m unim acted o u t of a conviction th a t the people of Israel an d th eir g o vernm ent n e e d ed th eir guidance in th eir m o m ent of crisis.116 T his w as, after all, the historical p a tte rn o f p ioneering Z ionism : an illicit m inority action follow ed by a m ajo rity recognition and g ratitu de. G ush E m unim saw itself as the unselfish in stru m en t o f the divine process of redem p tio n . Full o f love, it could n o t possibly th in k a b o u t real conflict w ith the n a tio n and its governm ent. W hile the L abo r g overnm ent o f Itzhak R abin w as in p o w er (1974 to 1977), G ush E m unim p u rsu ed three types of activity: it joined the L and o f Israel M ov em en t in p ro te stin g the Interim A greem ents w ith E gypt an d Syria, it staged sym bolic d e m o n stratio n s in Judea an d S am aria to undersco re the Jew ish a tta c h m e n t to these p arts of Eretz Y israel, an d it carried o u t settle­ m ent o p e ra tio n s in the W est B ank an d G o lan H eights. By far the m ost co ntroversial issue p u rsu ed w as the d em an d th a t Israel settle the densely

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

67

A rab p o p u la te d S am aria. B asing its claim on G o d ’s p ro m ise to A b rah am som e 4 0 0 0 years earlier a n d o n th e biblical m em ories o f an cien t Jew ish cities such as Shchem a n d Shilo, G ush E m unim challenged th e g o v e rn m e n t’s ta c it acceptance o f th e A llon Plan. N o n u m b e r o f A rabs, th e G ush m ain tain ed , could possibly in v alid ate th e Jew ish rig h t to live an y w h ere in th eir p ro m ised land. T he m ain e ffo rt to settle in S am aria w as carried o u t by G ariin Elon M o reh , th e m o st influential settlem en t nucleus in G ush E m unim . Seven tim es th e G ariin m em bers, b ack ed by th e en tire G ush E m unim , tried to settle in S am aria illicitly, a n d seven tim es they w ere ev acu ated by th e arm y. N ev er­ theless, after each e ffo rt th e G ush w as b e tte r able to o u tm a n e u v e r the m ili­ tary in th e field, m obilizing g re a te r p u b lic s u p p o rt an d recru itin g m o re enthusiastic settlers. It w as a b a ttle o f resolve a n d p atien ce, o f cu n n in g an d pressure, a po litical struggle b etw een a m igh ty b u t divided g o v ern m en t, an d a w eak b u t u n ite d G ush. By D ecem ber 1975 th e struggle w as over. Prim e M inister Itz h ak R ab in o rd e re d th e settlers o u t o f th eir te m p o ra ry settlem en t b u t allow ed th em to stay in K ad u m , a m ilitary co m p o u n d nearby. T hey never left th e a rea, a n d th e prin cip le th a t S am aria w as o p en to Jew ish settlem ent w as, a t least partially, e sta b lish e d .117 T here is n o d o u b t th a t th e te rrito ria l-m a x im a list cam p w as m o re b itte r and rad ical a fte r th e Yom K ip p u r W ar th a n before. T h e ex citem en t an d enthusiasm o f th e early 1970s w ere gone, a n d w ith th em the o p tim ism o f th e old w a rrio rs. Z o t H a ’a re tz, th e L IM m agazine, w as scath in g a b o u t th e w eak g o v ernm ent a n d its c o n d u c t o f p u b lic affairs, n o tin g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s incli­ nation to co m p ro m ise th e te rrito rie s a n d p o in tin g o u t th e an alo g y o f M u ­ nich, 1939. Even G ush E m u n im , w hich rep eated ly stressed its loyalty to the in stitu ­ tions o f th e “ Israeli sovereignty,” developed an im p o rta n t th eo retic al p ro p o ­ sition, th e d istin ctio n betw een leg a l a n d legitim ate acts. G ush leaders e la b o ­ rated th e d istin ctio n : th e g o v e rn m e n t’s refusal to ap p ro v e o f certain settle­ m ents m ay have been fo rm ally legal, b u t su b stan tially it w as illeg itim ate.118 Z ionism , w hich ac c o rd in g to G ush E m unim w as th e fu n d am en tal c o n stitu ­ tion of the lan d , h a d alw ays called for an u n c o n d itio n a l settlem en t o f th e entirety o f Eretz Y israel. A g o v e rn m e n t actin g ag ain st the settlem en t o f its h eartlan d w as th u s actin g “ u n c o n s titu tio n a lly ” a n d u n d erm in in g its o w n legitim acy; it w as p lacin g itself in th e sam e categ o ry as th e B ritish M a n d a te governm ent, w hich in 1939 h a d b a rre d Jew ish im m ig ratio n a n d settlem en t in Palestine. S ettling S am aria h a d been d eclared illegal by the g o v ern m en t, but it w as as legitim ate as th e earlier “ illegal” Jew ish settlem en t in Palestine. Gush E m unim w as d eterm in e d to settle S am aria, w ith o r w ith o u t the legal approval o f th e au th o ritie s. A retrospective e x a m in a tio n o f th e m em bers o f th e L and o f Israel M o v e­ m ent, G ush E m u n im , a n d K ach show s th a t by the m id -1 9 7 0 s they w ere different in th e ir epistem o lo g y a n d political co n v ictio n s from th e rest o f the

68

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Israeli political com m unity, including m o st o f the L ikud activists. T hey w ere true believers, co m m itted to the settlem ent o f Eretz Y israel an d th e a n n e x a ­ tion o f the territo ries. T hey w ere n o t interested in co n sid eratio n s o f real p o litik , big-pow er diplom acy, an d in te rn a tio n a l law. T hese o rie n ta tio n s, how ever, did n o t yet display salient political radicalism o r extrem e o p p o si­ tion to the prevailing rules o f Israeli politics. W hile som e o f G ush E m u n im ’s settlem ent attem p ts p ro d u ced sm all-scale clashes, G ush m em bers w ere in general very cautious. T hey felt sorry for the soldiers w h o h ad to p artic ip a te in the evacuations, an d n o t a few am o n g them fo u n d them selves co n fro n tin g friends from th eir ow n m ilitary units. T h ere w as also a stan d in g ruling o f R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook, w h o h ad alw ays been a g reat ad m ire r o f the arm y and fo rbade any intended physical c o n fro n ta tio n w ith it.119 T h e early his­ tory of the settlers w as thus relatively nonvio len t. T hey did n o t collide w ith o th er Israelis an d th eir co n tacts w ith A rabs w ere m inor. T he m ain reason for the relative m o d e ra tio n o f the new territo ria l m ax i­ m alists seems to have been th eir conviction th a t they w ere p a rt o f a larger established p arlia m e n ta ry cam p, th e te rrito ria l m axim alism o f H e ru t an d the haw kish section of the N a tio n a l Religious Party. M en ach em Begin, w hose political influence w as on th e rise, w as the g reat h ope o f these people, and th o u g h they occasionally resorted to e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry m eth o d s, they w ere restrained by th eir belief th a t they w o u ld soon have a p arlia m e n ta ry m ajority in sym pathy w ith them . Som e m em bers o f G ush E m unim , it is tru e, w ere n o t fully sure of Begin— the “ Z io n ist o f w o rd s instead o f a c tio n s” — b u t m ost of them w ere happy w ith his Eretz Yisrael rh e to ric .120 In the m id1970s Begin’s H e ru t gave u n co n d itio n al s u p p o rt to the settlem en t efforts o f G ush Em unim , and L ikud K nesset m em bers like G eula C ohen an d Ariel S haron, visited their illicit settlem ents. In Jan u ary 1975 H e ru t held its co n ­ vention in K iryat A rba, and endo rsed the activities o f the H e ru t Y outh w ho w ere collecting signatures on a p etitio n again st retu rn in g the W est B ank to “ foreign ru le ” and in favor o f settling Ju d ea an d S am aria .121 A vraham Yoffe, an LIM leader an d form er general, w as him self a L ikud K nesset m em ber, the only real concern of his m ovem ent a n d G ush E m unim w as to elect th eir political allies to lead the governm ent. T h u s there w as no q uestion, in th e m inds o f th e territo ria l m axim alists on M ay 17, 1977, th a t th eir long w a it for full political legitim ization w as over. M enachem Begin, the m an w ho h ad p ro m ised to s u p p o rt the idea o f the w hole of Eretz Y israel, w as surprisingly elected as the n ex t p rim e m inis­ ter o f Israel. Perhaps no one w as h ap p ier th a n R abbi M eir K ahane, w ho responded to the event w ith to tal ju b ilatio n : For the first time since its establishment, the State of Israel has as its prime minister potential a man who thinks like a Jew, acts like a Jew, faces televi­ sion with a yarmulka on his head, and actually speaks the “one little word” that we have waited to hear from the lips of Ben-Gurion, Sharett, Eshkol, Golda, Rabin, and Peres. Menachem Begin, the potential prime minister of Israel, faces the nation and the world and thanks G-d, the one little word that

The Revival of Territorial Maximalism in Israel

69

the polysyllabic Eban finds impossible to pronounce. And he reads from Psalms and thanks the Almighty. Miracle? Miracle of Miracles.122

Every tru e believer w as th rilled , w h en sh o rtly after his election Begin visited Elon M o re h fo r th e in a u g u ra tio n o f a new synagogue a n d p ro u d ly declared, “ W e shall have m any m o re E lon M o re h s .” 123

4 The Rise o f the Radical Right,

1978-1984

The Crisis of Camp David The Israeli rad ical rig h t w as b o rn o n S eptem ber 17, 1978. T h e C am p D av id A ccords, signed th a t day by Prim e M in iste r M en ach em Begin a n d P residents A nw ar al-S a d at o f E gypt a n d Jim m y C a rte r o f th e U nites S tates, stu n n ed the new te rrito ria l m a x im a lists.1 O n ly a year ago, Begin, h a d becom e p rim e m inister w ith th e ir active s u p p o rt; n o w he h a d b etray ed th em . R eversing years of u n c o m p ro m isin g E retz Y israel rh e to ric , Begin agreed to re tu rn all o f Sinai to th e E gyptians a n d to w o rk to rw a rd P alestinian a u to n o m y in Ju d ea and S am aria. To th e m ax im alists, a u to n o m y im plied a P alestinian state in th e m aking. And the re tre a t from Sinai m e a n t th e e v acu atio n o f Y am it, th e new ly b u ilt capital o f n o rth e rn Sinai, a n d th e d e stru c tio n o f th e flo u rish in g Jew ish m o sh a vim (co o p erativ e settlem ents) in th e area. N ev er before h a d Jew s given up Jew ish settlem en ts w illingly; th e C am p D avid A ccords w ere a suicide o p e ra tio n , a crim e ag ain st th e n a tio n . T he m ax im alists h a d th o u g h t them selves secure u n d e r Begin. Itzh ak R abin, his p redecessor, h a d stau n c h ly o p p o se d te rrito ria l m ax im alism , an d during his a d m in istra tio n , th e m em bers o f th e L and o f Israel M o v em e n t, G ush E m unim , a n d K ach h a d reaso n to fear th e loss o f Eretz Y israel. T hey saw M en ach em B egin’s accession to p o w e r as lead in g to th e p olitical realiza­ tion of th eir d ream s. T hey h a d believed th a t Begin w o u ld an n ex th e W est Bank to Israel, o r a t least lau n ch a m assive settlem en t o f all th e occu p ied territo ries.2 A nd K ah an e th o u g h t Begin w o u ld “ ta k e c a re ” o f th e A rab s.3 C am p D avid d estro y ed all these illusions. M a x im a list d ream s w ere replaced by a reality th a t lo o k ed like these tru e believers’ w o rst n ig h tm a re com e true. 71

72

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

A lready before C am p D avid th ere h a d been in d icatio n s o f a rift w ithin the m ax im alist cam p. D espite his fam ous co m m itm en t at Elon M o reh , Begin w as cautious a b o u t new settlem ents in the W est B ank. T he m em bers o f G ush E m unim , w h o th o u g h t o f them selves as his “ d ear ch ild re n ,” w ere n o n ­ plussed w hen his office gave them th e ru n a ro u n d . Soon G ush youngsters again to o k to the hills o f S am aria, setting up stro n g h o ld s in p ro te st.4 Begin had n o t com e o u t against U .N. R esolution 2 4 2 , w hich called u p o n Israel to exchange territo ries for peace, a n d he pro v ed an a rd e n t legalist o n m any issues o f in tern a tio n al law. H is a ttitu d e to w a rd the A rabs w as a g reat deal m ore m o d erate th a n th a t o f his true-believing p a rtn e rs o r his o w n form er rhetoric. O n occasion he w o u ld rem in d his audience o f th e liberal ap p ro a c h to the A rabs tak en by V ladim ir Jabotinsky , his a d o p te d m entor. In sh o rt, Begin, w ho fo u n d a co m m o n language w ith his new m inister of foreign affairs, th e p rag m atic M o sh e D ay an , soon p ro v ed th a t he did n o t in ten d to m ain tain his p erennial im age as ex trem ist an d rad ical.5 In fact C am p D avid sh o u ld have com e as n o surprise. It w as consistent w ith Begin’s earlier p o sitio n s o n a possible settlem en t w ith the A rabs, if n o t w ith his public rheto ric. A lready in 1976, u n d er the m o d eratin g influence o f Ezer W eizm an, his future m inister of defense, Begin agreed in principle to tra d e m ost o f Sinai for peace. H e also spoke a b o u t au to n o m y for the A rabs of the W est B ank, an idea th a t w en t back to Jab o tin sk y .6 T he 1977 L ikud p latfo rm m ade these p o in ts quite clear.7 T he crisis after C am p D avid a n d the rise o f the radical rig h t to o k place because the young m em bers of G ush E m unim , the follow ers o f R abbi K ahane, and th e veterans o f LIM h ad been m esm erized by Begin’s pu b lic rh eto ric a n d deceived them selves by ignoring the huge gap betw een th eir m ystical dream s an d Begin’s actions. In to ta l c o n tra st to the po litical p ra g m a ­ tism o f th e heir o f Jabotinsky, they never th o u g h t a b o u t such n o tio n s as political c o n strain ts, u n av o id ab le com prom ise, o r diplom acy. In te rn atio n al law w as for them a hostile invention o f th e G entiles, an d a co m m itm en t to the rule o f law in any m o d ern sense rarely crossed th eir m inds. M an y o f the radical rig h t h a d never seriously considered A rab influence in in te rn a tio n a l relations an d w ere to tally blind to the existence o f th e Palestinian q uestion. T he rift betw een th e radical rightists a n d M en ach em Begin h a d in fact existed long before S eptem ber 1978; th e m o m en t o f tru th a t C am p D avid only ex posed it. T he em ergence o f the radical rig h t after C am p D avid w as to rtu re d . M an y o f the future radicals found it h a rd to c o n fro n t the m an w h o h a d only recently been th eir hero. T his w as especially tru e o f th o se dissidents w h o h a d sh ared m any years o f political o p p o sitio n w ith Begin, for w h o m he w as b o th a personal exam ple a n d political leader. To m ake m atters w orse, C am p D avid m ade M en ach em Begin highly p o p u la r, b o th in Israel an d a b ro a d . T h o se w h o believed they h a d to o p pose C am p D avid in o rd e r to defend the tru e interests o f the n a tio n h ad to go against the co m m o n sen tim en t an d consensus.

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

73

T hus in th e fall o f 1978 th e rad ical rig h t sta rte d o u t as a tiny m in o rity w ith very few s u p p o rte rs a n d few po litical assets. B ut the new cam p h a d a very clear d ire ctio n . It led to th e esta b lish m e n t o f th e Tehiya (R enaissance) party, radicalized K ah an e, a n d c reated a deep crisis w ith in G ush E m unim . As long as th e peace w ith E gypt w as p o p u la r a n d Begin p olitically in c o n tro l, the dissenters o f th e T ehiya, G u sh E m u n im , a n d K ach d id n o t have a chance. They w ere vocal b u t po litically insignificant. B ut d ev elo p m en ts in th e 1980s ch an g ed all th a t. Israel’s d ete rio ra tin g relations w ith E gypt, th e 1981 assassin atio n o f P resid en t S ad at, th e fiasco in L ebanon, th e high ra te o f in flatio n , B egin’s failing h ealth an d m y sterio u s resignation, all play ed in to th e h a n d s o f th e rad ical rig h t. T hese d ed icated fu n d am en talists greatly ex ten d ed th e ir influence a n d in volvem ents; by the m iddle o f th e decad e, th e rad ical rig h t h a d becom e a significant force in th e life o f th e n a tio n .

From Banai to the Tehiya The first a n d m o st visible reactio n to th e C am p D avid A ccords w as the estab lishm ent o n N o v e m b e r 1, 197 8 , o f B anai, an u m b re lla o rg a n iz a tio n o f several g ro u p s th a t felt b etray ed by Begin. M o st p ro m in e n t w ere th e L and o f Israel M o v em e n t, G u sh E m u n im , a n d th o se w h o called them selves the U p ­ holders o f H e ru t P rinciples. Several sm aller en tities w ere rep resen ted : th e Ein V ered C ircle (L ab o r settlem en t veteran s), rep resen tativ es o f th e settlers in Judea, S am aria, a n d th e R afiah S alient (n o rth e rn Sinai), m em bers o f the La’am p a rty (a sm all n a tio n a list c o m p o n e n t o f th e L ikud), a sm all stu d e n t o rg an izatio n called False Peace, a n d several m em b ers o f th e B en-G urion Circle o f th e L a b o r p a rty also asso ciated them selves w ith the new body. T he C am p D avid A ccords b ro u g h t these g ro u p s to g eth er, th o u g h m o st h a d e x ­ isted earlier. P resident S a d a t’s N o v e m b e r 1 9 7 7 trip to Jeru salem did n o t a t first alarm the fu tu re rad icals. Still th rille d by th e m a h a p a ch (extrem e change) th a t b ro u g h t Begin to p o w er, they h a d n o reaso n to su sp ect th eir leader. T h e visit of E gypt’s p re sid e n t in fact v a lid a te d th e ir long-held thesis th a t peace b e­ tw een Israel a n d th e A rab w o rld req u ired n o t te rrito ria l concessions, b u t a strong a n d co n fid en t g o v ern m en t. T h u s, th e cen tral co m m ittee o f G ush Em unim w as q u ick to c o n g ra tu la te th e p rim e m inister, saying th a t “ it is the steadfast p o sitio n o f th is g o v e rn m e n t th a t sta rte d to pave the r o a d .” 8 Knesset m em b er G eula C o h en , la te r a lead in g o p p o n e n t, to ld S ad at in u t­ m ost seriousness th a t Israel a n d E gypt co u ld “ n o w ta k e jo in t actio n ag ain st the red im p e ria lism .” 9 T he rejoicing did n o t last long. A m o n th after th e S ad at visit, Begin left for W ashington to co n fer w ith P resid en t Jim m y C arter, a n d on D ecem ber 15, 1977, he a n n o u n c e d in W ash in g to n his first co n d itio n al o u tlin e for peace. T h e key featu res w ere a readiness to ev acu ate m o st o f Sinai an d an

74

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

A dm inistrative A u to n o m y Plan for the A rabs o f the W est B ank, tentatively giving them an in d ep en d en t civic an d political statu s, to be directed by th eir elected representatives. For th e Eretz Yisrael devotees, the plan w as co m ­ pletely u n acceptable, b u t since the prim e m inister w as a b ro a d they decided to w ait for his clarifications. G eula C ohen, th o u g h greatly alarm ed , decided to m o d erate her criticism . R eferring to Begin as a g reat leader, she expressed her full confidence in him : “ W e have a fu n d am en tal tru st in Begin. . . . I do n o t k n ow a b etter perso n to get for us the best possible m ax im u m w ith in the n a rro w space we h a v e .” 10 But soon enough the te rrito ria l m axim alists discovered th a t th eir fears w ere well founded. Back from W ashington, Begin m et the representatives of G ush E m unim an d th e LIM an d to ld them em p hatically th a t no peace agreem ent w ith E gypt w as possible w ith o u t a w ith d ra w al from Sinai. A nd he w an ted th a t peace bad ly .11 By th e end of 1977 it w as clear th a t Begin w as serious and th a t “ Eretz Yisrael w as in big tro u b le .” T h e L ikud K nesset delegation ap p ro v ed o f Begin’s plan overw helm ingly, an d the act w as shortly repeated by the entire H ouse. T he dissenters soon organized a co o rd in atin g com m ittee. T he LIM an d G ush E m unim w o u ld of course be p a rt o f it, b u t the dissenters w ere joined by tw o m ore bodies. T he first w as a H e ru t g ro u p from Jerusalem led by G ersh o n Solom on, a veteran p a rty m em ber an d its rep resen tativ e in th e Jerusalem m unicipal council. T he second w as a new circle th a t called itself the U p h o ld ­ ers of H e ru t’s Principles. T he o p p o sitio n of these gro u p s w as significant; m any o f th eir m em bers w ere old co m rades of Begin from the glorious days o f the Irgun u n d e rg ro u n d . T he U pholders, w h o coalesced on F ebruary 1 ,1 9 7 8 , claim ed they, and n o t M enachem Begin, w ere the tru e representatives o f Ja b o tin sk y ’s ideas. Som e h a d been active since 1976 w hen they established in Jerusalem the haw k ish Circle for D arin g Political A ctio n .12 In Jan u ary 1978 a crisis in the n eg o tiatio n s w ith E gypt gave the d issen t­ ers renew ed hope. T hen a d isagreem ent betw een M en ach em Begin an d Presi­ d en t C a rte r in M arch p u t the w hole peace process in qu estio n . T h e crisis p ro m p te d the rise of Peace N ow , a m ovem en t o f reserve officers concerned ab o u t the failure o f Begin to resp o n d to the challenge o f p eace.13 O nce again th e radical m axim alists to o k h eart. Begin, they believed, w as “ com ing to his senses.” In view o f S a d a t’s “ in tran sig en ce” an d C a rte r’s “ duplicity,” he w as urged to review the w hole process an d ren o u n ce his plan. G ush E m unim again expressed s u p p o rt for B egin.14 T h e L and of Israel M o v em ent organized a rally in Y am it to reassu re the w o rried Sinai settlers. Suspicious o f S adat, the radicals convinced them selves th a t the crisis in n eg o tiations could n o t be resolved. Even visits o f A m erican V ice-President W alter M o n d a le in July an d Secretary o f State C yrus Vance in A ugust solved no th in g . A final a tte m p t scheduled for Septem ber, a t C am p D avid, w as w o rrisom e b u t did n o t look to o d an g ero u s; S ad at w an ted to o m uch. T he targ et o f th e dissenters in these m o n th s w as no longer Begin b u t Peace N o w an d its dem an d s fo r w h a t w as obviously a “ false p eace.” 13

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

75

T he C am p D avid A ccords sh a tte re d th e dissenters. T h e A greem ent w as w orse th a n they co u ld have im agined. B egin’s orig in al peace p lan w as b ad ly tru n c a te d — his p u b lic c o m m itm e n t to m a in ta in the settlem ents in n o rth e rn Sinai w as a b a n d o n e d , a n d his ag reem en t to an a u to n o m y for A rab s p lan w as seen as th e first step to w a rd a P alestinian state. N o t only h ad Begin su b ­ scribed to U .N . reso lu tio n s 2 4 2 an d 3 3 8 , w hich estab lish ed th e p rinciple o f trad in g te rrito ry fo r peace, b u t he h a d ack n o w led g ed th e “ legitim ate rig h ts ” of the P alestin ian s.16 A to ta l b reak betw een Begin an d th e rad icals w as inevitable. W hen a triu m p h a n t Begin re tu rn e d to Israel on S eptem ber 2 2, 19 7 8 , he was w elcom ed a t th e city gates o f Jerusalem by M a y o r Teddy K ollek an d th e entire city council. A m ong th e w elcom ers w as co u n cilm an G ersh o n S olo­ m on, the lead er o f th e U p h o ld ers o f H e r u t’s Principles, w h o held a large black u m b re lla a n d sh o u te d , “ You are giving us peace like C h a m b e rla in ’s .” Any reference to th e in fa m o u s 1939 ag reem en t th a t h a n d e d C ze ch o slo v ak ia to H itler, h as alw ays re v e rb e ra te d in Israel.17 T h is em o tio n al tactic h a d o ften been used by Begin, b u t n o w th e sham e w as laid a t his d o o r. Yuval N e ’em an , president o f Tel Aviv U niversity a n d Israel’s m o st n o ted physicist cabled th e speaker o f th e K nesset, Itz h a k Sham ir, “T h e su rre n d e r o f Y am it, O ffira (Sharem el Sheikh), a n d o th e r settlem en ts o f th e Sinai im plies Israel’s fu tu re return to th e b o rd e rs o f 1948 a n d th e su rre n d e r o f Ju d ea, S am aria, G aza, th e G olan H eig h ts, a n d E ast Je ru sa le m .” 18 Several Irgun a n d Lehi v eteran s, w h o joined the p ro te ste rs, a n n o u n c e d th a t they w ere u n a lte ra b ly o p p o sed to th e agreem ent a n d w o u ld n o t exclude th e use o f violence. Banai w as form ed a t this p o in t in response to th e p o p u la r acclaim fo r th e C am p D avid A ccords aro u se d b o th in Israel a n d a b ro a d . B an a i’s m ajo r target, M en ach em Begin, w as a t th e h eig h t o f his career, su p p o rte d by friends a n d fo rm e r foes alike. F o r th e first tim e in his life, Begin w as a tru ly national leader, seen as a m an o f peace, an d a statesm an . T h e re w as n o d o u b t th a t th e p eo p le o f Israel w ere en th u siastic a b o u t th e C am p D av id A ccords, a n d they w ere o v erw helm ingly a p p ro v e d by th e K nesset. T h e p e o ­ ple w h o fo rm ed B anai ruled o u t o rd in a ry m eans o f ex p ressin g o p p o sitio n to the g o v ern m en t, nam ely esta b lish in g a political party. It m ade m o re sense to form p ro te st m o v em en ts to u n m a sk th e false ag reem en t a n d ex p o se its flaws to bo th th e n a tio n a list rig h t a n d th e general public. T h e full n am e o f th e new group, “ B rit N e ’em an ei E retz Y israel” w as suggested by N a o m i Shem er, o ne of Israel’s m o st p o p u la r p o e ts .19 U nexpectedly, B anai did very w ell. It k ep t th e n ascen t rad ical rig h t to ­ gether an d helped it regain its confidence. B anai h a d only tw o real courses o f action: to lobby a g a in st th e co n firm atio n o f th e C am p D avid A ccords w ith in the p arties o f th e ru lin g co alitio n , w ith a dism al ch ance o f success; a n d to stage an e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry struggle ag ain st the A ccords in an a tte m p t to sway the Israeli p u b lic fro m su p p o rtin g them . T hese tw o m issions k e p t Banai’s leaders busy. B anai’s K nesset m em bers a n d lobbyists co n tin u o u sly w a rn e d o th e r politi-

76

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

d a n s , in b o th priv ate a n d public, a b o u t the dangers o f an agreem ent w ith Egypt. S a d a t’s p ro -N azi reco rd w as often m en tio n ed in o rd er to d em o n ­ strate his unreliability a n d s u p p o rt the co n ten tio n th a t he w as using the A ccords only to get Sinai back before going to w a r w ith Israel again. S u rren ­ dering the oil fields in Sinai w o u ld be an econom ic disaster leading to the loss o f econom ic independence. A nd th e A ccords w ere, o f course, also p re ­ sented as a m o rtal blow to the n a tio n ’s security.20 As for the w id er struggle, Banai held d e m o n stratio n s in Israel’s m ain cities and the settlem ents in areas to be retu rn ed . O n e of th e m ost m em o ra­ ble acts to o k place after th e N obel Peace Prize w as aw ard ed to M enachem Begin. Banai urged everyone either to cable Begin o r to telephone, asking th a t he n o t go to O slo. T h ree large black p a p e r statu es w ere placed in fro n t of Jeru salem ’s m ost cro w d ed sh o p p in g center. T he first co m m em o rated the peace (“ w ith h o n o r ” ) signed in M u n ich in 1939 betw een N eville C ham berlain an d A dolf H itler. T he second “ h o n o re d ” the N o b el Prize a w ard ed to H enry K issinger in 1973 for b ringing “ p eace” to V ietnam , an d th e th ird w as dedicated to the new est N o b el L au reate, M en ach em Begin, for his “ achieve­ m e n t” at C am p D av id .21 But the m iracle th a t B anai h o p ed w o u ld to rp e d o the peace process did n o t com e. O n M a rc h 29, 1979, Begin, C arter, an d S ad at signed the Egyptian-Israeli Peace T reaty in W ashingto n . N o w only the Israeli v o ter could und erm in e th e m o st fatal result o f the peace process, the d estru ctio n o f the settlem ents of n o rth e rn Sinai. T he final stage o f the Israeli ev acu atio n of Sinai w as scheduled for A pril 1982, and elections for the K nesset w ere to tak e place in N o v em b er 1981. It w as th u s theoretically possible th a t a direct appeal to the v o ter could save Y am it an d its su rro u n d in g settlem ents. T his possibility w as n o t m issed by the tru e believers o f the radical right. By 1979 they could c o u n t on five K nesset m em bers, several political m ove­ m ents, and rich experience in direct action . T he politicians am o n g them w ere, nevertheless, very h esitan t. F am iliar w ith th e conservatism o f the Israeli v o ter a n d w ith the history o f failures o f sm all political p arties, they w ere relu ctan t to s ta rt a new “ a n ti-C am p D a v id ” party. An outside initiative w as needed, an d it w as surprisingly p ro v id ed by Yuval N e ’em an, the p resid en t of Tel Aviv University. H e w as well k n o w n for a b rillian t career as an intelligence officer in th e 1950s an d for his achieve­ m ents in physics since th e 1960s, b u t n o t for his political views. H e w as never a registered m em ber of the LIM an d w as n o t an a rd e n t su p p o rte r o f G ush E m unim . In fact, until the Yom K ip p u r W ar, N e ’em an h ad been a dove w ith no shred o f sym pathy for th e cause o f Eretz Yisrael. Even after th e w ar, w hen his opin io n s began to change, he w as still w illing to w o rk for Shim on Peres, Israel’s m inister o f defense, as a special aide on security.22 It w as the peace w ith E gypt th a t radicalized N e ’em an. A ratio n a l an d soft-spoken p erson w h o never concealed his academ ic m an n ers an d analytical w ay o f th in k in g, N e ’em an becam e convinced th a t the C am p D avid A ccords w ere a d eath tra p for the n a tio n an d th a t the people o f Israel w ere being decieved by

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

77

M enachem Begin. W itn essin g th e h e sita tio n o f his new Banai colleagues, N e’em an decided to step in to th e h eat. H e issued a p u b lic call for th e estab lishm ent o f a new p a rty to fight th e C am p D avid A ccords. W ith in tw o w eeks he h a d a th o u sa n d re sp o n d e n ts— n o t a b ad tu rn o u t fo r an a m a te u r politician. T here w ere o th e r d ev elo p m en ts a m o n g th e d isa p p o in te d rad icals. A g ro w in g section o f G ush E m u n im h a d long been ad v o c a tin g estab lish in g a new reli­ gious p a rty th a t w o u ld be loyal to th e ideal o f G re a te r E retz Y israel an d to the religious Z io n ism o f M e rk a z H arav. T hey w a n te d to settle th e score w ith the “ d u p lic ito u s” N a tio n a l R eligious Party, w hich they felt h a d b etray ed Eretz Y israel ju st as Begin h a d d o n e .23 Ever since G ush E m u n im ’s b irth , its relatio n ship w ith th e N R P h a d been am b iv alen t. T h e N R P w as th e only political a rm o f religious Z io n ism in Israel, a n d th e G ush m em b ers h a d grow n u p w ith in Bnei A kiva, th e y o u th b ran ch o f th e W orld M izrach i m ovem ent a n d th e N R P. B ut th e G ush w as also a rev o lt ag ain st th e tim id NRP, th e p a rty th a t n o lo n g er “ really cared a b o u t Eretz Y israel” a n d sold its political services ch eaply to th e hig h est bidder. U nder th e influence o f G ush E m unim a n d a new g en eratio n o f its o w n political p ro fessio n als, th e N R P becam e p ro u d e r in th e late 1960s, m o re haw kish a n d loyal to th e in teg rity o f E retz Y israel; from loyalty to th e L a b o r p arty it m oved to w a rd L ikud. Z e v u lu n H a m m e r a n d Y ehuda B en-M eir, th e tw o y o ung leaders o f th e ren ew ed party , w ere close to th e h ead s o f G ush Em unim in age, m entality, a n d co n v ictio n s, a n d th e G ush h a d h a d every reason to believe its influence o v er th e p a rty w as g ro w in g . T h e 197 7 election stren g th ened th is im p ressio n . R ab b i H a im D ru k m a n , a sen io r G ush E m u n im activist a n d a close stu d e n t o f R ab b i Z vi Y ehuda K ook, w as th e p erso n th e G ush m o st w a n te d to see in th e K nesset. H is elev atio n o n th e N R P c a n d id a te s’ list to n o. 2 fo r th e 1 9 7 7 elections in d icated th a t th e electoral influence o f th e G ush w as g reatly a p p re c ia te d by th e p a rty .24 But in 1978 th e N R P again lost its resolve: w ith th e ex cep tio n o f D ru k m an , all its lead ers s u p p o rte d th e C am p D av id A ccords. O nce ag ain the N R P becam e a docile po litical p a rtn e r o f a d o m in a n t secu lar party, this tim e the L ikud. G u sh E m unim activists like H a n a n P o rat, G ersh o n S hafat, and R ab b i Eliezer W a ld m a n , citing this b etray al, p ro p o se d estab lish in g a new party. T h is m o v em en t to w a rd p o litic iz a tio n , how ever, w as resisted by such m em bers o f th e G u sh as R ab b i M o sh e Levinger, w h o arg u ed th a t it w ould be a grave m istak e, since th e G ush h a d a tta in e d its u n iq u e m o ral an d political im p a c t precisely because it k e p t itself ab o v e p o litics.25 A th ird elem ent o f B anai w as also intensely p reo ccu p ied w ith the fu tu re, the U p h olders o f H e ru t’s Principles. G eula C o h en a n d M o sh e Sham ir, th e leading o p p o n e n ts o f C a m p D avid w ith in th e L ikud K nesset d eleg atio n , were sure they co u ld n o t w o rk w ith Begin an d the su p p o rte rs o f the peace. But they w ere less sure a b o u t th e altern ativ e. W hile en th u siastic a b o u t N e’e m a n ’s initiativ e, b o th C o h en an d S ham ir w ere skeptical o f th e p olitical

78

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

chances of a single-issue p arty o p p o sin g C am p D avid, w hich w as w h at N e ’em an p ro p o sed . C o h en and S ham ir saw this ap p ro ach as sh o rtsig h ted . C ohen, the Israeli version o f th e Spanish La P asio n aria, w as never co n ­ ten t w ith in stru m en tal politics. F or her politics w as alw ays confessional and m oralistic. She believed th a t the s u p p o rt for C am p D avid w as a clear sym p­ tom of m alaise; dearly few Israelis realized th a t the tim e to enjoy life an d live in peace had n o t yet com e. T h u s, C am p D avid w as for C ohen m ore th a n a political m istake. It w as a sign o f a n atio n al w eakness, w eariness, an in ab il­ ity to face real challenges.26 This analysis led people like C ohen to an im p o rta n t conclusion. W h at w as needed w as n o t just a political p a rty b u t a m ovem ent o f n atio n al revival. Fighting C am p D avid m ade sense only in the co n te x t o f a larger struggle for th e reju v en atio n o f Z ionism . T he p erson w h o b ro u g h t th e three stran d s to g eth er w as R abbi Zvi Yehuda H aco h en K ook, the m e n to r o f G ush E m unim . Rav Zvi Y ehuda, as he w as called by his follow ers, w as intim ately involved in m any im p o rta n t political developm ents in Israel in th e 1970s. Like his follow ers, he w as u n h ap p y a b o u t the C am p D avid A ccords. Inevitably he w o u ld join the soulsearching an d debates th a t p reoccupied m any o f the radicals in the spring of 1979. N o G ush E m unim decision could be m ade w ith o u t h im .27 R abbi K ook w as first a p p ro a c h e d by G ush E m u n im ’s H a n a n P o rat an d R abbi Eliezer W aldm an, w h o b o u g h t G eula C o h en , in ten d in g to reco m ­ m end the estab lish m en t of a new religious party. T hey w ere u n su re o f the ra b b i’s reaction since his m ost tru ste d m an w as R abbi H aim D ru k m an of the NRP, w hose high p a rty ran k in the K nesset w as due to K o o k ’s efforts and influence.28 To the v isito r’s surprise K ook w as en th u siastic a b o u t fo rm ­ ing a new h aw kish party. H e did n o t even m en tio n the N RP, an d favored a p arty th a t w ould bring religious and secular Jew s to g eth er as equal p artn ers. Later, K ook suggested such a p arty to N e ’em an an d his g ro u p . H e felt th a t the holiness o f Eretz Yisrael w as capab le o f unifying all g ro u p s. T hose w ho believed in Eretz Y israel, K ook p ro p o sed , believed by im plication in the Torah o f Y israel an d in the G od o f Y israel. A greem ent on the indivisibility o f the L and could only lead to political unity.29 K o o k ’s reco m m en d atio n tipped the scales in favor of a new u n ited m ove­ m ent. It also helped resolve the deb ate w ith in G ush E m unim reg ard in g the p o liticization of the m ovem ent. T he G ush decided to lend the new p a rty full su p p o rt b u t to rem ain apolitical and in d epen d en t. G ush E m unim m em bers w ere th erefo re free to s u p p o rt the political p arty o f th eir choice.30 T he Tehiya m ovem ent w as officially established on O cto b er 8, 1979, in Jerusalem . T he nam e o f the new m ovem ent w as suggested by H a n a n P orat, w h o h ad originally picked it for the religious m ovem ent he h ad w an ted to build as an altern ativ e to the NRP. T he nam e appealed especially to form er Lehi m em bers like G eula C ohen an d Israel E ldad, for it also co m m em o rated A b rah am S tern ’s long -fo rg o tten “ Tehiya P rinciples.” 31 T he official nam e w as T enuat h a-T eh iya — B rit N e ’em a n ei E retz Yisrael (The R enaissance

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

79

M o v em ent— T h e C o v e n a n t o f th e U ph o ld ers o f the L and o f Israel). T he nam e conveyed th e m ain m essage o f th e Tehiya leaders: th e need for a genuine re tu rn to th e g o o d o ld Z io n ism , th e Z io n ism o f c re a tio n , o f p io n e e r­ ing, o f self-sacrifice a n d vision. T his m essage w as fu rth e r ex p ressed in th e em blem o f th e m o v em en t, a p h o to g ra p h o f a y o u n g an d h a n d so m e Israeli pioneer lo o k in g a h e a d w ith b u rn in g h o p e in his eyes. A t its fo u n d in g co n v en ­ tion in Jeru salem , th e p a rty ’s m an ife sto , K o l K o reh (A C all), w as p u b lish ed . This critical d o c u m e n t ch arg ed th e g o v ern m en t o f Israel w ith b etray in g its m ain m ission, th e c o n tin u a tio n o f th e g re a t m arch o f Z io n ism . T h e m o d ern return to Z io n w as successful, including “ th e in g ath erin g o f th e exiled, th e building o f th e th e la n d a n d its settlem en t, th e ex p u lsio n o f th e foreign rulers, th e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e state a n d its so lidification, the lib era tio n o f Eretz Y israel te rrito rie s — w ith th e reun ificatio n o f Jeru salem as its p e a k — and the em ergence o f a solid society.” B ut th is g re a t process w as being halted by th e p re se n t regim e, a n d th e re w as an u rg e n t need to revive Z io n ­ ism and rek in d le th e d w in d lin g flam e.32 T his w as th e call o f th e Tehiya to th e Israeli p ublic; th o se w h o cared a b o u t the old values w ere urged to s u p p o rt it in the n ex t elections. But w ell b efore th e elections o f 1981, G eula C o h en a n d M o sh e S ham ir, acted in th e K nesset. T h ey seceded from th e L ikud in 1979 a n d fo rm ally established th e Tehiya factio n in th e Israeli p a rlia m e n t. Fully aw are th a t provocative K nesset b eh av io r co u ld get free p u b licity b o th C o h en a n d S ha­ m ir played th e ir p o sitio n s to th e full. T hey to o k ad v a n ta g e o f every o p p o rtu ­ nity to a tta c k th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d arg u e th a t, in view o f th e large K nesset su p p o rt for th e peace tre a ty w ith Egypt, th e Tehiya rem ain ed th e only viable o p p o sition. G eula C o h en , p a ssio n a te by any sta n d a rd s, did especially w ell. N o t only did she cause th e sp e a k e r o f th e H o u se to cen su re h er repeatedly, b u t o n occasions she m ad e sure she w as kicked o u t o f th e K nesset— w ith p h o to g ra ­ phers p resen t. C o h e n ’s g re a te st p a rlia m e n ta ry success w as th e ap p ro v al o f a rare Basic L aw in 1980 fo rm ally a n n e x in g Jeru salem an d n am in g it the capital o f Israel.33 W hile p re p a rin g th e carefully fo rm u la te d d ra ft bill in the Knesset, th e Tehiya also collected th o u sa n d s o f sig n atu res in th e streets. The new p a rty ’ h o p es o f sto p p in g th e e v acu atio n o f Sinai th ro u g h th e polls were sh a tte re d in th e elections o f 1981. T h e Tehiya w o n only th ree K nesset seats. Begin’s L ikud received a h a n d so m e plurality, a n d did n o t need th e su p p o rt o f Yuval N e ’e m an , G eula C o h en , a n d H a n a n P o rat in fo rm in g a coalition. T h e c o n tin u a tio n o f th e Israeli w ith d ra w a l from n o rth e rn Sinai, in accordance w ith th e tre a ty w ith E gypt, w as assured. T his p ro m p te d th e T eh iy a’s m o st system atic a tta c k on th e Israeli legal order. All th re e Tehiya K nesset m em bers left the H o u se a n d w en t to Y am it to p artic ip a te in th e illegal struggle ag ain st th e w ith d ra w a l. T hey m ade it very clear th a t th e ir o p p o sitio n to th e “ illegal” ac t o f th e su rre n d e r o f Israeli territories to th e E gyptians w as m o re im p o rta n t th a n th e ir loyalty to Israel’s

80

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

rule o f law o r to th e K nesset w hose o a th o f allegiance they h ad tak en ju st a few m o n th s earlier.34 T h e radicalism o f th e Tehiya a n d its co m m itm en t to th e g reater Eretz Yisrael h ad n o t h a m p e re d its realism an d political p rag m atism . T h u s the p a rty ’s leaders decided to join th e L ikud co alitio n in th e su m m er o f 1982. W h a t b ro u g h t N e ’em an a n d his colleagues to m ake th e m ove w as th e Ju n e 1982 invasion o f L e b a n o n .35 N e ’em an w as an early ad v o cate o f a m assive Israeli o p e ra tio n in L e b an o n , w hich he believed w as necessary to destro y the PLO m ilitary m ight in th e n o rth , a n d thereb y to elim inate the p ro -P L O sp irit in the W est B an k .36 H e w as th erefo re very pleased w ith th e B egin-Sharon invasion o f L eb an o n . T h o u g h Sinai w as lost for the p resen t, th ere w ere o th e r p a rts o f Eretz Y israel to care for, dozens o f W est B ank settlem ents craving su p p o rt. A nd th ere w as a very real change in th e o rie n ta tio n o f th e L ikud ad m in is­ tra tio n . Even before th e m y sterious resig n atio n o f M en ach em Begin in A u­ gust 1983, th e n a tio n a list a d m in istra tio n differed greatly from th e cab in et responsible fo r th e 1979 peace w ith Egypt. M o sh e D ay an an d Ezer W eizm an, th e m a jo r su p p o rte rs o f C am p D avid, w ere o u t. T hey w ere replaced by M o sh e A rens, w h o h a d v oted ag ain st th e acco rd s, an d Itzh ak Sham ir, w h o h ad ab sta in e d . T h e deal offered to th e Tehiya w as h a rd to refuse: N e ’em an w as to be m ade Israel’s m in ister o f science an d energy, an d he w o u ld also head th e p o w erfu l g o v ern m en t settlem en t co m m ittee; th e settlem ents w ere to get 5 0 0 m illion shekels for new v entures in th e W est B ank.37 T h u s, th e Tehiya p a rty th a t w o n five K nesset seats tw o years later in the 1984 elections w as no longer a m arginal political p h en o m en o n . It w as a fo rm er cab in et p a rtn e r a n d a political o rg an izatio n w ith credible reco rd o f action. T he Tehiya p ro v ed th a t in the Israel o f 1980s it w as possible to be a genuine rig h t-w in g radical an d o p e ra te w ith in th e fram ew o rk o f the g o v ern ­ m ent. N e ith e r its lead ersh ip n o r its activists w ere ever asked to pay for th eir co n ten tio u s b eh av io r an d illegal o p e ra tio n s.

The Further Radicalization of Rabbi Meir Kahane and the Rise of Kach U nlike m o st rad ical dissenters o f th e late 1970s, R ab b i M eir K ah an e w as a radical w ith the creden tials to p ro v e it. T h is m an , w h o in A m erica in th e early 1960s in filtrated th e Jo h n Birch Society as an FBI in fo rm an t, a n d w h o later led the A m erican JD L to extrem ism an d violence, w as by the early 1970s the m o st skillful p erso n in Israel e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry p ro v o catio n s an d tactics o f d ire ct a c tio n .38 H e w as th e ep ito m e o f th e rig h t-w in g rad ical, an activist o rie n te d to w a rd street violence, crude p ro p a g a n d a , an d sm ear cam paigns.

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

81

Before th e Yom K ip p u r W ar, K ah an e w as very m u ch alo n e a m o n g th e te rrito ria l m ax im alists g a rn e rin g m o st o f th e p u b licity g ra n te d u ltra n a tio n a l­ ist o p e ra tio n s. B ut afte r th e w a r th e new ly estab lish ed G u sh E m u n im beg an using tactics sim ilar to his. T h e p e rio d a fte r 1973 w as th u s very h a rd fo r K ah an e— he n e ith e r h a d a large follow ing n o r d id he receive m uch a tte n ­ tion. A nd K ah an e, w h o h a d never been able to s ta rt co n stru ctiv e v en tu res o r p artic ip a te in a collective e ffo rt led by o th e rs, h a d a real p ro b le m . H is only w ay to survive politically w as to d o so m eth in g no o n e else h a d yet d o n e. K a h a n e ’s so lu tio n w as to violently p o lariz e th e re latio n sh ip s b etw een Jews a n d A rab s in th e W est B ank. F ollow ed by several ad m ire rs, K ah an e, w ho h a d ju st ch an g ed th e m o v e m e n t’s nam e to K ach (T hus!), m o v ed in 1975 to K iryat A rb a fo r th e p u rp o se o f e x a c e rb a tin g th e v o latile re la tio n sh ip betw een Jew s a n d A rabs. W hile he him self sp en t m uch o f th e seco n d h a lf o f the 1970s in A m erica, serving a jail sentence in N ew Y ork, a n d stru g g lin g to retain c o n tro l o v er th e decay in g A m erican JD L , his Israeli follow ers w ere involved in n u m e ro u s a n ti-A ra b o p e ra tio n s. M a n y o f these w ere co n d u c te d in the n am e o f T .N .T . (T error N eged T e rro r— th e H e b re w acro n y m fo r an tiA rab Jew ish te rro rism ).39 A nd since, u n lik e th e G ush E m unim m em b ers, K ahane never believed th a t th e A rabs co u ld live q u ietly u n d e r a b en ev o len t Jew ish rule, he w as c ertain th a t in d ue tim e all th e settlers o f th e W est B ank w ould follow K ach ’s ex am p le. N ev ertheless, un til 19 7 7 K ah an e h a d o n e so ft sp o t th a t b lo ck ed his to ta l rad icalizatio n a n d a lie n a tio n from th e Israeli n o rm a tiv e system : his u n to ld ad m ira tio n for M e n a c h e m Begin. K ah an e grew up w ith in th e R evisionist m ovem ent o f V lad im ir Ja b o tin sk y a n d w as an o ld B etar m em ber. H is fath er, R abbi C h arles K ah an e, w as very active in the A m erican R evisionist m o v e­ m ent. O n e o f K a h a n e ’s m o st vivid m em ories w as Ja b o tin k s y ’s visit to his hom e in th e late 1930s. In 1947, an ad o lescen t K ah an e p ick eted E rn est Bevin, G reat B rita in ’s m in ister o f foreign affairs, w h o w as resp o n sib le fo r B rita in ’s p ro -A rab o rie n ta tio n . T h e in cid en t resulted in K a h a n e ’s first a rre s t.40 K ah ane, w h o w as alw ays fascin ated by th e use o f physical force, w as cap tiv ated by J a b o tin s k y ’s idea o f Barzel Y israel (Israel’s Iro n )— th e idea th a t th e Jew s o f th e D ia s p o ra w ere to resp o n d in kin d to every physical assault, a n d th a t th e sovereign Jew ish state sh o u ld have a stro n g arm y. K ahane, like Begin, referred to th e Israeli m ilitary n o t as Z v a H a h a g a n a LeYisrael (Israel D e fe n se Forces) b u t as Z v a Y israel (Israel’s A rm y). A nd w hile K ahane alo n e did n o t e n d o rse th e L ikud in th e elections o f 1973 an d 1 9 7 7 and ran o n his o w n tic k e t, he n o n eth eless su p p o rte d Begin. In an early 1973 interview he ex p la in e d th a t his race for th e K nesset h a d n o th in g to d o w ith anim osity to w a rd Begin; o n th e c o n tra ry , he h o p e d fo r a stro n g e r Begin in the K nesset. H is a rg u m e n t in th o se years w as th a t he, as an o rth o d o x ra b b i, was cap ab le o f in tro d u c in g a g enuine n a tio n a list religious p arty, o n e th a t w ould s u p p o rt Begin in stead o f selling o u t to L a b o r.41 Inevitably, th e C a m p D av id A ccords w ere a p ro fo u n d sh o ck to M e ir

82

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

K ahane. H e w as tra n sfo rm e d a t once. T he p reviously ad m ired p rim e m inis­ ter of Israel h a d , instantly, becom e a tra ito r. By succum bing to th e pressure of the G entiles, Begin defam ed th e nam e of G od: The heart of the Begin tragedy is that a man who was a symbol, for half a century, of Jewish pride and strength, surrendered Jewish rights, sovereignty, and land out of a fear of the Gentile pressure. It is in a word, H illu l H a s h e m , the humiliation and desecration of the name of G -d by substituting fear of the finite Gentile for Jewish faith in the G—d of creation and history.42

K ahane w as h e n cefo rth relieved o f his ideological allegiance to th e successor o f Jabotinsky. A nd he w as n o w free from an ad d itio n al b o n d , loyalty to Israel’s d em o cratic form o f go v ern m en t. K ah an e, it is clear, w as never a g reat ch am p io n o f dem ocracy. H ow ever, if a legally elected g o v ern m en t u n d er M en ach em Begin w as cap ab le o f solving the pressing p ro b lem s o f Eretz Yisrael a n d th e A rab s, he m ain ta in e d som e allegiance to th e system . But n o w Begin h a d p ro v en him self p a rt o f a ro tte n system ; th e w h o le secular fram ew o rk w as c o rru p t. K ahane never ex p lain ed w hy he h ad expected M en achem Begin to act like K ahane, b u t in a later interview , jo u rn alists Alex A nsky an d Itzh ak B en-N er, asked if he w as d isap p o in ted w ith Begin: A n sw er:

Q u e s tio n : A n sw er: Q u e s tio n : A n sw er: Q u e s tio n : A n sw er: Q u e s tio n : A n sw er:

“Yes, very deeply so. That night, when he was elected, it was a great moment for me. This was a man I expected to start here, really start, a revolution. He didn’ t do it.” “Did you expect him to start the evacuation of the Arabs from the land?” “Yes, but not only this.” “Did you really have a basis for the belief that Begin would evacuate them?” “Sure!” “On what basis?” “It is not only me, they believed it too.” “They who?” “The Arabs. I remember. They were silent one month, two months, three months— they were afraid of him, they thought he was Begin.”43

A fter 1978, K ahane grew even m ore extrem e. H is term in o lo g y becam e as radical as th e o p e ra tio n s o f his follow ers. T h e p rim e ta rg e t o f his fu lm in a­ tions becam e Israel’s D eclaratio n o f Independence. T he 1948 d o cu m en t, w hich p rom ised equal rights to all th e in h a b ita n ts o f the Jew ish state re g a rd ­ less of race, religion, an d nationality, w as n o w presen ted by K ahane as a co n tra d ic to ry d o cu m en t. U nlike o th ers o n th e radical rig h t w h o felt co m m itted to the respected d o cu m en t, K ahane h a d never agreed th a t th e State o f Israel sh o u ld be com -

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

83

m itted to general “ n o n -Je w ish ” h u m a n istic prin cip les such as eq u al rights. In his 1973 b o o k T h e C h a llen g e— T h e C h o sen L a n d he stressed th e im p o ssi­ bility o f an eq u al A rab existence in Israel. P ro fo u n d ly h o stile to all enem ies of the Jew s, K a h a n e ’s p ro g n o se s w ere b ased o n a sim plistic w o rst-case a n a ly ­ sis o f th e A rab -Israeli conflict: if th e Jew s d id n o t “ ta k e c a re ” o f th e A rab s first, th e A rab s w ere b o u n d to w ipe th em o u t o r evict th em fro m P alestine.44 Before 197 8 , th o u g h , K ah an e, as an A m erican im m ig ra n t w ith no p a rt in the h ero ic Z io n is t p a s t, d id n o t d a re challenge Israel’s m o st ch erish ed d o c u ­ m ent. B ut th e C a m p D av id A ccords a n d th e “ fa ll” o f Begin rem o v ed all his inh ib itions. T h e lead er o f K ach w as read y to call th e “ b lu ff” o f th e d o c u ­ m ent: it w as, a c c o rd in g to h im , th e m o st d a m a g in g sta te m e n t ever m ad e in the h isto ry o f Z io n ism : Does “free”mean that they are free to work for an Arab majority in Israel? Does that mean they are free to give birth to many babies, very many, so that in the future they will be free to establish, by means of their vote, an Arab majority in the Knesset? Does “free” means an equal right for an Arab majority in the Knesset to decide that the state be named “Palestine”? That the Law of Return which today allows Jews, not Arabs, automatic entrance and citizenship, be canceled? In short, could the Arabs of the Jewish state . . . be free and equal to move to the voting booth in silence, in relaxation, even in complacency, and democratically bring an end to Zionism and to the Jewish state?”45

A cco rd in g to K ah an e, th e w o rd s fr e e d o m a n d e q u a lity in Israel’s D e c la ra ­ tion o f In d ep en d en ce a re m eaningless. It is u n realistic to believe th a t th e A rab s can identify w ith th e values o f a Jew ish state, estab lish ed on w h a t they c o n ­ sider by rig h t th e ir o w n lan d . It m akes m o re sense to ex p ect th e A rab s n o t to forsake th e idea o f A rab P alestine a n d to d o w h a te v e r th ey can to b rin g it a b o u t, in clu d in g ta k in g a d v a n ta g e o f th e Jew s’ values a n d g enerosity.46 T h e p e rso n a l d ise n c h a n tm e n t o f R ab b i M eir K ah an e w ith M en ach em Begin, a n d his c o n se q u e n t ra d ic a liz a tio n , did n o t help him a g re a t deal w ith the Israeli p u b lic. In 198 0 he a d d e d a new c h a p te r to his ex traleg al reco rd : w hen a u th o ritie s disco v ered a p lo t to d estro y th e D o m e o f th e R ock on th e Tem ple M o u n t w ith a lo n g -ran g e m issile, he w as d e ta in e d fo r nine m o n th s in an ad m in istra tiv e a rre s t.47 In th e elections o f 1981 he w as su p p o rte d by only 5 1 2 8 v o ters, 0.3 p e rc e n t o f th e electo rate. A lth o u g h th is w as slightly b etter th a n his s u p p o rt in 1 9 7 7 elections (4 3 9 6 , o r 0 .2 p ercen t), th e ch an g e n eith er suggested a tre n d n o r p ro m ise d a fu tu re. N o o n e to o k K ah an e seriously. M a rg in a l a n d crazy, his K ach p a rty w as seen by m o st Israelis as a n o th e r o f th o se u n re a listic lists fo rm ed fo r each election in a futile a tte m p t to a ttra c t a tte n tio n . O n ly in th e p e rio d o f 1 9 8 1 —198 4 did a p o p u la r sw ing in th e d ire c tio n o f the e x tre m ist ra b b i s ta r t to ta k e shape. T h is sh ift w as cau sed by th ree parallel processes, o n w h ich K ah an e p erso n ally h a d little influence: th e decline in th e a u th o rity o f M e n a c h e m Begin, th e fiasco o f th e w a r in L eba-

84

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

n o n , an d th e em ergence o f th e social-natio n alist-relig io u s-eth n ic p ro te st ag ain st th e A rab m in o rity in Israel. In 1980 M en ach em B egin’s physical c o n d itio n an d political fo rtu n es d e te rio ­ rated . A t tim es he seem ed to ta lly o u t o f co n tro l o f his cab in et; the L ik u d ’s m o st o u tsp o k e n m inisters, Ezer W eizm an (defense) an d Ariel S h aro n (agri­ cu ltu re), w ere a t each o th e r’s th ro a ts. W eizm an, p ro fo u n d ly to u ch ed by the peace w ith Egypt, w as m oving to th e left. Pushing to co n tin u e th e peace process, he o p p o se d settlem en t in Ju d ea an d S am aria an d d isco u n ted the g ro w in g PL O influence.48 S h aro n , on the o th e r h a n d , saw the peace w ith Egypt as an o p p o rtu n ity to stren g th en Israel’s h o ld on the W est B ank, an d did n o t care a b o u t c o n tin u in g th e peace process. T h e resu lt w as o pen c o n ­ flict, intensified by th e huge egos an d asp ira tio n s of the tw o fo rm er m ilitary hero es.49 O th e r c a b in e t m inisters, like Yigal Y adin an d Itzh ak M o d a i, w ere em b ro iled in th e conflict, a n d th e press w as full o f detailed rep o rts a b o u t the infighting. Begin, th o u g h form ally ch airin g th e cab in et m eetings, lo o k ed feeble a n d rem ote. T he entire g o v ern m en t o f Israel seem ed a n arch ic a n d in c o m p e te n t.50 T h en suddenly in 1981 B egin’s decline ended. R esp o n d in g to a m ark ed decrease in p o p u la rity a n d an alm o st certain loss a t th e n ex t election, th e prim e m inister surprisingly regained his stren g th an d co m b ativ e spirit. H e intensified his rh eto ric, so u n d in g like th e old p re-1 9 7 8 Begin.51 Ju st a m o n th before th e election, Begin m ad e a m o st crucial decision, to b o m b Ira q ’s nu clear reacto r. W hen th e sp ectacu lar o p e ra tio n ended w ith to ta l success, Begin becam e u n b e a ta b le . H e also w o n by p o rtra y in g L ab o r a n d its allies as tre ach ero u s, disloyal, an d d iscrim in ato ry ag ain st the w eak s tra ta o f Israeli society, th e O rie n ta l Jew s.52 Begin’s recovery did n o t help K ahane in th e sh o rt ru n , for they w ere b o th ap p ealing to th e sam e sentim ents an d using the sam e arg u m en ts. T he precise tu rn in g p o in t in th e ra b b i’s fo rtu n es m ay w ell have been th e C h ristian m assacres in th e P alestinian refugee cam ps of S abra an d Shatila, in th e fall o f 1982. T he m assacres p ro d u ced the fall o f Ariel S haron, the chief arch itect o f the L eb anon w ar, an d finally stigm atized the w a r as a political failure. T h ere w as no q u estio n , after S abra an d S hatila, th a t Israel’s O p e ra tio n Peace fo r the G alilee w as a failure. Begin’s days w ere n u m b ered . In A ugust 1983 he sim ply collapsed. M e n ­ tal an d physical e x h a u stio n ended the political career o f H e ru t’s leader an d placed Itzh ak S ham ir a t th e h ead o f the g o v ern m en t. Begin, Israel’s m o st ap p ealing o ra to r since B en-G urion, the fath er figure o f the “ second Isra e l,” the O rie n ta l Jew s, w as no longer in co m m an d , an d the m ediocre S ham ir w as no su b stitu te. T h e re w as now an em o tio n al an d political vacu u m in Israeli politics. K ah an e w as fully p re p a re d to fill the void. T he L ik u d ’s m ilita n t rh eto ric after 1981 h a d legitim ized m uch o f K ah an e’s language, an d he used the situ a tio n to th e fullest.53 H e w as so successful th a t in 1984 nearly 2 6 ,0 0 0 voted for K ach, his party. P ro b ab ly even m ore Israelis w ere sy m p ath etic to

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

85

his p o sitio n s, b u t felt th e m an him self w as u n electab le. It is clear th a t m o st of the p eo p le w h o v o ted for K ach in 1984 h a d been stro n g Begin s u p p o rte rs in 1981. M ean w h ile a n o th e r, m o re significant, process w as reach in g m a tu ra tio n — the rise o f n a tio n a list-re lig io u s-e th n ic -a n ti-A ra b sen tim en t. W ith o u t q u estio n this pro cess g reatly benefited K ah an e in th e 1980s. T h e n ew a n ti-A ra b se n ti­ m en t h a d to d o w ith th e d ra m a tic e v o lu tio n o f th e PL O a n d th e P alestin ian n atio n alism a sso ciated w ith it. T h e P alestin ian L ib e ra tio n O rg a n iz a tio n w as n o lo n g er a w eak te rro r o rg a n iz a tio n w ith o u t sta tu s o r reco g n itio n . By th e end o f th e 1970s it h a d acq u ired th e sta tu s o f a recognized m ini-state. T h e A rab success in th e Yom K ip p u r W ar, a n d th e oil e m b a rg o th a t follow ed , gave th e PL O th e ch an ce to p ru d en tly tu rn itself in to a relatively m o d e ra te political o rg a n iz a tio n th a t expressed a struggle fo r th e lib e ra tio n o f a p o o r p eo p le w ith n o lan d . B acked by the T h ird W orld a n d n o u rish e d by th e W estern fear o f th e oil crisis, th e PLO m ade its w ay to th e U .N ., receiving w o rld w id e reco g n itio n . T h e PLO fu rth er esta b lish ed a m in i-state in L e b an o n , w ith its o w n g o v ern m en t, b u ­ reaucracy, citizens, arm y, b a n k s, an d h ealth services.54 T his d e v e lo p m e n t b u o y ed up b o th th e P alestin ian s o f th e W est B ank an d the Israeli A rabs. T h e P alestinians saw Israel’s creeping a n n e x a tio n o f the occupied te rrito rie s as being c o u n te rb a la n c e d in L eb an o n . F or m an y Israeli A rabs th e PL O p ro v id e d a new focus o f a tte n tio n a n d id en tificatio n . Before 1973, th e PL O h a d played only a m in o r role in th e collective consciousness o f th e Israeli A rabs. T h e S tate o f Israel, th e w in n e r o f th e SixD ay W ar, w as p o w erfu l a n d successful. Som e o f th is im age ru b b e d o ff on th e Israeli A rab s; they w ere a fte r all, Israelis. Even after th e o p en in g o f th e b o rd ers, a n d th e first sh o ck o f m eeting th e ir relatives in th e o ccu p ied te rrito ­ ries, th e Israeli A rab s did n o t really feel P alestinian. T h e ir eco n o m ic p ro g ress in Israel, th e tw e n ty years they h a d been cu t o ff from th e A rab W orld, an d the p o w e r o f th e ir c o u n try h a d m ad e it difficult for th em to identify w ith the losing P alestinian cau se .55 B ut this seem s to have ch an g ed in th e Yom K ip p u r W ar. Israel w as n o longer self-confident a n d invincible. T h e Israeli A rab s did n o t in stan tly lose th eir Isreali con scio u sn ess, b u t th e PL O began to lo o k a ttra c tiv e , an d m an y of th em sta rte d to relate to P alestinian n a tio n a lism .56 T h e m o st significant ex p ressio n o f th e new sp irit o f P alestinian defiance to o k place o n M a rc h 3 0 , 19 7 6 , o n w h a t w as called th e L an d Day. A general A rab strik e ag a in st u n ju st e x p ro p ria tio n s o f lan d in th e lo w er G alilee evolved in to v io len t d e m o n stra tio n s. Israeli police a n d m ilitary u n its w ere a tta c k e d by ro ck s a n d m o lo to v cock tails. In th e en d six Israeli A rab s w ere killed a n d thirty-five Israeli policem en a n d soldiers w ere w o u n d e d . T he L and D ay w as a w a te rsh e d , o p e n in g a new era o f fervent id en tificatio n w ith Palestinian n a tio n a l sym bols. N o w h e re w as th e new ex trem ism felt m o re strongly th a n in Isra e l’s universities. T h e A rab stu d en ts h ad been d ivided betw een th e tra d itio n a l rad icals, m em bers o f R a k a h (the N ew C o m m u n ist

86

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

List), an d a new o rg a n iz a tio n , Ibna-al-B alad (the Sons o f th e Village). In D ecem ber 1979, a g ro u p close to th e Ibna-al-B alad w o n the elections o f the A rab stu d e n t u nion a t th e H eb rew U niversity o f Jerusalem . Its p latfo rm h ad three d em an d s: th a t th e P alestinian C o v en a n t, the co n stitu tio n of the PLO d em an d in g the elim in atio n o f Israel, be a d o p te d as the stu d e n t u n io n ’s official creed; th a t th e S tate o f Israel be replaced by a secular d em o cratic P alestinian state; an d th a t te rro rism be recognized as a legitim ate p a rt o f the P alestinian struggle for self-d eterm in atio n .57 T he universities o f H aifa an d Beer Sheba w itnessed sim ilar e ru p tio n s. T h ere w ere n u m ero u s fights be­ tw een A rab a n d Israeli stu d en ts over incidents such as the d esecratio n o f the Israeli flag o r the p u b lic singing of th e PLO an th em Biladi-Biladi (M y H o m e ­ land, M y H o m elan d ). R abbi M eir K ah an e did n o t im m ediately reap the political dividends o f these events. B ut by th e late 1970s he knew he w as on th e rig h t tra ck . O th e r rightw ing radicals w ere very vague on th e A rab issue, b u t K ahane h a d pred icted the rise o f th e new A rab extrem ism in his 1973 b o o k , T he C hallenge: Not only the Arab in the liberated territories sees himself as a “Palestinian” and believes that the Jews stole his land. The Arabs who live in the pre-June 1967 Eretz Yisrael . . . those who have had Israeli citizenship since 1948, the Arabs “with equal rights”who enjoy freedom in the Jewish state, think in the same way. He [the Arab] does not see himself as part of the state, for he is an Arab not a Jew, a Palestinian not an Israeli. He feels no loyalty to his government— for he does not see it as his government. He is hostile and is full of hate for the Jewish majority, for in his heart he is a “Palestinian”and an Arab nationalist. . . . But since he suffers from a guilt feeling, for his Israeli citizenship, he is a much more dangerous enemy. . . . In the coming years we shall witness a growing number of Arab intellec­ tuals whose nationalism will radicalize and become a great deal more extrem­ ist. We shall witness a growing number of Arabs who would not find spiritual and intellectual satisfaction in the professions open to them, and of many others who will not find suitable jobs for their expectations. We shall witness a society whose main blue-collar workers would be Arabs and the others Jews. This situation would produce growing frustration, tensions, demonstrations, strikes, violence, and attempts of subversion and revolution.58

K a h a n e ’s 1973 p red ictio n s pro v ed , by the end o f the decade, accu rate. N o t only w as he rig h t a b o u t the fru stra te d y o u n g A rab intellectuals w ho discovered Palestinian n atio n alism , b u t he w as also co rrect a b o u t the g ro w ­ ing friction betw een Jew s and A rabs in the job m ark et. N o co m p etitio n h ad ever existed betw een th e tw o sectors in w ell-paid o r even m o d erate p o si­ tions, b u t the early 1980s p ro d u ced a gro w in g perceived co m p etitio n for the low er-p aying jobs. In 1 9 8 0 —1981 Israel’s econom y started to sh rin k , and the first to suffer w ere th e c o u n try ’s outly in g dev elo p m en t to w n s. H igh inflation rates destabilized pay scales, an d m any w o rk ers began to d em an d co n sta n t pay increases. Factories an d shops th a t w ere u n p re p a re d for the

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

87

new situ a tio n fo u n d A rab s to be inexpensive altern ativ e s to Jew ish labor. T he A rab s, especially th e resid en ts o f th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s, w ere w illing to w o rk fo r low p ay a n d w ith o u t la b o r o rg a n iz a tio n s. T h e re is in fact n o h ard p ro o f o f a large-scale rea l Jew ish -A rab co m p e titio n in th e job m ark et, b u t in Israel’s d ev elo p in g to w n s th e re w as a stro n g p e rc e p tio n o f such co m p etitio n . T h e A rab s w ere seen as w illing to w o rk fo r dism al w ages th a t no Jew w o u ld lift a finger for. T h e resu lt w as in evitable, a g ro w in g Jew ish hostility to w a rd th e A ra b s— peo p le w h o “ s to le ” jobs, h o stile aliens e n ­ ch an ted w ith th e new P alestin ian n a tio n a lism .59 H ad M eir K ah an e been a m o re b alan ced a n d m o d e ra te p o litician , he m ig h t well have been elected to th e K nesset in 1981 , alo n g w ith th e Tehiya leaders. His analysis o f th e A rab s itu a tio n w as, from th e angle o f th e rad ical right, realistic. H is forecasts w ere c o rrect. H is so lu tio n o f evicting th e A rabs w as far m o re co n siste n t th a n th e suggestions o f m an y o f his co m p e tito rs. B ut th e K ahane o f th e streets w as an a lto g e th e r d ifferen t p erso n from th e an aly tic K ahane o f th e b o o k s — a b u n d le o f u n re stra in e d em o tio n s, v io len t e ru p tio n s, and an in satiab le th irs t for publicity. A p p aren tly th o se w h o m ig h t h ave voted fo r him needed, in a d d itio n to g o o d analysis, a credible a n d legitim ate co m m u n icato r. T h e lead er o f K ach did n o t p ro je ct this im age in 1981, an d his p o te n tia l s u p p o rte rs v o ted for Begin. By 1984 th e situ a tio n h a d ch an g ed a g reat deal. Begin w as gone. K ah an e w as still an o u tsid er, b u t th e rh e to ric of the L ikud an d th e g ro w in g rad icalism o f th e Tehiya a n d G ush E m unim m ade m any o f his o p in io n s a c c e p ta b le .60 T h u s in 19 8 4 , fru stra te d settlers, b itter residents o f develo p in g to w n s, angered y o u n g soldiers, a n d insecure people all o v er th e c o u n try — 2 5 ,9 0 6 o f th em in all— jo in ed forces to lift a ten -y ear-old po litical b a n from th e h ead o f K ach a n d p u t K ah an e safely in the K nesset.

Settler Vigilantism and Violence in Judea and Samaria In M a rc h 1981, som e o f Isra e l’s m o st d istin g u ish ed law p ro fesso rs w ro te a letter to Itz h ak Z a m ir, th e s ta te ’s a tto rn e y g en eral, d e m a n d in g an official investigation o f several alleged acts o f violence co m m itte d by settlers ag ain st local A rab s in th e W est B ank. T h e letter a n d a stro n g S uprem e C o u rt d e n u n ­ ciation o f th e indecisive p ro se c u tio n o f Jew s involved in a n ti-A rab acts p ersu ad ed D r. Z a m ir to n am e his deputy, Ju d ith K arp , to h ead an in v estig a­ tive co m m ittee. A y ear later, in M a y 19 8 2 , th e d ev astatin g K arp R e p o rt w as presented. N o t only did it confirm th e existence o f Jew ish a n ti-A ra b vigi­ lante activities b u t it sh o w ed th a t m o st o f th ese acts w en t u n p u n ish ed . O u t of a sam ple o f seventy cases review ed by th e co m m itte e — w hich involved killing, w o u n d in g , physical assau lts, p ro p e rty d am ag e, a n d th e use o f arm ed and u n a rm e d th re a ts — fifty-three w ere never p ro secu ted . O f these fifty-three

88

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

cases, fo rty -th ree w ere closed for lack o f suspect identification, seven for lack o f an official co m p lain t, a n d three because th ere w as n o t eno u g h pu b lic interest to justify p ro se c u tio n .61 T h o u g h the co m m ittee did n o t study each case in detail, a ra n d o m e x a m in a tio n unco v ered sloppy investigation. Sev­ eral cases w ere reo p en ed after th e com m ittee d em an d ed it. R abbi M eir K ah an e h a d been th e first to in tro d u ce Jew ish violence an d vigilantism in to th e com plex o f relatio n s betw een Jew s an d A rabs in the W est B ank. V igilantism h a d p reo ccu p ied K ah an e’s Jew ish D efense League in its earliest A m erican p hase, w h en it to o k to the streets, first to defend Jew s ag ain st th e violence o f o th e r m inorities, b u t soon ex p an d in g to aggressive offense ag ain st R ussian a n d A rab d ip lo m ats. K a h an e’s m ove to Israel did n o t change his p h ilo so p h y — he w as soon p reach in g vigilantism ag ain st C h ristian m issions in Israel, finally m ak in g th e A rabs his p e rm a n e n t targ et. K ahane believed th a t any A rab w h o w as n o t ready to publicly vow loyalty to the idea o f a Jew ish state w as a security risk. A nd since th ere w as no q u estio n th a t all th e A rabs o f th e W est B ank w ere either actu al o r p o ten tial PLO accom plices, K ahane ad v o cated vigilantism to help the security forces in the area keep th e A rabs u n d er tig h t c o n tro l,62 an d terro rism to convince the A rabs to em igrate. In th e early days o f G ush E m unim settlem ents in Ju d ea an d S am aria, th ere w as a w o rld o f difference betw een the ideas o f K ahane an d the a tti­ tudes o f the idealistic y o u n g settlers. K ahane w as n o t p a rt of th eir cu ltu re an d did n o t share in th eir ideology; they despised the an ti-A rab hoo lig an ism he ad v ocated. G ush E m unim believed in the possibility o f coexistence w ith the A rabs. T he G u s h ’s young rabbis an d th eir follow ers vehem ently re ite r­ ated th a t they did n o t in ten d to u p ro o t the A rabs o f Ju d ea an d S am aria. Instead, th e non-Jew ish residents w ere to be tre a te d as g e r tosh av, (“ alien re sid e n t” )— th a t is, like people o f C a n a a n , w h o m the T orah co m m an d ed to respect an d tre a t hum anely. True, even in its m o st liberal stages G ush E m unim w as w illing to g ra n t full political rights only to th o se A rabs w h o vow ed loyalty to th e Z io n ist idea, w hile th e rest w ere to be offered residency rights only, b u t all in all the early rh eto ric w as full of u n d erstan d in g an d co n sid e ratio n . M o st o f the G ush leaders tru ly believed th a t a fruitful coexis­ tence on th e W est B ank w as possible an d th a t the local p o p u la tio n w o u ld enjoy an d benefit from th eir presence.63 T here w as, they arg u ed , plenty o f room on the W est B ank for Jew s an d A rabs alike, an d since th e A rabs h ad alw ays lived u n d e r b ru ta l an d in h u m an e foreign d o m in a tio n , they w o u ld ap p reciate th e h u m an ity o f th e Jew s, th e real o w n ers o f the land. T h e fly in th e o in tm e n t w as the fact th a t th e local A rabs h a d never been co n su lted a b o u t this co n cep t o f “ b en ev o len t” coexistence. N o r did they k n o w o r care a b o u t the T orah co n cep t o f “ alien re sid e n t.” T he W est B ank A rabs co n sidered the Israeli tak eo v er as a forced o ccu p atio n , p u re an d sim ple. By occupying the area the Israelis h ad ex p an d ed u p o n the injustice they c o m m itted in 1948, w hen they establish ed the State o f Israel on the

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

89

ruins o f P alestine. T h e m o re ideological circles a m o n g th e P alestin ian s talk ed a b o u t Isra e l’s “ c o lo n ia lism ,” w hile th e m asses sim ply identified w ith the PLO . B ut conflict b etw een th e settlers a n d th e local A rab s did n o t em erge im m ediately. As lon g as Jew ish settlers w ere relatively few a n d they settled m ostly o u tsid e th e densely p o p u la te d areas, A rab an im o sity co u ld be c o n ­ tain ed a n d th e m y th o f co existence m a in ta in e d . T h is w as th e case d u rin g th e L ab o r a d m in istra tio n o f Itz h a k R ab in , w h en th e g o v ern m en t strictly fo rb a d e Jew ish se ttle m e n t in S am aria a n d w o u ld n o t allo w lan d to be confiscated. M o st o f th e Jew ish -A rab violence in th a t p erio d h ad to d o w ith PLO g u e r­ rilla a n d te rro r o p e ra tio n s, w hich w ere ta k e n care o f by special m ilitary u n its o r by th e effective m ilitary g o v e rn m e n t o f Ju d e a a n d S a m a ria .64 B ut even in th o se early days, o n e place in th e W est B ank cau sed a g re a t deal o f frictio n . T h is w as H e b ro n ; th e b o n e o f c o n te n tio n w as th e C ave o f the P atriarch s (the M a ch p ela ), th e tra d itio n a l b u rial place o f A b ra h a m , Isaac, Ja c o b , a n d th e ir w ives— th e seco n d -h o liest place for Jew s. J u st a fter the Six-D ay W ar, th e Israeli m ilitary g o v e rn m e n t o p en ed th e sh rin e for reg u lar p ray ers a n d visits. Since th e site h a d for g en eratio n s been a M u slim m osque, special a rra n g e m e n ts w ere m ad e to secure Jew ish access w ith o u t infringing o n th e rights o f th e A rabs a n d w ith o u t d esecratin g th e large w o rsh ip halls. T h e general policy o f M o sh e D ay an , Israel’s m in ister o f defense, w as to resp ect freedom o f religion a n d to m ak e as few changes as possible in th e sta tu s q u o .65 T h e p ractical co n seq u en ce o f th e policy in H e b ro n w as th a t m o st o f th e C ave o f th e P atriarch s w as left in M u slim lan d s w hile Jew ish w o rsh ip e rs w ere allo w ed to p ray only a t certain h o u rs. T h is a rra n g e m e n t w o rk e d , briefly. B ut th e Jew ish settlers in H e b ro n , u n d er th e zealous lead ersh ip o f R ab b i M o sh e Levinger, believed th a t all o f H e b ro n w as Jew ish lan d by rig h t, an d th e fact th a t Jew s h a d n o t h a d c o n tro l of th e C ave o f th e P atriarch s for g en eratio n s w as a resu lt o f h isto rical injustice. T hey w ere c o n seq u en tly d eterm in e d to ch an g e th e sta tu s q u o , a n d pushed in cessantly for m o re space a n d lo n g er p ra y e r h o u rs in th e shrine. Inevitably, this led to g ro w in g A rab ho stility a n d conflict. U nlike o th e r early settler d e m a n d s, th e Jew ish a g g ran d izem en t a t th e M ac h p e la w as a zero-sum gam e: every gain by th e Jew s w as an A rab loss. R ab b i L evinger and his follow ers s o u g h t to achieve th eir goal o f c o n tro llin g th e sh rin e by stages, w ith o u t cau sin g an o p e n conflict w ith th e m ilitary g o v ern m en t. T hey w o u ld refuse, fo r ex a m p le , to leave o n F riday in tim e to let M u slim w o rsh ip ­ ers com e in. O r they w o u ld leave th e halls b u t b lock th e m ain en tran ce. W hen th e se ttle rs’ d e m a n d s o n p ra y e r w ere fulfilled, they s ta rte d to p u sh for K id d u sh in th e cave— th e rite o f ta k in g w ine after services o n S ab b ath an d o th e r o ccasions. T hey also d e m a n d e d th a t th e Israeli flag be flow n ov er the shrine o n Israel’s In d ep en d en ce D ay.66 All these e n c ro a c h m e n ts w ere extrem ely in su ltin g to th e M u slim s— especially th e d rin k in g o f w ine. Islam strictly fo rb id s alco h o l, a n d b rin g in g w ine in to th e m o sq u e w as seen as in ten d ed h u m iliatio n . T his frictio n led

90

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

directly to violence in th e cave itself a n d in th e area as a w hole. In 1968, a h an d g renade w as th ro w n a t a g ro u p o f Jew ish visitors in fro n t o f th e m osque. A fter th a t, a special m ilitary g u ard w as assigned to th e area. From the sum m er o f 1975 o n w a rd , th e situ a tio n a ro u n d th e M ach p ela becam e extrem ely tense, a n d Jew ish-M uslim skirm ishes becam e ro u tin e .67 A M uslim cro w d eru p te d in 1976 w h en a K iryat A rba resid en t stole Q u a rn scriptures from th e m osque. A rabs sto rm ed in to the Jew ish p a rt o f th e building, e x ­ pelled the w o rsh ip ers, an d set Jew ish scrolls an d cerem onial objects on fire.68 O nly p ro m p t m ilitary in terv e n tio n p rev en ted a b lo o d b a th . T he L ikud victory in 1977 b ro u g h t an end to th e cau tio u s settlem en t policy of the L ab o r a d m in istra tio n . T he new policy called for m assive settlem en t o f the en tire W est B ank. T he m ain ideological m essage o f the p lan w as th a t all of Eretz Y israel w as op en for Jew ish settlem ent. Its p ractical p u rp o se w as to create an irreversible situ a tio n in th e W est B ank, so m uch settlem en t th a t a fu tu re political co m p ro m ise over th e area w o u ld be im possible. T h e m o st im p o rta n t p a rt o f th e plan w as to have A ra b -p o p u la te d S am aria settled by Jew s, so th a t L a b o r’s A llon Plan becam e p erm an en tly in v alid ated . T he L ikud settlem en t p ro g ra m h ad an en o rm o u s im p act on the W est B ank. It p ro fo u n d ly p o larized relatio n s betw een Jew s an d A rabs, leading to an in ­ crease in violence. As earlier, the focus o f the new situ a tio n w as in H eb ro n . T he real o b jec­ tive of R abbi Levinger a n d his follow ers h ad alw ays been to settle in H e ­ b ro n , K ing D av id ’s first cap ital. Biblical co m m an d m en ts w ere only o ne reason for th e desire to settle in sacred H e b ro n . A n o th er w as the b itter m em ories o f th e 1929 A rab p o g ro m , in w hich the en tire an cien t Jew ish co m m u nity o f th e city w as d estro y ed .69 Sixty-seven Jew s w ere b ru tally m u r­ dered, w hile th e rest barely escaped w ith th eir lives. R abbi Levinger m ade no secret o f his desire to rein tro d u ce a Jew ish co m m u n ity in H e b ro n ; the K iryat A rba com p ro m ise, th o u g h seen as a g reat achievem ent in 1968, w as only a te m p o ra ry so lu tio n . O n e o f L evinger’s stro n g est legal arg u m en ts reg ard in g the rig h t to resettle H e b ro n w as the existence o f Jew ish p ro p e rty in the A rab city, buildings like Beit H a d a ssa h an d Beit R o m an o , ab a n d o n e d since 1929. Since 1976, Jew ish settlers h ad repeatedly a tte m p te d to establish p e rm a n e n t residence in these buildings. T he R abin a d m in istra tio n h a d repeatedly re­ buffed th e settlers’ a tte m p ts.70 Ezer W eizm an, Begin’s m inister of defense and a very stro n g su p p o rte r o f th e peace process, tried to do the sam e, b u t he w as o u tm an eu v ered by M iriam Levinger, the R a b b i’s wife. In A pril 1979, M rs. Levinger a n d several o th e r K iriyat A rb a w o m en occupied Beit H a d a ssa h an d refused to leave. A w are o f Begin’s co m m itm en t to the settlem ent o f all o f Eretz Y israel, a n d equally aw are o f his gentlem anly m an n ers, the settlers decided to have th e w o m en establish a Jew ish presence in H eb ro n . T he tactic o f placing th e ladies a t the “ fo re fro n t o f the b attle for Eretz Y israel” w o rk ed ; alth o u g h th e “ new se ttle m e n t” w as n o t recognized officially, the w om en w ere n o t evacu ated either.

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

91

O fficial rec o g n itio n cam e only a few m o n th s later. R esp o n d in g to th e m u rd er in H e b ro n o f a y o u n g yeshiva stu d e n t, Y ehoshua S alom a, Begin decided to p u n ish th e local A rab s by legitim izing th e Jew ish re tu rn to th e city: several fam ilies w o u ld be allo w ed to reside in H e b ro n a n d a sm all yeshiva w o u ld be esta b lish ed in Beit H a d a s s a h .71 T h e Levinger fam ily w as the first to m ove, w ith o th e rs follow ing. T h e new step a la rm e d th e A rab citizens o f H e b ro n . Ever since th e SixDay W ar they h a d lived in fear o f an e v acu atio n . L evinger’s activities c o n ­ firmed th o se fears. T h e re follow ed a series o f increasingly v io len t ex ch an g es betw een Jew s a n d A rabs. T h e m u rd e r o f six Jew ish yeshiva stu d en ts, in Beit H ad assah in M ay 19 8 0 , w as th e p e a k o f th e cycle o f violence. As w e shall see, it trig g ered re ta lia tio n from th e Jew s in Ju n e. From the beg in n in g o f th e Israeli re tu rn to th e area, th e settlers h a d been allow ed to c a rry arm s. T h e re w as n o th in g sinister o r a n ti-A ra b in this policy, it w as sim ply a realistic reco g n itio n th a t th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s w ere a highrisk area. T h is w as especially tru e in 1 9 6 8 —19 7 0 , w h en life in th e W est B ank w as d estabilized by PLO g u errilla a n d te rro r o p e ra tio n s; all th e new settle­ m ents w ere d esig n a te d “ c o n fro n ta tio n s e ttle m e n ts,” a n d th e m ilitary a u th o ­ rized settlers to sh o o t in self-defense. In 197 8 , Israel’s chief o f staff, G en eral Rafael E itan , assigned th e settler co m m u n ity p a rtia l resp o n sib ility for secu r­ ing the W est B ank. H u n d re d s o f settlers w ere tra n sfe rre d from th e ir reg u lar arm y u nits to units in th e W est B ank, w h ere they p ro te c te d th eir o w n settlem ents a n d secu red cu ltiv a te d fields, ro ad s, an d co m m ercial a n d general co m m u nity facilities. Every settlem en t w as req u ired to have an assigned n u m b er o f fit c o m b a ta n ts, in clu d in g officers. T hese w ere to p e rfo rm th eir active d u ty o n a p a rt-tim e basis w hile lead in g civilian lives. R egional m obile forces eq u ip p ed w ith a rm o re d p erso n n el carriers h elp ed police th e P alestin ­ ian p o p u la tio n .72 T h e c o m m a n d e rs p ro b a b ly saw this regional defense system as th e best and ch eap est w ay to secure th e settlem en ts a g a in st A rab a tta c k . It w as also p a rt o f th e Z io n is t tra d itio n : in p re -sta te Palestine, Jew ish b o rd e r settlem en ts and k ib b u tz im d efen d ed them selves. N everth eless, th e g ro w in g frictio n b e­ tw een settlers a n d local A rab s p ro d u c e d m an y d u b io u s uses o f official arm s. Some o f th e reg io n al defense u n its, like th e Ju d ea co m p an y co n sistin g o f settlers in th e H e b ro n M o u n ta in s , becam e n o to rio u s fo r being trig g er-h ap p y and fo r b ru ta lly m istre a tin g th e local A ra b s.73 T h e m ilitary g o v e rn m e n t o f the W est B ank, w h o se officers w ere often ideological su p p o rte rs o f G ush E m unim , w as n e ith e r cap a b le o f dealing w ith th e p ro b le m n o r in terested in d oing so .74 T he step to v ig ilantism w as com piled in 1983 by D av id involvem ent o f th e settlers in entire co m m u n ity to w a rd this

a sm all one. A co m p reh en siv e a c c o u n t w as W eisb u rd , w h o system atically ex am in ed th e a n ti-A ra b vigilantism an d th e a ttitu d e o f th e p h e n o m e n o n . H e fo u n d th a t 28 p ercen t o f th e

92

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

m ale settlers an d 5 p e rc e n t o f th e fem ale settlers ad m itted to h av in g p a rtic i­ p ated in som e type o f vigilante activity.75 Even m o re relevant w as th a t 65 percen t o f W eisb u rd ’s five h u n d re d resp o n d en ts agreed w ith th e statem en t, “ It is necessary for th e settlers to resp o n d quickly an d in d ep en d en tly to A rab h arassm en t o f settlers a n d o f se ttle m e n ts.” O nly 13 p ercen t o f th e settlers d isap p ro v ed o f vigilantism ; W eisburd co nclu d ed th a t G ush E m u n im ’s su p ­ p o rt o f vigilantism “ represents co m m u n ity sentim ent, n o t th e view o f a sm all g ro u p o f radicals o r tro u b le -m a k e rs.” 76 It sh o u ld o f course be stressed th a t m o st acts o f settler vigilantism w ere triggered by A rab h arassm en ts, such as ro a d sto n in g o r individual antiJew ish assaults. U sually th e settlers did n o t file co m p lain ts o f such incidents w ith th e police b efore acting, feeling they w ere eith er ineffective o r indiffer­ ent. T h u s, by th e late 1970s th e settlers developed a vigilante p h ilo so p h y ; as one settlem en t leader said, Our attitude has been that we cannot afford to allow any actions of hostility by the Arabs to go unanswered. ... If during the day or night a rock was thrown by x amount of Arabs(at a car). We will go out and react. Now, what that reaction means really depends on the situation. We sometimes go talk to the mukhtar [the village head] and warn him; sometimes we try to catch the kids or the people, whoever it was responsible for what was done. The general idea, as I have said, is that we found that if we don’ t react, the Arabs will translate it as a sign of weakness. And once we are in that situation, we really don’ t have any point of strength to make sure this w on’ t happen again.77

O v er the years th e vigilante p h ilo so p h y has developed a n o th e r b u ttress, nam ely th e im age o f the A rab w hose cu ltu re an d values are based on p rim i­ tive p o w e r stru ctu res. T he settlers speak a b o u t this “ A rab m en tality ,” w hich explains the necessity for a c o n sta n t settler vigilance. O n e p erso n to ld W eisburd, There have to be good relations with the Arabs as far as possible. But one has to show firmness if they make trouble. Because the mentality of the Arabs is such that they are used to the situation that people with power have to show their power. If someone throws a stone at you, you don’ t walk over and say Shalom. . . . Rather, first of all, you throw two stones at him and afterwards Sulhah (meeting of reconciliation).78

T h e vigilantism has becom e a w ay o f life: if force is co n stan tly needed to keep the A rabs in line, th e settlers c a n n o t dep en d o n o rd in a ry law en fo rce­ m ent. By 1980 th ere w ere p ersiste n t ru m o rs a b o u t a g row ing Jew ish vigilan­ tism vis-à-vis th e u n ru ly A rabs. A m assive settler a tta c k on R am ala on A pril 2 4 ,1 9 8 0 , in re ta lia tio n for previous A rab ro ck -th ro w in g in d icated an escala­ tio n in th e Jew ish-A rab tension. It served in fact as a prelu d e to the full-scale terro rism th a t follow ed from b o th sides.79 P erhaps the fullest e la b o ra tio n o f th e G ush E m unim vigilante ph ilo so p h y w as m ade by Y ehuda E tzion, in telling a c o u rt a b o u t his p a rtic ip a tio n in the

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

93

attem p ted assa ssin a tio n o f th re e A rab m ay o rs, in re ta lia tio n fo r th e d eath o f six yeshiva stu d e n ts by A rab te rro rists. Planning and executing the attack on the murder chieftains took only one month of my life, one month that started with the assassination night of six boys in Hebron, and ended up in conducting this operation. I insist that this operation was right. So right in fact, that to the best of my understanding . . . even the law that prevails in the State of Israel could recognize its justice or ought to have recognized it as a pure act of self-defense. ... It is unquestion­ able that in our present reality . . . the reality of the sovereign state of Is­ rael . . . the defense forces of the state had to take care of this matter, quickly, neatly, and effectively, so that nobody could have, in his right mind, ques­ tioned such an operation. Furthermore, I do not deny that it was a clear case of undue excessive force. But the situation at stake was a case in which the “policeman”responsible for the matter not only stepped aside,. . . not only ignored the gravity of the case and the fact that the murderers were allowed to act freely, . . . but developed a friendly relationship with them. . . . This situation, sirs, was a case of no choice, a condition that created a need to act in the full sense o f the word, for the very sake of the preservation of life.80

N o o ne fam iliar w ith th e lite ra tu re o n vigilantism co u ld miss th e classical logic o f th e vigilante m in d . Y ehuda E tzion to ld the c o u rt th a t he to o k o ne m o n th o f his life— a life o th e rw ise d ev o ted to seeking re d e m p tio n — to b e­ com e a vigilante te rro rist. A typical v igilante m o v em en t never sees itself in conflict eith er w ith the g o v ern m ent o r w ith th e p rev ailin g c o n c e p t o f law. It is n o t re v o lu tio n ary and does n o t try to d estro y au th o rity . R ath er, w h a t ch aracterizes th e vigi­ lante m in d is th e p ro fo u n d co n v ictio n th a t th e g o v ern m en t an d its agencies have failed to enfo rce th e law o r to estab lish o rd e r in a p a rtic u la r area. Backed by th e fu n d a m e n ta l n o rm o f self-defense a n d sp eak in g in th e n am e of the law o f th e lan d , vigilantes see them selves as en fo rcin g th e law an d executing ju stice.81 W h en E tzion re sp o n d e d , in M ay 1980, to th e req u est o f friends from K iryat A rb a to help avenge th e b lo o d o f six yeshiva stu d en ts m u rd e red in H eb ro n , he w as n o t th in k in g o f m essianism b u t o f vigilantism . H e to o k a sh o rt leave o f absence from his m ain co n cern to tak e care o f an a lto g e th e r different b u sin ess.82 D avid W eisburd p u b lish e d his results b efore th e Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d cam e to light, a n d his w o rk help ed m ak e it possible to u n d e rsta n d th e en v iro n ­ m ent th a t w o u ld p ro d u c e such a p h e n o m e n o n . H e w rites. The vigilantism of Gush Emunim settlers is part of an organized strategy of social control calculated to maintain order in the West Bank. Though a minority of settlers actually participates in vigilante acts, they are not iso­ lated deviant figures in this settlement movement. Rather, those vigilantes are agents o f the Gush Emunim community as a whole. They carry out a strategy of control that is broadly discussed and supported.83

94

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

The Jewish Underground of Gush Emunim T he m o st ex trem e reactio n to th e C am p D avid A ccords w as disclosed in 1984, follow ing th e a rre st o f th e g ro u p th e Israeli press d u b b ed the M a c h te re t Y ehudit (the Jew ish U nd erg ro u n d ), th o u g h the co n n ectio n be­ tw een the u n d e rg ro u n d an d th e 1978 agreem en t w as n o t a p p a re n t a t first. T he suspects w ere asso ciated w ith several acts o f an ti-A rab terro rism th a t h ad tak en place in Ju d e a a n d S am aria since 1980: an assassin atio n a tte m p t on three A rab m ay o rs, a m u rd e ro u s a tta c k on the M uslim college o f H e­ b ro n , and an a tte m p t to blo w up five A rab buses full of passengers. A t the tim e these acts lo o k ed like an o rganized vigilante effo rt o f the settlers to fight g ro w in g A rab te rro rism , an ad h oc o p e ra tio n ag ain st the PLO . H o w ­ ever, to d a y it is clear th a t the M a c h te re t w as n o t started as a G ush E m unim c o u n te rte rro rist u n it aim ed a t avenging Jew ish b lood. T he first m eetings of the m em bers o f the g ro u p to o k place in 1978, long before they first used firearm s. T h e to p ic on th e agen d a w as none o th e r th a n a m assive o p eratio n on the H arem -esh-S herif (the M uslim area on the Tem ple M o u n t) an d the b low ing up o f the D om e o f th e R ock. T he idea o f blo w in g up the M uslim shrine w as conceived an d developed by Yeshua B en-Shoshan a n d Y ehuda Etzion. B o th — especially Etzion, one o f the founders o f O fra , a m a jo r center o f G ush E m unim in S am aria— h ad been p a rt o f th e G ush E m unim sp irit a n d m ilieu for years. But m ore th a n m ost m em bers o f the m ovem ent, they w ere preoccupied w ith the m ystery of red em p tio n a n d its re a liz a tio n .84 T h e C am p D avid A ccords w ere, for b o th m en, a disaster of cosm ic m ag n itude. T h e ir conviction in the im m inence of red em p tio n h ad no ro o m for reversals o r setbacks. H u m a n e rro r could n o t stop o r p o stp o n e a divinely guided process. T he e x p la n a tio n th a t Begin h ad erred a t C am p D avid o r succum bed to the pressure o f the G entiles did n o t sq u are w ith th eir m essi­ anic co m p reh en sio n . A setb ack o f the m ag n itu d e caused by the C am p D avid A ccords could be ex p lain ed only one w ay: G o d H im self h ad decided to interfere in the process o f re d e m p tio n — eith er because H e w as angry w ith H is people, o r because H e w an ted to w a rn them o f som ething. B en-Shoshan, w h o w as intensely preo ccu p ied in studyin g the K abala (m ystical Jew ish texts) an d E tzion, w h o h ad been studying the w ritings of little-k n o w n u l­ tra n a tio n a list w riter, S habtai Ben-Dov, h a d no difficulty in discovering the ro o t o f the tro u b le. It w as the existence o f the “ a b o m in a tio n ,” the M uslim D om e of th e R ock, on the Tem ple M o u n t. M o u n t M o ria , the m o st sacred place o f the historical Jew ish n a tio n , the an cien t location o f th e First an d Second Tem ples, w as n o t just an o th e r site in the H oly L and. It w as th e source o f the n atio n , its very so u l.85 T he final act o f red em p tio n for the People o f Israel, the building of the T h ird Tem ple, w as b o u n d to tak e place on th e Tem ple M o u n t. But the g o v ern m en t of Israel h ad

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

95

decided in 19 6 7 , im m ed iately follow ing th e c o n q u e st o f th e M o u n t, to leave it in the h a n d s o f th e A rabs. T h u s th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d c o lla b o ra te d w illingly in th e d esecratio n o f th e holy place a n d h a d co m m itted an u n fo rg iv ab le sin.86 It w as th e c a ta s tro p h e o f C a m p D avid in 1978 th a t ch an g ed this s itu a ­ tion fo r som e m em bers o f G u sh E m unim . W hile m o st o f th e m em bers o f the G ush, w h o also agon ized a b o u t th e event, w ere able to follow R a b b i’s K ook in stru ctio n to m a in ta in th e ir allegiance to the S tate o f Israel a n d to react only th ro u g h po litical p ro te st, a few co u ld n o t.87 M en ach em Livni, the “ o p e ra tio n a l c o m m a n d e r” o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d , d escrib ed to his in v estig a­ to rs after th e g ro u p ’s a rre st h o w th e w h o le b izarre p lo t started : Shortly after President’ s Sadat visit to Israel, I was approached by a friend who showed me the picture of the Dome of the Rock, to which I shall hereafter refer as the “abomination.”My friend argued that the existence of the abomination on the Temple Mount was the root cause of all the spiritual errors of our generation and the basis of hold of Ishmael [the Arabs] in Eretz Yisrael. In this first meeting I did not clearly understand my friend, and more meetings were held in which an additional friend joined.88

T h e first friend w as Y eshua B en-S hoshan, th e K abalist. B en-S hoshan, a q uiet a n d m ysterio u s Y em enite Jew, w as never p a rt o f th e active lead ersh ip of G ush E m unim n o r a m em b er o f any o f its settle m e n ts’ nuclei. H e h a d been living in Jeru salem w ith his large family, served w ith d istin ctio n as a career arm y officer, a n d w as th e follo w er o f several K abalistic rab b is w h o h ad no re la tio n sh ip w ith G ush E m unim . B ut B en-Shoshan h a d been deeply involved in th e early illicit settlem en ts o f th e G ush an d a d m ire d th e people w h o w ere d e te rm in e d to pav e th e w ay to red e m p tio n th ro u g h settlem en t in all o f E retz Y israel. T h e settlers, in tu rn , loved this h u m b le, so ft-sp o k en , an d m ysterious m an an d so m etim es called him a tz a d ik (pious sa in t).89 It w as B en-S hoshan w h o first raised th e idea o f clearin g the Tem ple M o u n t, b u t it w as Y ehuda E tzion w h o becam e the o p e ra tio n ’s chief ideologist a n d d y n am o . T his y o u n g m a n — tw enty-seven in 1 9 7 8 — w as a typical p ro d u c t o f G u sh E m unim . H e him self h a d n o t stu d ied in Y eshivat M erk az H arav , th o u g h his ra b b i in Y eshivat A llon S hvut w as Yoel B en -N u n , one o f th e m o st influential g ra d u a te s o f M e rc k a z H a ra v an d a fo u n d er o f G ush E m unim . In 1 978, E tzion d iscovered a w hole new w o rld : th e u ltra n a tio n a lis t tra d i­ tio n in spired by p o e t Uri Z vi G reen b erg in th e 1930s, the tra d itio n o f M a lc h u t Y israel (the K ingdom o f Israel).90 T h e u n iq u e featu re o f this vision— as developed by S h ab tai B en-D ov— w as the n o tio n o f a c tiv e r e d e m p ­ tion . A ccording to Ben-D ov, th e re w as n o need to w a it for a n o th e r m iracle. All th e c o n d itio n s fo r co n crete red e m p tio n w ere alread y p resen t. O n e h a d m erely to act. H e sp o k e a b o u t th e b u ild in g o f the T h ird Tem ple a n d the com ing o f a Jew ish th e o c ra c y o n e a rth , a g o v ern m en t by T orah Law, ru n by

96

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

a S an h edrin, th e council o f th e seventy w ise m en .91 N o o n e in G ush E m unim h ad ever sp oken in such concrete term s. N o n e d ared press th e issue. Students o f m essianic m ovem ents have long no ticed th a t m illen n arian types are driven to ex trem e a n d an tin o m ia n acts w hen th e progress to w a rd re d e m p tio n — w hich for a w hile seem s a t h a n d — is all o f a su d d en sto p p ed . T hey are fully convinced th a t an excep tio n al act is needed to calm th e L o rd ’s anger, an d th a t such an ac t w ill resto re the m essianic process an d ensure its c o n su m m a tio n .92 T his psychological m echanism is p ro b ab ly w h a t inspired the Tem ple M o u n t plo t. B en-Shoshan an d E tzion, co n cern ed by the a p p a re n t reversal o f th e m essi­ anic process, began to m eet regularly. E ventually they decided to e x p a n d th e circle, an d b ro u g h t in M en ach em Livni o f K iryat A rb a, a m ajo r in th e arm y reserves, as well as o th e r tru ste d friends. All o f them im m ersed them selves in discussions o f th e H a la k h a a n d th e K abala. T he w hole p ro ject h a d a sp iritu al an d m ystical n a tu re . C h aim B en-D avid, w h o atte n d e d the m eetings from 1978, to ld his investigators th a t “ th e g reat in n o v atio n for m e w as th a t this w as a ‘physical o p e ra tio n ’ cap ab le o f g eneratin g a sp iritu al o p e ra tio n .” 93 Som etim e early in 1980 Y ehuda E tzion a n d his friend M en ach em Livni called to g eth er a g ro u p of eight m en. T his m eeting w as the first tim e the Tem ple M o u n t o p e ra tio n w as spelled o u t in detail. E tzion p resen ted his new red em p tio n theology in all its g ra n d co n to u rs. H e to ld the g ro u p th a t the rem oval o f th e M uslim shrine w o u ld sp ark a new light in the n a tio n , w hich w o u ld trigger a m ajo r sp iritu al rev o lu tio n . H e ap p eared convinced th a t the o p e ra tio n w as absolutely necessary to co n tin u e th e process o f red em p tio n an d th a t it w o u ld solve all the p ro b lem s o f th e n a tio n at once. H is to n e an d sp irit w ere p ro p h e tic an d m essianic.94 L ater o n, w hen in jail, he pu b lish ed a b o o k let in w hich th e entire ra tio n a le for th e o p e ra tio n w as fully p resen ted .95 Y ehuda E tzion w as the m o st d ynam ic perso n in th e Tem ple M o u n t p lot. By 1980, his ideology o f active red em p tio n w as q u ite distin ct from th e G ush E m unim ideology, w ith S habtai Ben-Dov, n o t R abbi Z vi Y ehuda K ook, as its m ain in sp iratio n . Ben-D ov h a d died in 1979, an d on his d eath b ed he h a d urged E tzion to do so m eth in g a b o u t the Tem ple M o u n t.96 U nder the spell o f Ben-Dov, E tzion felt fully cap ab le o f carryin g o u t the Tem ple M o u n t p lan , w ith no need for a higher rab b in ical autho rity . (His fo rm er rab b i, friend, an d n eig h b o r from O fra , Yoel B en-N un, w as no longer a p a rtn e r for discus­ sions a n d co n su ltatio n s; B en-N un later referred to E tzion as a S abatean, a false p ro p h e t.97) T he o th e r m em bers o f the g ro u p , how ever, w ere n o t as convinced as Etzion. T hey raised m any questions. Som e did n o t believe the job could succeed technically, an d o th ers w o rrie d a b o u t the political a n d in tern a tio n al consequences. M en ach em Livni— an engineer an d m ajo r in the reserves, p ro b ab ly th e m o st balan ced m em ber o f the g ro u p , w h o em erged as its o p e ra tio n a l h e a d — agreed w ith E tzion in principle, b u t w as apprehensive o f the im m ense consequences. L ivni’s conclusion, accepted by the rest o f the

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

97

g ro u p , w as th a t p re p a ra tio n s fo r th e b lo w in g u p o f th e D om e o f the R ock could p ro ceed , irrespective o f th e u ltim a te o p e ra tio n a l decision. T h ere w ere so m any d etails to be w o rk e d o u t th a t th e q u estio n o f a final decision to strike w as for th e p re se n t irre le v a n t.98 M ay 1980 w as a critical m o n th in th e ev o lu tio n o f th e M a c h te re t. O n Friday, M ay 3, w hile a g ro u p o f yeshiva stu d en ts w ere re tu rn in g to Beit H a d a ssa h in H e b ro n fro m S a b b a th p ray er, A rab g u n m en o p en ed fire o n them a t close range. Six stu d e n ts w ere killed; several o th e rs w ere w o u n d e d . T he a tta c k , as w e have seen, cam e as th e clim ax o f a p e rio d o f g ro w in g an tiJew ish violence in H e b ro n a n d th ro u g h o u t Ju d ea a n d S am aria. T h e settlers w ere certain th a t th e a tta c k w as m a ste rm in d e d by th e P alestin ian N a tio n a l G u id an ce C o m m itte e in Ju d e a a n d S am aria , an alleged PL O o rg a n iz a tio n th a t D efense M in iste r Ezer W eizm an allo w ed to o p e ra te a lm o st freely.99 T h e settlers felt th a t only a m assive re ta lia tio n co u ld get th e situ a tio n u n d e r co n tro l. A fter tw o m eetings in K iryat A rb a, a tte n d e d by th e co m m u n al rabbis, th e settlers d ecided to a c t.100 M en ach em Livni, a K iryat A rb a residen t, knew w h o m to c o n ta c t— his friend a n d p a rtn e r in th e p lan n ed Tem ple M o u n t o p e ra tio n , Y ehuda Etzion. In stead o f c o m m ittin g a re ta lia to ry m ass m u rd e r, in th e cu sto m o f A rab te rro rists, th e tw o decided to strik e a t th e to p . T h e cars o f five A rab leaders m o st active in th e N a tio n a l G u id an ce C o m m ittee w ere to be b lo w n up. T h e p la n w as to in ju re these peo p le severely w ith o u t killing th em . T h e crippled leaders w o u ld be living sym bols o f the consequences o f an tiJew ish te rro ris m .101 T h e te rro r o p e ra tio n called by th e Israeli press th e “ m ay o rs a ffa ir” w as only a p a rtia l success. Tw o o f th e leaders involved, M a y o r B assam S h a k ’a o f N ab lu s a n d M a y o r K arim K ahlef o f R am alla, w ere crip p led . Tw o o th ers w ere saved w h en d e m o litio n team s w ere u n ab le to get th e explosives in to th eir cars. T h e fifth case en d ed m aim in g an Israeli. T h e M a y o r o f El Bireh, w hose g arag e w as also set to ex p lo d e, w as n o t a t ho m e. A police d em o litio n s e x p e rt w as called in a n d m istak en ly d e to n a te d the ex p lo sio n ; he w as seri­ ously w o u n d e d a n d lo st his sig h t.102 T he “ m ay o rs a ffa ir” w as a side issue fo r th e g ro u p , u n re la te d to th e cen tral Tem ple M o u n t Plot. B ut it, a n d th e p o p u la r resp o n se, a p p a re n tly b o o ste d the sp irits o f th e p lo tte rs. T h e settlers in Ju d e a a n d S am aria, m o st o f w h o m h ad no idea a b o u t th e p e rp e tra to rs o f th e act, a p p la u d e d it overw helm ingly. A rep resen tativ e re a c tio n cam e from K nesset m em b er R ab b i H aim D ru k m an: “ T h u s m ay all o f Israel’s enem ies p e rish !” 103 T h e g ro u p resu m ed p re p a ra tio n s for its a ssau lt o n th e D om e o f the R ock. E tzion, w h o m a ste rm in d e d th e p la n , a n d Livni, an e x p e rt o f e x p lo ­ sives, stu d ied th e lay o u t o f th e Tem ple M o u n t an d th e co n stru c tio n o f the D om e o f th e R o ck in m in u te detail for tw o years. A fter stealing a huge q u a n tity o f explosives fro m a m ilitary cam p in th e G o lan H eig h ts, they

98

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

w o rk ed o u t a full a tta c k plan. T w enty-eight precision bo m b s w ere m an u fac­ tu red , in ten d in g to d estro y th e D om e w ith o u t causing any dam age to its su rro u n d in g s. T h e g ro u p h o p e d to a p p ro a c h th e place u n n o ticed , b u t w ere ready to kill the g u ard s if necessary, a n d b o u g h t special Uzi silencers an d gas canisters. M o re th a n tw en ty people w ere to ta k e p a rt in the o p e ra tio n .104 Since the tim e for the final ev acu atio n o f the Jew ish settlem ents in Siani w as a p p ro a c h ­ ing rapidly, the o p e ra tio n , inten d ed to p rev en t the w ith d ra w a l, w as to tak e place no later th a n early 1982. T h e u n d e rg ro u n d suffered, how ever, from one m ajo r d raw b ack . N o n e o f the individuals involved w as an a u th o rita tiv e rab b i. T he q uestion o f ra b b in i­ cal a u th o riz a tio n h ad already com e up in 1980. M o st m em bers of the g ro u p w o u ld n o t p ro ceed w ith o u t the blessing o f a recognized rabbi. But all the rabbis a p p ro a c h e d (how m uch they w ere to ld a b o u t the p lan is n o t clear), including G ush E m u n im ’s m e n to r R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook, eith er refused th eir blessing o r w ere a t best very equivocal. B ut Livni, w h o needed ra b b in i­ cal ap p ro v al, w as left w ith no d o u b t. H e d id n o t have a green lig h t.105 W hen the final d ate o f decision arriv ed in 1982, th e only tw o w h o w ere ready to proceed w ere th e o rig in a to rs o f the idea, E tzion an d B en-Shoshan. T he g ran d p lan w as consequently shelved indefinitely. T he p o stp o n e m e n t of the Tem ple M o u n t o p e ra tio n signified a m ajo r b reak in th e sh o rt histo ry o f the u n d e rg ro u n d . It m eant, for all p ractical p u rp o ses, the rem oval of the m illen n arian p a rt of the p lan from the ag en d a— th e aspect th a t w as so im p o rta n t for B en-Shoshan an d Etzion. So w hen the u n d e rg ro u n d stru ck again, th e tw o w ere barely involved. T he deadly o p e ra tio n w as an open a tta c k o n th e M uslim college o f H eb ro n in July 1983, in response to th e m u rd e r o f a yeshiva stu d en t; three stu d en ts w ere killed and th irty -th re e w o u n d ed . W hile logistical su p p o rt w as p ro v id ed by m em bers o f the u n d erg ro u n d an d m asterm in d ed by Livni, the o p e ra tio n itself w as carried o u t by th ree m en w h o h ad n o t been involved in the 1980 a tta c k on the m ayors. T he a tta c k follow ed a g row ing w ave of antiJew ish violence, an d it indicated the grow ing fru stra tio n w ith the g o v ern ­ m en t’s inability to defend the settlers. C rucially, it w as ap p ro v ed by ra b b in i­ cal a u th o ritie s .106 It w as follow ed by several sm aller acts o f terro rism . T he em erging o u tra g e of th e H eb ro n settlers w as m o st noticeable in the last m ajo r o p e ra tio n o f the u n d erg ro u n d in A pril 1984, the one m ean t to be m ost d evastating. T h e re h ad been a new w ave o f A rab terro rism , this tim e in Jerusalem an d n ear A shkelon. Shaul N ir, w h o co n d u cted the earlier a tta c k on the M uslim College an d considered it a g reat success, m anaged to co n ­ vince the local rab b is th a t a n o th e r decisive strike w as needed. A rm ed w ith th eir a u th o rity he prevailed over the u n su re Livni an d m ade him p lan an unpreced en ted ly b ru ta l a c t.107 Five A rab buses full o f p assen ­ gers w ere to be blow n up in revenge for sim ilar attack s on Israeli buses by Palestinian terro rists. T he explosions w ere p lan n ed for Friday a t 4 :3 0 p .m ., at a tim e an d place w hen no Jew s w ere expected to be on the ro ad . T he

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

99

explosives w ere p laced u n d e r th e b u ses’ fuel ta n k s, to cause m ax im u m dam age a n d casualties. B ut by this tim e th e Israeli in te rn a l security service h a d finally u n co v ered the u n d e rg ro u n d . As so o n as th e w irin g w as co m p leted , th e w h o le g ro u p w as a rre ste d , b rin g in g to an end th e activities o f th e M a c h te re t. Ever since the ex p o su re, a fierce d e b a te has rag ed w ith in G u sh E m unim a b o u t th e legitim acy o f th e g ro u p ’s acts a n d its significance. A key issue th ro u g h o u t is ra b b in ic a l a u th o rity . T h e confessions an d testim onies o f th e m em b ers o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d d o n o t clarify w h e th e r th e leading ra b b is o f K iry at A rb a w ere involved in th e actio n s o f th e conspiracy, o r if so h o w m uch. B ut they m ak e clear th a t o n ly th o se o p e ra tio n s a p p r o v e d b y th e ra b b is to o k p la ce. T h e first o p e ra tio n , th e “ m ay o rs a ffa ir,” w as o p p o sed by R ab b i Levinger— b u t o n ly b ecause he p re fe rre d ex trem e actio n a n d reco m m en d ed an in d iscrim in ate a c t o f m ass violence. A cco rd in g to Livni, R ab b i Eliezer W ald m an — a p ro m in e n t G ush E m u n im rab b i an d since 1981 a Tehiya K nesset m e m b e r— even v o lu n te e re d to p a rtic ip a te in th e o p e ra tio n ag ain st the m a y o rs108 Tw o o th e r K iry at A rb a ra b b is w ere in stru m e n ta l in in d u cin g Livni to c o m m it th e last tw o o p e ra tio n s, w h ich involved in d iscrim in ate terro rism . S haul N ir, th e m a n w h o led th e a tta c k o n th e M u slim C ollege, told his in te rro g a to rs, I would like to add that in the time span of three years, I discussed the issue with four rabbis, all of whom expressed their support for warning operations within the Arab public. ... I also heard the names of an additional three rabbis who stated their support in different stages of the operation.109

T h e ra b b in ic a l in v o lv em en t in th e te rro r acts th a t did a n d d id n o t ta k e place is o f crucial im p o rta n c e . It tells us th a t th e rad ic a liz a tio n pro cess th a t finally p ro d u c e d te rro rism w ith in G ush E m u n im w as n o t m arg in al b u t cen ­ tral. It w as a b y -p ro d u c t o f th e m o v e m e n t’s belief in its o w n red em p tiv e role and in th e necessity o f settlin g Ju d e a a n d S am aria a t all costs. T h e idealistic people w h o b eg an in 1968 to settle Ju d e a a n d S am aria did n o t go th ere w ith violent in te n tio n s. N o n e o f th em ex p ected to becom e vigilantes, te rro rists, o r su p p o rte rs o f te rro rism . Yet w ith in tw elve years th e c o m b in a tio n o f m essianic belief a n d a situ a tio n o f c o n tin u a l n a tio n a l conflict w ith a bu ilt-in p ro p en sity fo r in crem en tal violence resu lted in ex traleg alism , v igilantism , selective te rro rism , a n d finally, in d iscrim in ate m ass terro rism . H a d th e Jew ­ ish U n d e rg ro u n d n o t been sto p p e d in 198 4 , it m ig h t have becom e a Jew ish IR A .110

The Movement to Halt the Retreat in Sinai The Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d p ro v id e d by far th e m o st rad ical reactio n to th e C am p D avid A ccords a n d w as an im p o rta n t step in th e fo rm a tio n o f th e

100

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

radical right. N evertheless, these activities h ad been co n d u cted by a few people in secrecy, th o u g h several h u n d red s o f settlers n o t directly involved p ro b ab ly knew vaguely a b o u t th e g ro u p . T h u s it w as n o t u ntil th e A pril 1984 discovery, arrest, a n d re p o rt o f th e g ro u p ’s activity th a t it began to play a significant role in sh ap in g th e collective consciousness o f th e radical rig h t.111 T h a t role w as filled instead by H a te n u a L e atzirat H an esig a Besinai (The M o v em en t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai— M H R S ). T he m ovem ent, w hose c o n fro n ta tio n s w ith th e a u th o ritie s an d the m ilitary reached a p eak in A pril 1982, expressed th e accu m u lated o u tra g e a n d fru stra tio n o f all th e o p p o ­ nents o f C am p D avid. T he d ep th o f th e hostility evoked by M en ach em Begin’s decision to tra d e the Jew ish settlem ents in Sinai for peace w ith E gypt w as largely due to the special n a tu re o f th e Israeli settlem en t o f n o rth e rn Sinai. T h e R afiah salient, a strip of th irty miles stretch in g from El-A rish in th e G aza strip th ro u g h Rafiah in n o rth e rn Sinai, w as never an im p o rta n t sp o t in th e ideo-theological m ap o f G ush E m unim . N o n e o f th e m o v e m e n t’s m em bers, even th o se w h o th o u g h t the te rrito ry w as p a rt o f th e “ P rom ised L a n d ,” considered the area a vital settlem ent targ et. N o illicit G ush settlem en t w as started th ere until 1979. T he im p o rta n c e o f settling the area w as in stead stressed by the strategists of the L a b o r party. M o sh e D ay an , Yigal A llon, an d Israel G alili, the three m ost influential m inisters of G o ld a M e ir’s cab in et, realized after 1967 th a t Israel needed a security zone in n o rth e rn Sinai. T he idea o f settling the R afiah salient w as p red icated o n th e assu m p tio n th a t Israel w as likely to reach a settlem en t w ith Egypt, a n d w o u ld need a viable te rrito ria l w edge betw een the G aza Strip, w hich w o u ld rem ain in Israel’s h an d s, an d Sinai, w hich w o u ld be re tu rn e d to E gyptian h and s. In th ree w ars, each tim e the E gyptian m ilitary m oved in to G aza in full force, it held a tre m en d o u s stra te ­ gic ad v an tag e. A com m ittee o f th e M eir cab in et h ad consequently decided in 1969 to settle the area to p rev en t direct access from Sinai to G aza. T h e first m osh av, S adot, w as estab lish ed in 1 9 7 1 .112 By late 1972, D ay an h ad p re p a re d a g ran d d ev elo p m en t p lan for the region. Y am it, a large city w ith a deep-sea p o rt, w as to be b u ilt in th e R afiah salient; it w o u ld be a center o f a develo p m en t d istrict reaching a p o p u la tio n of q u a rte r o f a m illion by the end of th e cen tu ry .113 T h o u g h co n stru ctio n did n o t s ta rt until the Yom K ippur W ar, Y am it w as co m p leted very quickly. T he first settlers arriv ed in early 1975, a n d w ith in tw o years the city h ad a com plete m unicipal in frastru ctu re. By the late 1970s the R afiah Salient w as a p ro sp ero u s area by any stan d a rd s. In a d d itio n to th e g ro w in g city o f Y am it, there w ere nine success­ ful ag ricu ltu ral m oshavim , fine w e a th e r an d fertile soil m ade ag ricu ltu re very p rofitab le. T he settlers cam e to th e region n o t because o f Eretz Yisrael ideology, b u t because they recognized th e g reat econom ic p o ten tial o f the area a n d w ere p ro m ised full gov ern m en tal s u p p o rt.114 T he leaders o f the L ab o r g o v ern m en t en co u rag ed a sense o f p u rp o se an d pio n eerin g sp irit in

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

101

attra c tin g settlers to Y am it. A nd th e g o v e rn m e n t rep eated ly re assu red th e settlers th a t Israel w o u ld never w ith d ra w from n o rth e rn Siani. T h e L ikud v ictory in M ay 197 7 stren g th en ed th e co n v ictio n o f th e set­ tlers th a t th e ir ho m es w ere secure. Begin, th ey w ere certain , w o u ld never su rren d er even a single sq u a re inch o f th e a re a — he a n d his m in ister o f co n stru ctio n visited Y am it o n S eptem ber 2 9 , 1977. Israel’s n ew p rem ie r w ro te in th e city ’s guest b o o k , “Jeru salem blesses Y am it, w hich will be b u ilt and becom e th e joy o f th e n a tio n a n d its p rid e .” 115 O n a n o th e r visit, this tim e to o ne o f th e flou rish in g m o sh av im o f th e a rea, Begin, p ro m ised th a t w hen he retired he w o u ld settle th ere to w rite his m em oirs in th e ir com pany. All th e h o p es a n d e x p e c ta tio n s cam e to an a b ru p t en d w ith the signing o f the C am p D av id A ccords on S ep tem b er 17, 1978. T h e sh o ck w as especially painful because only w eeks earlier, Begin h a d d eclared , “ If a t C am p D av id they raise th e issue o f ev a c u a tin g settlem en ts in th e R afiah Salient, w e shall pack up a n d go h o m e .” 116 T he settlers also felt b etra y e d by th e ag reem en t o f M o sh e D ay an a n d Ariel S h aron to th e p lan to d ism an tle th e settlem en ts in less th a n fo u r years and to w ith d ra w from th e en tire region. T h e settlers view ed D ay an as the founding fa th e r o f th e v en tu re in n o rth e rn Sinai. S h aro n , w ell k n o w n as an arch -m ax im alist, w as th o u g h t to be a n o th e r safeg u ard ag ain st w ith d ra w a l: In the early 1 970s, as a general o n active duty, S h aro n h a d supervised th e ev acu ation o f A rab B edouins from th e area to m ak e ro o m fo r th e Jew ish settlem en ts.117 Ju st p rio r to B egin’s trip to C am p D avid, S h aro n , as Israel’s m inister o f ag ric u ltu re , h a d o rd e re d th e esta b lish m en t o f several fake o u t­ posts all o v er th e area in o rd e r to stren g th en Jew ish claim to th e region in th e n eg o tiations. Yet desp ite all this, w h en Begin telep h o n ed S h aro n from C am p D avid fo r th e a p p ro v a l o f his m o st h aw k ish lie u te n a n t, S h aro n did n o t fight against th e p la n ; u n w illin g to risk his political career, he gave Begin the green lig h t.118 In d ue co u rse he w as to assum e co m m a n d ov er th e forced evacu ation o f th e settlers a n d th e d e stru c tio n o f Y am it. M ost o f th e se ttle rs’ early struggle ag a in st th e C am p D avid A ccords w as con d u cted w ith in th e c o n te x t o f B anai a n d th e Tehiya. B ut since it w as a struggle o f peo p le o v er th e ir hom es a n d o c c u p a tio n s, it h a d a special urgency and d esp eratio n . Several p ro te st o rg a n iz a tio n s sp ra n g u p, w hich a d d e d to the m ilitancy o f th e local p o p u la tio n . An ap o lo g etic visit by M en ach em Begin a lm o st en d ed in b lo o d sh ed . T h e g en tlem an ly p rim e m in ister w as booed a n d called “ lia r,” “ c ro o k ,” “ tr a ito r ,” an d “ th e sh am e o f Isra e l.” 119 T hings g o t w o rse w ith th e first step in th e w ith d ra w a l fro m th e area, th e evacuation o f th e vegetable n u rsery o f M o sh a v N e o t Sinai. P erh ap s a th o u ­ sand farm ers a n d su p p o rte rs sh o w ed u p , in clu d in g a significant G ush Em unim re p re se n ta tio n . T hey refused to ev acu ate th e area, cau sin g a severe c o n fro n ta tio n w ith th e arm y. W h en th e m ilitary used w a te r hoses, th e d em ­ o n stra to rs sto n e d th e soldiers, th re w b u rn in g b ra n d s, a n d sp ray ed th em w ith poiso n o us chem icals. O n ly th e a p p e a ra n c e o f tw o cab in et m inisters, includ-

102

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

ing Yigal Y adin, Begin’s dep u ty prem ier, w ith a p rom ise to reconsider the ev acu ation plan pacified th e settlers an d ended the v iolence.120 T he m o st significant struggle ag ain st the ev acu atio n w as co n d u cted n o t by the feeble and p o o rly org an ized settlers o f th e Y am it area, b u t by the M o v e­ m en t to H a lt th e R etreat in Sinai, an o rg an izatio n th a t b ro u g h t all the o p p o n en ts of C am p D avid to th e concrete struggle of the settlers. A lthough the m ovem ent w as estab lish ed only in late 1981, it h a d its origins in the incidents o f M o sh av N e o t Sinai in 1979 an d in the illicit estab lish m en t o f a new settlem ent, A tzm o n a, in th e area in th a t sam e year. A tzm o n a w as estab lish ed by veteran G ush E m unim m em bers just after the M arch 1979 signing o f th e Israeli-E gyptian Peace Treaty, in o rd e r to pro v id e a living ho p e fo r th e d isp irited settlers o f th e area an d to becom e the center o f th e fu tu re struggle ag ain st th e retreat. Begin’s g overnm ent, guiltridden and faced w ith m any o th e r form s o f resistance, decided to ignore A tzm ona an d behave as if it did n o t e x ist.121 B ut A tz m o n a ’s settlers w ere n o t to tally isolated. Y am it h ad a Y esh ivat H esder, head ed by R abbis Jacob and Israel Ariel (Shtieglitz). T he tw o b ro th e rs, especially the younger, Israel, w ere d eterm in e d to sto p th e re tre a t by all m eans. Begin’s o p p o n e n ts w ere also busily ignorin g reality. T h e Tehiya leaders— Yuval N e ’em an , G eula C o h en , H a n a n P o rat, an d o th e rs— h ad m ade the struggle ag ain st th e Israeli-E gyptian Peace T reaty th eir m ain 1981 electoral them e. U tterly convinced of th e tru th of th eir m essage, they believed th a t they w o u ld get en ough seats in the K nesset to veto the co n tin u atio n of the Israeli w ith d ra w a l from S in ai.122 B ut th e 1981 elections pro v ed th em w ro n g . Begin w on the elections handily, an d the Tehiya g o t only 2.3 percen t o f the vote— three K nesset seats. T h e T ehiya’s failure left only one course o f action op en , the activ atio n o f the u n co n v en tio n al p o w e r o f G ush E m unim . T h e M H R S w as established a year before th e expected ev acu atio n o f Yam it. Faced w ith the accelerated pace of the re tre a t— w hich included generous co m p en satio n paym ents to the fu tu re evacuees and th e estab lish m en t o f a new settlem en t a re a — the activists o f G ush E m unim h ad to devise an effective a n ti-re tre a t strategy. N o n e of them believed they could overcom e the Israeli army. T he w hole idea o f th e struggle w as to create co n d itio n s u n d er w hich the political eche­ lon w o u ld n o t in stru c t th e arm y to evacuate S in ai.123 T h u s, the leaders o f the m ovem ent cam e to th e co nclusion th a t th eir job w as to m ake the price of the re tre a t higher th a n th e price o f Israel’s non co m p lian ce w ith the E gyptianIsraeli peace agreem ent. T hey w ere n o t, how ever, ready to consider the m ost obvious m eans, arm ed struggle an d bloodsh ed . Since they w ere u n ab le to com e up w ith a n o th e r feasible so lu tio n , they chose a typical G ush E m unim strategy th a t w as p artly ratio n al an d p artly m ystical. T he ra tio n a l p a rt w as to launch an intense p u b lic-relatio n s cam ­ paign all over the country, to intensify it w ith huge d em o n stratio n s, an d to reoccupy all th e d eserted houses in the Y am it area. T he m ystical p a rt h ad to

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

103

do w ith th e im plied belief th a t if sufficient d ev o tio n w as d e m o n stra te d , G o d w o u ld in terfere a n d sto p th e re tre a t. T his m élange o f ra tio n a l an d m ystical can be d etected in H a n a n P o ra t’s w o rd s: There is only one way of action: a creation of a balance of terror in Yamit, an acute, big, and credible balance of terror that would force the government to recognize that the uprooting (of settlements) is impossible. Only such recogni­ tion can make sure that a civil war is prevented. Choosing, on the other hand, a moderate course is bound to create confrontation. The government, the Knesset, and the public should be made aware of these matters very soon. . . . We have to give the government sufficient time to find a way out of this muddle. If we dedicate ourselves from now on to the cause, with the utmost devotion, there is a chance to win. Total dedication, truly complete commitment. . . .124

P o ra t did n o t have to tell his friends, all tru e believers w h o h a d in the p ast also been involved in illegal settlem en ts, th a t th e u tm o st d ev o tio n (m essiru t h an efesh ) they w ere asked to d e m o n stra te w as d irected n o t to the Israeli g o v e rn m e n t b u t to G o d H im self. P art o f th e m o v e m e n t’s activists w ho cam e to th e are a c o n tin u e d to believe in G o d ’s im m in en t in terv e n tio n until th e last m o m e n t.125 Several m o re skeptical colleagues o f P o rat w a n te d to m ake sure th a t if a re tre a t did ta k e place, it w o u ld n o t o ccu r b efore th e entire n a tio n w as tra u m a tiz e d by events in Y am it.126 T hey w ere certain th a t this lim ited goal w as w ith in th e ir reach. T h e M o v e m e n t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai reach ed its final form in only six m o n th s, fro m O c to b e r 1981 to A pril 1982. T h e key p o sitio n s w ere, n o t surprisingly, filled by G u sh E m unim v eteran s, in d iv id u als like Uri E litzur, M oshe M e rh a v ia , a n d H a n a n P o rat. T h e m o v em en t d e m o n stra te d th e unique d e d ic a tio n , o rg a n iz a tio n a l skills, a n d ferv o r sh o w n in all p rev io u s G ush E m unim o p e ra tio n s. H u n d re d s o f religious settlers from th e W est Bank m oved to th e Y am it region. T hey b ro u g h t w ith th em th eir fam ilies, rabbis, a n d yeshivot. Som e o f th e new co m ers settled in m otels in th e city a n d o rganized fo r a long stay. O th e rs m oved illicitly in to M o sh av Talm ei Yosef, w hich h a d been ev ac u a te d earlier by th e arm y, an d o ccu p ied its houses. In the last stage o f th e m o v e m e n t’s resistance it n u m b e re d a b o u t 1 000 peo p le w ho m an ag ed to p e n e tra te areas closed o ff by the arm y an d settle in its deserted b u ild in g s.127 Several h u n d re d su p p o rte rs w ere also sta tio n e d o u t­ side th e b o rd e r o f th e closed a rea, repeated ly try in g to o u tm a n e u v e r th e arm y an d get in. T h e style o f th e struggle follow ed th e tra d itio n a l m eth o d s o f G ush Em unim . A rm ed settlers w ith d u b o n im (khaki p a rk a s used in th e m ilitary ), sleeping bags, ta lith a n d tefilin (religious objects used in p ray er), engaged in p ro fo u n d h a la k h ic d e lib e ra tio n s late in to th e n ig h t, T orah lessons in te m p o ­ rary yeshivot, a n d h e a te d polem ic speeches. B ut th ere w as also a new ele­ m ent in th e logistical stru c tu re . M a n y o f th e in d iv id u als w h o cam e from th e W est B ank w ere n o t ju st p riv a te citizens (as they h a d been in 1 9 7 4 —1978),

104

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

d e m o n stratin g ag ain st an erro n eo u s governm en t. T h ere w ere no w also p u b ­ lic officials, h eads a n d em ployees o f governm ent-financed local an d regional councils in Judea an d S am aria. T he costly o p e ra tio n in Y am it w as n o t financed by priv ate d o n o rs. M o st o f th e m oney cam e directly from public sources, from the budgets o f the regional councils allocated by Israel’s m inis­ tries of ed u catio n , religion, ag ricu ltu re, co n stru ctio n , an d in tern al affairs.128 R esources g ran ted by th e W orld Z io n ist O rg a n iz a tio n w ere also used. A nd th e reso lu tio n to go to Y am it w as n o t m ade vo lu n tarily by individ­ ual G ush m em bers. It w as a collective decision tak en by M o etz et Yesha, the E m u n im -d o m in ated C ouncil o f the Settlem ents o f Ju d ea, Sam aria, an d G a z a .129 W hile no one w as forced to com e to Y am it, the call w as san ctio n ed by the rab b is, the highest a u th o ritie s of the m ovem ent. T h e last stage of th e struggle to o k place inside Y am it an d som e o f its su rro u n d in g m oshavim . T he m em bers o f the M H R S org an ized them selves for a siege w ithin th e city in an alm o st m ilitary fashion. Large q u an tities o f food w ere sto red , b arricad es w ere erected, an d section co m m an d ers w ere nam ed. T he co n d u ct o f religious cerem onies w as especially intensified. Ec­ static p ray er sessions w ere co n sta n tly held. R adical an d m illen n arian ser­ m ons, p reach ed by th e m o v em en t’s rab b is, becam e the o rd e r o f th e day.130 T he entire Y am it territo ry w as nam ed a “ holy la n d ” an d th e settlers, a “ holy p u b lic .” E verything th ere becam e in fact holy: “ holy stru g g le,” “ holy p u r­ p o se ,” an d “ holy m o v e m e n t.” 131 T h e fight w as n o t ju st for Eretz Y israel, b u t also for the T orah o f Israel an d for the people o f Israel. T he re tre a t from Sinai an d the ev acu atio n o f Jew ish settlem ents w ere considered act of sin, retreats from the course of red em p tio n . People fully expected a m iracle to h ap p en . T h e religiousm essianic p sy ch o d ram a th a t to o k place in the last w eeks o f the struggle pushed to the fro n t the m o st extrem e religious figures, the m ystical rabbis. T he ecstatic atm o sp h ere ren d ered even som e legitim ation to very excep­ tio n al expressions m ade n ear th e end, such as R abbi M o sh e Levinger’s w arn in g th a t suicide m ight be co m m itted an d R abbi Israel A riel’s call to the soldiers to disobey o rd ers. Israel’s tw o C hief R abbis, M o rd ech ai Eliyahu and A b rah am S hapira, w ere called to com e to Y am it to rule in these cases.132 T he struggle reached its peak in the last scheduled days of the retreat. T he settlers, w hose d ev o tio n w as no o p e ra tio n a l m atch to the tw en ty th o u ­ san d soldiers co n fro n tin g them , refused to leave. T hey w ere forcefully dragged o u t. M an y c o n tin u ed to p ray until the last m om ent. O th ers fortified them selves on th e roofs o f the buildings and w o u ld n o t let the arm y get near. T he m ilitary co m m an d ers h a d to devise a special iro n cage, m oved by gig an ­ tic cranes, in o rd e r to o u tm a n e u v e r the in tran sig en t settlers an d rem ove them . A special p ro te st tactic w as in tro d u ce d by a sm all n u m b er o f R abbi K ah an e’s follow ers. As usual, these people w ere isolated from th e o th e r g ro u p s a t Y am it a n d did n o t form an integral p a rt o f th e M H R S. N ev erth e­ less, they w ere w elcom ed, for th e M H R S needed as m any people in Y am it as

The Rise of the Radical Right, 1978-1984

105

possible. B ut in stead o f jo in in g th e rest o f the o rg an ized actio n , K ah an e people fortified them selves in o n e o f th e city ’s air-defense shelters. As th e final days o f th e e v a c u a tio n a p p ro a c h e d , they locked them selves in the shelter w ith explosives, a m m u n itio n , a n d cy an id e capsules, a n d th re a te n e d to kill them selves if fo rced to leave. T h e situ a tio n becam e very tense, since it w as n o t clear h o w serious th e th re a t w as. It w as finally defused by R ab b i K ahane him self, in o n e o f his m o st re w a rd in g p erfo rm an ces ever. Fully aw are o f th e p lan o f his s u p p o rte rs, K ah an e h a d left Israel fo r a fu n d raisin g trip to A m erica. H o w ev er, fo llo w in g a p erso n al req u est o f th e p rim e m inis­ ter, he “ a g re e d ” to re tu rn a n d ta lk to his follow ers. H e w as flow n back from the U nited S tates a n d w as ta k e n from B en-G u rio n A irp o rt, by special m ili­ tary h elicopter, to Y am it. T h e en tire n a tio n held its b re a th w hile K ah an e talked to his follow ers, finally co n v in cin g th em to su rren d er. It w as th e m o st favorable p u b licity K ah an e ever h a d in Isra e l.133 W hen Y am it w as d em o lish ed by th e Israeli arm y an d th e are a ev acu ated , o n April 2 8 , 19 8 2 , th e e x a c t d a te specified in th e C a m p D avid A ccords, it w as p atently clear th a t M e n a c h e m B egin’s g ra n d peace m ove h a d w o n . It w as, how ever, ju st as clear th a t a new Israeli po litical su b cu ltu re h a d com e o f age, the rad ical rig h t. T h e secu lar a n d th e religious m em bers o f th e M o v e m e n t to H alt th e R e tre a t in Sinai staged a sym bolic cerem ony to en sh rin e the loss o f Sinai. T hey read E zekiel’s S erm on o f th e D ry Bones a n d sw o re never to forget th e “ h o ly ” Y am it. A nd they m ad e a c o m m itm e n t to re tu rn o n e d ay .134 N o d o u b t w as left as to w h a t w o u ld h a p p e n if a n o th e r Israeli re tre a t w as ever to be c o n d u c te d , w ith o r w ith o u t m ajo rity su p p o rt. K a h a n e ’s 1984 election to th e K nesset, th e electo ral success o f th e Tehiya party, a n d th e b ro ad ex p ressio n s o f s u p p o rt fo r th e Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d , all in d icated th a t in the Israel o f th e 1980s th e new rad icals w ere far from iso latio n . A process th a t h a d sta rte d in 1967, a n d greatly intensified in 19 7 8 , w as reach in g its m atu ra tio n .

5 The Politics, Institutions, and Culture o f Gush Emunim

Gush Emunim: Twenty Years After G ush E m unim h as ch an g ed since th e 1970s. F rom a m essianic collective o f young tru e believers w h o th o u g h t they cou ld ch an g e th e w o rld by co n c e n ­ tra te d sp iritu ality a n d p io n eerin g d ev o tio n , it has becom e a m o v em en t o f dozens o f settlem en ts, th o u sa n d s o f settlers, w ith financial assets an d m a te ­ rial interest. It has a d d e d a m a tu rity a n d skepticism to its early sp o n ta n e ity and m essianic craze. B ut G ush E m unim is still a very dy n am ic force, by far th e m o st viable co m p o n en t o f th e rad ical right. It m ay also be the m o st effective social m ovem ent th a t has em erged in Israel since 1948. Political scientist M y ro n A ro n o ff has rightly c h a ra c te riz e d G ush E m unim as “ a ch arism atic, m essi­ anic, religious, po litical, rev ita liza tio n m o v e m e n t” w hich has becom e in stitu ­ tio n a liz e d .1 Its d y n am ism a n d success have m ad e th e m o v em en t, w hich has no fo rm al m em b ersh ip a n d has never h a d m o re th a n tw o o r th re e th o u sa n d families o f full-tim e devotees, an essential p a rt o f th e collective id en tity o f the n a tio n a n d a p a rtn e r to som e o f th e m o st critical decisions o f its g o v ern ­ m ent. It w o u ld n o t be e rro n e o u s to suggest th a t for m uch o f th e larg er cam p of the Israeli n a tio n a list rig h t, G u sh E m unim n o w fulfills th e role th a t the K ibbutz M o v e m e n t fulfilled fo r Israel’s L a b o r d u rin g its m o st g lo rio u s days— it is th e c o n c e n tra te d in sp ira tio n a n d ex p ressio n o f th e d ream s o f m any w h o believe in th e vision o f th e g re a te r L and o f Israel, th o u g h they take n o active p a rt in its a c tu a liz a tio n . T h e u n iq u e force a n d p o sitio n o f G ush E m unim derive from a special co m b in atio n o f co m m o n so cio c u ltu ral ro o ts an d experiences, a stro n g ly held theology, an ex em p lary lead ersh ip , an d m o re th a n tw en ty years o f

107

108

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

political an d ideological fulfillm ent and success. People becom e p a rt o f the G ush usually because they g r o w u p in to it. T h e long process of socialization often starts at h om e, a n d co n tin u es th ro u g h k in d erg arten , religious p rim ary school, high school yeshiva, Y eshivat H esder o r ad v an ced yeshiva.2 T here are, o f course, o th e r w ays to becom e p a rt o f the G ush Em unim m ilieu, like C h azara B etesh u va (religious repentance) o r Aliya from a n o th e r country, b u t unless th e n ew co m er goes th ro u g h a very p ro fo u n d E m unist conversion, he o r she is likely to rem ain a t the p erip h ery o f the G ush an d to play a m in o r role. Today it is ra th e r easy to be a W est Bank settler w ith o u t being a G ush m em ber, a n d m o st Israeli residents o f Ju d ea an d S am aria are n o t p a rt o f th e G ush. Even in G ush E m unim settlem ents it is n o t alw ays necessary to be p a rt o f th e m ovem ent. G ush m em bership usually p resupposes a general co m m itm en t to the K ookist theology, a n d eith er being p a rt o f a settlem en t o r w o rk in g to w a rd it. M em b ersh ip also usually presu p p o ses a close relatio n sh ip w ith one o f the rabbis of G ush E m unim settlem ents o r yeshivot, in w hich the theology of M erk az H a ra v is p ro m in e n t. M o st G ush E m unim m em bers com e from m iddle-class A shkenazi fam ilies a n d are well ed u cated , often g rad u ates of Israel’s best u niversities.3 W om en in th e G ush co m m u n ity usually have a secondary e d u catio n o f u lp a n o t (girls’ religious sem inaries) an d are p a rt an d parcel o f the sp iritu al life o f th e m ovem ent. T hey are acco rd ed a respect th a t is n o t g ra n te d w om en in som e o th e r Jew ish-religious com m u n ities.4 M o st m em bers read N e k u d a { P oint), the G u sh -E m u n im -o rien ted m ag a­ zine o f the settlers in Ju d ea, S am aria, an d G aza. M an y o f th em w rite o cca­ sionally for th e m agazine an d react intensely, th ro u g h letters an d o therw ise, to events in th e m o v e m e n t’s an d th e n a tio n ’s p u b lic life. T hey also sh are an d w rite for m any local new sletters. T he hom o g en eity o f G ush E m unim an d the intense involvem ent o f its m em bers in th e m o v e m e n t’s o p e ra tio n s has som etim es led observers to view the G ush as d em o cratic an d eg alitarian . B ut this is in fact far from true. G ush E m unim b etrays an elitist ethos b o th ex tern ally an d internally. The m ovem ent perceives itself as a v a n g u a rd , a sm all m issionary o rd e r th a t has to show the w ay to th e en tire n atio n . Internally, the G ush has alw ays been m ade up o f a sm all an d self-selected h a rd -co re leadership an d a w ide perpiphery. N o t only have full d em o cratic p ro ced u res never been used b u t few am o n g its m em bers have ever raised the issue.5 T he u n d em o cratic c h a ra c te r o f G ush E m unim derives from th e stru ctu re o f the K ookist school a n d th e tra d itio n o f M erk az H arav. T h e K ookist system has alw ays h ad som e k ab b alistic elem ents. T h u s, as p a rt o f his p erso n al inclin atio n for th e study o f m ysticism , Rav K ook Sr. established a m ystical m essianic school req u irin g th a t its follow ers share u n iq u e p erso n al tra its and a special m ental stru c tu re .6 M o st of th e fu tu re leaders o f G ush E m unim w ere b rig h t stu d en ts a t M e rk a z in the late 1960s. T hey w ere a t­ tach ed to Rav K o o k ’s son an d successor, R abbi Z vi Y ehuda, sh arin g his political convictions an d his psycho-theological state of m ind.

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

109

T hey w ere, in a d d itio n , e m o tio n ally close to each o th er, w ith stro n g m ystical b o n d . H a im D ru k m a n , M o sh e Levinger, Z a lm a n M ela m e d , H a n a n P orat, Eliezer W a ld m a n , Yoel B en -N u n , Y o h an an Fried, a n d several o th e r g rad u ates o f M e k a z H arav , th o u g h n o t th e on ly active leaders o f G u sh E m unim , have rem ain ed th e m o st influential g u a rd ia n s o f th e m o v e m e n t’s spirit, able to m ed iate betw een th e aging Z vi Y ehuda K ook an d th e en tire m o v em en t.7 U n d o u b ted ly th in g s have ch an g ed since th e 1982 d eath o f th e rab b i; G ush E m u n im h as becom e in stitu tio n a liz e d b u t th e K o o k ist circle ap p aren tly still exists. T h o u g h o ccasionally in conflict o n m any q u estio n s o f policy a n d p ractice, th e m em bers o f th e m ystical circle (an d several o th e r activists w h o h a d a b so rb e d over th e years th e M e rk a z H a ra v legacy) still d eterm ine th e n a tu re , c h a ra c te r, a n d p u b lic profile o f G ush E m unim . A nd G u sh E m u n im has becom e an in stitu tio n . W h a t b egan in th e m id1970s as a g ro u p o f penniless d ream ers w h o stru g g led fo r a fo o th o ld in th e W est B ank h as evolved in to an estab lish ed n e tw o rk w ith m an y assets an d resources. O n ly tw o in stitu tio n s o f th e m o v em en t b e a r its official n a m e — the general s e c re ta ria t o f G u sh E m u n im a n d A m an a, its fo rm al settlem en t b ran ch . B ut active m em bers o f th e m o v em en t c o n tro l m uch o f th e regional and m u n icip al in fra s tru c tu re o f th e W est B ank. T h u s th e m o v e m e n t’s influ­ ence, far o u tw e ig h in g its n u m eric al force, is b ased o n h u n d re d s o f p aid official p o sitio n s, large d ev elo p m en t budg ets, a n d decisive influence o n th e life o f n early o n e -h u n d re d th o u sa n d Israeli settlers in th e W est B ank an d G aza, m o st o f w h o m are n o t m em bers o f th e G ush. All these fa c to rs— social, c u ltu ra l, po litical, a n d eco n o m ic— have c o m ­ bined to m ak e G ush E m u n im th e key c o m p o n e n t o f th e Israeli rad ical rig h t and its m o st su b sta n tia l fo u n d a tio n .

The Political Theology of Gush Emunim G ush E m unim h as alw ay s been highly ideological, co m m itte d to th e th e o l­ ogy dev eloped by th e eld er R av K ook a n d e x p o u n d e d by his son in cou n tless articles, lectures, a n d serm o n s. Since th e Six-D ay W ar, th e y o u n g ideologues of the m o v em en t have sp o k en a n d w ritte n extensively in such an th o lo g ies as M orash a, A r tz i, a n d E re tz N a h a la , jo u rn a ls such as A m u d im , Z ra im , Z o t H a ’a retz, a n d since 1 9 8 0 , N e k u d a . N o n e o f these w ritin g s h as been com preh en siv e, b u t th e general o u tlin es of the G ush E m u n im belief system are ra th e r clear. A p p aren tly th e p o litical events o f th e last d ecad e have n o t ch an g ed th e m o v e m e n t’s fu n d a m e n ta l ideology. T h e C a m p D avid A ccords, th e re tre a t from Sinai, Israel’s failure in L ebanon, th e discovery o f th e Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d , a n d recently the in tifa d a (the P alestinian u p risin g in th e occu p ied territo ries) m ay have affected the m ood o f th e m o v e m e n t’s ideologues a n d th e ir o p tim ism reg ard in g th e im m i­ nence o f re d e m p tio n , b u t they have n o t p ro m p te d any significant th eo lo g ical re in te rp re ta tio n .

110

The Ascendance o f Israel's Radical Right

G iven th e dialectical a n d p a ra d o x ic a l n a tu re o f the K ookist philosophy, this is n o t surprising. W hile R abbi A vraham Itzh ak H aco h en K ook u n d o u b t­ edly b u ilt a m a jo r intellectual system , his ideo-theology w as n o t based on logical rig o r an d em pirical verification. Instead, elem ents of faith , secrecy, u n earth ly in tu itio n , su p e rn a tu ra l illu m in atio n , mystery, an d p a ra d o x have alw ays been essential c o m p o n en ts o f his th o u g h t.8 T he consequences for p resen t-day E m unist ideology are th a t alm o st any em pirical situ atio n can be seen to fit the g ra n d schem e, an d no fact can confuse o r con fu te the theory. This is th e reason th a t m any m em bers o f G ush E m unim have fo u n d w ays to live in peace w ith th e “ tre a s o n ” o f C am p D avid, w hile o th ers decide to blow up the D om e o f th e R ock. It also explains w hy n u m ero u s K ookists are eager to fight for m o re settlem ents on th e b a rre n hills o f the W est B ank w hile o th ers rem ain in M ek az H a ra v an d get closer to tra d itio n a l Jew ish ul­ tra o rth o d o x y .9 T h e id eo -th eo ry o f G ush E m unim m ay n o t fully acco u n t for the o p e ra tio n s o f the m ov em en t a t any p a rtic u la r h istorical m o m en t, b u t it is by far th e single m o st im p o rta n t d e te rm in a n t o f the m o v em en t’s actions. Let us lo o k at its key principles.

Redemptions T he elem ent o f K ookist theology m o st significant to G ush E m unim is the p ro p o sitio n th a t the people o f Israel live in the age o f re d em p tio n — the salvation p rom ised by th e P ro p h ets an d desperately aw aited by persecuted Jew s th ro u g h o u t histo ry is finally a t h a n d , a reality of o u r tim e. Follow ing Rav K ook an d th e tra d itio n a l H a la k h ic literatu re, the term s used to d en o te this g reat era are A tc h a lta D ’G eu la (the beginning o f red em p tio n ), K e tz M egu le (the u n covered end), and B 'lk v a ta D 'M esh ich a (in the footsteps o f the M essiah). Rav K ook, w h o died in 1935, needed no Six-D ay W ar to reach his conclusion. H e saw signs of red em p tio n in the very rise o f the Z io n ist m ovem ent in th e late nin eteen th century, in th e 1917 B alfour D eclaratio n pro m ising th e Jew s a n a tio n a l h om e in Palestine, an d in the success o f the Z io n ist ventu re in P alestine— the re tu rn o f the Jews to th eir land an d th eir ability to develop it an d reap its fru its.10 T he Z io n ist m ov em en t h a d been sta rte d in large p a rt as a secular reac­ tion to th e o rth o d o x Ju d aism o f th e D iasp o ra, so Rav K o o k ’s p ro p o sitio n w as rev o lu tio n ary a n d u n c o n v e n tio n a l— allo ttin g a m ost sacred role in the m essianic process to secular Jew s w h o did n o t even believe in the com ing o f the M essiah. F or m any rab b is an d H alak h ic au th o rities this w as a m o st p rep o stero u s and insu ltin g suggestion. T h u s Rav K ook, w h o w as otherw ise considered a g reat religious au th o rity , cam e to be seen by the u ltra o rth o d o x as a religious sinner an d a serious th re a t to the c o n tin u a tio n o f Ju d aism . As for K ook him self, he w as able to m ake this p ro p o sitio n because o f his k ab b alistic an d m ystical a p p ro a c h , acco rd in g to w hich m uch m ore is h idden from sight th a n is seen. T he ex tern al m an ifestatio n s we en co u n ter in the

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

111

w o rld rep resen t only th e b a re st frag m en t o f cosm ic existence, an d G o d has his o w n w ays o f b rin g in g a b o u t re d e m p tio n , even if th o se w h o play a m essianic h isto ric role, th e secular pio n eers, are n o t fully aw are o f it.11 A lthough it has been said th a t R av K ook p referred th e y o u n g H a lu tzim (Z io n ist pioneers) to th e o r th o d o x w h o m ain ta in e d in E retz Y israel th e o ld g h etto sp irit o f th e D ia sp o ra , he fell sh o rt o f san ctify in g secu lar Z io n ism . H e w as fully a w a re o f th e p a ra d o x b u ilt in to his b o ld th e o ry a n d m ad e it clear th a t he ex p ected th e Z io n is t m o v em en t to re tu rn , in due tim e, to th e full Judaism o f T orah a n d its o b se rv a n c e .12 B ut his th eo lo g y co n ferred u p o n secular Z io n ism a legitim acy it h ad never b efore h ad . K ook w as able to bridge o v er m any differences b etw een secular a n d o rth o d o x Z io n ists in the p re-state p e rio d , a p re c e d e n t th a t later helped G ush E m unim in its c o n tacts w ith secular elem ents in Israel. Rav K o o k ’s h isto rical co n cep ts help ex p lain G ush E m u n im ’s c o m p re h e n ­ sion o f th e p re se n t sta te o f affairs. T h e Six-D ay W ar, in w hich Ju d e a an d S am aria w ere c o n q u e re d a n d Jerusalem reu n ite d , w as no ch an ce tu rn o f events b u t a m a jo r step fo rw a rd in th e m essianic process th a t sta rte d w ith the b irth o f m o d ern Z io n ism . G ush E m u n im ’s confidence in its cause is derived from its firm co n v ictio n th a t events have verified Rav K o o k ’s g ra n d reading o f history, in clu d in g th e stages th a t to o k place long after his 1935 death: th e 1948 e sta b lish m e n t o f th e S tate o f Israel, th e in g ath erin g o f the exiles from all co rn ers o f e a rth , th e b lo o m in g o f the d esert, an d th e g lo rio u s 1967 m ilitary victory. Since th e tw o R abbi K ooks w ere so evidently blessed w ith heavenly illu m in a tio n an d prophecy, th ere is no reaso n to d o u b t the com ing o f th e n e x t stage, full red em p tio n . As R ab b i H aim D ru k m a n has said, I could come up with . . . plenty of quotations from authoritative sources, according to which we are living in an era of redemption, but I prefer to observe reality. After two thousand years Jews return to their homeland; the desolate land is being continuously built; there is a unique process of the ingathering of the exiles; we have won independence and sovereignty which we did not have even during the era of the Second Temple. What would you call this reality if not a reality of redemption?13

T h e d e v a sta tin g m ilitary, p o litical, a n d in te rn a tio n a l losses o f the Yom K ippur W ar raised an im p o rta n t q u estio n in m any G ush E m unim an d K ookist circles reg ard in g the precise m ean in g o f the ex p ected red em p tio n and its tim ing: w ere th e people o f Israel to re tu rn to th e T orah a n d M itz v o t (observance o f religious injunctions) before a full red em p tio n co u ld be effected? T hese d e lib e ra tio n s b ro u g h t u p th e tra d itio n a l d istin ctio n betw een M ash iach B en - Y o se f (M essiah, th e Son o f Joseph) an d M a sh ia ch B e n -D a v id (M essiah, th e Son o f D a v id ).14 A ccording to this d istin ctio n , salv atio n w ould com e th ro u g h tw o consecutive stages o f red em p tio n , m aterial an d spiritu al. T h e first stage, th a t o f M ash iach Ben-Yosef, is m an ifested in the

112

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

m aterial achievem ents o f th e n a tio n . T his is, acco rd in g to the K ookists, the stage the n a tio n is p resently going th ro u g h — a b u n d a n t m aterial an d p o liti­ cal gains, en tan g led w ith im m ense a n d costly difficulties. But this p erio d is b o u n d to pass a n d be su perseded by M asfiiach Ben-D avid, in w hose day all the sp iritu al b arriers to full red em p tio n , including the lack o f full repentance on b eh alf o f the Israeli m ajority, will be rem oved. “T h e course of o u r re­ d e m p tio n ,” w ro te R abbi Z vi Y ehuda K ook, “ is a gigantic historical fact. W h a t ap p ears to co u n te r this course is n o th in g b u t a te m p o ra ry h a lt.” 15 T here is th u s n o reaso n eith er to w o rry a b o u t tem p o ra ry delays, w hich are caused by earth ly political p ro b lem s, o r to sto p p artic ip a tin g actively in the evolving m essianic age th ro u g h settlem en t an d positive action. W ith red em p tio n at h a n d an d all o f Israel’s difficulties being only insignifi­ can t setbacks, th e G ush can affo rd a p atern alistic attitu d e to w a rd its rivals, p artic u la rly Peace N ow . A ccording to th e G ush, this la tte r g ro u p , w hich fights the settlem en t o f th e W est B ank in th e nam e of peace, lives only for the p resent, n o t for eternity. T he A ch sh a vistim (“ N o w -n ic k s” ) have no sense of Jew ish history. T hey are u n a w a re o f the full significance o f the c u rre n t era of red em p tion.

The Sanctity and Integrity of Eretz Yisrael T he second p illar o f th e ideological tem ple o f G ush E m unim , the belief th a t the lan d o f Israel in its entirety is holy, an in sep arab le sp iritu al p a rt o f the people, is also tak en from Rav K ook. T h e co n cep t A m Yisrael (the People of Israel) refers n o t only to th e people b u t also to the te rrito ry an d the tw o are in sep arable, especially n o w th a t the process o f red em p tio n has begun. “T he entire m a tte r o f Eretz Y israel,” says H a n a n P o rat, is a mysterious issue whose basis is ... a spiritual attachment to matter and soil. ... If one goes deeply into the understanding of the relation between the body and the soul or of the relationship between man and woman and penetrates the mystery of the unity of matter and spirit [one is able to understand] the love and the appreciation for each part of Eretz Yisrael just as there is value for every limb of the human body.. . . Eretz Yisrael has an element of life in it, and is tied to spirit so that a surrender of any part of it is like giving up a living organ.16

It is im p o rta n t to stress th a t concern for th e territo ry o f Eretz Yisrael never d o m in ated R av K o o k ’s teaching, an d th a t G ush E m u n im ’s g reat em ­ phasis on th e m a tte r em erged only in reactio n to the d an g er o f a territo ria l co m p ro m ise w ith th e A rabs after 1967. B ut once raised, th e te rrito ria l issue engendered countless statem en ts an d essays. Eretz Yisrael becam e p a rt o f G u sh ’s “ holy trin ity ” — Eretz Y israel, th e people o f Israel, an d the T orah o f Israel.17 A ccording to this d o ctrin e it is erro n eo u s to give back territo rie s in

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

113

o rd er to “ sa v e ” p e o p le s’ lives; th e com m o n sen sical n o tio n th a t h u m a n life is m ore v alu ab le th a n lan d , a n d th a t Israel sh o u ld tra d e te rrito rie s to p rev en t future w ar, is a n a th e m a for G ush E m unim . R ab b i M o sh e Levinger, for ex am p le, tells us th a t this trin ity is “ o n e sp iritu al e n tity ” a n d co n seq u en tly “ the a sp ira tio n fo r th e co m p letio n o f th e lan d is also th e a sp ira tio n fo r the co m p letio n o f th e p eo p le a n d th e a sp ira tio n fo r th e co m p letio n o f th e To­ ra h .” 18 Full re d e m p tio n o f th e peo p le o f Israel can only ta k e place in a com plete Eretz Y israel. T he issue o f th e in teg rity o f Eretz Y israel h a d becom e especially p ro m in e n t in th e G ush E m unim m ilieu follow ing th e ru lin g o f R ab b i Z vi Y ehuda K ook th a t it fell u n d e r th e in ju n c tio n o f Yehareg U va l Y a a vo r (“ be killed ra th e r th an s in ” ) a n d th a t it involved P ik u a ch N efesh (m o rtal d an g er). T ra d itio n ­ ally, the H a la k h a recognizes th re e p ro h ib itio n s fo r w h ich a Jew m u st die ra th e r th a n co m m it: idolatry , in cestu o u s relatio n s, a n d th e sh ed d in g o f b lo o d ; su rre n d e r o f E retz Y israel te rrito ry is n o t m en tio n ed th ere. R ab b i K o o k ’s e x trem e ru lin g th u s p ro m p te d a w h o le in terp retiv e lite ra tu re to ex p lain a n d justify it. T h e m a jo r ra tio n a le is th a t, in this age o f re d e m p tio n , giving up Eretz Y israel te rrito rie s, is a sin sim ilar to A v o d a Z a ra (the w o r­ ship o f o th e r g o d s ).19 T h e seriousness w ith w hich G ush E m u n im to o k R ab b i K o o k ’s ru lin g w as d e m o n stra te d m o st acutely in th e final w eeks o f th e ev acu atio n o f Y am it, w h en R ab b i M o sh e Levinger co n sid ered an ex em p lary K id d u sh H a sh e m (m a rty rd o m ). T h e issue w as ad d ressed by several G u sh rabbis in a m o st scho larly m a n n e r,20 a n d L evinger’s suicide is said to h ave been p rev en ted only by a special ru lin g o f Israel’s tw o chief rab b is, w h o w ere ru sh ed to Y am it.21 W hen G ush ideologues sp eak a b o u t th e com p lete L and o f Israel they have in m ind n o t only th e p o s t- 19 6 7 territo ry , b u t th e lan d p ro m ised in th e C o v e­ n a n t (G enesis 15) as w ell. T h is includes th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s— especially Jud ea a n d S am aria , th e very h e a rt o f th e h isto ric Israeli n a tio n , a n d v ast territo rie s th a t belo n g n o w to J o rd a n , Syria, a n d Ira q .22 N ev erth eless, it is im p o rta n t to n o te th a t th e re is a t p resen t no drive for ex p an sio n b ey o n d W estern Palestine. T h e ideologues o f G ush E m unim are convinced th a t, w h en th e tim e is rig h t, G o d will see th a t th e n a tio n ex ten d s to its p ro m ised b o rd e rs — a t w hich tim e one is n o t allo w ed to let fa in th e a rte d ­ ness d ictate th e needs o f th e p re se n t o r relin q u ish w h a t has alread y been achieved. It is a sacred d u ty to sta n d firm , to o p p o se pressures from a b ro a d , to p rev en t th e e sta b lish m e n t o f any foreign en tity w ith in th e b o u n d a rie s o f the L and o f Israel, a n d to co n tin u e to assist th e g re a t process o f red em p tio n . T his p o sitio n w as tested d u rin g th e first m o n th o f th e 1982 L eb an o n W ar. Several key G u sh figures sta te d publicly th a t th e g reat achievem ents o f the arm y w ere fully c o n s o n a n t w ith th e g ra n d process o f Israel’s red em p tio n . T hey p o in te d o u t th a t m a jo r areas in so u th e rn L e b an o n h ad once belo n g ed to th e trib es o f A sher a n d N a fta li, a n d th a t m o st o f L e b an o n w as p a rt o f th e

114

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Prom ised L and. D espite th e p ro te sta tio n s of th e Begin g o v ern m en t th a t Israel w as n o t interested in te rrito ria l ex p an sio n , this statem en t m ain tain ed th a t an a n n e x a tio n o f so u th e rn L ebanon w as legitim ate. R esponding to a w ave o f p ublic criticism , H a n a n P orat, one o f th e d rafters o f the statem en t, said, Even according to the position of the minimalists, southern Lebanon is part of Eretz Yisrael. Not only is it included in the Promise’ s borders, but also in the territories we are obliged to conquer and settle, the lands of the tribes of Asher and Naftali, which were mostly in present-day southern Lebanon. He who believes in the truth of the Torah and its eternity cannot, at least in principle, discriminate between Judea and Samaria, and southern Lebanon. It makes no difference whether it is convenient for us and close to our conscience. The Providential truth does not change and will never change. And 1want to stress that he who does not clearly rely on the foundations of the Godly command regarding the conquest and settlement of Eretz Yisrael is bound, at the end, to disregard not only Israel’ s north but also to be ready to make concessions even in its very heart.23

P o ra t’s ex citem en t over so u th e rn L ebano n did n o t have a large follow ing an d m ost o f G ush E m u n im ’s ideologues did n o t d ram atiz e th e issue o f the 1985 Israeli w ith d ra w a l from L ebanon. R em em bering th eir 1982 experience in n o rth e rn Sinai a n d aw are of the desire o f the general p ublic to leave L ebanon, th e G ush rem ained silent. T he failure to sto p the re tre a t in Sinai ta u g h t th em th a t fu n d a m e n ta list politics in Israel can be successful only if b acked by a large n o n fu n d a m e n ta list consensus. A nd in the case of L ebanon they knew they did n o t have it. T he G ush also realized th a t the o p ening o f a new n o rth e rn fro n t w o u ld greatly w eaken th e cam paign to an n ex the W est Bank. N evertheless, several G ush activists argued th a t the Begin g overn­ m en t’s decision to leave L ebanon w as w eak , d iso rien ted , an d above all, w ro n g ; the p ro b le m w as n o t so m uch the Israeli m ajo rity w h o w an ted n o th in g fu rth e r to d o w ith L eb an o n , b u t a g o v ern m en t th a t w as u n ab le to stick to its prin cip les.24

Zionism and Judaism G ush E m unim has alw ays seen itself as th e revitalizer o f Z ionism . In its 1974 m anifesto th e G ush said. Our aim is to bring about a large movement of reawakening among the Jewish people for the fulfillment of the Zionist vision in its full scope. . .. The sources of the vision are the Jewish tradition and roots, and its ultimate objective is the full redemption of the Jewish people and the entire world.25

G ush E m unim obviously feels th a t histo ric Z io n ism died o u t in the Israel of th e 1950s an d 1960s, and th a t Israelis no w live in a crisis b o rn o f the fatigue th a t follow ed th e p a rtia l im p lem en tatio n o f Z ionism in the State of

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

11 5

Israel. T his crisis h as led to th e w eak en in g o f th e p io n eerin g sp irit, to an unw illingness to c o n tin u e th e struggle a g a in st th e p ressu res o f th e o u tsid e w o rld (especially th e A rab s), a n d to th e g ro w th o f a m aterialistic society in w hich th e needs o f th e in d iv id u al have su p ersed ed th e n a tio n a l m ission. G ush m em bers w a n t to o v ercom e th e p re se n t Israeli d ecadence by resto rin g the p io n eerin g a n d sacrificial sp irit o f th e p ast. T he a tte m p t to re c o n stru c t Z io n ism is only p a rt o f a larg er G ush E m u n im project: th e J u d a iz a tio n o f secular Israel. M o st G u sh leaders are re lu c ta n t to ad m it th a t secular Z io n ism has been deficient since its in cep tio n an d w as co n seq u en tly b o u n d to decline. R av K ook, th o u g h im pressed by th e deeds o f secular Z io n ists, never e n d o rse d secular Z io n ism . H e w o u ld have p referred to see a religious m o v em en t lead th e m o d e rn Jew ish re tu rn to Eretz Y israel. Since th ere w as n o such m ov em en t, a n d since he w as m oved by th e early pioneers, he devised a u n iq u e k a b b a listic ploy, th e sa criliza tio n o f th e p r o ­ fane, th a t is his religious le g itim atio n o f secu lar an d ath e ist Z io n ism .26 G ush E m unim , w hile form ally loyal to R av K o o k ’s reaso n in g , does n o t o p e ra te how ever u n d e r his c o n stra in ts. Its leaders are aw are o f th e g re a t w eakness o f m o d ern Z io n ism , as w ell as o f th eir o w n p o w e r an d p o ten tial. T h u s, aside from a form al a p p ro v a l o f secular Z io n ism fo r its p a st ach ievem ents, they are critical o f m o st o f Israel’s p resen t Z io n ist m o v em en ts an d p arties. A nd Israel’s co n v en tio n al foreign policy, b ased o n co n sid e ratio n s o f in te rn a tio n a l interests a n d o p in io n s, o fte n raises th e ir ire. G ush E m u n im ’s g re a te st conflict w ith m o d ern secu lar Z io n ism is e x ­ pressed in its critiq u e o f th e Z io n ist th e o ry o f n o rm a liz a tio n . B oth Leo Pinsker a n d T h e o d o re H erzl, th e n in eteen th -cen tu ry th in k ers w h o fo rm u ­ lated th e classical d o ctrin e s o f political Z io n ism , arg u ed for “Jew ish n o rm a l­ iz a tio n .” T hey believed th a t anti-S em itism w as a p ro d u c t o f th e ab n o rm a lity of Jew ish life a m o n g th e G entiles an d th a t th e existence o f a Jew ish state, to w hich all th e Jew s w o u ld im m ig rate, w o u ld elim in ate th e h a tre d o f th e Jew s an d solve th e “Jew ish p ro b le m .” O n ce Jew s h ad a state o f th eir o w n , they an d th e rest o f th e w o rld w o u ld recognize th em as n o rm a l h u m a n beings an d th eir state w o u ld fu n ctio n like any o th e r m em b er o f the co m m u n ity o f n a tio n s.27 T h e n o rm a liz a tio n a p p ro a c h w as never p o p u la r in G ush E m unim . R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook w as k n o w n fo r his g re a t h o stility to G entiles, specially C h ristian s. H e w as resp o n sib le fo r G u sh E m u n im ’s suspicion an d hostility to w a rd o th e r n a tio n s a n d for its rep eated insistence on preserv in g th e “ h o n o r ” o f Israel.28 G u sh E m u n im ’s first m an ifesto read , Any framework or international organization whose resolutions imply the humiliation of the honor of Israel has no right to exist and we consequently do not belong there. We must leave that organization and wait for the day when the honor of Israel would rise again and the truth among the nations will be uncovered.29

116

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

T h e n o rm a liz a tio n th e o ry w as u tterly rejected after th e Yom K ippur W ar. F rom a K o o k ist perspective, th e w a r sh o u ld n o t have tak en place. T he m iracu lo u s Six-D ay W ar h ad , acco rd in g to these people, sh o w n G o d ’s g reat interest in a q uick red em p tio n . If so, th e Yom K ippur W ar im plied the o p p o site. T h e re could be only o n e e x p la n a tio n for this w ar: it w as the final a tte m p t o f th e G entiles to sto p the com ing red em p tio n o f the Jew s. It w as a struggle a g a in st G o d H im self. R abbi Y ehuda A m ital’s essay, “T h e M ean in g of the Yom K ip p u r W a r,” helped shape the th in k in g of m any G ush m em bers in th o se difficult days: The confusion and sense of unease which followed the Yom Kippur War exposed a deep crisis. This is the crisis of the very Zionist idea in the Herzlian thinking . . . Herzl sought to solve the “ Jewish Problem”for the Jews and for the nations of the world. .. . When Israel will have his own homeland and state, it will obtain its proper place in the family of nations. No room would remain for anti-Semitism. . . . But now, just as Zionism celebrates its practi­ cal victory, its ideological conception is in a total disarray. The Jewish Prob­ lem has not been solved and anti-Semitism has not disappeared but has grown worse. . . . The dreams of normalization have been exposed as hollow. The State of Israel is the only state in the world which faces destruction. . . . The vision of the prophet— “a people that dwells alone and that shall not be reckoned among the nations”— is fulfilled in front of our eyes in the most physical sense. The earthquake people speak about in these days is not a result of the weakening of security or political thinking but a consequence of the failure of the ABC of the Zionist nationalist theory. But there exists another Zionism, the Zionism of redemption, whose great announcer and interpreter was Rav K ook.. . . This Zionism has not come to solve the Jewish Problem by the establishment of a Jewish state but is used, instead, by the High Providence as a tool in order to move and to advance Israel towards its redemption. Its intrinsic direction is not the nor­ malization of the people of Israel in order to become a nation like all the nations, but to become a holy people, a people of living God, whose basis is in Jerusalem and a king’ s temple is its center. .. . What is revealed in front of our eyes is the beginning of the fulfillment of the vision of the Prophets regarding the return to Zion. The steps are the Messiah’ s. And although these are accompanied by pains, the steps are certain and the course clear. ... It is time Zionism becomes the Zionism of redemption in our consciousness too.30

A m ital’s n eg atio n o f th e very h e a rt o f secular Z ionsim w as one o f m any ind icatio n s th a t th e G ush in ten d ed to “ re a w a k e n ” Z ionism so m ew h at m ore radically th a n th e pu b lic h ad th o u g h t. G ush E m unim has been less in terested in a new religious-secular synthesis th a n in a religious tra n sfo rm a tio n o f secular Z io n ism in w ays th a t in fact deny its essence. G ush E m unim is a special kind o f religious m ovem ent, an o rth o d o x collectivity w hose very essence is th e p a ra d o x , th e unresolved tensio n betw een the sacred sin an d the o b solete religiosity.

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

11 7

Zionist fulfillment stands tainted by the reinvigoration and institutionaliza­ tion of profanity and sin which go against the living according to the Torah and which are understood as the falsification of the truthful faith. This is a secular victory which is by itself a very frustrating dissonance. At the same time Zionist fulfillment implies a totally contradictory element— the fulfill­ ment of the obligations of the Torah and the actualization of an article of belief, i.e., of a religious peak. In its struggle with this contradiction Kookism reaches an “idealization o f secularity,”which is understood as a lofty expres­ sion of the religion.31

T h e K o o k ist p a ra d o x sh o u ld n o t deceive th e o b serv er reg ard in g th e tru e n atu re o f G ush E m unim . T h e re p e a te d references to th e m o v em en t’s stro n g a tta c h m e n t to secu lar Z io n ism are m isleading, fo r they tell only p a rt o f th e story. T h e m o v em en t sh o u ld n o t be seen as a religious o ffsh o o t o f th e secular Z io n ist m o v em en t, b u t as a very successful religious raid in to the h e a rt o f secular Israel. M a n y G u sh m em b ers, have m oved to w a rd Jew ish u ltra o rth o ­ doxy, w hich su p p o rts this assessm ent. F acing a g ro w in g n u m b e r o f b locks on the ro a d to re d e m p tio n , fru stra te d G ush m em bers do n o t join k ib b u tzim or go to d ev elo p m en t to w n s to stren g th en th e fo u n d a tio n s o f tra d itio n a l Z io n ism , b u t tu rn in stead to u ltra o rth o d o x y an d th e T o rah , con v in ced th a t the T orah, n o t th e Israeli arm y, w ill save th e n a tio n from its tro u b le s .32

The State and the Rule of Law K ookist theo lo g y is d istin g u ish ed by its g re a t resp ect for th e S tate o f Israel and its in stitu tio n s, th e g o v ern m en t, the K nesset, an d th e arm y. G ush E m u n im ’s legendary d o c u m e n t, th e p ro p h e tic serm o n th a t R ab b i Zvi Y ehuda delivered a t M e rk a z H a ra v on Israel’s n in eteen th b irth d ay , ju st before th e Six-D ay W ar, em phasizes th a t th e S tate o f Israel is holy: And against what was said, “Is this the state envisioned by our Prophets?”I say: This is the state the prophets envisioned. O f course, this is not the state in its completion, but our prophets and their successors said that the state is going to be like that: the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will settle and establish there a reality of settlement and an independent political govern­ ment. ... It has now been nineteen years of development. . . . We are hon­ ored to witness the wonders of G -d and His secrets— in construction, agri­ culture, policy, security in matter and spirit. . . . The real Yisrael is the re­ deemed Yisrael, the kingdom of Israel and the army of Israel.33

A ccording to th e ra b b i, Israel a n d its in stitu tio n s are legitim ate n o t only because they rely o n th e s u p p o rt o f th e peop le o f Israel an d are duly c o n sti­ tu ted , b u t m ainly because they rep resen t th e w ill o f G o d . Israel w o n its indep en dence n o t because th e Z io n ists m u stered th e m ilitary an d political p o w er to b e a t th e A rab s a n d w in in te rn a tio n a l legitim acy b u t because G o d w an ted it th a t way. Being c o n stitu te d by G o d , th e state deserves the H a la k h ic

118

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

statu s o f a “ K in g d o m ,” a n d co nsequently o u g h t to receive the allegiance o f all its citizens a n d th e respect o f all th e p resen t religious au th o rities. T his definition o f th e S tate of Israel is the g reat theological divide be­ tw een G ush E m unim a n d Israel’s religious u ltra o rth o d o x . T he G ush does n o t ap p ro v e o f eith er th e extrem ists o f N etu rei K arta an d the S atm ar H asidics, w h o consider th e State of Israel an ap o stasy an d a direct rebellion ag ain st G o d , o r th e u ltra o rth o d o x A gudat Israel, w hich p articip ates in the co n d u ct o f Israel’s p u b lic affairs b u t denies H alak h ic statu s to the in stitu ­ tions o f “ the Z io n is ts.” G ush E m u n im ’s prin cip led co m m itm en t to the san c­ tity o f the state o f Israel w as restated strongly by R abbi M oshe Levinger w hen the Jerusalem D istrict C o u rt im posed severe p u n ish m en ts u p o n the m em bers of the Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d : Following the conclusion and the verdict of the underground trial, it is our duty to remember that the State of Israel and all its institutions, just like her sky, land, and fruits, are all holy. . . . The establishment of the State of Israel means a state and all that comes with a state and is related to a state’ s existence, schools and synagogues and the institutions responsible for the public life of the state, the government, the Knesset, the courts, the police, the security services and even the prisons are all part of the Israeli statism which is being renewed with the help of God. Thus, when we are about to react— and there is room for reaction— to the conclusions and the verdicts, we have to do it from a position of respect for the people, the land, the state and its institutions, especially those that leave us bitter. This is because a deep and truthful commitment to values shows in time of crisis, when it appears that reality looks hard and cruel.34

This glorification o f the State of Israel explains why, despite the G u sh ’s m any c o n fro n ta tio n s w ith the go v ern m en t, the police, an d the army, there have been relatively few severe incidents an d w hy the m ovem ent has rarely been considered in Israel as a seditious o r rebellious o rg an izatio n . H ow ever, it does n o t explain the huge n u m b e r o f G ush E m u n im ’s illicit and extralegal o p eratio n s. W h at, in practice, does this glorification of the state m ean? H o w does the m ovem ent perceive legitim ate as o p p o sed to illegitim ate political p artic ip a tio n ? It is one th in g to avow a deep respect for political in stitu tio n s an d quite a n o th e r to tra n sla te this a ttitu d e into com pliance w ith the law. In the case of G ush E m unim the gap seem s ra th e r b ro a d . T h ere are tw o keys to the u n d e r­ stan d in g o f the intense extralegal beh av io r of G ush Em unim : one is the difference betw een th e sacredness of the S ta te o f Israel an d of the L a n d o f Israel, an d the o th e r is G ush E m u n im ’s legal philosophy. W h a t we m ight call “ the G ush E m unim d o ctrin e of sacredness “ suggests th a t the State o f Israel is n o t as holy as the te rrito ry of Israel. T he state is never m en tio n ed as p a rt o f the “ holy trin ity ” — the L and, the People, the Torah o f Israel. F u rth erm o re, unlike the holiness of the trio w hich is ab so ­ lute an d etern al, th e sanctity of the state is relative an d co n d itio n al. “ T he land an d the s ta te ,” w rites R abbi Jacob Ariel in N ek u d a ,

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

119

are two values whose location in the right place in our scale o f values is of great importance and of many practical consequences. Which of them comes first, which is preferable to the other, which is the means and which is the end? .. . The land is not a means for the state but the state is a means for the land. The land is the goal and the state is nothing but the means to achieve this goal. . . . Eretz Yisrael is an absolute entity whose essence does not depend on any political factor [and] the virtue of the state of Israel in Eretz Yisrael is its ability to fulfill the obligation of settling Eretz Yisrael with no constraints or limitation. An Israeli state which limits or inhibits the settle­ ment of Israel by its people loses both its virtue and importance, and in the final analysis its moral and legal authority altogether. In the public struggle being waged on this scale of values, which determines the relationship be­ tween the land and the state, the very existence of the state, its uniqueness, Jewishness, and destiny are at stake. Those who place the state in its right position in this struggle— as a tool to secure the sovereignty of the people of Israel over its land— are the ones who secure the continuation of its develop­ ment, growth, expansion, strength and invigoration.35

A riel’s a rg u m e n t pro v id es th e ra tio n a le for G ush E m u n im ’s g re a t c o n ­ fro n ta tio n w ith th e L a b o r g o v e rn m e n t in th e m id -1 9 7 0 s ov er th e issue o f settling S am aria. Its e x ten sio n to include th e a b so lu te p ro h ib itio n o f s u rre n ­ dering E retz Y israel te rrito rie s justified th e 1982 ex traleg al o p e ra tio n s in Sinai. T h e a rg u m e n t a n d th e o p e ra tio n s w ere b ack ed by R ab b i Z vi Y ehuda K ook’s rulings th a t any p ro h ib itio n o f settlem en t in Eretz Y israel by th e g o v ern m ent Israel w as null a n d void, a n d th a t the p reserv atio n o f th e in teg ­ rity o f th e H o ly L and w as a sacred o b lig a tio n , a case o f Yehareg U va l Y aavor (be killed ra th e r th a n sin). B ut th ere w as a n o th e r elem en t— G u sh E m u n im ’s d isre sp e c t fo r th e rule o f civil law . G ush E m u n im , like several o th e r p olitical g ro u p s in Israel, has never respected th e rule o f law as a prin cip le o f g o o d g o v ern m en t. M o st o f its leaders have alw ays been ho stile to form ality an d o rd er, an d see no v irtu e in p ro p e r p ro c e d u re s o r o b ed ien ce to th e law. Pioneering, self-sacrifice, tak in g risks, a n d b re a k in g new g ro u n d are the qu alities they ad m ire in th e early Z io n ist w h o settled th e lan d w ith o u t ask in g perm issio n . R abbi Yoel B en-N un, th e m o st m o d e ra te a n d civil o f all G ush E m unim ideologues, o nce resp o n d ed to a q u ery a b o u t th e G u s h ’s resp ect for th e law. It is shocking that Yigal (Allon) speaks about the law. When he makes a decision no law bothers him. When he decided that Hebron [the first Jewish settlement in the Park Hotel] had to exist and it needed arms, he saw to it that arms were moved, under the table, from Kfar Etzion to Hebron. Stealing chickens from the henhouse is a norm the Palmach introduced.36

H ere B en-N un linked th e illegalism o f th e P alm ach — th e p a ra m ilita ry units o f th e L a b o r m o v em en t d u rin g th e B ritish M a n d a te — w ith the e x ­ tralegalism o f G ush E m unim . H e in ten d ed no iro n y ; he w as expressing stro n g co n v ictio n th a t G ush E m unim o n the hills o f S am aria in th e 1970s w as ju st like th e y o u n g k ib b u tz n ik s o n th e hills o f th e G alilee in th e 1920s;

120

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

any g o v ern m en t o f Israel th a t b a rre d Jew ish settlem en t in Eretz Yisrael w as to be eq u ated w ith th e B ritish M a n d a te go v ern m en t th a t issued, in 1939, the W hite P aper b a rrin g Jew ish settlem en t an d im m ig ratio n . It w as also to be p u t in th e sam e category o f th e Z io n ist a u th o rities in Palestine in the 1920s— 1930s, w h o w ere re lu c ta n t to p e rm it d arin g settlem en t o p eratio n s in rem ote areas for fear it w o u ld h u rt the re p u ta tio n o f the m ov em en t an d create indefensible settlem en ts.37 Settlem ent o f Eretz Y israel te rrito rie s is, acco rd in g to G ush E m unim , the m ost d istinguished Z io n ist a n d Jew ish virtue. N eith er law n o r any principle of g o o d g o v ern m en t can m atch it. G ush E m u n im ’s consensus regarding the perm issible an d the illegitim ate w as b ro k en follow ing the 1984 discovery o f the Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d . Sud­ denly it w as learned th a t the extralegalism of several distinguished m em bers of the m ovem ent ex ten d ed to p rem ed ita te d killing o f A rabs. T h e first reac­ tio n seem ed to be general shock an d disbelief th ro u g h o u t the settler co m m u ­ nity, b u t w hen th e d u st cleared, there w ere clearly tw o ideological cam ps w ithin G ush E m u n im — tho se “ w h o u n d e rsto o d ” the u n d e rg ro u n d an d those “ w h o refused to u n d e rs ta n d ” it. T h e H alak h ic issue a t stak e w as w h eth er the u n d erg ro u n d co n stitu ted M erid a B a m a lch u t (a revolt against th e kingdom ). R abbi Yoel B en-N un, w h o led th e a tta c k on the u n d e rg ro u n d , w as very resolute: The state is the foundation and the government is the authority for conduct­ ing war against Israel’ s enemies. There are no private wars, and no rules of war are applicable for a private individual, neither from a general moral perspective nor from a moral-Halakhic point of view. . . . Every revolt against the kingdom is also a revolt against God.38

W hile B en-N un an d his cam p w ere extrem ely can d id a b o u t th eir o p p o si­ tion to th e o p e ra tio n s o f the u n d e rg ro u n d , m any o f th e su p p o rtiv e a u th o ri­ ties, a n d tho se w h o “ u n d e rs to o d ” its activities, rem ained silent. T h e real co n tro v ersy w ithin G ush E m unim w as co n d u cted in b itter closed sessions, an d w as revealed only in 1986. T h e ones w h o spoke in s u p p o rt of the U n d erg ro u n d w ere ra th e r ca u ­ tious. R abbi Israel A riel, w h o w as to becom e the spok esp erso n of the m o st radical w ing o f th e m ovem ent, resp o n d ed in the sam e issue o f N e k u d a to Yoel B en -N u n ’s charges. H e arg u ed th a t since the g o v ern m en t of Israel w as never elected directly by th e people, as requ ired by the H a la k h a , b u t ra th e r indirectly, it did n o t fulfill th e co n d itio n s of Jew ish law for a fully legitim ate kingdom . H e fu rth e r rem inded his audience th a t R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook h ad m ade a d istin ctio n betw een state an d governm ent: Rabbi Zvi Yehuda . . . did not define the prime minister as a king, not even as a judge, but as “judgelike.”When Prime Minister Rabin made his reprehensi­ ble statement that he did not care if we reached Hebron with a Jordanian visa, he criticized him severely and said: “He who does not care about Eretz

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

121

Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael does not care about him.”Would anybody call Rabbi Zvi Yehuda an opponent of the government’ s authority? . . . What else do we need than Rabbi Zvi Yehuda’ s announcement that in the case of Judea and Samaria no concession will be made and that “it will not pass without a war”? This was said in front o f the students of the yeshiva and was published in the press. Would anybody dare call Rabbi Zvi Yehuda “a rebel against the kingdom”?39

W hile G u sh E m u n im ’s th e o re tic a l c o m m itm e n t to th e sacredness o f th e state o f Israel h as n o t ch an g ed today, its p ractical c o m m itm e n t h as been eroded. T h e G ush settlers, b itte r a b o u t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s inab ility to defend them a g a in st A rab violence o n th e ro a d s o f Ju d e a a n d S am aria, find it h a rd to respect th e g o v ern m en t. R ab b i Z vi Y ehuda K ook is gone, a n d th e “ p o stK o o k ist” G u sh is in n o p o sitio n to keep th e o ld o rie n ta tio n alive. T h o u g h there are several successors to K o o k ’s “ m o d e ra te ” legacy, they d o n o t carry his au th o rity . T h e d o m in a n t line in G u sh E m unim n o w seem s n o t to glorify the sacred sta te , b u t ra th e r to challenge th e g o v e rn m e n t in th e n am e o f E retz Yisrael a n d its fu tu re.

The Palestinian Question, the Arab-lsraeli Conflict, and the Fate of the Israeli Arabs G ush E m u n im ’s p o sitio n o n “ th e P alestinian Q u e s tio n ” is sh a rp an d u n ­ equivocal: th e p ro b le m does n o t ex ist a n d is n o m o re th a n a vicious ploy by the A rabs, w h o w a n t to d estro y th e S tate o f Israel, fu rth e re d by leftist Jew s w h o refuse to see th e A ra b s’ tru e in ten tio n s. Eretz Yisrael in its en tirety belongs to th e Jew s by divine c o m m a n d . T h e A rab s, w h o ev er they are, have no collective rig h t o v er th e lan d , a n d th e issue, if th ere is one, is o f in d iv id u ­ als w h o m u st find a w ay to live u n d e r Jew ish rule. T h e universal p rin cip le o f self-d eterm in atio n — even if it m ight have som e relevance in o th e r p laces— does n o t h o ld in E retz Y israel. T h e key q u e stio n , th e n , is n o t, W h a t sh o u ld be d o n e a b o u t th e P alestin ­ ian n atio n ? b u t ra th e r, W h a t sh o u ld be th e sta tu s o f A rabs living in E retz Y israel in th e age o f red em p tio n ? G ush E m u n im ’s only official an sw er to th e q u estio n w as fo rm u la te d in its 1974 m anifesto : The Arabs of Eretz Yisrael and other alien minorities living there ought to be given the complete private and legal rights every person deserves. These include the right to emigrate, to own property, to free trial and all the other individual civil liberties. These rights cannot be abrogated, except for direct security reasons. The possibility of granting Israeli citizenship to every alien resident who will be ready to assume all the obligations involved (including service in the IDF or a substitute) should be examined. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the emigration of those who are not ready to receive Israeli citizenship for nationalist reasons will be encouraged by propaganda and economic aid.40

122

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

This vague sta te m e n t, w hich w as based on the T orah co n cep t of G er T oshav (alien resident), w as sufficiently b ro a d an d u n d em an d in g to en co m ­ pass v arious p o sitio n s o n this sensitive issue in the early days of G ush E m unim . W hen o u tsid ers insisted u p o n a clearer statem en t, G ush sp o k esp er­ sons resp o n d ed w ith th e fam ous “ three a lte rn a tiv e s” — choices th a t sho u ld be presented to Israeli A rabs: (a) to acknow ledge the legitim acy o f the Z io n ist d o ctrin e (G ush E m u n im ’s version) an d th e re u p o n to receive full civil rights, including th e rig h t to vote a n d be elected to the K nesset (and to serve in the arm y), (b) to ho n estly obey th e law s o f the state w ith o u t form al reco g n ition o f Z io n ism a n d in re tu rn receive the rights of resident aliens (but no po litical rights), o r (c) to em igrate to A rab co u n tries w ith econom ic assistance p ro v id e d by Israel. As long as c o n ta c ts betw een th e G ush settlers a n d the P alestinian A rabs w ere lim ited b efore th e 1978 p en e tra tio n o f S am aria an d the beginning o f the m assive settlem en t o f th e W est B ank, these general statem en ts satisfied the m em bers o f th e m ov em en t; G ush E m unim sincerely h o p ed th a t m o st o f the P alestinians w o u ld learn to live w ith the Jew s an d o p t for the sec o n d altern ative. B ut this h o p e w as n o t fulfilled, an d the g ro w in g Jew ish-A rab violence h as m ade it increasingly necessary to tra n sla te the a b stra c t H alakhic p o sitio n o n th e issue to concrete suggestions an d policies. T he m oral an d political sensitivity o f th e issue has m ade u n an im ity im possible; differen t p artie s w ith in G ush E m unim ad h ere to th ree different p ro p o sals for th e sta tu s o f non-Jew s in Israel: lim ited rights, no rights, an d to tal w a r an d e x te rm in a tio n . W hile the positio n s are usually stated as reac­ tio n to actual events, each is an ch o red in an a u th o rita tiv e in te rp re ta tio n o f Scripture. T h e first, m o st liberal, p o sitio n , sticks to the G u sh ’s original “ th ree a lte rn a tiv e s.” L im iting A rab rights stem s from the conviction th a t the n o tio n of universal h u m a n rights is a foreign ideal th a t, like o th e r E u ro p ean nonJew ish values, has no m eaning in th e c o n te x t o f the H oly Land. In the Bible, non-Jew ish in h a b ita n ts o f Palestine w ere accorded the statu s o f resident aliens, enjoying som e privileges b u t never o b ta in in g rights equal to th o se o f the Jew s: We are obliged to grant the G e r T o s h a v (alien resident) civic rights, and also a decent social respect and an option to buy houses and land in the country. This implies, of course, that he accepts the authority of the state of Israel and agrees to be a loyal and devoted citizen, which includes the seven command­ ments of N oah’ s sons— which are the fundamental laws of human moral­ ity. ... It is however clear that we cannot allow the transfer of Eretz Yisrael lands to the Gentiles of other states, who certainly do not qualify as G e r im T o s h a v i m .41

N o te th a t even the liberal sp okespersons o f G ush E m unim no longer talk a b o u t g ra n tin g full p o litic a l rights to loyal A rabs, p referrin g to leave the

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

123

issue undefined. B ut a t least they recognize th a t n o t all A rab s are d an g ero u s and th a t m an y deserve to be tre a te d hum anely. M o st o f th e leaders o f G ush Em unim a n d m o st m em bers sh a re this view. B ut even a m o n g th em th ere are shades a n d v a ria tio n s — som e w o u ld use very to u g h m easures ag ain st sedi­ tious a n d v io len t P alestinians, w hile o th e rs call for m o d e ra tio n a n d re stra in t. T h e second p o sitio n o n sta tu s o f non-Jew s a m o u n ts to a d enial o f all rights, since A rab s are ho stile to th e Jew ish re b irth in Eretz Y israel an d alw ays h a d been. P ro p o n e n ts o f this p o sitio n do n o t o p p o se th e d o c trin e o f G er Toshav, b u t they arg u e th a t co n siste n t A rab ho stility m akes it illusory and irrelev an t. T h e ir co n clu sio n is very close to th e n o to rio u s K ah an e p o si­ tion o f ex p u lsio n . The Arab hostility towards the Zionist venture has been proven beyond doubt in many decades of bloodshed, and there is no sign of any change in this hostility or for a reduction in its intensity. . . . The idea that maintains that it is possible to settle within areas o f dense Arab population, to expropri­ ate its land, to hurt its national feelings and also to obtain its sympathy by quoting old Arab tales, cannot but make one laugh. Once and for all we have got to clarify to ourselves and to explain to the nation that in Eretz Yisrael either the Arabs or the Jews can live, and not the two of them together.42

A poll o f W est B ank ra b b is fo u n d 64 p ercen t o f th em fav o rin g th is so lu tio n .43 T h e m o st ex trem e so lu tio n , e x te rm in a tio n , w as expressed in an essay by R abbi Israel H ess p u b lish ed in th e official m ag azine o f B ar-Ilan univ ersity stu d en ts u n d e r th e title “ G enocide: A C o m m a n d m e n t o f th e T o ra h .” H ess likened th e A rab s to th e biblical A m alekites, w h o w ere deservedly a n n ih i­ lated. T he A m alekites, ac c o rd in g to H ess, w ere b o th socially a n d m ilitarily tre ach ero u s a n d cruel. T h e ir re la tio n to th e Jew s w as like th e relatio n o f d arkness to lig h t— o n e o f to ta l c o n tra d ic tio n . T h e A rabs, w h o live to d a y in the lan d o f Israel a n d w h o are c o n sta n tly w ag in g a tre ach ero u s te rro rist w a r ag ain st th e Jew s, are d ire ct d escen d an ts o f the A m alekites, a n d th e co rre c t solution to th e p ro b le m is e x te rm in a tio n .44 H ess’s p o sitio n , relatively iso lated , h as n o t been rep eated by any G ush E m unim au th o rity . B ut th e A m alekite an alo g y exists in th e m inds o f a G ush E m unim m in o rity a n d som etim es a p p ears in co n v ersatio n s a n d o n the pages of N e k u d a . A K edum im settler, D avid R osentzw eig, in a sm all research p ro ject fo u n d th a t in th e last fifty years several d istin g u ish ed a u th o ritie s h a d used th e an alo g y w h en sp eak in g o f th e u n e n d in g A rab h ostility to w a rd the Jew s.45 A nd H aim T z u ria , a Shavei S h o m ro n settler, w ro te in his article “T he R ight to H a te ,” th a t “ a h a tre d o f any enem y is n o t a sick feeling b u t a n a tu ra l a n d h e a lth y o n e .” H e c o n tin u e d , In each generation we have those who rise up to wipe us out, therefore each generation has its own Amalek. The Amalekism of our generation expresses itself in the extremely deep hatred of the Arabs to our national renaissance in the land of our forefathers.46

124

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

G ush E m unim is a w a re o f th e political sensitivity o f its view s; its spokes­ perso n s consistently refuse to discuss th e fu tu re o f th e A rabs in Ju d ea and S am aria a fte r th e “ e x p e c te d ” a n n e x a tio n o f th e W est B ank. T hey say th a t their m ission is to solve n o t th e A rab qu estio n b u t th e Jew ish p ro b lem on the general principles fo u n d in th e T orah an d H a la k h a ; in due tim e A lm ighty G o d will ta k e care o f th e details in his m ysterious w ay.47

The Invisible Realm of Gush Emunim T h o u g h G u sh E m unim o rig in a te d as an e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry o rg an izatio n often actin g extralegally, its leaders alw ays w ished for form al recognition by the Israeli a u th o ritie s. T he reasons w ere b o th ideological an d p rag m atic. O n th e ideological level, m o st o f th e fo u n d ers w ere sincerely devoid o f political a m b itio n s; they w ere less interested in the o rg an izatio n th a n in its calling. T hey believed th a t th e settlem en t o f Ju d ea an d S am aria w as the o b lig atio n o f th e g o v ern m en t an d n o t o f v olunteers. In the early years the G ush co n sidered itself as only a te m p o ra ry stru c tu re th a t w o u ld fade aw ay the m o m en t th e Israeli g o v ern m en t stepped in an d legalized the settlem en t o f Ju d ea an d S am aria. O n the practical p lane, th e heads o f the G ush w an ted legalization, for they knew th a t they co u ld n o t change the d em o g rap h ic b alance in th e W est Bank w ith o u t official backing. T hey w ere fully aw are th a t th eir early s q u a t­ ting drives w ere only beginnings, a sym bolic p ro o f th a t a Jew ish settlem ent in every p a rt o f Eretz Israel w as possible an d legitim ate. M o st o f these early asp ira tio n s have by n o w been com pletely fulfilled, p erh ap s b ey o n d th e w ildest dream s o f the G ush leaders. T h ere have been difficulties an d crises o f ideology an d leadersh ip , b u t from a political, o rg a n i­ zatio n al, a n d econom ic perspective the G ush has been extrem ely successful. It is, th erefo re, n o t erro n e o u s to speak o f the G ush E m unim in visib le realm , a highly so p h isticated political, econom ic, an d cu ltu ral n etw o rk , w hich d o m in ates th e life o f nearly 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 settlers in Ju d ea, Sam aria, an d G aza, co n tro ls the yearly d istrib u tio n o f h u n d red s o f m illions o f d o llars, an d signifi­ cantly influences Israel’s decisions. T his G ush E m unim co n g lo m erate is “ in­ visible,” since only a few o f its in stitu tio n s are obviously p a rt o f G ush E m u n im .48 T he activists o f the m ovem ent have been able to im p a rt th eir political th in k in g to m any n o n -G u sh people an d in stitu tio n s, an d to co n tro l several sm all b u t highly im p o rta n t com m u n al p o sitio n s, thereby assuring th a t they m ak e th e critical decisions. O n e reason for G ush E m u n im ’s success is th a t its activists have m oved ad ro itly from sp o n ta n e ity to o rg an izatio n w ith o u t losing th eir flexibility. In term s o f o rg a n iz a tio n , the m ovem ent has gone th ro u g h three stages: s p o n ta ­ neou s sin gle a c tio n s, in s titu tio n a lize d licit a n d illicit d rives, an d finally fu ll official a n d s ta te -s u p p o r te d o p e ra tio n s. Each new stage has involved m ore people, bigger resources, g reater p ro x im ity to the centers o f pow er, and

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

125

fuller political legitim acy. T h o u g h th e political an d ideological d ev elo p m en t of G ush E m unim h as been m a rk e d by crises a n d setb ack s, its eco n o m ic an d ad m in istrativ e o rg a n iz a tio n h as been b u ilt up slow ly a n d m ethodically. The fo rm ativ e years o f G u sh E m u n im , from 1 9 6 7 to 1974, w ere th e m o st im p o rta n t. T hese w ere th e years w h en each sq u a ttin g effo rt e ru p te d w ith n o grand strateg y o r highly o rg an ized b acking. T h e re tu rn to G ush E tzion, th e o ccu p atio n o f P ark H o tel in H e b ro n , th e early o p e ra tio n s o f G ariin Elon M o reh , a n d th e illicit settlem en t o f K eshet in th e G o lan H eig h ts all to o k place w ith n o esta b lish ed p ro ced u res. H ighly d ev o ted in d iv id u als an d g ro u p s felt th a t they h a d to act, w ith o r w ith o u t official su p p o rt, a n d they did so. But as iso lated a n d u n o rg an ized , as th e p io n eerin g E m u n ist sq u a tte rs w ere, they did have th re e in stitu tio n a liz e d sources o f su p p o rt: Y eshivat M erk az H arav , th e Bnei A kiva y o u th m ov em en t, a n d th e L an d o f Israel M ovem ent. N o n e w as fully geared to th e specific needs o f th e settlem en t G ariinim , b u t they all re n d e re d m o ra l a n d m ateria l assistance. M erk az H a ra v w as p ro b a b ly th e single m o st im p o rta n t su p p o rt, a solid source o f m a n p o w e r a n d m o ral b acking. A cco rd in g to m any sources, R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook tu rn e d th e yeshiva in to a settlem en t co m m a n d p o st. T h e yeshiva stu d e n ts w h o lived u n d e r his spell w ere u n eq u iv o cally en co u rag ed to join the new settlem en ts.49 Similarly, th e Bnei A kiva m o v em en t a n d several o f its yeshivot b ack ed th e new pioneers. T h e n u m b e r w h o actually m oved to th e W est B ank in th e preG ush era w as very sm all, b u t a m o v em en t o f m any th o u sa n d s sto o d b eh in d them . S ettlem ent leaders like H a n a n P o ra t an d R ab b i M o sh e Levinger, w h o w ere also p ersuasive sp eak ers, becam e th e idols o f a w h o le Bnei A kiva gen eration. T hey a n d several o th e r speak ers trav eled th ro u g h o u t th e co untry, and th eir m essage electrified th e y o u th . M o st o f the Bnei A kiva o rg a n iz a tio n w as su p p o rtiv e to o ,— teach ers, h ead s o f yeshivot a n d b ran ch es, an d th e Bnei A kiva rep resen tativ es in such influential in stitu tio n s as th e Jew ish A gency and th e W orld Z io n is t O rg a n iz a tio n .50 A lth ough th e u n o rg a n iz e d new settlers p ro v ed them selves skilled p o liti­ cians, th e ir lack o f p o litical o rg a n iz a tio n led th em to d ep en d o n th e elderly activists o f th e L a n d o f Israel M o v em e n t. T h e settlers w ere the d arlin g s o f the L IM jo u rn a lists, w rite rs, a n d politicians. T h e n o tab les visited th e sm all settlem ents, w ro te a b o u t th em , sp re a d th eir m essage, an d legitim ized th e ir actions a m o n g th e secular public. F irst a n d fo rem o st a m o n g th e LIM a d m ir­ ers w as Eliezer L ivneh, w h o c o n sta n tly co m m u n icated w ith th eir y o u n g rabbis a n d p raised th e ir activities in p riv a te a n d p u b lic .51 F o rm er generals, d ip lo m ats, b u re a u c ra ts, a n d p ro fesso rs sh o w ed th e ir su p p o rt. L ong before the fo rm al e sta b lish m e n t o f G ush E m unim , its fu tu re activists w ere already en tren ch ed in Israel’s p u b lic life. T he second stage b egan in 1974 w ith th e form al esta b lish m en t o f G ush E m unim . Its first m an ife sto suggested a p la tfo rm fo r the p olitical, ideologi-

126

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

cal, an d sp iritu al ta k e o v e r o f the n a tio n , b u t th e o p eratio n al m eaning o f the act w as m uch sm aller: th e ro u tin iz a tio n o f the practice of the first G ariinim an d its fo rm alizatio n . N o longer w as th e creatio n o f a settlem en t G ariinim to be left to th e d a rin g im ag in atio n o f individuals; an established o rg an iza­ tion w as to p lan th e activities, logistics, an d p ro p a g a n d a . G ush Em unim form alized a M a zk ir u t (executive secretariat), M a te M iv tz a i (an o p eratio n al co m m an d ), an d M o e tz a (public council). T h e M a z k iru t w as an o rd in a ry executive com m ittee w hose job w as to oversee policy m a tte rs an d c o o rd in a te daily activities, b u t the M ate M ivtzai w as a u n iq u e G ush E m unim stru ctu re. Its task w as to p rep are an d carry o u t G ush E m unim illicit o p e ra tio n s, w hich m ostly involved unlicensed sq u attin g . Since these o p e ra tio n s m e a n t o u tm an eu v erin g the arm y, the police, an d the o th e r W est B ank a u th o ritie s, the M a te recru ited men o f g reat skill and in genuity— reserve officers, practiced hikers fam iliar w ith W est Bank to p o g ­ raphy, veteran illegal settlers from the M a n d a te p eriod, an d logistic o rg a ­ nizers.52 Since G ush E m unim has never h ad a w ritten c o n stitu tio n , the stru c­ tu re an d nam es o f these o rg an izatio n s occasionally changed. An extended M a z k iru t w as later a d d ed an d p rofessional d ep artm en ts w ere established for settlem ent, H a sb a ra h (public relatio n s and ed u catio n ), o rg an izatio n , and finance. A sm all A liy a d e p a rtm e n t w as also ad ded later. T h e in stitu tio n a liz a tio n o f G ush E m unim in the m id-1970s w as n o t a refu tatio n o f its earlier sp o n ta n e o u s character. O n the contrary, th e sam e M erk az H a ra v core g ro u p co n tin u ed to inspire the G ush an d co n tro l it w ith no b u re a u c ra tic co n stra in ts. N e ith e r rules o f form al m em bership n o r a co n ­ stitu tio n w as a d o p te d . N o general vote w as ever tak en an d no pro ced u res for legitim ate o r illegitim ate G ush E m unim o p eratio n s w ere ever w ritten d ow n. T he heads o f the m ovem ent did w h atev er they th o u g h t fit an d m oved sw iftly from one sphere o f actio n to a n o th e r.53 Instead o f dealing w ith h am p erin g p roced u res, the G ush devoted all its tim e to o p erativ e m atters. T h u s w hile co n stan tly launching settlem ent drives, a n d jo u stin g an d b arg ain in g w ith the au th o rities, the m ovem ent w as also able to invest g re a t energy in building the G ush in frastru ctu re. G ush b ran ch es w ere o p en ed all over the co u n try to b ro a d c a st the m essage o f the m ovem ent as w idely as possible an d recru it su p p o rters an d fu tu re settlers. In h u n d red s o f H u g ei B a it (small sessions in p riv ate hom es), G ush people p reach ed the new gospel. Local volunteers n o t only an n o u n ced their co m m it­ m ent to settle in th e W est B ank, b u t also actively recruited future colleagues. G ush activists p e n e tra te d o rganized gro u p s like synagogue com m unities, religious PTAs, an d Bnei A kiva alum ni circles, greatly facilitating th eir o rg a ­ n izatio nal ta sk s.54 T his m assive o p e ra tio n , w hich w as n o t w idely rep o rted in the press, involved very little expense. A G ush E m unim b ran ch w as usually a sm all a p a rtm e n t w ith a telephone. A skeleton G ariin w as a devoted individual o r a sm all g ro u p o f friends w h o w o u ld spend all th eir free tim e talk in g to people an d fu tu re follow ers. F avorable Bnei A kiva ch ap ters and friendly Yeshivot

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

127

H esder w ith larg er assets a n d resources w ere especially g o o d lo catio n s fo r stro n g G ush b ran ch es a n d G a riin im .55 In this second stage, th e G ush estab lish ed a settlem en t d e p a rtm e n t. W hile struggling to m a in ta in th e ir few existing stro n g h o ld s, m ostly in m ilitary cam ps in th e W est B ank, th e leaders o f G ush E m unim also sta rte d to w o rk on an a m b itio u s p lan to settle all o f Ju d e a an d S am aria. E x p erts in g e o g ra ­ phy, d em ography, a g ric u ltu re , a n d settlem en t w ere asked to help develop an o p e ra tio n a l p ro g ra m ; th e resu lt w as th e 1976 Yesh Plan. T h o u g h the Yesh Plan w as su p p la n te d tw o years later by G ush E m u n im ’s M a ste r Plan fo r S ettlem ent in Ju d e a an d S am aria , it h a d estab lish ed th e new G ush E m unim settlem ent co n cep t. T h e re w ere to be th re e types o f settlem ents: villages o f a few h u n d re d peo p le, to w n s o f several th o u sa n d s, an d cities w ith tens o f th o u sa n d s o f residents. T h e m ain objectives w ere strateg ic— to in tro d u c e h u n d red s o f th o u sa n d s o f Jew s to th e a rea, to occupy all th e strateg ic s tro n g ­ holds in th e m o u n ta in s, an d to secure com p lete c o n tro l o f th e m ain ro ad s. T he resettlem en t o f a n c ie n t biblical lo catio n s w as given a lo w er p riority, th o u g h w as nevertheless con sid ered im p o rta n t.56 T h e th ird o rg a n iz a tio n a l stage o f G ush E m unim began in 1977, w h en the L ikud, u n d e r M en ach em Begin, w o n the elections. T h o u g h G ush E m unim w as a sm all v o lu n ta ry m ov em en t, it h ad tw o im p o rta n t p sy ch o lo g i­ cal assets: nearly ten years o f settlem en t exp erien ce a n d a h ealth y skepticism a b o u t th e ab ility o f th e g o v ern m en t, any g o v ern m en t, to p ro v id e for th e settlem ent o f E retz Y israel. F u rth er, G ush E m unim h ad the will an d th e m eans to p ush th ro u g h th e ir d em an d s a n d w ere sure th a t G o d w as b eh in d them . T h e refo re , th o u g h a m o re sy m p ath etic g o v ern m en t h ad com e to pow er, th e G ush did n o t d ism an tle its settlem en t d e p a rtm e n t a n d leave the job of settling th e W est B ank to th e friendly M in istry o f A griculture. Its leaders estab lish ed , in stead , A m an a (C ovenant) as th eir official settlem en t m ov em ent a n d in itia te d , tw o years later, a n o n -E m u n im u m b re lla o rg a n iz a ­ tio n , M o e tz e t Yesha (T he C ouncil o f th e Settlem ents o f Ju d ea, S am aria, an d G aza). T hese tw o in stitu tio n s, a cco rd ed full reco g n itio n by th e new g o v e rn ­ m ent, becam e th e fo u n d a tio n o f G ush E m u n im ’s political a n d eco n o m ic pow er.

The Evolution of Amana In 19 7 7 , th o u g h th e m o v em en t h a d big plan s, it h a d only th re e settlem en ts o f its o w n , O fra , K edum im , an d M ish o r E dom im . T h e re w as just one certain w ay o f chan g in g this s itu a tio n — to establish a recognized “ settlem en t m o v e­ m e n t” w ith th e full b ack in g o f Israel’s M in istry o f A g ricu ltu re an d the D e­ p a rtm e n t o f R u ral S ettlem ent o f th e W orld Z io n ist O rg a n iz a tio n (W Z O ).57 L ik u d ’s official rec o g n itio n o f A m an a w as n o t a m ere legal act th a t could be o b ta in e d by any in d iv id u al la n d developer: reco g n itio n m ean t th a t A m a n a ’s

128

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

activities w ere co n sidered essential for the n a tio n , p a rt o f state-su p p o rted Z ionism . In th e p ast, such recog n itio n h ad been accorded only to pioneering settlem ent o rg a n iz a tio n s, th e k ib b u tzim an d m oshavim m ovem ents. T h ere­ fore it w as extrem ely im p o rta n t for the extraleg al zealots o f G ush E m unim to becom e legitim ized as p a rtn e rs in this exclusive club. T h ere w as a n o th e r incentive. Being officially recognized en titled A m ana to large state a n d W Z O budgets, as well as to m any o th er benefits such as secure positio n s for its m em bers in Israel’s settlem en t b u reau cracy an d a say in decisions o f m any official circles. It also m ean t the rig h t to the p aid professional assistance o f Israel’s to p settlem en t experts. A m ana to o k ad v a n ta g e o f all the benefits official reco g n itio n im plied. It w as ru n by a H a n h a la (D irectorate) o f th irteen people an d a large rep resen ta­ tive council m ade up o f m em bers from all th e m o v em en t’s settlem ents. T he heads o f A m an a, veteran s like H a n a n P orat, Uri Elitzur, Uri Ariel, an d M o n i Ben-Ari realized th a t the G u sh ’s inform al m eth o d s w ere n o t su itab le fo r a big settlem en t o rg a n iz a tio n w ith m oney and land. They w ro te a sh o rt co n sti­ tu tio n for A m an a, w hich, for th e first tim e in the h isto ry o f G ush E m unim , in tro d u ce d d em o cratic proced u res. A ccording to th e co n stitu tio n every set­ tlem en t is entitled to tw o delegates a t th e A m an a council, an d the council w as m ade the final a u th o rity on all m atters w ith in the m o v em en t’s jurisdic­ tion. T he H a n h a la a n d th e o rg a n iz a tio n ’s influential secretary-general are elected by th e co u n cil.58 T he esta b lish m en t o f A m ana ex p an d ed dev elo p m en t o p p o rtu n ities for G ush E m unim b u t led, parado x ically , to the decline o f the m o v em en t’s guiding secretariat. E ager to shed th eir im age of illegal ad v en tu rism , the leaders of the G ush so u g h t th e statu s o f a fully legitim ate Israeli settlers’ m ovem ent. O nce they decided in 1979 n o t to establish a political p arty o f their o w n , they saw no need to co n tin u e G ush E m unim form ally; no w R abbi Levinger could spend m ore tim e in K iryat A rba, Benny K atzover in Elon M o reh , an d H a n a n P o rat in the K nesset. A m ana to o k ov er the G ush offices in Jerusalem an d guided a m assive G ush E m unim settlem en t drive. In 1978 it su b m itted an am b itio u s p lan to the g o v ern m en t calling for th e settlem ent o f 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 Jews in the W est B ank w ith in ten years. T his p ro g ra m u nderlay th e D robles-S haron settlem ent p lan th a t becam e the official policy o f th e W orld Z io n ist O rg an izatio n an d Is­ rael’s M in istry o f A g ricu ltu re.59 W ith th e g o v ern m en t settling u rb a n areas close to the G reen Line (the p re-1 9 6 7 b o rd er), A m ana could co n cen trate on establishing new ideological settlem ents in u n a ttra c tiv e b u t strategic spots in Ju d ea and S am aria, usually in areas w ith heavy A rab p o p u la tio n s o r far from u rb an centers. C o n stan tly keeping the settlem en t o f Ju d ea an d S am aria on the n atio n al ag enda, A m ana w o rk ed diligently to create new G ariinim , a ttra c t industries to th e new settlem ents, an d tra in new settlers for jobs th a t could su p p o rt them in th eir new locations. A m an a also developed an a b so rp tio n an d im m ig ratio n sec­ tion to a ttra c t new im m igrants to E m u n im ’s fu tu re settlem ents. It has been

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

129

so successful th a t p o te n tia l settler g ro u p s n o t necessarily identified w ith th e ideology o f G ush E m u n im have o ccasionally ask ed to join it. A m a n a ’s m a jo r in n o v a tio n w as th e Y ishu v K eh ila ti (a co m m u n al settle­ m ent), a c o n c e p t dev elo p ed in th e 1976 Yesh Plan. Previously, m o st settle­ m ents s u p p o rte d by th e g o v e rn m e n t o r W Z O w ere based on an eg alitaria n socialist ideology— e ith e r collective (kibbutz) o r co o p erativ e (m oshav) a g ra r­ ian -in d u strial en d eav o rs. B ut G ush E m unim w as never socialist, a n d m o st o f its m em bers h a d a m iddle-class m entality. T h e co n cep tio n o f red em p tio n th a t drove th em to th e W est B ank h a d a n a tio n a list, n o t socialist, co n ten t. T h e Likud w as also far fro m socialism : k ib b u tzim a n d m o sh av im w ere identified w ith its political arch riv al, th e L a b o r m o v em en t.60 F u rth e rm o re , w a te r a n d a ra b le lan d w ere to o scarce o n th e W est B ank for m any k ib b u tz im a n d m oshavim . T he Y ish u v K eh ila ti o v ercam e these lim itations. W hile in sisting o n th e c o m m u n al c h a ra c te r a n d sh ared resp o n si­ bility o f th e settlem en t, it gave its m em bers g re a t eco n o m ic freedom . A m an a settlers o w n th e ir p ro p e rty individually a n d are free to leave o r sell it.61 W hile th e old L a b o r socialist settlem en ts h a d been en co u rag ed to becom e self-reliant a n d self-sufficient, m any m em bers o f A m an a settlem en ts, up to 80 p ercen t, c o m m u te to w o rk across th e G reen Line every day. T h e only tim e A m an a exercises fo rm al co n tro l over individual settlers is in th e selec­ tion process. O n ly in d iv id u als w h o identify w ith th e m o v em en t’s goals, pass so p h isticated tests o f su itab ility for co m m u n al living, an d e n d u re lo n g in te r­ views w ith p sychologists a n d social w o rk ers are a d m itte d .62

The Local and Regional Councils W hile A m an a tra n sfo rm e d G ush E m unim , it w as th e Israeli g o v ern m en t th a t laid th e fo u n d a tio n s fo r th e m o v e m e n t’s invisible realm . O n M a rc h 2 0 , 1979, six days b efo re th e signing o f th e peace tre a ty w ith Egypt, th e m ilitary g o v ern m ent in th e W est B ank signed O rd e r 783 estab lish in g th re e regional councils in th e area. Tw o m o re councils w ere ad d ed later; all five are g o v ­ erned by th e reg u latio n s go v ern in g Israeli regional councils. In M a rc h 1981, O rd er 9 8 2 set u p five m unicipal councils in th e W est B ank. T h a t o rd e r largely d u p lic a te d th e Israeli M u n icip al O rd in a n c e , so W est B ank m u n icip ali­ ties, like th e ir Israeli c o u n te rp a rts , can levy tax es, su p p ly m u n icip al services, n o m in ate officers, a n d em ploy w o rk e rs; th e W est B ank councils also enjoy p lan n in g a n d building-licensing p o w e rs.63 T h e Israeli settlem en t areas w ere declared “ p la n n in g re g io n s” a n d th e councils w ere d esig n ated “ special p la n ­ ning co m m issio n s.” T hese acts o f th e Begin g o v e rn m e n t w ere in ten d ed to stren g th en Jew ish co n tro l o f th e are a a n d en su re th e p erm an en ce o f th e settlem ents. B ut they accom plished an a d d itio n a l a n d u n in te n d e d task : for all p ractical p u rp o ses they gave G ush E m u n im co n tro l o f th e en tire Jew ish en d eav o r in the W est Bank. Even th o u g h th e G u sh has never supp lied m o re th a n 2 0 p ercen t o f the

130

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

W est B ank settlers, its leaders, by v irtue o f th eir experience, public im age, an d com petence, w ere a p p o in te d to key executive p o sitio n s in m ost o f the new m unicipalities an d regions. F orm er illegal settlers an d can d id ates for a rrest w ere n o w state officials w ith large budgets, p o w ers, an d responsibili­ ties. A m a n a ’s sm all staff an d b u d g et w ere su p p lem en ted by h u n d red s of p aid official jobs in its co n tro l. By A pril 1988, th ere w ere forty-eight co m m u n ity settlem ents in co rp o ­ rated in A m an a. Its E m u n ist settlers n u m b ered a b o u t 1 2,000 to 15,000 (ab o u t 2 5 0 0 fam ilies). T he W Z O investm ents in these co m m u n al settle­ m ents alone cam e to $ 8 0 ,0 0 0 per family. T h ere w ere o th e r su p p o rters of G ush E m unim in to w n s such as K iryat A rb a, Ariel, E frat, M a ’ale E phraim , an d M a ’ale A dom im . G ush m em bers head five o u t o f the seven regional councils a n d e x e rt con sid erab le influence in th e tow ns. G reat sum s of g o v ern ­ m ent m oney have en ab led these m unicipalities an d councils to em ploy large staffs an d p ro v id e services o f every d escriptio n . M ero n B envenisti estim ates th a t in 1983 p er cap ita g ran ts to regional councils w ere $ 2 3 0 in G ush E tzion, $245 in M ate B enyam in, an d $ 3 5 7 in S am aria— tw o o r three tim es as m uch as g ran ts to regional councils in Israel p ro p e r— M a te Y ehuda (the region w est o f Jerusalem ad jacen t to M ate Benyam in) $ 8 6 ; S h a’a r H anegev, $ 1 2 6 ; an d U pper G alilee, $97. G rants-inaid p ro v id ed m o re th a n h a lf the to ta l incom e o f the Jew ish local au th o rities in the W est B ank— E lk an a an d A riel 52.8 p ercen t; M a ’ale A dom im , 60.8 percent; an d K iryat A rba, 68.8 percent. By c o n tra st, local councils in d e­ pressed areas w ith in th e G reen Line received g ran ts in the follow ing p ro p o r­ tions: R osh H a ’ayin, 4 4 p ercen t; O r Y ehuda, 36.8 percen t; O r A kiva, 28 .9 p ercen t.64 T hese huge sum s o f state m oney a m o u n t to preferential tre a tm e n t for the settlers in th e W est B ank by the L ikud co alitio n an d give G ush E m unim leaders a fo rm id ab le financial an d political base.

Building Political and Economic Power T he solidification o f th e invisible realm o f G ush E m unim w as com pleted in 1980 w ith the creatio n o f the Yesha C ouncil, the representative o rg an izatio n of the Jew ish settlem ents in Ju d ea, S am aria, an d G aza. From its inception the Yesha C ouncil w as designated to becom e the political arm of the Jew ish settlers in th o se a re a s.65 It w as conceived by Israel H arel, a jo u rn alist, w h o realized in 1979 th a t the legitim ized Jew ish settlem ents created a new and ex p an d ed p o w e r base for G ush E m unim . G ush leaders h ad been u n d ersco rin g th eir d em an d for m ore lan d w ith a long h u nger strike, an d H arel realized th a t he w as observing a new Israeli geopolitical entity th a t w as d ifferent from the rest of the country, w ith existential interests o f its ow n. O nly 20 percen t of the settlers w ere G ush m em bers, so its critics argued th a t the G ush could n o t speak in the nam e of the entire body. N o netheless, the m o v em en t’s leaders w ere convinced th a t

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

131

despite th e ir m in o rity sta tu s they co u ld m a in ta in po litical heg em o n y in th e area. U nlike A m a n a a n d th e reg io n al a n d local councils, th e Yesha council never h a d so u g h t official state statu s. It w as a v o lu n ta ry legal asso ciatio n in ten d ed to re p re se n t th e en tire Jew ish p o p u la tio n o f th e W est B ank an d G aza in Israel’s p u b lic a n d po litical life.66 E ach settlem en t, w h atev er its political affiliation o r size, elects tw o rep resen tativ es to a general council w hose job is to fo rm u la te th e po litical p o sitio n o f th e settlers o n relev an t n atio n al issues. T h e real p o w e r in th e council is e n tru ste d to th e H an h alah . a d ire c to ra te m ad e u p o f th e h ead s o f th e regio n al councils o f Ju d e a , S am aria and G aza a n d several officeholders w h o sit ex officio. Special co m m ittees m eet reg u larly to su b m it re c o m m e n d a tio n s to th e general council, on legal and p o litical m a tte rs, as w ell as for security, eco n o m ic, e d u c a tio n , a n d in fo r­ m atio n issues. W hile th e Yesha C o u n cil h as lim ited its activities to p olitics, its heads an d those o f A m an a a n d th e m o st influential regional councils have aid ed th eir m ov em ent th ro u g h th e ir p o w e r o f th e official pu rse. In th e last nine years they have set up a m y ria d o f p ro fitab le “ d ev elo p m en t c o rp o ra tio n s ” th a t have h elped b u ild th e area. W hile b id d in g fo r c o n tra c ts issued by th e c o u n ­ cils, th e m em bers o f th e b o a rd s o f th e c o rp o ra tio n s have been eith er th e heads o f th e sam e councils o r th e ir n eig h b o rs a n d associates from A m an a. Using m ach in ery su p p lied by p u b lic funds, such as buses o r heavy m ech an i­ cal eq u ip m e n t, they have been able to co m p ete ra th e r fav o rab ly ag ain st p riv ate c o rp o ra tio n s. Seeing th e success o f th e d ev elo p m en t co m p an ies, A m an a c o o p e ra te d w ith tw o reg io n al councils to create a large W est B ank c o rp o ra tio n th a t w o u ld a ttra c t m a jo r o u tsid e p a rtn e rs. T h e new v en tu re, SBA, estab lish ed its o w n in su ran ce c o m p a n y a n d to o k up m a jo r p ro jects such as b u ild in g a science p a rk in A riel. It also m oved in to th e h o m e -c o n stru c tio n m a rk e t in b o th th e W est B ank a n d G aza. It p lan s to estab lish several su b sid iary firm s specializing in a v ariety o f in d u stries a n d in v estm en ts.67 T h e overseers o f the new com pany, m a jo r G ush figures, aim for eco n o m ic in d ep en d en ce from the g o v ern m ent, so th a t in case o f conflict they co u ld p ro ceed o n th eir o w n . In a N e k u d a interview , D r. Yosef D reizin, th e executive d ire c to r o f SBA, d is­ cussed his desire to follow th e h isto ric m odel o f th e Z io n ist L a b o r m o v e­ m ent. S tartin g in th e 1 920s, it developed an in d e p e n d e n t Jew ish eco n o m y in Palestine, w h ich facilitated th e struggle ag ain st th e B ritish an d the A rabs, an d la te r becam e th e solid fo u n d a tio n o f th e Israeli econom y. We have in front of us the Histadrut’ s industries without their faults. We told ourselves: let us erect econom ic institutions in construction, industry and other fields that could become in the proper time an autonomous system. This will assure the continuous development of the area with no relation, or direct relation, to the political system which may become hostile.68

132

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

G ush E m unim figures co n tin u e to d o m in a te th e key in stitu tio n s in the W est B ank a n d G aza, d espite th e g ro w in g n u m b e r o f th e n o n -E m u n ist set­ tlers, fo r th e sim ple reaso n th a t th e entire settler co m m u n ity benefits from the a rra n g e m e n t. N o o th e r g ro u p in Israel has recently received so m any benefits a n d allo catio n s. T he W est B ank leaders have o b ta in e d fo r their co n stituency th e privileged statu s o f all three o f the m o st p referred gro u p s in Israel— d e v e lo p m e n t to w n s , p io n e e rin g s e ttle m e n ts, an d co n fro n ta tio n s e t­ tlem en ts. Instead o f asking th e a u th o ritie s to create a special category, these leaders have insisted o n th e ir inclusion in a ll th e existing categories. T his co m b in ed sta tu s, confirm ed by b o th g o v ern m en t a n d K nesset, m akes th e settlers eligible for huge subsidies a n d concessions. It h as also m ade them alm o st com pletely im m une to financial cu tb ack s, even in tim es o f severe austerity. B envenisti has rightly observed, “ It is politically im possi­ ble to revoke th e ir sta tu s, only to change th e en tire system o f Israeli subsi­ dies. T he p o w erfu l p ressu re g ro u p s w hich rely on co n tin u ed p referential tre a tm e n t w o u ld n o t allow th a t, even if they are o p p o sed to settlem en t in th e W est B a n k .” 69 T h u s, th o u g h th e m ajo rity o f th e settlers are n o t religious and p ro b ab ly do n o t sh are the m essianic beliefs o f G ush E m unim , they need th e m o v em en t’s extensive political skills as m uch as it needs th eir su p p o rt. T his in terd ep en d en ce is n o t likely to d isa p p e a r soon. T h e m ain reaso n th a t Israe­ lis co n tin u e to m ove to th e W est B ank, even d u rin g the in tifada, is the u n m atch ed incentives offered to th e settlers. Since only the G ush activists can m ake sure th a t this situ a tio n contin u es, th e m o v em en t’s decreasing p ro p o rtio n a m o n g th e p o p u la tio n is unlikely to effect its in fo rm al political pow er.

The Cultural Infrastructure of Cush Emunim A relatively unreco g n ized , b u t essential, p a rt o f the G ush E m unim invisible realm is its su b sta n tia l cu ltu ra l an d ed u catio n al in frastru ctu re, w hose devel­ o p m e n t has sta rte d long before th e legalization of m ost W est Bank o p e ra ­ tions an d th e official recog n itio n o f A m ana. Y eshivat M e rk a z H a ra v in Jerusalem h as alw ays played a crucial role, especially after 1967, w hen it becam e th e center of a new dynam ic m ove­ m ent. R abbi Z vi Y ehuda K ook, its head, achieved n atio n al p rom inence, an d its g ra d u a te s becam e th e m o st prestigious g ro u p in religious Z io n ism . Al­ m ost every talen ted Bnei A kiva g ra d u a te w an ted to study in M erk az, o r a t least to be ta u g h t by its g rad u ates. A nd because M erk az H a ra v aim ed to co n v ert th e entire n a tio n to the new “ Eretz Yisrael Ju d a ism ,” it has becom e p reem inently a m issionary ord er. G ra d u a te s like H aim D ru k m an an d T zfania D ro ri h ad established M erk az-o rie n te d yeshivot o u tsid e o f Je ru sa ­ lem ; o th ers have sim ply tak en over existing in stitu tio n s th ro u g h o u t the country. T he first o rd e r o f business o f m o st G ush Em unim settlem ents has been to establish a yeshiva. H a rd -c o re G ush E m unim sem inaries such as the

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

133

K iryat A rb a Yeshiva o f R ab b is Eliezer W ald m an a n d D ov L ior have becom e em u lated m odels. T h e nucleus in Jeru salem w as e x p a n d e d im m ensely. T h e Yeshiva G d o la, the tra d itio n a l fo u r-y ear p o st-se c o n d a ry in stitu tio n , has been jo in ed by a Yeshiva L etzeirim (a M e rk a z p re p school), a K o le l (an ad v an ced sem in ary for m arried m ale stu d e n ts), tw o research centers, a n d n u m ero u s in stitu tio n s for young children o f th e stu d e n ts a n d staff. A special y o u th m o v em en t called A riel, m o re p io u s a n d d ev o ted to th e L and a n d th e T orah th a n th e o ld Bnei A kiva, w as sta rte d . A w h o le M e rk a z enclave w as created in th e Jeru salem n e ig h b o rh o o d o f K iry at M o sh e, a m ilieu o f to ta l c o m m itm en t in w hich h u n ­ dreds o f teach ers a n d stu d e n ts live w ith th o u sa n d s o f th e ir fam ily m em bers. M erk az g ra d u a te s w h o leave Jeru salem are en co u rag ed to co n sid e r th e ye­ shiva th e ir second h o m e a n d to c o n sta n tly re tu rn for lessons a n d c o n s u lta ­ tio n .70 M o n ey is a p p a re n tly no p ro b le m , fo r th e sc h o o l’s g ro w in g prestige has a ttra c te d big d o n o rs. A nd M e rk a z enjoys th e stro n g b ack in g o f th e N a tio n a l R eligious P arty a n d financial aid from Israel’s M in istry o f R elig io n — a fiefdom o f th e party. Two o th e r im p o rta n t K o o k ist-E m u n ist in stitu tio n s have becom e p o w erfu l in stru m en ts o f c u ltu re d issem in atio n , th e N o a m Schools a n d M a c h o n M eir. T he N o a m Schools are selective elem en tary schools th a t place g re a t e m p h a ­ sis on tra n sm ittin g th e E retz Y israel m essage to y o u n g ch ild ren . T hey are considered an elite a lte rn a tiv e to th e o rd in a ry state religious schools, a n d are an im p o rta n t so cia liza tio n agent. T h e ir high q u ality a ttra c ts m any n o n E m unist p a re n ts eager to give th e ir children a first-class ed u c a tio n . M an y o f them later find them selves p a re n ts o f y o u n g G ush settlers. M a c h o n M eir is a p o p u la r a d u lt in stitu tio n th a t p ro v id es sh o rt a n d inform al religious courses. Its b ran ch es, w hich are n o w sp read all o v er Israel, a ttra c t Jew s from Israel an d a b ro a d , y o u n g a n d old, w h o w a n t to learn a b o u t Jew ish religious o rth o d o x y in an o p en an d p le a sa n t a tm o sp h ere. T h o u g h few o f th e th o u sa n d s o f people w h o ta k e such courses every year stay, rep en t, a n d join th e fo rm al K ookist co u rse o f o rd in a ry yeshiva life, m any leave w ith a feeling for G ush E m un im a n d the en tire E retz Y israel theology. M o st o f th e teach ers a n d a d m in istra to rs in th e N o a m Schools an d M a ­ chon M eir are M e rk a z H a ra v g ra d u a te s an d th e ir co n fid an ts. T hese in stitu ­ tio n s, like th e o th e r M e rk a z o rg an s, are th u s solid eco n o m ic b astio n s o f the invisible re a lm .71 T h e lives o f m any th o u sa n d s o f p eople d ep en d on th eir success a n d prosperity. T h u s, th e E m u n ist m essage, in a d d itio n to being an article o f faith , is also th e ir p rim e so u rce o f funds. N o w h ere does th e eco n o m ic fu n ctio n o f th e c u ltu ra l in stitu tio n s asso ciated w ith G ush E m u n im s ta n d o u t so clearly as in th e m o v em en t’s in fra stru c tu re in th e W est B ank. U nder th e L ikud a d m in istra tio n , th e M in istry o f E d u c a­ tio n an d C u ltu re w as h e a d e d by th e N R P ’s Z ev u lu n H am m er. D u rin g his

134

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

first years in office he w as an a rd e n t su p p o rte r o f the G ush. H a m m e r’s m inistry established an e la b o ra te ed u catio n al n etw o rk in the W est Bank in w hich th e religious section w as especially p ro m o ted . T here are such schools in alm o st every W est B ank settlem ent, even th e sm all o n es— 136 of them w ere registered in 1 9 8 3 —84 (70 k in d erg arten s, 35 p rim ary schools, 5 high schools, 10 yeshivot, 14 kolelim , an d 2 religious colleges). T here w ere a sep arate te a c h e r-tra in in g n e tw o rk , branches o f the Bnei A kiva y o u th m ove­ m ent, and lib raries— all financed by th e state. T he W est B ank ed u catio n al system has th u s becom e one o f the settlers’ m ain sources o f incom e. B envenisti has calculated th a t in the M ateh B inyam in region, a G ush E m unim stro n g h o ld , 10 p ercen t of the to tal lab o r force (including w om en) w o rk e d in teaching an d ad m in istratio n . H e show ed th a t th e d isp ro p o rtio n a te state expense per cap ita on ed u catio n h ad becom e p artic u la rly g laring considering th e u n d eru tilizatio n o f the system : “ In 1984/5 th ere w ere 16 pupils a t th e M t. H e b ro n elem entary school; 72 pupils in six elem entary classes in O fra ; 80 stu d en ts in ju n io r high an d high schools in K edum im ; an d 95 stu d en ts in grades 7 — 10 in K iryat A rb a .72 A special section o f this in stitu tio n a l com plex com prises the Eretz Yisrael m id rash o t. T hese are sh o rt-te rm learning centers, w hose m ain p u rp o se is to co n d u ct s h o rt courses for visiting g ro u p s on such subjects as Ju d aism , Z io n ­ ism, an d th e teachings o f Rav K ook, as well as on the w ildlife an d geography of Eretz Y israel. T he m id ra sh o t have never been officially d en o ted as G ush E m unim o rg an s, since they are u n d e r the s ta te ’s M in istry of E d u catio n , just like sim ilar in stitu tio n s w ith in th e G reen Line. N evertheless, m o st of the W est B ank m id ra sh o t are located in stro n g h o ld s o f G ush E m unim an d w ere established d u rin g Z ev u lu n H a m m e r’s ad m in istratio n . T he p erso n desig­ n ated by th e M in istry o f E d u c atio n to oversee th e m id ra sh o t an d o th er in stitu tio n s w as no n e o th e r th a n R abbi Y ohanan Fried, a p ro m in e n t G ush E m unim veteran. R afael E itan, the IDF C hief of Staff, h ad earlier p u t Fried in charge o f the Jew ish e d u catio n p ro g ra m of th e IDF.73 W hile th e Eretz Y israel m id ra sh o t have n o t becom e a m ajo r source of incom e, they d o prov id e m any p a rt-tim e jobs for stu d en ts on leave from M erk az an d o th e r yeshivas. A nd since tens of th o u sa n d s of Israelis pass th ro u g h these in stitu tio n s each year, they are one o f the m ost effective ed u catio n agents o f the G u sh .74 A m ore serious effo rt is th e gro w in g academ ic com plex of M id ra sh a t K edum im , o r the Ju d ea an d S am aria College. U nder G ush veteran Zvi Slonim , it seeks to com pete w ith th e n a tio n ’s secu lar colleges and to becom e, one day, an altern ativ e to the H eb rew U niversity of Jerusalem an d o th er such “ leftist” centers. A t p resen t, M id ra sh a t K edum im is an ad u lt-ed u catio n cen­ ter, w ith courses ta u g h t by sy m p ath etic professors from B ar-Ilan, H aifa, Tel Aviv, an d the H eb rew U niversities. Tw o research in stitu tio n s are also p a rt of the g ro w in g K edum im co n g lo m erate; th eir m ain p u rp o se is to d o cu m en t the settlem ent p ro je ct in Ju d ea an d S am aria— an d to becom e the Eretz Yisrael

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

135

c o u n te rp a rt o f th e fam ed Van Leer In stitu te, w hich is k n o w n for its leftist o rie n ta tio n .75

Defending the West Bank Settlers T he invisible realm o f G u sh E m unim h as evolved a d istrict security a n d defense o rg a n iz a tio n . A lm o st from th e beginning o f th e Israeli o c c u p a tio n there w ere security p ro b le m s in th e W est B ank. B ecause o f anti-Jew ish te rro r­ ist a n d g u errilla a tta c k s, th e settlem en ts w ere d esig n ated “ c o n fro n ta tio n settlem en ts” ; special m ilitary o rd e rs a u th o riz e d th e ir g u ard s to defend th em w ith force. M a n y Jew ish residents o f th e W est B ank are, in fact, soldiers “ o n ex ten d ed leave” — m ainly religious stu d e n ts co m b in in g m ilitary service w ith ad v an ced T alm u d ic study. In every settlem en t o n e settler is a p p o in te d “ secu­ rity o fficer” a n d receives a salary from th e M in istry o f D efense o r th e Israeli police. T h e resu lt is th a t th e settlers are directly involved in defense an d security m a tte rs th a t w ere originally h a n d le d by th e arm y a n d the m ilitary go v ern m ent. In 1978, as n o te d in C h a p te r 3, Israel’s chief o f staff, G en eral R afael E itan, in itiated a policy m ak in g each settler co m m u n ity in the W est B ank responsible fo r securing th e area a n d defen d in g itself. H u n d re d s o f settlers w ere tra n sfe rre d fro m th e ir reg u lar arm y units to th e W est B ank, to p ro te c t th eir o w n settlem en ts a n d to secure ro ad s an d p u b lic p roperty. Every settle­ m ent w as re q u ire d to have a fixed n u m b e r o f soldiers, in clu d in g officers. They w ere to p e rfo rm th e ir active d u ty on a p a rt-tim e basis w hile leading no rm al civilian lives. In a d d itio n , regional m obile forces eq u ip p ed w ith a rm o re d p erso n n el carriers policed th e P alestinian p o p u la tio n . Large q u an tities o f m ilitary eq u ip m en t, in clu d in g so p h istic a te d w eap o n s, have been sto red in the settle­ m ents u n d e r th e co m p lete c o n tro l o f th e local c o m m a n d e rs.76 E itan p ro b a b ly saw th e regional defense system as th e best an d ch eap est w ay to secure th e settlem en ts ag a in st A rab a tta c k s; th e co n cep t w as fam iliar from p re sta te days, w h en th e b o rd e r settlem en ts an d k ib b u tzim necessarily defended them selves. N everth eless, one c a n n o t ignore th e d a n g ero u s p o te n ­ tial o f a sem i-in d ep en d en t a rm e d force sh o u ld stro n g d isag reem en t w ith g o v ern m en t policy arise. W hen th e settler co m m u n ity d eb ates its fu tu re in the event o f m a jo r te rrito ria l concessions by th e g o v ern m en t, a m in o rity rep o rted ly favors arm e d resistance. T his g ro u p , th o u g h sm all, a p p e a rs to be m uch larg er th a n th e iso lated g ro u p th a t resisted th e arm y in Y am it in 1982. Several o f th e Jew ish U n d er­ g ro u n d m em bers w ere ra n k in g officers in th e reserves, a n d one, Yeshua Ben Shoshan, w as a c a p ta in o n active duty. A cco rd in g to u n co n firm ed b u t p ersis­ ten t ru m o rs, n o n e o f th e resp o n sib le officers o f th e Israeli arm y k n o w s exactly h o w m an y arm s are sto re d in th e settlem en ts caches, an d no o ne dares check. W hile th e re is n o d o u b t o f th e loyalty o f the vast m ajo rity o f

136

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

these soldiers to th e state o f Israel an d to the arm y, the p o ten tial existence of a sm all seditious elem ent sh o u ld n o t be d isreg ard ed .77 Settler violence an d vigilantism reached crisis p ro p o rtio n s in th e sum m er of 1985. In Ju n e, the Israeli g o v ern m en t exchan g ed p riso n ers w ith the Syrianco n tro lled PFLP G eneral C o m m a n d head ed by A hm ed Jibril. Eleven h u n ­ dred an d fifty A rab p riso n ers w ere released in exchange for th ree Israeli soldiers. Six h u n d re d o f th e freed Palestinians w ere allow ed to retu rn to th eir hom es in Israel an d th e W est B ank. M o st o f th e freed A rabs h ad been serving sentences 15 to 2 0 years, b u t a few h ad been serving life term s for som e of the m o st a b o m in a b le te rro r acts in th e preceding tw en ty years. Since m any of the freed te rro rists h a d been responsible for th e d eath s o f th eir friends and stu d en ts, th e en tire settler co m m u n ity w as stu n n ed . T he A rab sector saw the exchange as a m a jo r victory a n d gave th e freed p riso n ers h ero es’ w elcom es all ov er th e W est B ank. This w as to o m uch for th e settlers to ta k e — w hile tw enty-five o f th eir m en w ere serving p riso n term s for defending the settler co m m u n ity against A rab te rro rism , th e “ re a l” p e rp e tra to rs of the b lo o d b a th , as they view ed it, w ere being freed. W aves o f arm ed settlers ro am ed th e W est B ank, usually at night, in tim id a tin g th e local co m m unities an d o rd erin g released p riso n ers to leave the c o u n try a t once. B acked by the m ajo rity of Israelis, they w ere n o t sto p p ed fo r w eeks. T h e re w ere very few acts o f o u trig h t violence in these raids, b u t the settlers m ade it very clear th a t no one, n o t even the arm y and th e g o v ern m en t, w as going to stop them from defending th eir fam ilies an d th eir m in ista te .78 Since 1985 there have been rep eated eru p tio n s o f settlers vigilantism . If A rabs th re w rocks a t an Israeli bus in Ju d ea an d S am aria— an act th a t h ad becom e q u ite co m m o n in th e area even before the in tifa d a — local vigilante ro ad g uard s w o u ld resp o n d sw iftly an d harshly. T hey used to en ter the n eig h b oring A rab village, sm ash c ar w in d o w s, b reak in to houses, an d w arn the local residents ag ain st c o lla b o ra tio n w ith th e sab o teu rs. A W ash ington P ost c o rre sp o n d e n t q u o te d a m em ber o f such a g ro u p : “ T he arm y is n o t d oing its job so w e are helping them . . . . A rabs are afraid o f us. You can see it on th eir faces. T hey k n o w w e have n o p ro b lem p ro te ctin g ourselves. T he stick is the best w eap o n , n o t th e gun. T he A rab kn o w s you will th in k tw ice before using th e gun, b u t n o t to sm ash his face w ith a stick .” 79

Aspirations for a Legal Autonomy G ush E m u n im ’s drive for a u to n o m o u s in stitu tio n s goes beyond the ad m in is­ trativ e, econom ic, cu ltu ra l, a n d m ilitary areas; th ere have been signs th a t som e o f its a u th o ritie s are th in k in g in term s o f a u to n o m o u s legal in stitu tio n s as well. An early article in N e k u d a , w ritte n by R abbi Y ehuda Shaviv of Yeshivat H a r E tzion, suggested th a t G ush settlem ents sh o u ld n o t follow the

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

13 7

typical Israeli c o u rt system , b u t a d o p t in stead a system o f rab b in ical co u rts th a t w o u ld rule acc o rd in g to T orah law : I was recently told that there is an intention of establishing courts of justice in the settlements o f Judea and Samaria ... I am afraid that if the new system is made by the ordinary lay institutions we are going to have ordinary courts and stand at a danger o f getting less than what we bargained for. Have we only come here to revive desolate mountains, placing on them settlements that live by the com m on norms? It appears to me that many of us came over to establish new framework o f life not just in the economic material sense, but also the social spiritual. ... I think that one of the most impressive creations here may be the revival o f the institution of c o m m u n a l c o u r t. This institution, apart o f its legal authority, is bound to become a comprehensive moral-Halakhic authority.80

W hile n o a c tio n h as been ta k e n o n th e Shaviv p ro p o sa l, m any G ush m em bers w o u ld have loved to see K nesset law su p p la n te d by T orah law an d H alak h a. It w as th e re fo re n o t su rp risin g th a t in 1985 th e regional council o f M ateh B inyam in esta b lish ed a rab b in ic a l c o u rt to resolve financial issues according to H a la k h a . As th e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f th e c o u rt’s e sta b lish m en t explained, The revival of the Israeli nation means also the return of the law of Israel and the management of financial issues between a man and his peers according to the Torah and not according to the law imagined by the Gentiles. It appears proper that settlements that are instituted by the Torah should follow this path, for the law is from God.81

Given G ush E m u n im ’s e v o lu tio n in th e d ire ctio n o f po litical, social, an d cu ltu ral au to n o m y , it is h a rd to disagree w ith th e co n clu sio n o f G io ra G o ld b erg a n d E fraim Ben Z a d o k th a t an u n p reced en ted process o f te rrito ­ rial cleavage b etw een o ld Israel a n d th e occu p ied te rrito rie s has been in th e m aking fo r q u ite som e tim e .82 W hile it is h a rd to p red ict th e en d resu lt o f this process, it is clear th a t th e lead in g force in this cleavage, G ush E m u n im , has p laced itself in a p o sitio n o f p o w e r a n d influence u n u su al for a m o v e­ m ent th a t p ro b a b ly n u m b ers a b o u t 1 5 ,0 0 0 . R ecently G ush E m u n im has begun b ro a d c a stin g “ p o sitiv e ” m essages o f p a trio tism a n d Z io n ism from a ship in th e M e d ite rra n e a n — a clear sign th a t th e G ush in ten d s to e x p a n d its involvem ent fu rth e r, a n d to m ove in to new te rrito rie s o f influence an d co n tro l.

Leadership and the Conduct of Politics It is h a rd ly q u e stio n a b le th a t o n e o f th e key elem ents in th e success o f G ush E m unim h as been its w ay o f c o n d u c tin g p olitics, an u n u su al c o m b in a tio n o f ideological rigidity a n d ta c tic a l flexibility. N ev er in th e G u sh ’s tw en ty -th ree

138

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

years have its leaders an d its m em bers budg ed from th eir goal o f ann ex in g Ju d ea an d S am aria to th e State o f Israel, th ereb y ad v an cin g the process of n atio n al red em p tio n . Yet in o rd e r to accom plish this goal they have m an eu ­ vered in m any directio n s an d have em ployed a variety o f tactics. O bservers, u n fam iliar w ith th e m u ltid im en sio n ality o f G ush E m unim as a religious re­ vival m ovem ent, a settlem en t o rg a n iz a tio n , a Z io n ist collectivity, an interest g ro u p , an d a W est B ank m in istate, find it h a rd to resolve the fu n d am en talist im age o f the G ush an d its confessional politics w ith its political p rag m atism an d sense o f tim ing. B ut this rich m élange has becom e the m o v em en t’s tra d e ­ m ark in th e n a tio n ’s p o litics.83 T h o u g h G ush E m unim em erged o u t o f M erk az H a ra v an d w as shaped by the hom ilies an d involvem ent o f R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook, it ap p ears the old rab b i h a d little influence on his stu d e n ts’ politics. R abbi K ook w as p resen t a t m any im p o rta n t m eetings and w as often asked to rule on critical issues. H e w as also co n su lted o n m any m atters an d w as in stru m en tal in m ajo r m oves like the fo rm a tio n o f th e Tehiya party. But due to his age, his lim ited political experience, an d his d etach m en t from everyday life, he w as in no p o sitio n to teach politics to his follow ers. K o o k ’s m o st intense political ad v en tu re, the 197 7 a tte m p t to have R abbi H aim D ru k m a n n o m in ated as the n a tio n ’s ed u c a tio n m inister, failed m iserably. T h e ra b b i’s typical reactio n w as to refuse to recognize Z ev u lu n H a m m e r (w ho h a d earlier m ade him believe he w o u ld s u p p o rt his choice) as the actu al m inister, an d to insistently refer to D ru k m a n as Israel’s real m inister o f e d u c a tio n .84 T h e people w h o sh ap ed G ush E m u n im ’s u n iq u e style w ere the settler leaders them selves, R abbi Zvi Y ehuda’s stu d en ts, w h o w ere less sp iritu al an d m ore political. W h a t characterizes th e public b eh av io r o f p ro m in e n t settlers such as M o sh e Levinger, Eliezer W aldm an, H a n a n P o rat, Benny K atzover, M en ach em Felix, Uri Elitzur, Uri A riel, D aniela W eiss, an d o th ers is th eir n a tu ra l u n d e rsta n d in g o f the rules o f Israeli politics— an d o f the w ays to b reak tho se rules w ith o u t getting h u rt. T he y o u n g rab b is o f G ush E m u n im — S hlom o Aviner, Y ehuda Shaviv, the Ariel b ro th e rs, Yoel BenN u n , Y itzhak Shilat, M en ach em F rum an, Eli Sadan, an d o th e rs— are highly regarded and are co n su lted on issues involving H alak h ic ruling, b u t they are n o t the m o v em en t’s dynam ic acto rs o r public spokespersons. W h a t has m ade the P orats, th e Levingers, an d th e K atzovers so success is an u n co m ­ m on c o m b in a tio n o f th re e elem ents: a tre m en d o u s belief in th eir heavenly m ission, a g re a t expertise in th e tra d itio n a l w heeling an d dealing o f th e N atio n a l R eligious Party, a n d a S abra confidence in the efficacy o f th e D u g ri b eh av io r (Israeli straig h tfo rw ard n ess). G ush politics w ere n o t developed in any th eo retical w o rk sh o p , b u t only evolved th ro u g h trial a n d erro r. N evertheless it is possible to see the g ro u p ’s fo u r o p e ra tio n a l m eth o d s, w hich escalate in intensity as well as involvem ent an d co m m itm en t: th e c reatio n o f fa it a cco m p li; lobbying w ith in the ad m in is­ trativ e echelons; lobbying w ith in th e to p political echelons; an d a final reso rt to e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry a n d extralegal politics.

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

139

The C reation o f Fait A c c o m p li

T he veteran m em bers o f G ush E m unim h ad been co m m ittin g irreversible acts long b efore they fo rm ed th e m o v em en t a n d becam e its leaders. T he tactic w as used in th e first tw o sorties o f th e M e rk a z H a ra v alu m n i in to th e W est B ank, th e settlem en t o f G ush E tzion an d th e p e n e tra tio n o f H e b ro n . So successful w ere th o se tw o initiatives th a t they have m o ld ed th e en tire o p e ra ­ tio n al p sychology o f th e G ush. T h e tw o settlem en t drives, w hile d ifferen t in intensity a n d co n tro v ersiality , h a d tw o featu res in co m m o n : they w ere c o n ­ ducted v is-à -v is an irreso lu te c a b in e t a n d they h a d th e s u p p o rt a n d blessings of several c a b in e t m em bers. T he p erso n w h o h as com e to sym bolize G ush E m u n im ’s m e th o d an d w h o has estab lish ed th ro u g h these o p e ra tio n s a u n iq u e p a tte rn o f lead ersh ip is R abbi M o sh e Levinger, a sm all, th in , b eard ed m an w ith a to rm e n te d ex p res­ sion an d an ascetic a u ra . L evinger’s fa th e r used to tell th a t y o u n g M o sh e h a d been a sm all a n d w eak child w h o tried to m ake up for his p o o r h ealth by his stro n g w ill. T h e father, a d istin g u ish ed p ro fesso r o f G erm an origins, w as very stern a n d d e m a n d in g a n d th e son, w h o w as b o rn in Jeru salem in 1935, grew up in a re stra in e d a tm o sp h e re a n d w ith P russian discipline. Levinger stu d ied in th e Bnei A kiva yeshiva o f K far H a ro e a n d later in Y eshivat H a d a ro m in R eh o v o t. F ollow ing m ilitary service in th e N a h a l (a u n it w h ose soldiers sp en d tim e in k ib b u tzim ), he w en t to M e rk a z H a ra v an d becam e p a rt o f th e g ro u p th a t w as la te r to establish G ush E m unim . Levinger joined K ibbutz Lavi in 1962 a n d served fo u r years as its rab b i, m ean w h ile w o rk in g as a sh ep h erd . H is second rab b in ic al jo b , w hich he assu m ed so m e­ tim e before th e Six-D ay W ar w as a t M o sh av N e h a lim .85 From b o th his k ib b u tz a n d m o sh av experience Levinger o b ta in e d a deep respect for th e L ab o r settlem en t m ov em en t. H e w as never a ttra c te d by the L ikud a n d al­ w ays h ad a w arm s p o t in his h e a rt for th e L a b o r m o v em en t, even d u rin g G ush E m u n im ’s w o rst c o n fro n ta tio n s w ith th e R abin a d m in istra tio n . T h e 19 6 7 w ar, in w hich he did n o t p a rtic ip a te as a soldier, tra n sfo rm e d Levinger a t once. “ W h en I visited H e b ro n ,” he w o u ld later say, “ I u n d e rw e n t an in tern a l tu rm o il th a t left m e restless for days a n d w e e k s.” 86 H e w as d e te r­ m ined to m ove to th e new te rrito rie s an d w as greatly su p p o rte d by his e x tra o r­ dinary w ife, M iria m , an A m erican -b o rn G u sh E m unim legend in h er o w n right. B ecause M iriam o p p o se d th e idea o f jo in in g K ibbutz K far E tzion, Levinger, to g e th e r w ith n o n relig io u s individuals like atto rn e y Elyakim H aetzn i a n d p o e t A h a ro n A m ir, sta rte d to o rg an ize a g ro u p th a t w o u ld m ove to H e b ro n . T hey p u b lish ed ads in th e p ap ers an d w o rk e d on the p ro je ct betw een D ecem ber an d A pril o f 1968. Since th ere w as n o official su p p o rt, an d the legal sta tu s o f th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s w as still unclear, they decided to act on th eir o w n . T h e g ro u p re n te d th e P ark H otel an d m oved in. M an y m em bers of the first g ro u p w ere c ertain th a t an ev acu atio n by th e m ilitary w as in ev ita­ ble, b u t Levinger w as d eterm in e d to stay. A nd stay he d id .87

140

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

L evinger’s tactic in settling H eb ro n has rem ained the classic strategy. It has fo u r stages: (a) a su rp rise esta b lish m en t o f a tem p o ra ry presence, ostensi­ bly fo r w o rsh ip p u rp o ses; (b) a rigid, highly publicized refusal to evacuate on religious g ro u n d s, w ith a generous interest in a “ co n stru ctiv e” so lu tio n for th e alleviation o f “ unnecessary te n sio n s” w ith th e arm y; (c) an agree­ m ent to co m p ro m ise a n d leave prov id ed a sm all yeshiva is established in the co n tro v ersial site, o r th a t th e rest o f th e in tru d ers be allow ed to stay in a n earb y m ilitary site; (d) th e estab lish m en t, a few years later, o f a p erm an en t Jew ish settlem en t a t th e site o f th e original initiative. F rom the first arrival of the Levinger team a t H e b ro n ’s P ark H otel in Passover 1968 an d the follow ­ ing esta b lish m en t o f K iryat A rb a, th ro u g h his o w n g rad u al p en etratio n of the C ave o f th e P atriarch s, th e estab lish m en t o f K eshet on the G o lan H eights in 1974, the fight for S ebastia an d th e K adum co m p ro m ise th a t p ro d u ced Ellon M o reh in 1977, to th e o rd eal o f Beit H ad assah in H e b ro n o f 1 9 7 9 — 1980, the struggle fo r Tel R u m eid a in H e b ro n an d the estab lish m en t o f a yeshiva a t th e Tom b o f Yosef in N ab lu s in th e m id -1 9 8 0 s, the p a tte rn has alw ays been th e sam e; th e stagging o f an o v ern ig h t su rp rise presence, the creatio n o f new facts, a n d th e rap id use o f new political m aneuvers to sustain th e m o m en tu m . T h e secret o f L evinger’s leadership has puzzled m any observers. N eith er as a p erso n n o r an o ra to r has Levinger ever been very attractiv e. H e is well k n o w n fo r his sloppy a p p e a ra n c e , his old clothes an d dirty shirts. H e is also fam ed for his com plete u npredictability. O n e never kn o w s w hen “ R av M o ish e ” will reco m m en d low -key, friendly talks w ith the o th e r side— the g o v ern m ent, th e W Z O , the arm y, o r th e police— since “ they are all h oly,” o r w hen will he e ru p t like a v o lcan o , clash w ith soldiers, scream a t politicians, h it an A rab girl w h o h a d insulted his d au g h ter, o r go on a h u n g er strike in fro n t o f an A rab refugee cam p. M an y G ush E m unim activists ad m it in p riv ate th a t they have never been able to figure o u t this m an. But all his critics, an d th eir n u m b e r has been steadily grow ing, ad m it th a t over tw enty years after th e P ark H otel o p e ra tio n , Levinger is still the single m o st influen­ tial leader o f G ush E m unim a n d the m o v em en t’s m o st respected p e rso n .88 Levinger is a m odel case o f a ch arism atic leader, a p erso n w h o w ins the loyalty o f his follow ers n o t th ro u g h th eir m inds b u t ra th e r th ro u g h th eir h earts an d em o tio n s. H e is a living exam ple o f the g reatest K ookist virtue, m esiru t han efesh (a com plete d ev o tio n to the cause). T im e an d again this m an , w h o could by n o w have becom e a h ig h -ran k in g K nesset m em ber o r the head of a p ro m in e n t yeshiva, retu rn s to his p riv ate w a r on the ro ad s o f Ju d ea an d S am aria. T h e re w ere, o f course, m any cases in w hich Levinger consulted w ith his G ush colleagues a n d c o o rd in a te d his p ro tests. B ut m o st of th e tim e it w as L evinger’s u n p re d ic ta b le one-m an o p eratio n s, his m arches u n arm ed in the streets an d alleys o f H e b ro n , a n d his com plete fearlessness. Even those colleagues w h o are extrem ely critical o f Levinger are repeatedly im pressed by his tenacity an d persistence. N o G ush m em ber, including ideological rivals, has ever seen Levinger

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

141

or his w ife p u t th e ir o w n p erso n al interests ah ead o f th e cause. T he Levingers, w h o have eleven ch ild re n , hav e alw ays lived very m odestly. Since th e ir first trip to th e P ark H o te l, they have m oved fo u r tim es. A lw ays it has been to e x te n d th e Jew ish presence in H e b ro n . T his has req u ired co n sta n t sacrifices a n d involved g re a t p erso n al inconveniencies. D u rin g th e fight for Beit H a d a ssa h , w h ich w as led by M iriam Levinger, th e fam ily w as divided for m o n th s a n d lived like gypsies. A t th e p resen t they live in a p o o r reco n stru cted A rab a p a rtm e n t in H e b ro n w ith o u t rugs, television, o r m any o th er s ta n d a rd electrical a p p lia n c e s.89 T he m an w h o looks like a to rm e n te d biblical p ro p h e t a n d lives like a m o n k can d isa p p e a r for days, even w eeks, w ith o u t in fo rm in g his w ife o r friends. H e is involved in an u n e n d in g E retz Yisrael cru sad e, a jo u rn ey th a t w as sta rte d in 1968 a n d will p ro b a b ly end only a t his d e a th . T h ere is, finally, th e fact o f L evinger’s legendary success. U n d o u b ted ly one of th e m ain sources o f R av M o is h e ’s E m u n ist sen io rity is his c o n tin u o u s success. N o t only h as he led th e drives in to H e b ro n ag ain st all th e o d d s, b u t he w as also th e g u id in g sp irit b e h in d m any o f th e G ush illicit settlem en ts in the 1970s, th e lo u d e st singer o f U tzu E tza V etufar (a fav o rite Jew ish song a b o u t th e failure o f evil co u n selo rs), a source o f in sp ira tio n a n d resolve. H is abso lu te c e rta in ty a b o u t th e infallibility o f G ush E m u n im , his m y sterio u s m essianic craze, a n d his refusal to b reak u n d e r any p ressu re have e m p o w ­ ered th e m o v em en t im m ensely in its h a rd e st tim es. O n e o f th e u n sp o k e n rules o f Israeli politics is th a t no o n e can b e a t Levinger.90 In th e last tw en ty years he has c o n fro n te d all o f Israel’s key politicians a n d no o n e h as been able to sto p him o r d efeat his plans. Levi Eshkol, G o ld a M eir, M o sh e D ay an , M en ach em Begin, Ezer W eizm an, an d Ariel S h aro n have all learn ed to ta k e this sm all m an , w h o rarely h as h a d a form al au th o rity , very seriously. T h e re w as only o n e m o m e n t in th e long history o f R ab b i Levinger in w hich he a p p e a re d defeated. F o llo w in g the 1984 discovery o f th e Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d a n d som e in crim in atin g evidence ag ain st him , L evinger w as a rre ste d a n d k e p t in jail for in v estig atio n . B ut he w as freed a fte r only tw elve days w ith n o charg es pressed. U nofficial re p o rts in d icated th a t L evinger refused to c o o p e ra te w ith his in v estig ato rs a n d th a t the Shin Bet p eo p le realized th a t th ey h a d in fro n t o f them a “ m an m ade o f steel.” 91 R ab b i L evinger w as sentenced in M ay 199 0 to jail for five m o n th s for killing an A rab b y sta n d e r in H e b ro n . Very few o f his follow ers to o k th e sentence as a defeat. L evinger him self spoke a b o u t his “ long aw a ite d v a c a ­ tio n ” w hile a cheerful G ush E m u n im c ro w d esco rted him to p riso n , singing “ U tzu E tza V e tu fa r.”

Lobbying the Administrative Level T he second stage o f G ush E m u n im ’s po litical tactic has been its q u iet lo b b y ­ ing o f th e a d m in istra tiv e echelon o f Israel’s civil service: th e m any friendly

142

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

settlem ent officials in Israel’s M in istry of A griculture, the R ural Settlem ent D e p a rtm e n t o f the W Z O , th e m ilitary go v ern m en t of the W est B ank, the M inistry o f D efense, su p p o rtiv e m ilitary officers, an d n u m ero u s o th e r confi­ d an ts th ro u g h o u t Israel’s v ast officialdom . T h e ap p ro ach of the G ush has consistently been th a t even u n d e r the m o st hostile ad m in istra tio n it is possi­ ble to find individuals w illing to help, an d th a t it is a g reat m istake to judge officials by th e p o sitio n s o f th eir political bosses. C onsequently, G ush E m unim has never given up o n the b u reau cracy an d over the years has built a pervasive system o f second-level su p p o rt. O f special im p o rtan ce in this n etw o rk o f c o n tacts have been the m ajo rity o f officials of the “ religious” m inistries o f Israel’s g o v ern m en t, the m inistries o f R eligion an d the In terio r (w hen it w as in the h an d s o f th e N R P). D u ring th e early years, the L a b o r su p p o rters o f G ush E m unim , veteran k ib b u tzim an d m oshavim m em bers w h o h ad later created the Ein Vered Circle, w ere p ro b a b ly the m o st effective. Being an integral p a rt of the h a rd ­ core L a b o r elite th a t b u ilt th e n a tio n , these people h ad reached p o sitio n s of p o w er an d influence. E xcited by th e Z io n ist pio n eerin g sp irit o f the young zealots, these Ein V ered activists visited the illicit settlem ents, enco u rag ed the settlers, sh a re d in fo rm a tio n on th e attitu d es o f the au th o rities, an d p ro v id ed logistical s u p p o rt in tim e o f need. Som e applied co n sisten t pressure on Itzh ak R ab in , S him on Peres, an d Israel G alili d u rin g the K adum crisis; som e later joined th e Tehiya p arty .92 T he Ein Vered m em bers acted as a g ro u p , b u t dozens o f o th e r officials su p p o rte d the G ush on th eir ow n. A p ro m in e n t su p p o rte r o f G ush E m unim in the m o v em en t’s early days w as Ariel S haron, w h o h a d served in th e m id-19 7 0 s as R a b in ’s defense advisor. A rep resen tativ e case o f the G ush relatio n sh ip w ith the executive echelon of Israel’s g o v ern m en t w as its connection w ith Uri B ar-O n, a t the tim e an arm y colonel in reserves an d an assistan t to M in ister Ariel S haron. B ar-O n, a native o f N a h a la l, th e first m oshav in the h isto ry o f Z ionism , w as an old settlem ent h a n d . U pon the estab lish m en t of the Ein Vered circle he joined an d p a rtic ip a te d in several illicit sq u attin g s o f G ush Em unim . Even as a p riv ate m oshav m em ber an d a retired colonel B ar-O n w as an influential p erson. In m any cases he served as a go-betw een, bringing to g eth er the illicit settlers o f Elon M o reh an d g o v ern m en t’s officials. In o th ers instances he sim ply represented the settlers. F ollow ing th e L ikud victory in 1977, B ar-O n w as asked by Ariel S haron, Israel’s new M in ister o f A griculture an d the ch airm an of the cab i­ n e t’s settlem ent com m ittee, to becom e his assistan t in charge o f settlem ent. In th a t capacity B ar-O n becam e G ush E m u n im ’s p rim ary channel o f co m ­ m u n icatio n w ith th e entire Israeli ad m in istratio n . T here w as h ard ly a sin­ gle relevant G ush issue th a t B ar-O n w as n o t involved in: surveying th e areas for new settlem en t lands, paving new ro ad s in Ju d ea an d S am aria, placing the settlem ents in the p ro p o sed locatio n s, channeling budgets, p ro ­ viding professional k n o w -h o w and m oral su p p o rt, fighting the case of G ush E m unim w ith in the cab in et an d o th e r ad m in istrativ e agencies, an d dealing w ith security m a tte rs.93

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

143

For B ar-O n , being settlem en t c o o rd in a to r w as n o o rd in a ry jo b ; it w as a calling, he sp en t his days an d nights on th e job. W h en ev er th e G ush settlers needed h im — an d they did increasingly as th e ir conflict w ith the g o v ern m en t intensified— he w as th ere, giving advice, p ro v id in g inside in fo rm a tio n , an d helping o u t. B ar-O n w as a rugged m o sh av n ik from o ld L a b o r sto ck , n o t a religious person. B ut his resp ect a n d a d m ira tio n fo r th e y o u n g religious m em bers o f G ush E m unim w as lim itless. T hey rep resen ted the Israel he loved a n d w as p a rt of, an d regardless o f th e ir fu n d a m e n ta list theology, he believed they deserved everything. H a n a n P o ra t w as once to ld by B ar-O n , in a m o m e n t o f em otional o u tp o u rin g , th a t ever since th e fall o f his son, a b a tta lio n c o m ­ m ander in th e arm y, he co n sid ered th e G ush E m unim y o u n g sters to be his sons. F ollow ing th e legal crisis th a t led to th e rem oval o f E lon M o re h to a different lo catio n in S am aria , B ar-O n vow ed to join th e settlem en t in the future. D u rin g th e p ain fu l 1982 e v acu atio n o f Y am it, w hich w as co n d u c te d under S h aro n , as defense m inister, B ar-O n w as in stru m e n ta l as th e m in is­ ter’s advisor, in p rev en tin g b lo o d sh ed . T orn betw een his official job a n d his identification w ith th e d efian t settlers, he did his best to help the la tte r in in fo rm ation a n d logistics.94 The activists o f G ush E m unim have never form ally divided p olitical roles am ong them selves. B ut som e G ush m em bers are b e tte r suited for som e jobs th an for o th ers. R ab b i Levinger, fo r in stan ce, has never been co n sid ered a good lo bbyist; th o se best suited fo r lobb y in g are m o d e ra te an d so ft-sp o k en individuals w h o w o u ld n o t em phasize th e m essianic gospel o f th e m o v em en t but c o n cen trate in stead on its settlem en t reco rd an d its c o n trib u tio n to the progress o f p io n eerin g Z io n ism . T h e best lo b b y ist in th e early days o f the G ush w as G e rsh o n S hafat; th e role w as later tak en up by leaders such as Uri Elitzur an d Uri A riel. A nd it w as n a tu ra l th a t it w as these p eo p le w h o w ere to tak e over th e m o st o rg an ized a n d o rd erly in stitu tio n o f th e m o v em en t, A m ana. G ershon S h afat w as an e x cep tio n a m o n g th e in tern al circle th a t led the early m ovem ent. H e w as m uch o ld er th a n m o st o f th e o th ers a n d h a d n o M erkaz H a ra v e d u c a tio n . B ut long ago he h a d been a m em b er o f k ib b u tz Ein T zu rim , o f th e o rig in al G ush E tzion, d estro y ed by th e Jo rd a n ia n s in 1948. D u rin g th e B ritish M a n d a te , he to o k p a rt in Bnei A k iv a’s legendary illicit settlem en t in Biria an d w as a m em b er o f the H a g a n a . S h afat w as am ong th e fo u n d ers o f th e new k ib b u tz Ein T z u rim , reestab lish ed w ith in th e G reen Line, a n d o v er th e years e a rn e d a re p u ta tio n as a first-rate eco n o m ist and org anizer. A p ro m in e n t a n d respected activ ist in the K ibbutz D ati (R eli­ gious K ibbutz) m o v em en t a n d in th e N R P, he h a d th e rig h t c o n tacts an d necessary experience to o p en m any d o o rs. S hafat w as involved in m any early settlem en t activities o f th e p re —G ush Em unim p e rio d a n d becam e a m em b er o f th e first se c retariat o f th e m o v e­ m ent. W hile p a rtic ip a tin g in all th e h eroic events o f th e G ush a n d in its illicit squattings, he rem ain ed alw ays in th e b a c k g ro u n d , n eg o tiatin g w ith th e

144

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

arm y, a n d ta lk in g to people in the M in istry o f D efense o r in the Prim e M in iste r’s b u re a u .95 S h afat’s use o f p ra g m a tic lobbying an d p erso n al co n tacts has been as­ sum ed in th e last decade by y o u n g er G ush E m unim activists. Uri E litzur is a case in p o in t. A lth o u g h E litzur studied in M erk az H a ra v at the rig h t tim e (just p rio r to th e Six-D ay W ar), he w as n o t one o f the fo u n d ers o f the m ovem ent. T he son o f Y ehuda E litzur, a B ar-Ilan Bible p ro fesso r of p ro n o u n c e d n a tio n a l­ ist view s, Uri w e n t to th e H e b re w U niversity o f Jerusalem to study m a th e m a t­ ics, m arried a n d m a in ta in e d no co n tacts w ith his classm ates. But th e struggle o f G ariin Elon M o reh an d the pictures o f the forced ev acu atio n s o f its m em bers from S ebastia inspired th e Elitzurs, an d they joined th e G ariin . Uri w as soon m ade a m em ber o f the G a riin ’s secretariat an d becam e very active in its o p e ra tio n s. Being m o re p rag m atic th a n som e o f the m em bers o f th e E lon M o re h g ro u p , E litzur w as skeptical a b o u t its chances o f success. H e conseq u en tly decided to o p t for certain ty an d joined Y ehuda E tzion an d G ariin O fra , w hich, unlike Elon M o reh , w as quietly ap p ro v ed by th e g o v ern m en t as a “ w o rk in g g ro u p ” in S am aria. E litzur soon joined th e settlem en t d e p a rtm e n t o f G ush E m unim an d later m oved to A m ana. T h ro u g h o u t this tim e he w as involved in the love-hate relatio n sh ip o f the m o v em ent w ith th e N R P, a n d w as am o n g those w h o left the p arty in 1979 to establish th e Tehiya. E litz u r’s em o tio n al stability as well as his political an d o rg a n iz a tio n a l qualities led his colleagues to place him a t the head o f th e M o v em e n t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai. H e did n o t d isa p p o in t them . H is ability to co n ta in the e x trem ist elem ents w ith in th e m ov em en t an d m ain tain good c o n tacts w ith th e au th o ritie s, especially the arm y, th ro u g h o u t th e d ra ­ m atic p erio d , w o n him g reat respect by friends a n d foes alike. It w as n a tu ra l th a t this m eth o d ical a n d m o d erate m an w o u ld becom e a key p erson as th e G ush evolved in to a stab le o rg an izatio n . E litzur becam e the senior rep resen tativ e o f G ush E m unim in A m an a an d has been co n ­ stan tly involved in th e G ush struggles again st an d w ith in the N R P.96 M an y w ere su rp rised in 1987 w hen he assum ed th e h ead sh ip o f the H a sb a ra (in fo rm atio n a n d edu catio n ) d e p a rtm e n t o f th e NRP, a ra th e r ro u tin e second-level p a rty job. T h e re are, how ever, m any in d icatio n s th a t E litzur w as placed n e a r th e p rofessional h e a rt o f th e p a rty as p a rt o f the long-range strategy o f G ush E m unim to ta k e over this old political stro n g h o ld from the inside.

Lobbying the Top Political Echelon T he th ird form o f G ush E m unim politics has been its successful lobbying o f Israel’s to p political echelon, th e m em bers o f the cab in et an d the K nesset. Ever since th e end o f th e Six-D ay W ar, it has been clear th a t the settlem en t o f the W est B ank w as a political issue o f the highest im p o rtan ce. T h e decisions

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

145

on settlem en t w ere m ad e by Isra e l’s leadin g c a b in e t m in isters a n d m o st respected K nesset m em bers. N o su b sta n tia l settlem en t in th e o ccu p ied te rri­ tories could have ta k e n place w ith o u t th e co n sen t, c o lla b o ra tio n , o r secret assistance o f a t least som e o f these forces. A n d n o o n e k n ew it b e tte r th a n the leaders o f th e em erging G u sh E m unim . T h e ir u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e rea lp o litik o f th e Jew ish sta te h as p ro d u c e d , ov er th e years, o n e o f Israel’s m ost effective lo b b y in g system s. In his b itte r 197 9 m em o irs, Itz h a k R ab in p ro v id es a rare clue to th e G u sh ’s sh rew d lo b b y in g d u rin g his a d m in istra tio n . H e tells th e inside sto ry of the in fa m o u s K ad u m c o m p ro m ise in w hich he, th e p rim e m in ister o f Israel, w as forced to a m a jo r concession by G u sh E m unim ag ain st his b e tte r judgm ent. R ab in m ak es it very clear th a t his m in ister o f defense, S him on Peres, b e tra y e d him . T h e am b itio u s Peres, w h o w as envious o f R ab in an d a t o d d s w ith Yigal A llon, R a b in ’s m in ister o f foreign affairs, w as identified by G ush E m u n im as the so ft s p o t o f th e L a b o r a d m in istra tio n , th e crack in th e w all o f th e A llon Plan— L a b o r’s p ro g ra m o f c o n tro llin g th e occu p ied te rrito rie s by a c o m b in a ­ tion o f m ilitary s tro n g h o ld s a n d a few strateg ic Jew ish o u tp o sts, w ith o u t a settlem ent o f densely p o p u la te d A rab S am aria. T hey a p p ro a c h e d him b o th directly an d th ro u g h th e ir N R P co n n e c tio n s, a n d Peres h elp ed th em in m an y w ays, in clu d in g his u n p u b licized ag reem en t th a t G ariin O fra w o u ld live in the B a’al H a tz o r m ilitary cam p in S am aria as a “ w o rk e rs g ro u p .” F u rth er, a t the critical c o n fro n ta tio n w ith th e arm y in S ebastia in 1975, Peres w as very indecisive. T h e arm y, called u p o n to e v acu ate the illicit sq u a tte rs, felt it d id n o t have th e b ack in g o f a d eterm in e d m inister. Prim e M in iste r R ab in sensed it to o a n d w as h e sita n t in forcin g a sh o w d o w n o n the issue. S tren g th en e d by the intense p ressu re o f dozens o f E m unim su p p o rte rs from all areas o f Israel’s life, c a b in e t m in isters, K nesset m em b ers, p a rty p o litician s, high civil servants, ra b b is, w rite rs, a n d even D ia sp o ra leaders, Peres’s co m p lacen cy w as a ssu re d .97 T h u s th e m o v em en t w o n its m o st significant victory, p erm issio n for G ariin E lon M o re h to stay in K ad u m . A nd th o u g h K ad u m w as a m ilitary base an d th e g ro u p h a d to be registered as a w o rk e rs sq u a d , th e v icto ry w as u n m istak ab le: G ush E m u n im h a d forced a sh o w d o w n w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t and w o n . T h e h e a rtla n d o f E retz Israel w as p u blicly p e n e tra te d . Since 1 9 7 7 , G u sh E m u n im ’s lo b b y in g h as been so m e w h a t differen t. T h e new L ikud a d m in istra tio n agreed th a t Ju d e a a n d S am aria w ere o p en for Jew ish settlem en t, a n d M e n a c h e m Begin referred to G ush m em bers as his “ d arlin g c h ild re n ,” so th e re w as n o lo n g er th e critical necessity o f cu ltiv atin g the rig h t c o n ta c ts a n d e x p la in in g th e im p o rta n c e o f th e Jew ish presence in the W est B ank. T h e re w as, how ever, a c o n s ta n t need to c o u n te rb a la n c e outside d ip lo m a tic p ressu res ap p lied o n th e g o v e rn m e n t to lim it o r p o stp o n e the process. A new G u sh E m u n im skill w as co n seq u en tly dev elo p ed , a spe­ cial w ay o f ta lk in g to P rim e M in iste r Begin a n d o f rem in d in g him o f his o ld

146

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

co m m itm en t to Eretz Y israel. T he p erso n m o st fit fo r th a t task w as H a n a n P o rat, alw ays a p le a sa n t, elo q u en t, an d highly persuasive co m m u n icato r. P o rat tells h o w he w as invited one n ig h t to see M en ach em Begin. G ush E m unim w as p u sh in g for th e esta b lish m en t of tw elve new settlem ents, b u t there w as o p p o sitio n w ith in th e cab in et. C o n seq u en tly Begin to ld P o rat th a t the new e n d e a v o r co u ld n o t be a p p ro v ed a t th a t tim e. B ut th en Begin said, You should go ahead, settle on your own and get organized in the field. And then, after the fact it would be easy for me to say “nitzchuni banai. . (I was overcome by my children), for nobody could think in his right mind that I, Begin, would remove Jews from Eretz Israel territory.98

G ush E m u n im ’s political lobbying reached an ad v an ced stage in th e early 1980s w hen th e m o v em en t literally en tered the K nesset. T he process began in 1977 w h en R ab b i H aim D ru k m a n w as elected to the p a rlia m e n t as an N R P no. 2 rep resen tativ e. A nd it greatly intensified in 1981 w ith the election o f th ree Tehiya m em bers to th e K nesset, including H a n a n P orat. T hese people to o k th e e v acu atio n o f Y am it as a w arn in g reg ard in g Ju d ea an d S am aria; b itte r as they w ere in 1982, they k new they h ad to w o rk w ith the L ikud to stren g th en w h atev er rem ain ed of Begin’s co m m itm en t to “ never redivide E retz Y israel.” T h e Ju n e invasion of L ebanon created th e rig h t atm o sp h ere. N o t only did it fit G ush E m u n im ’s political instincts, b u t it to tally rem oved th e W est B ank from the headlines. Ju d ea an d S am aria becam e com pletely op en for Jew ish settlem en t, an d Israel’s new M in ister o f Science an d Energy, Yuval N e ’em an, w as m ade the head o f the settlem en t co m m ittee o f th e govern m en t. T he years 1 9 8 2 —1984 w ere the political apex o f G ush E m unim . G ush people w ere everyw here an d knew everything. Som e o f the m ost confidential state secrets w ere discussed an d d eb a te d in Y esha’s in tern al councils, an d m ost o f th e m inisterial d o o rs w ere open to the settlers. M in ister o f D efense Ariel S haron, w h o w as a g re a t friend, w as a t the peak o f his career an d his settlem ent rig h t h a n d , Uri B ar-O n , k new no lim its in his efforts on b eh alf o f the settlers. T he re tu rn o f L a b o r to p a rtia l p o w e r in 1984, as an equal p a rtn e r in th e unity g o v ern m en t, d am ag ed th e influence o f G ush E m unim . T he Tehiya, despite its relative electoral success w ith five K nesset m em bers, h ad to leave the cab in et an d th e settlem en t o f th e W est B ank slow ed to a craw l. A nd th o u g h th e L ikud a d m in istra tio n h a d been goo d to the settlers in Ju d ea an d S am aria in th e previous fo u r years, it h a d left the econom y o f Israel in sham bles. Finally by 1984 th e L ebanon w a r w as ackno w led g ed as a n atio n al disaster. Even th e m o st ideological m em bers o f the L ikud u n d e rsto o d by th en th a t settling th e W est B ank could n o t be the first p rio rity o f the new a d m in istra tio n . G ush E m unim h a d to m u ster all its experience, ingenuity, an d skill in facing the new situ a tio n . Since 1984 it has tra n sla te d its resources in to

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

147

especially effective system o f po litical lob b y in g , in w h ich th e Yesha C ouncil played a d o m in a n t role. H a re l’s o rg a n iz a tio n d id n o t m ake a g re a t difference as long as th e L ikud-T ehiya co alitio n w as in p o w e r a n d d o in g “ th e rig h t th in g .” B ut it w e n t in to high gear in 1984. A fter th e elections, th e Yesha council created th e p o sitio n o f secretarygeneral, a n d O tn iel Schneler, a son o f a n o th e r m em b er o f B ar-Ilan ’s faculty, got the job. T h o u g h S chneler did n o t chang e th e d ire ctio n o f th e o rg a n iz a ­ tion, he in tro d u c e d in to Y esha’s lo b b y in g a new d im en sio n o f p ro fessio n al division o f lab o r. H a v in g Israel H arel in ch arg e o f th e O fra offices o f th e o rg an izatio n a n d N e k u d a , th e se ttle rs’ influential m ag azin e, Schneler sp en t at least th re e days every w eek in Jeru salem , m eeting sy m p ath etic m inisters like Itz h ak Sham ir, A riel S h a ro n , D avid Levy, an d Yosef (Yoske) S h ap iro , and less sy m p a th e tic ones like S him on Peres a n d Itz h ak R ab in . C ap italizin g on th e in creasin g n u m b e r o f settlers in Yesha (nearly 5 0 ,0 0 0 by 1 984), the grow ing p o w e r o f th e invisible in stitu tio n s o f G ush E m u n im , a n d th e c o n tin ­ ued readiness o f th e h a rd core o f G ush E m un im to go to th e streets in tim e o f tro u b le an d b lo ck th e ro a d s in Ju d ea an d S am aria, Schneler felt th a t th e o ld days o f begging w ere gone: “ W e have becom e such an influential b o d y th a t no m in ister can a ffo rd n o t to see m e, n o t even Itz h ak R ab in . R ab in k n o w s th a t if he w a n ts Ju d e a a n d S am aria q u ie t a n d th e settlers off th e ro ad s he has to talk to m e .” In 1984 S chneler set u p th e Lobby, an official K nesset caucus th a t re p re ­ sented Y esha’s interests in Isra e l’s legislature, co m m ittees, an d co rrid o rs o f pow er. L ikud K nesset m em b er Uzi L a n d au assu m ed th e c h a irm a n sh ip o f the new caucus (the job w as la te r given to Igal C o h en ) an d he an d Schneler ran it from L a n d a u ’s offices a n d th ro u g h its facilities. T h e Lobby, w h o se m em b er­ ship p eak ed in 1987 to nearly 5 0 K nesset m em b ers (out o f a to ta l o f 120), convened every M o n d a y a fte rn o o n to discuss issues o n th e ag en d a. D u rin g the w eek, Schneler, th e c h a irm a n o f th e Lobby, an d a few active m em bers w o u ld stay in c o n s ta n t to u c h in o rd e r to a c t on em ergencies an d resp o n d to crises. T h e L obby h a d th u s becom e Y esha’s w a tc h d o g in th e K nesset, a m o st effective in stru m e n t fo r g ain in g q uick in fo rm a tio n , securing b u d g ets, an d influencing im p o rta n t legislation. T h e L obby w as in stru m e n ta l in 198 6 in in tro d u cin g th e n o to rio u s law th a t m ad e a m eeting betw een p riv a te Israelis an d PL O officials illegal. It w as th e m a jo r K nesset force b eh in d the u n su c ­ cessful m ove to e n a c t a special law p a rd o n in g th e m em bers o f th e Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d . A nd it m ad e it possible for Schneler an d his council to a p ­ p ro ach Israel’s p o litician s a n d m ake d em an d s, n o t in relatio n to ideology an d Z io n ism , b u t o n th e basis o f p o w e r p o litic s ." O n e reaso n th a t th e L obby h a d been so effective is th e ideological rad icalizatio n o f th e cen tral co m m ittees o f th e L ikud an d th e religious parties. A lm ost n o K nesset m em b er o f these p artie s co u ld affo rd , in th e m id -1 9 8 0 s, n o t to a p p e a r an a rd e n t s u p p o rte r o f Eretz Y israel. Schneler an d o th e r G ush people, th e rep resen tativ es o f th e Eretz Y israel p u rists, th u s o b ta in e d a

148

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

co n sid erable political leverage. T hey could “ s ta in ” rig h t-w in g K nesset m em ­ bers, p o rtra y in g th em in p u b lic as disloyal to Eretz Y israel. Schneler him self becam e the p ro to ty p e o f a new kind o f G ush E m unim activist, a b ack stag e political p ro w h o w as less identified w ith the p ioneering o f th e 1970s th a n w ith th e p o w e r politics o f the 1980s. W hen interview ed, Schneler could n o t hide his satisfactio n a t his g ro w in g influence an d th e fact th a t the c o n te n t o f every K nesset secret m eeting o r cab in et d elib eratio n p ertain in g to th e settlers o r the W est B ank, how ever sensitive o r confiden­ tial, w as k n o w n to him alm o st im m ediately. T h e p ractical result is th a t G ush E m u n im , u nlike any o th e r v o lu n ta ry o rg an izatio n in Israel, is in a p o sitio n to tak e a sta n d a n d apply p ressu re o n th e g o v ern m en t o f Israel even before decisions have been reached. T h u s, for exam ple, long before the co m p letio n of th e sensitive exchange o f three c a p tu re d Israeli soldiers for 1150 P alestin­ ian te rro rists in th e su m m er o f 1985, th e co n tro v ersial deal w as d eb ated in G ush E m u n im ’s in te rn a l councils. O nly th eir fear o f a possible p u b lic c o n ­ d e m n a tio n p rev en ted its leaders from m ak in g the deal public in o rd e r to sab o tag e it.100

Extraparliamentary and Extralegal Politics D espite its accelerated in stitu tio n a liz a tio n since 1977, G ush E m unim has never ren o u n ced its tra d itio n a l m ode o f e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry an d illegal a c tio n — w itness th e op en conflicts w ith M en ach em Begin over settlem ents d u rin g his early n eg o tiatio n s w ith P residen t C arter, the M o v em en t to H a lt the R e tre a t in Sinai, a n d rep eated d e m o n stra tio n s over security issues in the W est Bank. T h e m o st p rev alen t recent p a tte rn of extralegal actio n has been the settlers’ vigilantism . T he in tifa d a th a t began in D ecem ber 1987, ta k in g p oliticians a n d observers alike by surprise, w as preceded by slow b u t incre­ m ental in te rc o m m u n a l violence. T his has m ean t since 1981, over 3 0 0 0 violent a tta c k s — m ostly ro c k -th ro w in g — on Jew s an d Jew ish tra n sp o rta tio n by A rabs o f th e W est B ank every year. T he settlers have resp o n d ed w ith a g ro w in g n u m b e r o f illicit re ta lia to ry attack s, w hich involve sh o o tin g to kill o r w o u n d , sm ashing w indshields of p a rk e d A rab cars, b u rn in g houses, an d beatin g u p passersb y .101 T h e m o st severe incidents before th e in tifa d a began a t the D eheishe refugee cam p in 1986, follow ing a serious incident o f ro ck -th ro w in g , an d in K alkiliya in 1987, after th e d eath o f a p re g n a n t w o m an an d child caused by a M o lo to v cocktail. T hese cases involved raids o f arm ed settlers w h o refused to obey th e o rd e rs o f Israeli officers to refrain from passing ro ad b lo ck s o r to stop a tta c k in g local people. T he in tifa d a has only increased these tren d s to a very high frequency. As m uch as th e arm y has been try in g to keep its m o ­ no p o ly over th e use o f physical force an d m ain tain law an d o rd er, m any e ru p tio n s o f settler violence have o ccurred. T h u s in 1988 the im age o f G ush E m unim w as n o t so differen t from its 1978 p o rtra it as a m ovem ent o f tru e

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

149

believers w h o re so rt to d ire c t a n d vio len t actio n w h en ev er o th e r ch an n els d o n o t get results. T h e m ain difference is th a t ten years have p ro d u c e d a m uch larger a n d m o re so p h istic a te d G ush. T h e th eo retic al basis o f d ire ct actio n is still actively p ro p a g a te d . T h ere are a g ro w in g n u m b e r o f p riv a te discussions o n th e rig h t o f th e settlers for self-defense, a n d N e k u d a p ro p o u n d s m any o f th e sam e ex traleg al th em es o f the p rev io u s d ecade. R eferrin g to L a b o r’s h o stility to w a rd th e settlers an d their en d eav o r, a n d to th e h a rd sh ip s p ro d u c e d by th e u nity g o v ern m en t u n d er Shim on Peres, B enny K atzover, n o w h ead o f th e S am aria regional council, p u b lish e d a m a jo r article in N e k u d a in 1985 u n d e r th e title “ A R etu rn to th e S truggle M e th o d s o f S ebastia Is P o ssib le.” A ttack in g L a b o r’s hostility, he w ro te : Today it has to be said loud and clear: this is the plan of the Alignment [a retreat from Judea and Samaria] which is being carried out under our noses. We have to fight it. A return to the struggle methods used in the past is possible, especially in such places as Tel Remeida [near Hebron] and Nablus. Despite all the problems described above, we have to remember that our condition in the field is very encouraging. About 50,000 Jews live in Yesha today and we hope to double this number shortly, [but] only a settlement of tens of thousands of Jews will assure our future and only in this way we can stop the shameful show of a nation which gives up the heart of the heart of its homeland.102

W hile th ere w as little new in K atzo v er’s sta te m e n t, it did disclose the nex t objective o f th e e x tre m ist circles o f G ush E m u n im , the esta b lish m en t o f a Jew ish presence in N a b lu s. G ush E m unim has never given up on th e idea of settling N a b lu s, th o u g h it h a d n o t m ade it an o p e ra tio n a l goal. Even the radical w ing o f th e m o v em en t has been a w a re h o w cen tral th e city is to Palestinian n a tio n a lism , a n d h o w ho stile its 8 0 ,0 0 0 resid en ts are to w a rd the Jews. A nd u nlike H e b ro n , n o r is it recognized as a “ h o ly ” city. B ut N a b lu s w as a key B iblical city, S hechem , a n d m uch o f th e eth o s o f G ariin Elon M o reh w as b u ilt a ro u n d th e re tu rn to it.103 It w as th e re fo re ju st a q u e stio n o f tim e b efore th e issue em erged in public. A p a rtia l so lu tio n to th e d ilem m a o f re tu rn in g to N a b lu s w as fo u n d in the early 1 980s w ith th e e sta b lish m e n t o f a sm all yeshiva a t the T om b o f Yosef, a holy place th a t w as re c o n stru c te d earlier a n d m ain tain ed by th e m ilitary a u th o ritie s. T h e L ikud g o v e rn m e n t allo w ed th e esta b lish m en t o f the yeshiva p ro v id e d th e stu d e n ts w o u ld re tu rn to th e ir h o m es in th e s u rro u n d ­ ing settlem ents every nig h t. B ut th e built-in a n a rc h ist elem en t in G ush E m unim w as b o u n d to u p set this co m p ro m ise so o n er o r later. A t N a b lu s it did, in th e p erso n o f R o m a m A ldubi. A ldubi, th e son o f a p ro m in e n t Israel scu lp tu rer, h ad stu d ied several years a t th e h ig h -sch o o l yeshiva o f M e rk a z H arav. H is c o m m itm e n t to th e settlem ent o f N a b lu s em erged w hile he w as o n a ro o fto p in Y am it stru g g lin g w ith th e arm y. H is belief w as so stro n g th a t R o m am w as ready to ta k e an

150

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

alm o st im possible risk, to go alone to the Tom b of Yosef an d s ta rt a one-m an yeshiva o n his ow n. A ld u b i’s act o f suprem e M essiru t H anefesh eventually a ttra c te d m ore settlers an d yeshiva stu d en ts, an d by 1987 there w ere a b o u t fifteen in all. B ut th e yeshiva w as ju st a m eans for A ld u b i’s real aim , the actual settle­ m ent o f N a b lu s. Since 1985 he has m an ag ed to a ttra c t som e follow ers and to form G ariin Shechem , th e N a b lu s nucleus. T he stu d en ts of the yeshiva an d th e m em bers o f th e G ariin have becom e a focus for m any illegal acts and c o n fro n ta tio n s w ith th e m ilitary. T he incidents usually o ccu rred w hen the g ro u p tried to p ray at th e to m b site w ith o u t official perm ission, o r w hen its m em bers d rove th ro u g h N a b lu s in o rd e r to d em o n strate to the local resi­ d ents th eir presence. W hile G ush E m unim has n o t follow ed A ldubi to N ab lu s an d A m an a did n o t give him full su p p o rt, his e x tra o rd in a ry co m m it­ m ent to th e place has becom e a subject for ad m ira tio n an d respect. T he n eig h b o rin g Elon M o reh offered A ldubi an em pty flat an d full backing. Several Elon M o re h m em bers have becom e involved in the yeshiva an d w ere later im plicated in concealing evidence in tw o cases o f killings o f A rab civilans. A ldubi him self has o b ta in e d n o to riety for his aggressive b eh av io r in the a r e a .104 T h e career o f R o m am A ldubi w as ended a b ru p tly w ith the w idely re­ p o rte d in cid en t a t Beita village, in M ay 1988. T h e case w as also p a ra d ig ­ m atic o f the b eh av io r o f th e G ush E m unim settlers d u rin g the in tifada. A ldubi a n d a n o th e r settler led a g ro u p o f Elon M o reh teenagers for a hike o f several m iles in the area. W h a t they did n o t ta k e in to acc o u n t w as the aw ak en ed an im o sity a n d rebelliosness o f the residents of Beita, a large A rab village o n th e ro u te . A lthough th e trip to o k place d u rin g an especially tense p erio d , A ldubi an d his colleague w ere d eterm in ed n o t to change th eir o rig i­ nal plan. T hey also did n o t b o th e r to c o o rd in a te the trip w ith the army. T he result w as c a ta stro p h ic . T he g ro u p w as a tta c k e d by local rockth ro w ers a n d la te r su rro u n d e d . A ldubi used his gun an d killed one o f the attack ers. T he killing en rag ed h u n d re d s o f local A rabs, w h o forced the isolated g ro u p in to th e center o f the village. A ldubi w as badly b eaten by the victim ’s family, an d in th e scuffle he fatally sh o t, by m istake, a girl of his ow n g ro u p . T he y o ungsters w ere finally rescued w ith no ad d itio n al casu al­ ties, b u t A ld u b i’s b rain w as p erm an en tly dam aged. T h e Beita in cid en t triggered an u n p reced en ted w ave o f fu ro r an d rage am o n g the settlers. H u n d re d s o f angry Jew ish residents in the area w en t to the ro ad s an d sto p p ed traffic. T he villagers o f Beita w ere blam ed for co n d u c t­ ing a “ p o g ro m ,” an d th e entire radical rig h t w as in an u p ro ar. Ariel S haron d em an d ed th a t th e village be d estro y ed and th a t the residents w h o did n o t rescue the teenagers be d ep o rted . G eula C ohen asked for the resig n atio n o f G eneral D an S h o m ro n , Israel’s chief o f staff, for failing to defend the settlers an d for being critical o f A ldubi an d the settlers. T h e entire political m achine o f G ush E m unim w en t in to full steam an d m ade th e Beita in cid en t a d isaster o f n a tio n a l p ro p o rtio n s. T he M in istry o f

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

151

D efense a n d th e arm y trie d to resist th e calls fo r revenge b u t w ere only p artially successful. T h e houses o f fo u rteen fam ilies, all asso ciated w ith th e attack ers o f th e g ro u p , w ere b lo w n up hastily. O n ly la te r it w as learn ed th a t several o f th e accused, w h o w ere left hom eless, w ere in n o c e n t a n d th a t o ne of them h a d actu ally rescued several h ik e rs.105 T he in tifa d a a n d th e g ro w in g conflict in Israel ov er th e fu tu re o f th e W est Bank leaves little d o u b t th a t G ush E m u n im ’s settlers will co n tin u e to re so rt to ex tralegal actio n a n d violence. T h ey have alread y been involved in m an y violent incidents a n d are likely, unless th e area is d ram atic ally pacified, to intensify these actio n s. T h u s, all fo u r m odes o f p olitical actio n are g oing to co n tin u e to be th e m o v e m e n t’s m o d u s o p e ra n d i fo r m any years to com e.

Crises and Internal Conflicts O ne o f th e m o st im pressive features o f G ush E m unim th ro u g h o u t th e 1970s w as th e skill o f its leaders a n d activists to w o rk to g e th e r w ith o u t fo rm al rules a n d codified p ro ced u res. T h e ab ility o f th e m o v em en t to challenge the Israeli a u th o ritie s, to c a rry o u t m assive settlem en t o p e ra tio n s, to sw itch jobs an d roles a m o n g its leaders, a n d to m a in ta in a t th e sam e tim e co m p lete u n ity w as am azing. M u ch o f this h a rm o n y w as achieved th ro u g h th e u n iq u e a u th o rity o f R abbi Z vi Y ehuda K ook, w h o th o u g h n o t involved in th e daily o p e ra tio n s o f th e m o v em en t w as recognized by all its activists as th eir leader, a rb itra to r, a n d final c o u rt o f ap p eal. O th e r reaso n s h a d to d o w ith the q u ality o f th e G ush leaders a n d th e ir relative d isd ain for p o litical careers. But given th e tro u b le d situ a tio n in th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s an d th e in ­ tense in v o lv em en t o f G ush E m u n im in th e p o litical life o f th e n a tio n , it w as only a m a tte r o f tim e b efore th e h a rm o n y o f th e m o v em en t w as d istu rb ed . T hree events in p a rtic u la r— th e ev a c u a tio n o f Y am it, th e w a r in L eb an o n , and th e discovery o f th e Jew ish u n d e rg ro u n d — have sh ak en th e fo u n d a tio n s of G ush E m unim in th e last decade. W hile th e first tw o w ere m et by a unified lead ersh ip , w h ich m ad e it possible to c o n tro l th e d am ag e, th e th ird fo u n d th e G ush lead ersh ip divided. It co n seq u en tly h a d a long lastin g im p act on th e m ovem ent.

The Impact of Yamit T he e v acu atio n o f Y am it a n d o f n o rth e rn Sinai w as a m ajo r b lo w for G ush E m unim . T h e G ush as a w h o le sto o d beh in d th e M o v em e n t to H a lt th e R etreat in Sinai. Its m o st revered rab b is a n d ch arism atic leaders w ere in ­ volved in this g re a t c o n fro n ta tio n betw een m u n d a n e politics an d M essiru t H an efesh . N o fo rm er collision o f th e m o v em en t w ith th e g o v ern m en t o f Israel h a d re q u ire d so m uch sp iritu a l energy, skill, a n d o rg a n iz a tio n . N ever-

152

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

theless, Sinai w as ev acu ated . A loss o f th e m ag n itu d e o f Y am it w o u ld have p ro b ab ly been d am ag in g fo r any fighting social m ovem ent, b u t fo r G ush E m unim , a religious an d m ystical collectivity w hich appealed d u rin g the fight to G o d A lm ighty H im self, it w as especially p ainful. It is n o t entirely clear w h e th e r th e leaders o f th e m ovem ent w ere them selves certain a b o u t th eir ability to h a lt th e re tre a t, b u t there is no q u estio n th a t they believed th a t to be effective th e y h a d to b e c o n vin ced , an d behave properly. T he M H R S co n seq u en tly fo rm u la te d several m essages to the Israeli public, b u t its m ain pro m ise to its o w n follow ers w as unequivocal: L o tih iye nesiga (there w ill be n o re tre a t).106 L eaders an d activists m oved in to the area an d behaved as if n o e v acu atio n w as ever to tak e place. T h eir devoted follow ers w ere in spired to c o n d u c t th e ir business as usual until th e very last m o m en t an d to expect a m iracle. T he m iracle did n o t com e. T h e co m p letio n o f th e re tre a t from Sinai left the leaders o f G ush E m unim w ith a critical p ro b lem : h o w to co n tain th e dam ag e caused by the failure o f th e ir p ro m ise an d p rev en t in tern al d em o ralizatio n . T h e pro b lem req u ired an e x p la n a tio n o f th e gap betw een th e m o v em en t’s success in the 1970s an d its failure in 1982. Since b o th cases im plied a struggle ag ain st the g o v ern m en t o f Israel in th e nam e o f G od , there w as an u rg en t need to ex p lain w h a t w e n t w ro n g in Y am it an d why. A series o f in tern al m eetings after th e re tre a t w ere so m ew h at effective a t exp lain in g the disaster, b u t less effective in term s o f d e m o ra liz a tio n an d d a m a g e .107 G ush E m u n im ’s m a jo r lesson from th e struggle w as th a t the M H R S failed because, u nlike in the 1970s, the G ush did n o t convey its m essage to the m ajo rity o f Israelis. T he G ush activists h ad spoken so m uch w ith each o th e r a b o u t the im possibility o f th e re tre a t th a t they convinced them selves th a t no re tre a t w o u ld ever ta k e place. T he p ro b le m o f th e M H R S , acco rd in g to the G ush self-criticism , w as th a t it d id n o t see its a p p e a l to th e p e o p le o f Israel as th e m o s t cru cial fa c to r fo r a p o ssib le success. F u rth e rm o re , it h ad been w ro n g to state categorically th a t no ev acu atio n w o u ld ever ta k e place. N o Jew is supposed to m ake specific d eter­ m inistic p red ictio n s reg ard in g the future. H a k o l tza fu i veh a resh u t n etu n a (W hile everything is p red eterm in ed , o ne is free to choose) w as the p h rase m o st often q u o ted . T he M H R S w as right to struggle ag ain st ev acu atio n , b u t d oing the rig h t th in g w as n o t enough politically, an d it could n o t g u aran tee success. N o d arin g m ove can ever be expected to succeed unless it relies on n atio n al consensus a n d a b ro a d fo llo w in g .108 T hese conclusions w ere follow ed by an effo rt by several o f the m ove­ m e n t’s ideologues to identify positive results of the struggle— clearly an effort to lim it the d isa p p o in tm e n t am o n g the m o v em en t’s settlers an d co n ­ tro l the d am ag e to its im age. People spoke a b o u t the tra u m a tic im p act o f the struggle o n the n a tio n ’s psyche an d o f its clear m essage to the g o v ern m en t th a t any fu tu re ev acu atio n o f Ju d ea an d S am aria w o u ld be im possible. O th ers stressed th e ed u catio n al experience o f the struggle an d the fu rth er

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

153

cry stallization o f th e E retz Y israel cam p . T h u s H a n a n P o rat, a m a jo r figure in the M H R S , said, In the struggle for the rest of Sinai, “the fighting brigade”of the loyalists of Eretz Yisrael and the loyalists of the course of Israel’ s redemption was acutally established. Never before have we witnessed such devotion, such intensity, such energy and initiative, and also such a magnitude. This human and energetic arsenal is going to have a continuation. . . . We have created a tremendous reawakening in our youth.109

B ut w hile P o ra t a n d th e o th e r G ush leaders m ay hav e co n v in ced th e m ­ selves, they w ere u n a b le to co n ta in th e real h a rm o f th e event, th e decline o f the g re a t sp irit o f G ush E m u n im a n d th e co n seq u en t th in n in g o f th e m o v e­ m en t’s edges. T h e fiasco in Sinai w as n o t an iso lated failure. T h e peace w ith Egypt c a p p ed a five-year p e rio d th a t sto o d in to ta l c o n tra st to th e o p tim istic m essage o f th e m o v e m e n t in th e 1970s. T h e re tre a t from Eretz Y israel territo rie s th a t c u lm in a te d in Y am it m ad e m any fo rm er su p p o rte rs o f G ush E m unim w o n d e r a b o u t th e c ertain ty o f its p ro m ise an d th e precision o f its analysis. M em b e rs o f Bnei A kiva a n d stu d e n ts o f Y eshivot H esder, w h o h a d becom e s u p p o rte rs o f G u sh E m u n im an d its g re a te st so u rce o f m an p o w er, began in th e 1980s to ask h a rd q u estio n s. M an y o f them w ere n o lo n g er sure of the p ro m ise o f q u ick re d e m p tio n a n d o f th e c ertain co u rse o f th e m o v e­ m ent. D is a p p o in tm e n t seem s to be a t least p a rt o f the reaso n n u m ero u s p o ten tial G u sh s u p p o rte rs re tu rn e d to tra d itio n a l T orah studies ra th e r th a n to p io n eerin g s e ttle m e n ts.110

The Amital Controversy A n o th er b lo w to th e in teg rity o f th e m o v em en t w as th e p u b lic co n tro v ersy th a t fo llow ed th e w a r in L e b an o n . T h e beg in n in g o f th e w ar, a lig h tn in g o p e ra tio n th a t w as m e a n t to be sh o rt, w as w arm ly w elcom e by th e G ush. M o re th a n any o th e r cam p in Israel, th e m o v em en t h a d a vested in tere st in the w ar, w hich w as in te n d e d to elim in ate th e Palestine L ib eratio n O rg a n iz a ­ tio n , w h o se claim s, large follow ing, a n d te rro ristic acts in th e W est B ank c o n sta n tly a la rm e d th e settlers. F u rth e rm o re , s o u th e rn L e b an o n w as an o ld “Jew ish te r rito r y ” — la n d th a t h a d once belonged to th e trib es o f A sher an d N aftali a n d w as th e re fo re clearly destin ed to re tu rn to th e n atio n . B ut th e w a r did n o t achieve m o st o f its goals. It w as p a rtia lly successful in d estro y in g th e bases o f th e P L O , b u t th e casu alty ra te w as h ig h .111 W h en the first a n d m o st intense stage o f th e w a r w as over, several rab b is closely asso ciated w ith th e G ush learn ed th a t th e d e a th toll a m o n g th e ir stu d en ts, serving in m ilitary elite u n its, w as extrem ely high. T h is w as th e b a c k g ro u n d fo r th e u n ex p ected critiq u e ex p ressed by R ab b i Y ehuda A m ital, th e h e a d o f Y eshivat H a r E tzion in A llon Shvut. A m ital h a d never been a close m em b er o f th e in n er K o o k ist circle th a t estab lish ed G ush

154

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

E m unim . O ld e r th a n m o st o f the G ush foun d ers, he w as a H o lo cau st survi­ vor w h o h a d n o t g ro w n up u n d e r th e influence o f R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook at M e rk a z H arav. B ut A m ital h a d alw ays con sid ered him self a devoted stu d en t o f the eld er R av K ook a n d his m ag n u m op u s, O r o t. H e w as, fu rth e r­ m ore, highly respected by leading G ush E m unim figures, an d w as invited in the late 1960s by H a n a n P o rat a n d R abbi Y ohanan Fried to becom e the head o f Y eshivat H a r Z io n in A llon S h v u t.112 A m ital’s b o o k F rom th e E leva ­ tion s o f th e D e p th s h a d , after th e Yom K ip p u r W ar, becom e the m ost inspiring d o c u m e n t o f th e yo u n g G ush E m u n im .113 R abbi A m ital’s convinc­ ing e x p la n a tio n for th e 1973 w a r w as th a t it w as the final a tte m p t of the G entiles to sto p th e inevitable Jew ish red em p tio n . Yeshivat H a r Z io n h ad becom e a m a jo r source o f new G ush E m unim recruits; several o f the m ove­ m en t’s fo u n d in g fath ers, in cluding R abbi Yoel B en-N un, h a d ta u g h t there. A m ital h a d earlier been critical o f w h a t he deem ed the unnecessary ex trem iz atio n o f the struggle in Y am it; n o w he q u estio n ed the m o st crucial co m p o n en t o f th e G ush belief, th e sacrilizatio n o f th e L and of Israel. H e m ade it very clear th a t G ush E m u n im ’s ex ag g erated a tta c h m e n t to the te rri­ torial d im en sio n o f th e n a tio n ’s reg en eratio n w as, in his o p in io n , a w ro n g in te rp re ta tio n o f th e H a la k h a . It laid the m o ral fo u n d atio n for a glorifica­ tio n o f arm ed struggle for th e lan d an d w as b o u n d to lead to unnecessary w ars an d to th e unecessary loss o f Jew ish life. A m ital said he h a d no basic d isag reem ent w ith G ush E m u n im ’s “ holy trin ity ” — the sacredness o f the People o f Israel, th e T orah o f Israel, an d th e L and o f Israel— b u t he charged the m o v em en t’s ideologues w ith an u n b a la n ced fo cu s on the th ird . In using the in ju n ctio n “ Yehareg u v a l y a a v o r ” (be killed ra th e r th a n sin) a b o u t Eretz Israel, w ith no qualifications o r exceptions, the G ush h ad gone beyond “ the o p in io n o f the T orah an d the sp irit o f J u d a is m .” It h ad becom e a sectarian , single-issue m o v em en t th a t ignored crucial elem ents o f th e Jew ish fa ith .114 O n e o f A m ita l’s m o st alarm in g acts w as to allow him self to be identified w ith a m o d e ra te g ro u p called N e tiv o t S h alom (Paths of Peace), an o rg a n iz a ­ tio n m o st o f w hose m em bers w ere m o d erate religious activists. A m ital w as, surprisingly, back ed by Z ev u lu n H am m er, Israel’s religious M in ister o f E d u ­ catio n . H am m er, an N R P leader, w as never an official m em ber o f G ush E m unim , b u t in th e late 1960s an d th ro u g h m ost o f the 1970s h ad been a stro n g G ush su p p o rter. A m ital’s h arsh p ublic criticism s triggered an intense ideological c o n tro ­ versy w ith in G ush E m unim . Even m o d erate m em bers of the m ovem ent such as R ab bis B en-N un an d T z u k e rm a n an d activists like H a n a n P o rat becam e furious. A m ital, a respected insider, w as charg ed w ith e rro r an d faithlessness to the tra d itio n o f Rav K ook, “ A fu n d am en tal m isu n d erstan d in g o f the cen trality an d im p o rta n c e o f Eretz Israel d u rin g the process o f re d e m p tio n .” “ Eretz Israel,” the leaders said, “ is an o rg an ic p a rt of the essential existence of the people o f Israel. A nd th e b o n d betw een the people an d the lan d is sim ilar to the b o n d betw een the spirit an d the b o d y — ‘a health y sp irit m u st

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

155

dwell in a h ealth y b o d y ,’ a n d w h en th e bod y is h u rt th e sp irit suffers an d vice v ersa.” 115 G ush E m u n im ’s c o n te st w ith R ab b i Y ehuda A m ital spilled b ey o n d id eo l­ ogy in to politics. T h o u g h in 1982 a n d 1983 A m ital h ad no p o litical in terests of his o w n , he w as very influential a m o n g stu d en ts o f Y eshivot H esd er, in Bnei A kiva circles, a n d in th e K ib b u tz D ati m o v e m e n t.116 H is a tta c k c o n trib ­ uted to th e ero sio n o f G ush s u p p o rt, fo r it stre n g th e n e d th e skeptics w h o se ex citm ent a b o u t th e ea rlie r p io n eerin g o f G ush E m u n im w as n o w o n th e w a n e .117 A m ita l’s c ritiq u e w as th e first a tta c k o n this m o v em en t by a d istin ­ guished Z io n is t religious a u th o rity a n d a recognized fo llo w er o f R av K ook; it h ad n o t been p re p a re d fo r an a tta c k o f this m ag n itu d e.

The Crisis Over the Jewish Underground T he failure o f th e M o v e m e n t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai a n d th e A m ital co n tro v ersy w ea k e n e d s u p p o rt fo r G ush E m u n im , yet n eith er created a rift w ithin th e G u s h ’s re m a rk a b ly cohesive lead ersh ip . D ifferences o f o p in io n did, o f course, ex ist a n d th e 1982 d e a th o f R ab b i Z vi Y ehuda K ook m ad e them m o re n o ticeab le. B ut G u sh E m u n im ’s fo u n d ers rem ain ed u n ited o n alm o st all m a jo r issues. T h is h a p p y s itu a tio n en d ed a b ru p tly in A pril 1 984 w ith the discovery o f the Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d . Very few activists o f G u sh E m unim h a d been a w are of th e existence o f th e g ro u p p rio r to its arrest. T h e v ast m ajo rity o f th e m em bers w ere so o v erh elm ed a n d sh ocked th a t th e ir first reactio n w as o ne of hostile suspicion to w a rd th e a u th o ritie s. T hey sim ply refused to believe th a t an y o n e in th e G ush co u ld be involved in co ld b lo o d ed te rro rism . T h u s they a rg u ed th a t th e rev elatio n s w ere p a rt o f a leftist co n sp iracy to sm ear the settler com m unity. A d ra m a tic m eeting o f th e Yesha C ouncil a n n o u n c e d th a t “ th e council is co n vinced th a t th e settlers o f Ju d e a , S am aria, a n d G aza are n o t involved in this crim in al act, a n d th a t th ere exists no subversive o rg a n iz a ­ tion w h o se m em b ersh ip com e from th e a rre ste d se ttle rs.” 118 B ut w h en it becam e clear th a t th ere w as in fact an o rg an ized conspiracy, an d th a t it w as m ad e u p o f p ro m in e n t m em b ers o f th e m o v em en t, G ush E m unim w as very con fu sed . T h e Yesha C o u n cil cam e o u t w ith a stro n g d e n u n c ia tio n o f th e crim e. R ab b i Yoel B en -N u n , a leading G ush m o d erate, called fo r collective so u l-search in g a n d term e d th e activities o f th e u n d e r­ g ro u n d “ a rev o lt a g a in st th e k in g d o m ,” a crim in al act o f th e first degree. H e forcefully arg u ed th a t th e consensus th a t h a d led to th e esta b lish m en t o f Israel an d u p o n w h ich th e state c o n tin u e d to rely w as very delicate. Its existence could n o t be ta k e n fo r g ra n te d , a n d no one, n o t even people w ith p u re m o tiv atio n s, w ere free o f th e o b lig a tio n to respect it. T h e very existence o f th e state o f Israel c o u ld be jeo p ard ized by th e th in k in g o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d .119 T h e p u b lic fu ro r o v er th e u n d e rg ro u n d p u t all o f G ush E m unim on th e

156

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

defensive. Its sp o k ep erso n s, w h o h ad arg u ed for years th a t th e Israeli left h ad u n fairly an d in ten tio n ally p o rtra y e d them as violent aggressors w ere left w ith no arg u m en ts. N o t only h ad th e o p e ra tio n s o f the u n d e rg ro u n d verified m any o f th e accu satio n s leveled ag ain st them all along, b u t in fact d w arfed m o st o f these early charges. N ev er b efore h a d th e p u b lic im age o f th e G ush E m unim co m m u n ity been so grossly d am ag ed . T h e m ovem ent th a t h ad p o rtra y e d itself as the unselfish in stru m e n t o f th e n a tio n w as n o w in m oral disarray. It w as re­ duced, in th e eyes o f n u m e ro u s observers an d m any m em bers, to a b unch o f terro rists a n d su p p o rte rs o f terro rism . A nd unlike the earlier crises, there w as no w ay th e m ov em en t could unite beh in d the u n d erg ro u n d . An in tern al rift w as inevitable. T h e conflict over th e u n d e rg ro u n d developed oddly. Few G ush leaders w o u ld defend th e te rro r g ro u p in public. T h e only p ro m in e n t rab b i to d o so w as Israel A riel, the fo rm er h ead o f Y eshivat Yam it, w h o by 1984 h ad a p p a re n ty lost faith in th e G u sh ’s ideological stance to w a rd th e State o f Israel. H e arg u ed th a t th e acts o f th e u n d erg ro u n d w ere n o t necessarily “ a treaso n ag ain st th e k in g d o m ” because th e g o v ern m en t of Israel did n o t have all th e a ttrib u te s o f a legitim ate k in g d o m .120 N evertheless, th e real p ro b le m o f th e m o d erates w as n o t A riel, b u t a m ore p ro m in e n t G ush activist w h o chose to rem ain silent— R abbi M o sh e Levinger, by far th e m o st respected a n d influential leader. T here w ere tw o p ro b lem s w ith R ab b i Levinger: his refusal to publicly d en ounce the u n d e r­ g ro u n d an d the th ick hints th a t he w as perso n ally involved in its o rg an iza­ tion. T he fo rm er issue w as discussed in public, p a rt o f the o pen d eb ate, b u t no one spoke freely a b o u t his p ro b a b le com plicity, th o u g h L evinger’s in­ volvem ent cast a very d a rk sh ad o w over G ush E m unim . R abbi Levinger, to be sure, w as never nam ed by the state p ro secu tio n as a m em ber o f the u n d e rg ro u n d . B ut he sp en t nearly tw o w eeks in jail u n d er intense in te rro g a ­ tio n , an d th e testim o n y o f M en ach em Livni, the “ c o m m a n d e r” o f the u n d e r­ g ro u n d , in crim in ated him . By the sum m er o f 1984, w hen m o st o f th e evidence ag ain st the g ro u p w as m ade public, it w as clear to the m o v em en t’s heads th a t in so far as the u n d e rg ro u n d h a d rab b in ic al au th o rity , Levinger w as the m an. Several m em ­ bers o f th e n e tw o rk testified th a t he p a rtic ip a te d in the H alak h ic d elib era­ tions over th e Tem ple M o u n t o p e ra tio n , o f w hich he d isap p ro v ed , an d th a t he gave a green light to all the te rro r o p e ra tio n s o f the H eb ro n ite gro u p . C o n scientious an d m o d e ra te G ush leaders like Yoel B en-N un an d H a n a n P o rat fo u n d it h a rd to forgive Levinger for his d eviation. R abbi Tzvi T au, a leading M e rk a z H a ra v au th o rity , w as even m o re furious. H e m ade it clear th a t he w o u ld n o t speak to Levinger o r a p p e a r in any public forum w ith him until he rep en ted a n d d en o u n ced th e u n d erg ro u n d in unequivocal te rm s.121 T h e m o st telling reactio n o f G ush E m unim to the crisis o f the u n d e r­ g ro u n d w as to reestablish th e m o v em en t’s secretariat, w hich h ad been dis­ b an d ed in 1979. A fter th a t, w hile th e nam e G ush E m unim h ad co n tin u ed to

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

157

identify th e w h o le so cio c u ltu ral com m unity, th ere h a d been no official b o d y of th a t nam e. W ith o u t a G ush nerve cen ter th ere h a d been n o o n e to sp eak a u th o ritativ ely for th e en tire m ovem ent. A m an a, w hich m ig h t have filled this role, h a d in stead becom e a very p rofessio n al settlem en t o rg a n iz a tio n . T he Yesha C ouncil sp o k e in th e n am e o f b o th G ush an d n o n -G u sh settle­ m ents, a n d carefully steered clear o f specific G ush in terests a n d ideological m atters. As long as th e in fo rm al n e tw o rk w as cohesive a n d its lead ersh ip u nited, th ere h a d been n o need for a special G ush E m unim execu tiv e— th e leaders c o n tin u e d to m eet in fo rm ally a n d pull th e strings b eh in d A m an a an d the Yesha C ouncil. B ut w h en th e crises began to m o u n t, th e in fo rm ality started to m alfu n c tio n . O n e m a jo r co n clu sio n o f th e soul-search in g after Y am it w as th a t th e M H R S w as a p o o r su b stitu te fo r th e o ld G ush secretariat. H a d it still been there in full force, things m ig h t have been differen t. T h e refo re m an y felt G ush E m u n im sh o u ld be “ re e sta b lish e d .” 122 Since th e d eath o f R ab b i Z vi Y ehuda K ook, peo p le felt, th e in fo rm al m o v em en t needed a sp iritu al a u th o r­ ity th a t co u ld pass ju d g m e n t o n m a jo r issues o f prin cip le. Since n o lead er o r rab b i h a d K o o k ’s s ta tu re , th e role w o u ld b est be filled by a c o u n c il.123 B ut these early crises h a d n ’t been stro n g en ough to p ro m p t th e re o rg a n iz a tio n o f G ush E m unim . T h e re h a d been m uch ta lk b u t very little actio n , u ntil th e crisis o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d . So th e G ush E m u n im se c re ta ria t w as revived a t th e en d o f 1984. T he m o v em en t’s in fo rm al leaders surprisingly resolved th a t the new secretarygeneral o f th e G ush w o u ld be D aniela W eiss, a d y n am ic fo rm er activist o f G ariin E lon M o re h a n d a m o th e r o f five, w h o im m ediately becam e the d arlin g of th e Israeli m edia. W eiss h a d a h a rd job reviving th e sp iritu al cred ib ility o f the m o vem ent. She p re se n te d th e w h o le o p e ra tio n n o t as an act o f crisis m an ag em en t b u t as an a tte m p t to a d d a pow erfu l ed u catio n al in stru m e n t to the existing in stitu tio n s o f th e invisible realm o f G ush E m unim . T h e rev ita l­ ized se c re ta ria t h a d to polish th e ta rn ish e d im age o f th e settlers a n d o p en th e eyes o f all Israelis to th e c u ltu ra l rev o lu tio n in th e W est B ank. D an iela, as everyone called th e dy n am ic new secretary, co n d u cted long sessions w ith all th e m o v e m e n t’s fo u n d in g fath ers, in tellectu als, a n d rab b is. H er im pressive re c o n stru c tio n p lan called fo r an active executive o f ten people to h a n d le th e d ay -to -d a y affairs o f the m o v em en t, an d a council o f fifty w ise m en to ex am in e sp iritu al a n d e d u c a tio n a l issues an d reco m m en d lo n g -range s tra te g ie s.124 A n a d d itio n a l, u n sta te d task o f th e council w as to elim in ate u n reco g n ized g ro u p s like th e u n d e rg ro u n d . T h ere w as o n ly o ne fly in th e o in tm e n t: th e co n tin u e d sh ad o w o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d a n d th e p ressu re o f its trial. Sim ply reco n stitu tin g G ush E m unim co u ld n o t m ak e th e u n d e rg ro u n d v anish a n d in stan tly heal th e bleeding w o u n d . T h e trial o f th e te rro rists a n d th e p lig h t o f th e fam ilies an d friends o f th e p riso n e rs c o n tin u e d to h a u n t th e en tire settler com m unity. T hey co u ld n o t ignore th e c o u rt struggle o f th e sm all g ro u p w h o h ap p en ed to be “ th e best a n d th e b rig h te s t” o f G ush E m unim .

158

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

A nd th e m em bers o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d refused to behave like p ariah s in iso latio n. T hey spoke, w ro te , g ra n te d interview s, an d m ade it clear th a t they believed they w ere acting in th e nam e o f th e entire settler com m unity. They also arg u ed th a t u n d e r differen t circum stances o th e r settlers w o u ld have d o n e th e sam e. T h e ir incessan t appeals for s u p p o rt an d legitim acy increased th e co n fu ­ sion in the G ush. T he g re a t m ajo rity of th e leaders an d m em bers o f the m o v em ent could n o t, in g o o d faith, dissociate them selves from th e p riso n ­ ers. Feelings o f affection for the individuals involved, an d a g row ing identifi­ catio n w ith th e cause o f “ self-defense,” led to increasing su p p o rt. T his w as basically th e p o sitio n o f the new secretariat of G ush Em unim . It m ain tain ed th a t H a b a ch u rim H a to v im (“ the goo d fellow s” ) m ight have co m m itted acts th a t w ere repulsive m orally an d religiously, b u t th a t the real cu lp rit w as the g o v ern m en t, w hose blu n d ers d rove the m em bers o f the g ro u p to th eir d esp erate a c ts .125 T h u s, th e se c re ta ria t o f G ush E m unim becam e a p arty effo rt to have the m em bers o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d p a rd o n e d , lobbying the g overnm ent, staging d em o n stra tio n s, c o n d u ctin g vigils, an d sp o n so rin g petitions. T he m edia im age it p ro je cted w as n o t th e one so u g h t by G ush E m u n im ’s m o d erates, an im age o f an op en body th a t rejects terro rism an d violence. It w as instead an im age o f conflict— w ith th e gov ern m en t, w ith the legal system , an d w ith anyone else w h o a p p eared to o critical of the u n d erg ro u n d . D a n ­ iela W eiss h a d surprisingly becom e G ush E m u n im ’s leading e x tre m ist,126 w ith a sh a rp an sw er to any o p p o n e n t, shap in g a defiant new p o stu re for the en tire com m unity. N o t surprisingly, a vocal m in o rity o f E m unim veterans w as highly dis­ tu rb e d by th e p o stu re o f th e secretariat. N eith er D aniela Weiss n o r her tw o m en to rs, M o sh e Levinger o f H e b ro n an d Benny K atzover of Elon M o reh , could convince R ab b is H a n a n P orat, Yoel B en-N un, Itzhak Shilat, M enachem F ru m an , an d m any o f th eir su p p o rters to keep silent. T hese m o derates could n o t forget th e u npublicized fact th a t the religious a u th o rity behind the terro rism w as R abb i Levinger him self. They w ere greatly d istu rb ed by G ush E m u n im ’s breach o f an early confidential ag reem en t n o t to identify in any w ay w ith th e u n d e rg ro u n d . T hey w ere also critical of th e fact th a t the deliberative council o f 5 0 elders, w hich w as in ten d ed to becom e the suprem e a u th o rity of th e re co n stru cted G ush, w as never convened by the secretariat ex trem ists for fear it w o u ld d ictate a different course. Israel H arel, N e k u d a s e d ito r an d him self a m o d erate, opened his jo u rn al to th e tw o cam ps. A fierce theo retical deb ate raged in its pages, focusing on G ush E m u n im ’s p o sitio n vis-à-vis the g o vern m en t an d the s ta te .127

Debating the Security of the Settlers W hile the theo retical d eb ate a b o u t the u n d erg ro u n d w as im p o rta n t, the su b stan tial co n tro v ersy beh in d it h ad to do w ith the issue o f security in the

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

159

W est B ank. T h e m ain m essage o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d w as th a t th e g o v ern m en t of Israel h a d n o t p ro v id e d p ro p e r security a n d th a t th erefo re th e settlers h a d the full rig h t to defend them selves. T his m essage, w hile categorically o p p o se d by th e m o d erates, w as p a r ­ tially en d o rsed by th e h aw k s. T h e la tte r expressed the h o p e th a t th e final result o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d affair w o u ld be, n o t th e jailing o f d ecen t p io n eers w ho acted o u t o f d e sp e ra tio n , b u t a change in th e security policy o f the governm ent. H ow ever, th e policy w as n o t ch anged, an d since 1984 th e h aw k s have increasingly been d isa p p o in te d . T h e u n d e rg ro u n d w as n o t im m ediately p a r­ d o ned, a n d A rab violence a n d te rro rism in th e W est B ank intensified. T he release o f over a th o u s a n d A rab te rro rists in ex ch an g e for th ree Israeli soldiers e m b itte re d G u sh e x tre m ists— n o t only w ere som e o f th e w o rst Pales­ tinian m u rd e re rs, co n v icted in c o u rt, released, b u t Jew ish p a trio ts w h o acted against these killers w ere k ep t in jail. T h e struggle fo r th e release o f the u n d e rg ro u n d a n d th e security o f th e W est B ank assu m ed a new d im en sio n o f urgency. A nd in this th e G ush w as su p p o rte d by th e en tire rad ical rig h t, m any K nesset m em bers, a n d a b ro a d public. T h e early d e n u n c ia tio n s o f the u n d e rg ro u n d w ere a lm o st fo rg o tten . T he event th a t trig g ered th e n e x t crisis betw een th e tw o factio n s o f G u sh E m unim to o k place in A pril 19 8 7 , in th e A rab to w n o f K alkiliya. A settler car d riv ing th ro u g h th e to w n w as firebom bed by an A rab te rro rist. A y o u n g w o m an , m o th e r o f th re e children an d p re g n a n t, w as b u rn t to d eath . H e r h u sb a n d an d tw o ch ild ren w ere b adly w o u n d e d . T h e result w as a fu rio u s vengeance raid o n the to w n by dozens o f set­ tlers, w ith th e active p a rtic ip a tio n o f D aniela W eiss. T h e m a ra u d e rs sto rm ed th ro u g h th e streets, sm ash ed a p a rtm e n t an d car w in d o w s, an d w a rn e d th e frightened residents th a t th e en tire to w n o f K alkiliya w o u ld be held resp o n si­ ble for any fu rth e r anti-Jew ish ac t th a t o ccu rred in its vicinity. T h e m ilitary units th a t ru sh ed to th e scene w ere defied by th e angry p ro te sters, an d W eiss herself clashed w ith th e soldiers, th ro w in g rocks a t them an d cu rsin g th eir officers. T his ex cep tio n al act m ade th e head lin es o f all Israel’s n ew sp ap er an d c o n q u e re d th e a tte n tio n o f n a tio n a l T V a n d ra d io .128 G ush E m unim w as once again in stan tly identified w ith th e use o f b ru ta l force a n d violence. W h a t w as m o st d am a g in g w as n o t th e o p e ra tio n in K alkiliya b u t th e m o v e m e n t’s d irect clash w ith y o u n g soldiers. T hese w ere again th e ex traleg al settlers o f th e 1970s w h o refused to obey the n a tio n ’s au th o rity , th e peo p le w h o forced th e arm y to send to Y am it tw en ty th o u sa n d soldiers a n d k ep t th em busy for m o n th s. T h e K alkiliya in cid en t a n d its im p a c t o n the Israeli p u b lic w ere to o m uch for th e m o d erates to tak e. T hey realized th a t all th eir w ritin g s, arg u m en ts, an d m o ral a d m o n itio n s in th e G u sh councils w ere n o t tak en seriously by th e o p e ra tio n a l echelon o f th e m ovem ent. T hey felt b etray ed an d sensed th a t “ th e ir” G ush E m u n im w as being stolen from them . A ssem bling all th eir su p p o rte rs, they decided to force a sh o w d o w n . Ben-

160

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

N u n , F ru m an , a n d P o ra t staged a sit-in in the Jerusalem offices o f the m ovem ent. T ogether w ith th e m o d erate h eads o f A m ana, w h o w ere ex ­ trem ely a larm ed by th e im p act o f th e G ush p o stu re on th eir efforts to a ttra c t new settlers, they d e m a n d e d th a t W eiss be fired an d th a t a new an d represen­ tative G ush se c re ta ria t be selected. T h re a te n in g secession, they d em an d ed th a t th e G ush change its im age an d try to reach o u t to the entire Israeli public, n o t just to its ex trem ists. T hey argued th a t the G ush could n o t affo rd to becom e a n o th e r K ach, a n d th a t even th e Israeli left w as a legitim ate p a rtn e r in th e d e b a te .129 T h e co u p a tte m p t o f th e m o d erates w as only p artially successful. M oshe Levinger a n d Benny K atzover, th e stro n g m en b eh in d D aniela W eiss, w ere n o t in tim id ate d . T hey kn ew they h a d a solid co n stituency w ith in the co m m u ­ nity an d th a t the m o d erates w ere n o t ready to fight it o u t all the way. T hey con seq uently convinced the ten -p erso n secretariat o f G ush E m unim , the only form al bo d y o f th e m ovem ent capable o f m ak in g decisions, th a t the statu s q u o h a d to be m ain tain ed . W eiss, pro m isin g to restrain herself, w as able to te m p o ra rily keep her job. T he large council o f the m ovem ent w as never convened. T h u s w hile th e m o d erates p roved th a t th eir voice w ith in the m ovem ent could n o t be silencedd, the radicals m ade it clear th a t they w ere in co n tro l. But b o th sides also cam e to realize th a t th eir m u tu al interests an d shared beliefs w ere m uch g re a te r th a n th eir disagreem ents. By 1991 there w as still no su b stitu te for th e original G ush E m unim , a settlem en t m ovem ent c o m m it­ ted to Eretz Y israel in its entirety an d a loyal representative o f the m u n d an e interests o f m any th o u sa n d s o f settlers. Yoel B un-N un an d H a n a n P o rat needed M o sh e Levinger an d Benny K atzover as badly as they w ere needed by these extrem ists.

Gush Emunim, the Settler Community, and the

In tifada

T he D ecem ber 1987 o u tb re a k o f the in tifa d a , the Palestinian uprising in the W est B ank an d G aza, su rp rised G ush E m unim as m uch as everyone else. Very few G ush m em bers, all o f th em veteran settlers in the occupied te rrito ­ ries, believed th a t th e native P alestinians w ere cap ab le o f o rch estratin g a large u p risin g an d o f su stain in g pressure on th e Israeli forces. T he first reactio n o f th e settlers to the in tifa d a w as th a t this w as n o th in g new : A rab rio tin g , m ob violence, a n d ro ck -th ro w in g h ad becom e ra th e r co m m o n in th e 1 9 8 0 s.130 M o reover, th ere w as a sense o f q u iet satisfaction am o n g the settlers an d a feeling o f relief. T h e w ide scope o f the uprising m ade the entire n a tio n p a rtn e r to th eir feeling o f precario u s security. It gave credence, so they believed, to th eir p erennial d em an d th a t the A rab “ te rro r­ ists” be dealt w ith harshly. A nd the g ro w in g identification o f m any Israeli A rabs w ith the in tifada, w hich w as expressed by d e m o n stra tio n s an d sab o tag e inside Israel p ro p er, w as, p aradoxically, even m o re gratifying. It w as seen as p ro o f o f G ush

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

161

E m u n im ’s long -h eld thesis th a t th e G reen Line w as m eaningless a n d th a t Eretz Y israel w as in d iv isib le.131 G u sh E m u n im co n seq u en tly in stru c te d all its m em bers to m a in ta in as n o rm a l a life as possible, to c o n d u c t field trip s and hikes as u su al, a n d to let th e arm y an d th e police w o rry a b o u t th e Palestinians. S ettler vigilan tism w as held to a m in im u m , an d A m an a c o n tin ­ ued to advertise new c o n stru c tio n sites in its settlem en ts as if n o th in g special w as ta k in g place. T he event th a t forced G u sh E m unim to face th e realities o f th e in tifa d a was th e Beita in cid en t in M ay 198 8 , w hich w e have seen to o k th e lives o f a Jew ish girl a n d an A rab teenager, led to an an g ry c o n fro n ta tio n betw een the settlers a n d th e arm y, a n d p ro d u c e d even sh a rp e r conflict b etw een p o liti­ cians o f th e rad ical rig h t a n d th e arm y chief-of-staff. T he conflict did n o t help th e settlers politically. T h e early p u b lic o u tra g e regarding th e killing o f th e y o u n g girl from E lon M o re h w as soon replaced by an equal o u tra g e to w a rd th e settlers w h o h a d n o t b o th e re d to c o o rd in a te their field trip w ith th e arm y, risked th e lives o f th eir ch ild ren fo r th e cause of Eretz Y israel, a n d th e n d a re d to b lam e th e m ilitary a n d the g o v ern m en t for th e in cid en t. T h e im age o f G ush E m un im w as b adly ta rn ish e d by the unruly b e h a v io r o f its m em bers a n d key leaders. G ush E m u n im w as p ain fu lly rem in d ed th a t, as in earlier cases, they could n o t defy th e arm y w ith o u t a p u b lic back lash . Benny K atzover, th e key G ush lead er involved in th e Beita incident, h a d to re tra c t m an y o f his s ta te ­ m ents a n d to recognize th a t even w ith th e in creased violence o f th e in tifa d a , vigilante activity w as u n a c c e p ta b le . K atzo v er a n d his friends la te r learn ed th a t even a long h u n g e r strik e in fro n t o f the p rim e m in iste r’s office w o u ld n o t m ove M r. S h am ir to “ c ru s h ” th e in tifa d a o r ch an g e th e in stru ctio n s given to th e a rm y .132 By th e second y ear o f th e up risin g , G ush E m unim w as no longer ab le to p reten d th e in tifa d a w as only a sm all n uisan ce, a n d signs o f an x iety am o n g the settlers becam e co m m o n . A letter o f a y o u n g w o m a n to H a n a n P o rat an d his w ife, p u b lish ed in N e k u d a , ex p ressed th e new an x iety a n d fatigue o f th e settlers: N o longer am I an outside observer. I am in s id e . And the dream and the hope? Where is the great hope of my youthful days? . . . D o not misread me. I do not have a personal problem, but the reality around me is very troubling; strikes and sickness, a divided and confused political situation, a stormy intifada, low morale, lack of knowledge and resolve, lack of peace .... We are trying to build our own private home, but the noise of reality whistles in our ears. We try to find comfort in Rabbi K ook’ s writings, in the “vision of redemption,”but outside there is a dark and threatening fog. . . . And I ask myself: Have I had this seed of despair in me all along? Has it been corroding my soul and diverting me from seeing all the good there is and enjoying it? Perhaps. And if this is indeed the case, how am I going ... to face today’ s events and tom orrow ’ s? Please answer me!133

162

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Even if G ush E m unim h a d been able to face the in tifa d a w ith u nity an d d eterm in a tio n fully solidified, it is m o st likely th a t the h ard sh ip s o f the u p risin g w o u ld have m ad e a serious d en t in the m ental an d ideological shield o f its m em bers. A nd indeed, in a revealing b o o k , G re y 'Wind, p u b lish ed in 1990, veteran G ush m em b er M eir H a rn o i p ro v id ed for the first tim e a so m b er settler p ictu re o f th e o rd eals o f th e Palestinian uprising. T h e in tifa d a has m ad e ro u tin e tra n s p o rta tio n in th e W est B ank an d G aza a h azard o u s endeavor, changing th e en tire life o f th e settler com m unity. It has p ro d u ced anxiety a n d fear, especially fo r th e lives o f the children traveling every m o rn in g to school th ro u g h hostile A rab villages. F u rth erm o re, it isolated the settlers from m o st Israelis w h o sto p p ed traveling to the W est B ank and G aza, a n d w as responsible fo r b itte r conflicts betw een the settlers an d the army. T he refusal o f th e g o v ern m en t to suppress the in tifa d a by force an d the d em an d o f local m ilitary co m m an d ers th a t responses to A rab violence on th e ro ad s be extrem ely restrain ed h u m iliated the settlers an d m ade them feel defenseless a n d deserted. A nd those ready to risk violent response w ere c o n fro n ted w ith very difficult m o ral dilem m as involving th e killing o f h o s­ tile A rabs for self-defense an d revenge.134 But th e in tifa d a cam e w hen th e G ush w as already m aim ed an d politically divided. Its se c re ta ria t w as h ard ly functio n in g an d several of its sp iritu al leaders w ere a t o d d s w ith each oth er. It w as ju st a m a tte r o f tim e before the ideological an im osities a n d p erso n al grudges w ere exposed. T he first sh o t in th e renew ed co ntroversy w as fired by R abbi Yoel BenN u n , the m ain sp o k esp erso n o f th e G u sh ’s m o d erate w ing. F or years BenN u n has engaged in talks w ith th e Israeli left, trying to reduce ideological tensions. N o w he p u b lish ed several articles calling for a “ N a tio n a l C o n fer­ en ce.” R esp o n d in g to th e co n tro v ersial idea of Israel’s Foreign M inister, Shim on Peres, o f convening an in te rn a tio n a l conference to in itiate a new peace process, B en-N un arg u ed th a t Israel w as on the b rin k o f an ideological w ar, an d th a t th e v ario u s p artie s m u st be b ro u g h t to g eth er before the situ a ­ tio n g o t o u t o f h a n d . N o tin g th a t th e enem ies o f the n atio n w ere capitalizing on Israel’s in tern a l divisions, B en-N un w ro te th a t if the effort o f Israel’s enem ies to divide it succeeded, it will not stop at the Green Line and it will leave us with nothing worth fighting for. This is no longer a question as to whether the right or the left wins. A forced victory by either side may rock the entire boat. This is no longer a question of ideology but a matter of survival.135

As p a trio tic and ap p ealin g as B en -N u n ’s idea w as, n o t one of his G ush E m unim rivals could ignore its political im plications: the rabbi w as ready to co m p ro m ise the sacred principles of the G ush in o rd e r to reco n stru ct the badly d am ag ed n a tio n a l consensus. In o th e r essays, B en-N un ad v o cated an an n e x a tio n o f only p a r t of Ju d ea an d Sam aria. E choing a suggestion of Ariel S haron to im m ediately an n ex th e territo rie s included in the A llon Plan, an d to g ra n t the P alestinians a lim ited au to n o m y in the rest of the tru n c a te d W est

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

163

B ank, R ab b i B en-N un m ad e it clear th a t th e o rig in al d ream o f G ush E m unim a n d th e ex trem ists o f th e secular rad ical rig h t, o f an a n n e x a tio n o f the en tire W est B ank to Israel, w as n o lo n g er politically feasible. The majority of the public is for [keeping] Eretz Yisrael but opposes the annexation of 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs, and it is no longer possible to think that you can annex the territory and at the same time deny Israeli citizenship to its inhabitants. And do not live with the illusion that you can etzni’ s plan expel them. By the time the conditions for the fulfillment of Hae’ [of taking over the entire West Bank] exist, we shall have already lost the historical opportunity and will face a retreat to the 1967 borders.136

B e n -N u n ’s d e te rm in a tio n to ta k e in to a c c o u n t th e po litical realities an d p resen t h isto rical o p p o rtu n itie s o f Israel did n o t p rev en t him from a d d re ss­ ing th e th eo lo g ical p a rt o f th e p ro b le m , th e q u estio n o f red em p tio n . H e clearly disagreed w ith th e m illen n arian vision o f G u sh E m u n im ’s ex trem ists w h o h o p e d fo r an im m ed iate re d e m p tio n in w h ich all p ro b le m s w o u ld be resolved by G o d : “ H e w h o c a n n o t see any step b u t a full re d e m p tio n , follow ed by peace a n d com p lete tra n q u illity , is im p atien t. A t p re se n t w e have no co m p letio n a t h a n d , n eith er a com p lete lan d n o r a co m p lete n a ­ tio n .” 137 A nd in a d ire ct a tta c k on R abbi M o sh e L evinger— w h o d eclared th a t th e tim e h a d com e fo r G ush E m unim to tra n sfo rm th e n a tio n to a new era o f re d e m p tio n , th e elevated stage o f M a sh ia ch B e n -D a v id (“ M essiah , th e Son o f D a v id ,” an era th a t su persede th e lo w er stage o f M essiah th e Son o f Y oseph— Ben N u n w ro te: The announcement regarding the end of the “Mashiach Ben-Yosef”era is dangerous. This proposition guided . . . the thought of Yehuda Etzionfthe ideologue of the Jewish Underground who wanted to bring about an instant redemption through blowing up the Dome of the Rock]. ... It is possible to blow things up, and it is possible to go it alone. It is very easy to “kill now ” “Mashiach Ben-Yoesf”— i.e., Zionism, the State of Israel, and everything that has been achieved in the present generation.138

R ab bi B en -N u n h as never been an easy ta rg e t fo r th e G ush E m unim h ard -lin ers, fo r he h as rarely d e p en d ed o n th e o rg a n iz a tio n a l n e tw o rk o f th e m o vem ent. B ut th e h a w k s w ere able to strike a t M o n i Ben-A ri, th e secretarygeneral o f A m an a. B en-A ri, a secular settler in K far E d o m im , w as never a m em ber o f th e in n er circle o f G ush E m unim . N evertheless over the years he has becom e an ex em p lary figure in th e m ovem ent: a p a ra tro o p e r c o m ­ m an d er, a b rillia n t settlem en t p la n n e r a n d ed u c a to r, an d a n a tu ra l leader. Ben-A ri, w h o w as G u sh E m u n im ’s m a jo r show case for th e settlem en t c o h a b i­ ta tio n o f religious a n d secular Jew s, has been for years o n e o f th e m o st effective arch itects o f A m a n a .139 A lth o u g h in th e 1980s he becam e in creas­ ingly critical o f th e ra d ic a liz a tio n o f G ush E m unim a n d its m essianic sectari­ anism , Ben-A ri w as th e n a tu ra l c a n d id a te for the to p job in A m an a once its th en secretary -g en eral, Uri A riel, w as asked to h ead th e Yesha C o u n c il.140 H is 1988 election as th e settlem en t m o v e m e n t’s h ead , the first n o m in a tio n

164

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

of a secular Jew to a to p G ush E m unim p o sitio n , w as highly publicized. It w as p a ra d e d as p ro o f o f th e “ o p e n n e ss” o f the m ovem ent an d its “ n a tio n a l” ch aracter. But just a year later Ben-Ari w as kicked o u t. W hile being interview ed for a p lan n ed p erso n al profile, Ben-Ari to ld N e k u d a ’s re p o rte r th a t he h a d privately discussed w ith prim e m inister S ham ir his o w n peace p lan . Like B en -N u n ’s idea, it divided the W est B ank in to “ security zo n es,” w hich w ere to be im m ediately a n n ex ed to Israel, a n d territo rie s designated for Palestin­ ian a u to n o m y overseen by Isra e l.141 A lthough B en-A ri’s p lan , like BenN u n ’s, w as concep tu ally u n accep tab le to Israeli m o d erates an d the rest o f the w o rld , since it p ro p o se d th e im m ediate an n e x a tio n of tw o -th ird s o f Judea and S am aria, Ben-Ari w as im m ediately p u nished. H av in g b ro k en the sacred code o f th e m o v em en t’s h ard -lin ers, he could n o t stay in office. T he rift w ith in G ush E m unim w idened fu rth er in the spring of 1989. A fter several G ush activists co n d u cted a series o f an ti-A rab o p eratio n s an d w ere publicly su p p o rte d by leading rab b is, R abb i Yoel B en-N un an n o u n ced th a t he could no longer rem ain a m em ber o f G ush E m unim . This w as th e first defection o f an orig in al fo u n d er o f th e m ovem ent. It could only be seen as a m ajo r blow to G ush E m unim , all o f w hose rh eto ric has been focused on the need to un ite th e n a tio n . T he sequence o f events th a t led to B en -N u n ’s secession began in M arch 1989 w ith an intense w ave o f settler vigilantism in the W est Bank. W h a t w as new a b o u t this vigilantism w as th a t it w as led by non-ideological settlers of u rb a n centers such as A riel, Alfei M en ash e, an d M a ’ale E dom im . A fter the Beita in cident, G ush E m unim reduced its an ti-A rab activities to a m inim um , b u t the u n o rg an ized u rb a n settlers becam e steadily m o re im p atien t. P alestin­ ian rebels in the W est B ank have n o t lim ited th eir in tifa d a o p eratio n s to G ush E m unim settlem ents an d have becom e a serious th re a t even o n the ‘safe’ ro ad s betw een to w n s .142 T he killing of several Jew s by A ra b -th ro w n M o lo to v cocktails conse­ quently p ro d u c e d several m assive raids into A rab villages an d c o n fro n ta ­ tions w ith the arm y. T his resulted in a gro w in g feeling in Israel th a t the g o v ern m ent an d the arm y w ere losing co n tro l an d th a t a Jew ish co u n te r­ in tifada w as a b o u t to p ro d u c e to ta l an arch y in the occupied territo ries. S h am ir’s readiness to h o ld elections am o n g th e Palestinians o f th e W est Bank in o rd e r to ad vance th e peace process ad d ed to the security m isery o f the settlers.143 A t this p o in t, R abbi M o sh e Levinger w as charged w ith killing an A rab b y stan d e r in H e b ro n , an d several yeshiva stu d en ts from the Tom b o f Yosef in N ab lu s w ere a rrested for killing a young girl an d destro y in g p ro p e rty o n a raid in the A rab village Kief el-H ares. H ow ever, it w as n o t these b ru ta l acts o f re trib u tio n th a t triggered th e new sto rm inside G ush E m unim b u t th eir theological justification. A t his tria l, R abbi Levinger to ld Judge H ad aiy a th a t it w as all a big fram e-up. “ T h e re m u st be som e o rd e r an d justice here.

The Politics, Institutions, and Culture of Gush Emunim

165

T he p ro se c u tio n su b m itte d 1500 pages a b o u t m e killing an A rab. I d id n o t k ill an A ra b , b u t I w ish I d i d .” 144 R abbi G in zb u rg , the h ead o f th e T om b o f Yosef yeshiva in N a b lu s, re sp o n d e d to re p o rts o f his stu d e n ts ’ te rro rism by saying th a t th ere is b lo o d a n d th ere is b lo o d a n d th a t Jew ish b lo o d is n o t the sam e as A rab b lo o d . A ccording to T orah in ju n ctio n , “ H e w h o is n o t a Jew, and th ro w s sto n es o r th re a te n Jew s goes u n d e r th e rule ‘he w h o com es to kill you, you sh o u ld kill him first.’ ” 145 In an n o u n c in g his d e p a rtu re from G ush E m unim in Ju n e 1989, R ab b i Yoel B en-N un did n o t call for the e sta b lish ­ m ent o f a new G u sh , loyal to th e m o v e m e n t’s o rig in al ideas. H e also did n o t say he w as leaving his settlem en t, O fra . Instead , he sta te d th a t he could no longer live u n d e r th e sam e ideological ro o f w ith R ab b is Levinger an d G in z­ b urg a n d th e m any o th e r H a la k h ic a u th o ritie s w h o w ere eith er su p p o rtiv e o f th eir p o sitio n s o r rem ain ed silent. T h e a c t w as th u s m ostly sym bolic an d declarative. W hile th e L evinger— B en-N un scuffles have d am ag ed th e ideological integrity o f G ush E m unim , a n d ta rn ish e d its p u b lic im age, they have h a d surprisingly little im p a c t on th e o rg a n iz a tio n o f th e settler co m m u n ity an d on G ush E m u n im ’s “ Invisible R e a lm .” By th e en d o f 1989 it w as clear th a t the h eads o f A m an a a n d Yesha C ouncil w ere successful in co n tro llin g th e dam ages o f th e in tifa d a a n d in tern a l conflicts. T h e w a rrin g sides c o n tin u e d to argue a b o u t such issues as th e c o n tin u e d decline o f th e G ush E m u n im se c re ta ria t,146 th e u n necessary ex p an sio n o f Jew ish presence in N a b lu s, e x ­ em plified by th e h igh-profile cerem ony for th e in tro d u c tio n o f a T orah Scroll to the T om b o f Y oseph y e sh iv a ,147 a n d th e lo u d pro cessio n th a t esco rted R abbi L evinger to jail, in M ay 1 9 9 0 .148 B ut th e real actio n to o k place elsew here, involving th e a d d itio n o f several th o u sa n d new m em bers to th e settler com m unity, a n d its c o n tin u e d so cioeco n o m ic g ro w th . T h e p o w erfu l m echanism s o f state s u p p o rt to th e settlers, set in m o tio n betw een 1 9 7 8 — 1984, a n d th e very able lead ersh ip o f th e heads o f th e Yesha C o u n cil, w ere a p p aren tly stro n g en o u g h to keep th e flow o f p u b lic b u d g ets an d new set­ tlers to Ju d e a , S am aria, a n d G aza. By end o f 1 990 th ere w ere in th e occu p ied territo rie s b etw een 9 0 ,0 0 0 to 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 settlers. N ew idealistic settlers w ere being a b so rb e d in G u sh E m unim settlem en ts, an d the new ly created L ikud co alitio n p ro m ise d to build in th e W est B ank, u ntil th e 1992 general elec­ tions, 7 0 0 0 a d d itio n a l h o u sin g un its, w ith an a b so rb in g cap acity o f b etw een 2 0 ,0 0 0 to 3 0 ,0 0 0 s e ttle rs.149 Tw o dev elo p m en ts m ade this p rogress possible: th e decline o f th e in tifada a n d th e crisis o f Israel’s unity co alitio n . T h e in tifa d a , w hich reached its p eak a t th e end o f 1988 a n d th e b eginning o f 19 8 9 , has lo st in 1990 m uch of its m o m en tu m . A fter m o n th s o f co n fu sio n an d d iso rie n ta tio n , th e Israeli arm y h a d reg ain ed th e in itiativ e a n d w as able to apply effective m easures ag ain st A rab rio ters. D ra m a tic w o rld events such as the fall o f th e Berlin Wall a n d th e d e m o c ra tic rev o lu tio n s in E astern E u ro p e rem oved th e P alestin­ ian u p risin g from th e h ead lin e new s. R elatively p o o r, largely iso lated , an d politically u n so p h istic a te d , th e P alestinians o f th e W est B ank a n d G aza h ad

166

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

n o t given up th e ir up risin g b u t w ere un ab le to im press the w o rld an d push Israel in to concessions. T h e decline o f th e in tifa d a w as am o n g th e reasons for the 1990 dem ise of the L ik u d -L a b o r U nity cab in et, a strange co alitio n th a t ruled Israel since 1984. It helped elim inate th e relative m o d eratio n ad o p ted earlier by Itzhak Sham ir, Israel’s p rim e m inister, vis-à-vis the Palestinians an d the PLO , and w as in stru m en tal in fo m en tin g a g o v ernm en tal crisis o f the first ord er. The unity co alitio n w as very b a d for G ush E m unim . It forced the L ikud to co m p ro m ise its c o m m itm en t to th e settlem en t o f the occupied territo ries, isolated th e radical rig h t, an d m ade th e settler co m m u n ity extrem ely d ep en ­ d e n t on un frien d ly m inisters such as Itzh ak R abin (Defense), an d Shim on Peres (Treasury). T he dem ise o f th e U nity G o v ern m en t an d the June 1990 success o f Itz h ak S ham ir to form a n a rro w rig h t-w in g co alitio n w ere a great relief. H aving L a b o r o u t, a n d Yuval N e ’em an , G eula C o h en , an d Rafael E itan inside th e g o v ern m en t, w as a b o u t th e g reatest thing th a t h ap p en ed to G ush E m unim since 1982. T h e fu tu re o f th e Jew ish en d eav o r in the occupied territo rie s, w hich for a few years looked bleak, seem ed again reassured.

6 The Radical Right in Parliament: The Tehiya and Its Political Offspring

Making It to the Knesset W hile G ush E m u n im h as p ro v id e d th e p io n eerin g sp irit an d in stitu tio n a l in fra stru c tu re fo r th e rad ical rig h t, th e T ehiya p a rty has rep resen ted it in Israel’s esta b lish ed politics. In a political system d o m in a te d by p a rty p olitics, the Tehiya fulfills th e classical fu n ctio n o f a party. It aggregates m any o f th e political in terests o f th e rad ical rig h t a n d a rtic u la te s them in p a rlia m e n t. It also represents these in terests in th e m edia an d p u ts th em o n the n a tio n ’s public agen d a. Ju st as G ush E m unim h as been a success in settlin g th e o ccu ­ pied te rrito rie s, th e Tehiya p a rty h as been a p a rlia m e n ta ry success story. A lthough it failed to b re a k th e C a m p D avid A ccords, it w as very effective in crystallizing an an ti-p eace bloc in Israel. In 1981 th e Tehiya w o n th ree Knesset seats (o u t o f 120), a n d m ad e itself an in d isp en sab le p a rtn e r o f th e Likud g o v ern m en t th a t fo u n d itself e n tan g led in L eb an o n . As we have seen, the T ehiya’s leader, Yuval N e ’em an , becam e Israel’s m in ister o f science a n d energy a n d th e c h a irm a n o f th e p o w erfu l settlem en t co m m ittee o f th e cab in et. A fter th e 1984 elections, th e Tehiya becam e Israel’s th ird -la rg e st party, w ith five K nesset seats. D espite its refusal to join th e u n ity co alitio n b etw een the L ikud a n d th e L a b o r alig n m en t, its p o p u la rity has risen. Since 1984 o p in io n polls have been giving th e Tehiya a n d its allies th e s u p p o rt o f betw een 6 a n d 8 p e rc e n t o f th e voters. T h e leaders o f th e p a rty have been successful in b rin g in g u n d e r o n e ro o f b o th religious an d secular Jew s a n d in presen ting to th e p u b lic a convincing a n d credible lead ersh ip . A t first glance, th e Tehiya a p p e a rs as th e p a rlia m e n ta ry w ing o f G ush Em unim . T h ree o f its to p six can d id ates fo r th e tw elfth K nesset, R ab b i Eliezer W ald m an , G e rsh o n S h afat, a n d Benny K atzover, are k n o w n G ush

167

168

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

leaders. N o n e o f th e p u b lic stan d s tak en by G ush E m unim is ever contested by th e secular leadership o f the party, an d no effo rt is spared to glorify the G ush an d back its p u b lic struggles. N evertheless, significant cu ltu ra l and social differences exist betw een the tw o . G ush E m unim is a hom o g en eo u s revitalizatio n m ovem ent w hose m ain concern is th e settlem en t o f the W est B ank. D espite recent ideological c o n tro ­ versies, all m em bers o f th e G ush agree on fu n d am en tal principles an d live w ith in th e sam e exclusive W eltanschau un g; they are settlers in the occupied territo rie s an d live the struggle for Judea an d S am aria tw en ty -fo u r h o u rs a day. M o st o f th em are in th eir thirties o r forties; only a few o f th eir leaders are o ld er th a n fifty. T h e Tehiya, on th e co n trary , is an o rd in a ry political party. O nly a few of its m em bers, th e elected K nesset representatives an d several officials, are full-tim e Tehiya people. T he rest are p art-tim e activists, su p p o rters, an d voters w h o have m any o th e r concerns in th eir life. T he secular heads o f the Tehiya are o ld er th a n th eir G ush E m unim colleagues an d are ro o te d in Israel’s defense, science, a n d settlem en t estab lish m en t, o r are jo u rn alists and business persons. U ntil 1987, the Tehiya p a rty w as the sole rep resen tativ e of the “ co n stru c­ tiv e” radical rig h t (as o p p o sed to K ach’s “ d estru ctiv e” radicalism ) in Israel’s p a rlia m e n ta ry politics. But o th e r parties con tested the te rrito ry w hen form er C hief o f Staff R afael E itan k n o w n universally as R aful split from the Tehiya, an d w h en th e M o le d e t (H om eland) p a rty em erged u n d er G eneral R ehavam Z e ’evi. E itan, w h o joined the Tehiya in 1984 w ith his T zo m et (C rossroads) g ro u p , w as never to o h a p p y w ith this arran g em en t. T h o u g h he su p p o rted m ost o f th e T ehiya’s political p la tfo rm , he becam e increasingly alienated by the religious a n d q uasi-religious style o f m any o f its leaders, p artic u la rly o f the vociferous G eula C o h e n .1 T h e tension reached a crisis in 1987 w hen b o th E itan an d C ohen tried to tak e ov er th e p a rty by placing th eir su p p o rters in the o rg a n iz a tio n ’s key p o sitio n s, causing a sh o w d o w n in the p a rty ’s general co nvention. Yuval N e ’em an, th e leader o f th e Tehiya, decided to p rev en t w h a t ap p eared to be a p ro -E ita n c o u p ,a n d E itan left th e party. Soon he reestablished T zo m et an d ap p ealed to his n a tu ra l constituency: th e h a rd -co re L ab o r people, the N o rth ­ ern b o rd e r settlem ents, a n d th e fo rm er soldiers w h o h ad served u n d er his co m m and. N e ’em an , C o h en , a n d th eir colleagues have co n tain ed th e dam age an d preserved th e p a rty ’s integrity, b u t the split w as nevertheless costly. T h u s, w hile T z o m e t w as able to place tw o representatives in the Tw elfth Knesset, the Tehiya re p re se n ta tio n w as reduce to only three seats. B ut the d im in u tio n of the Tehiya did n o t resu lt in a decline o f the p arlia m e n ta ry radical right. O n th e contrary, th e o p in io n polls before th e 1988 election indicated a g ro w in g electoral ap p eal for th e m essage o f this cam p. A gainst this b a c k g ro u n d a n o th e r radical a sp iran t, R ehavam Z e ’evi (uni-

The Radical Right in Parliament

169

versally k n o w n as “ G a n d h i” ), a recognized Israeli reserve general, c o n ­ cluded th a t th e re w as ro o m fo r a n o th e r u ltra n a tio n a lis t party. Since 1985 he has been publicly reco m m en d in g a “ tra n s fe r” — an ag reed -u p o n rem oval o f all th e A rabs o f th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s to th e n eig h b o rin g A rab co u n tries. This w as th e p la tfo rm o f his new party, M o led e t. Z e ’evi him self w as su r­ prised by th e results* F ollow ing a sh o rt, u n d erfin an ced , an d u n d erstaffed cam paign, b o th he a n d his colleague P rofesso r Yair S p rin zak w ere elected to the K nesset.2 T h e Tehiya has survived R a fu l’s secession an d th e s ta rt o f M o led e t, an d is by n o w a p e rm a n e n t p resence in n a tio n a l politics, b u t it has n o t fulfilled its original high e x p e c ta tio n s. W h en th e new g ro u p w as o rg an ized in 19 7 9 , it w as in ten d ed to be m o re th a n an o rd in a ry Israeli p olitical party. T h e o rg a n iz a ­ tio n ’s fo u n d e rs— especially G eula C o h e n an d H a n a n P o ra t— longed fo r the estab lish m en t o f a q u alitativ ely d ifferen t entity, so m eth in g th a t Israel h a d n o t seen b efore, a cohesive secular-religious m o v em en t.3 In sp ired by th e K o o k ist theology, th e fo u n d ers ex p ected th e new p a rty to o v erco m e th e iso lated o r th o ­ doxy o f G ush E m u n im a n d , th ro u g h a to ta l c o m m itm e n t to a sp irited Z io n ist p ro g ram , to becom e a real b rid g e betw een religious a n d secu lar Jew s: We have emerged today to lay the foundations for a new movement— the renaissance m ovem ent... to establish a living movement; not only a party that focuses on parliamentary activity, but a movement that organically brings together ideological and educational action, pioneering initiatives, and political activity that strives toward the leadership of the nation.4

T he key elem en t o f th e new m o v em en t w as to be th e c h a v u ro t, in tim ate groups in te n d e d to revive th e o ld sp irit o f living Z io n ism , in volvem ent, an d self-sacrifice. T h e c h a v u r o t w ere to d e m o n stra te th e b a n k ru p tc y o f th e o th e r Israeli p artie s. H o w this w as to be accom plish ed w as sta te d in th e T eh iy a’s first m anifesto: A living movement does not become flesh and blood through the polls on election day. . . . The strength o f the Tehiya movement will be fulfilled in its members, activists that daily go out to initiate a permanent partnership in shaping the thinking o f the movement and crystallizing its leadership in the nation. These members-activists will be cemented in c h a v u r o t . . . . The living connection with the movement will be based on the living connection within the chavurot themselves, first and foremost. Internally, the chavura will develop human relationships of fraternity and daily partnership in carrying the burden. Externally, the chavura will assume the responsibility for the accomplishment of the movement’ s goals.5

But in reality th e re w as never a chance th a t th e n o tab les w h o g ath ered in 1979 w o u ld really fo rm a fresh a n d in n o v ativ e m ovem ent. Yuval N e ’em an , the m an w h o first w ro te ag a in st C am p D avid, w as asked by his friends to be the Tehiya leader, b u t he w as n o t tem p eram en tally suited to lead a y o u th fu l, revitalizing m ov em en t. C o o l, ra tio n a l, a n d alo o f, he h as alw ays spo k en w ith

170

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

the voice o f reason. O nly o ne issue m attere d to h im — Israel’s security, w hich he believed h a d been jeo p ard ized by th e 1978 C am p D avid accords. O nly th a t issue could cause the fo rm er p resid en t o f Tel Aviv U niversity to sacrifice his b rillian t academ ic career. Sim ilar security-m inded reserve officers joined the Tehiya w ith the sam e attitu d e. T hey w ere to o old for c h a v u ro t an d confessional politics. O th e r veterans o f rig h t-w in g politics in th eir sixties an d seventies cam e o u t o f the L and of Israel M o v em en t. T hey w ere devoted to the cause of Eretz Yisrael b u t w ere n o t th e y o u n g an d energetic g ro u p the w riters o f the m anifesto envisioned. T he sam e w as tru e o f th re e o th e r gro u p s th a t becam e the T ehiya’s m ain pillars: th e Ein V ered Circle, T zo m et, an d the “ V eterans o f the U n d e rg ro u n d .” T he Ein V ered C ircle, it w ill be recalled, cam e to g eth er in 1975 to su p p o rt the illicit settlem en t efforts o f G ush E m unim . All th e p artic ip a n ts, m em bers o f k ib b u tzim a n d m oshavim , belonged to the L a b o r Settlem ent M o v em en t an d w ere o p p o se d to th e A llon Plan. Like the surviving LIM activists, they believed in th e im p o rta n c e o f the settlem en t of the W est B ank, b u t w ere less ideological an d b itter. T hey w a n te d to share th eir rich settlem en t experience w ith the new p ioneers o f G ush E m unim , w h o rem in d ed them o f th eir ow n g lorious y o u th fu l days. H ow ever, being elderly m em bers of prestigious settle­ m en t o rg a n iz a tio n s, they w ere b ad can d id ates for a new y o u th fu l political m ovem ent. M o reo v er, by the tim e Tehiya w as form ed, Ein Vered w as n o t very active; G ush E m unim , for w hose sake its m em bers h ad rallied d u rin g the L a b o r a d m in istra tio n , did n o t need th eir services in the L ikud era. N o r did they share th e em o tio n al anguish o f th e b etray ed fo rm er allies of M en achem Begin th a t led to the estab lish m en t of the T ehiya.6 In 1979, only a few individuals from Ein V ered joined the Tehiya. T he real revival o f this g ro u p , in the form of T zo m et, to o k place in 1983 w hen G eneral R afael E itan retired from his m ilitary service. R aful, a sym ­ bolic figure rem iniscent o f old Eretz Y israel, g ath ered a ro u n d him v eteran Ein V ered m em bers an d new L a b o r S ettlem ent activists w h o w ere enraged by the Israeli “ d e fe a t” in L eb an o n an d critical of the p erfo rm an ce o f the L ikud g o v ern m en t in econom ics an d social affairs.7 M obilized by the lead er­ ship of th e prestigious general, they established T zo m et an d considered ru n n in g th e ir o w n tick et in the 1984 elections. They eventually decided to join the Tehiya, b u t only for political reasons th a t h ad n o th in g to do w ith ch a vu ro t. T he “ V eterans o f the U n d e rg ro u n d ” — old m em bers o f the Irgun an d Lehi— represen ted in the Tehiya councils by G eula C ohen, did join the new p arty for ideological reasons. B ut m any w ere d isap p o in ted L ikud activists and h ad tasted political pow er. As m uch as they w an ted a “ m o v em en t” an d ch a vu ro t, a them e p ro m o te d by G eula C ohen , they w ere also an x io u s to get real pow er. T hey did n o t seriously expect to tak e over the g overnm ent, b u t the K nesset w o u ld p ro v id e a visible forum from w hich to speak to the

The Radical Right in Parliament

171

n atio n , a n d it w as, even fo r these critics, a prestig io u s social club. W hile they did n o t exclude d irect, m o v em en t-w id e actio n , they w ere to o old fo r g rass­ ro o ts revival o p e ra tio n s all ov er th e country. It th u s becam e o b v io u s th a t th e only peo p le likely to b uild the Tehiya as a d y nam ic social m o v em en t, a n d to staff its c h a vu ro t, w ere th e en th u siastic youngsters o f G ush E m unim . B ut they, o f course, alread y h ad a m o v em en t, o rganized in sm all settlem en ts a n d yeshivot. T h e w h o le idea o f th e c h a v u ro t w as to e x p a n d th e G u sh E m unim experience to th e en tire n a tio n an d have secular Jew s o rg an ize a n d fu n ctio n as th e G ush y o u n g sters h a d been d o in g in the W est B ank. B ut this vision w as no m o re th a n th e w ishful th in k in g o f a few d ream ers w h o w ere so a la rm e d by th e “ d isa s te r” o f C am p D av id th a t they co nvinced them selves th a t they could s ta rt a new Z io n ist rev o lu tio n . The p erso n w h o first u n d e rsto o d th e failure o f the Tehiya as a m o v em en t o f n atio n al revival w as H a n a n P o rat, G ush E m u n im ’s m o st co n scien tio u s leader. In 19 7 9 P o rat, excited over th e em ergence o f the Tehiya, reco m ­ m ended th a t th e G ush en d o rse th e new m o v em en t uneq u iv o cally a n d ask ed all its m em bers to join. T h e issue created a serious rift betw een P o rat a n d th e o th er c h arism atic lead er o f G ush E m u n im , R ab b i M o sh e Levinger, w h o th o u g h t P o ra t’s e n d o rse m e n t naïve a n d w ro n g . By 1983 it w as clear th a t L evinger w as right. T h e d isa p p o in te d P o rat, in an u n co m m o n gesture, gave u p his Tehiya K nesset seat an d w ith d re w to his kibbutz. T h o u g h P o ra t did n o t a tta c k o r criticize th e Tehiya, his resig n atio n im plied an ad m issio n th a t th e m o v e m e n t’s g re a t d ream w as gone. W h a t P orat h a d d iscovered w as th a t w hile th e p a rty p ro m o te d th e rig h t ideology and politics, it w as u n ab le to b ridge th e cu ltu ra l gap betw een secular an d religious Israelis a n d w as n o t leading th e w ay in estab lish in g a new ex iste n ­ tial reality. F u rth e rm o re , th e Tehiya also h a d n o t ap p ealed to th e v arieg ated w o rld o f the Z io n ist yeshivot, religious settlem en ts, a n d Z io n ist religious e d u c a tio n — institu tio n s alw ays d e a r to P o rat. T h e secular m em bers o f th e p a rty did n o t p u t a high p rem iu m o n its slogan H o lc h im b e y a h a d (“ G o in g to g e th e r” — secular a n d religious), a n d never co n sid ered challenging th e p rev ailin g reli­ gious sta tu s q u o , an a rra n g e m e n t th a t d o m in a te d Z io n ist politics since the 1930s. N o r w ere they ask ed to d o so by th e ir religious colleagues. T hey m ade no collective m ove in th e d ire ctio n o f g re a te r o b serv an ce o r religious re p e n ­ tance. A nd they d id n o t p ro g ress to w a rd a g reater “ u n d e rsta n d in g ” o f the “tru e Z io n ism o f o u r tim e ,” th e E m u n ist Z io n ism . P o ra t co n seq u en tly ex ­ plained his resig n atio n by ta lk in g a b o u t th e T eh iy a’s, inability to fly high the flag of the ideals of Torah and faith and of the full return to Jewish life in its utmost depths. There were people within the Tehiya who could personally express these ideals, but the movement as a whole did not have the strength to say it in full force. The lack of such an announcement in the name of G —d is a terrible want in the course of Zionism.8

172

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Several o f his colleagues sh ared th e idealistic P o ra t’s d isa p p o in tm e n t th a t the Tehiya w as u n ab le to becom e an enlarged G ush E m unim . N evertheless, few joined him in his new political v en tu re w ith R abbi H aim D ru k m an , the esta b lish m en t o f th e religious M a tz a d m o v em en t.9 In 1983, th o u g h , th e o th e r G ush leaders involved in the Tehiya w ere ra th e r pleased w ith it. T hey h a d n o t e n tertain ed as high ex p ectatio n s as P o rat a n d w ere ready to live w ith th e new arran g em en t: th a t the p arty w o u ld s u p p o rt certain religious legislation in th e K nesset an d th a t it w ould alw ays have betw een 30 an d 4 0 p ercen t religious rep resen tatio n on the p a rty ’s to p c a n d id a te list fo r th e K nesset a n d o th e r official positions. They knew th ere w as no chance th e Tehiya w o u ld co n v ert its secular activists to o rth o d o x Ju d aism , a n d they su p p o rte d it in line w ith th eir lo n g stan d in g policy o f n o t placing all th e G u s h ’s eggs in one b a s k e t.10 R abbi Eliezer W ald m an an d G ersh o n S h afat rem ained in the Tehiya, and as K nesset m em bers have c o n tin u ed to ex ert g reat influence w ith in its in ter­ nal councils. Y ounger G ush E m unim activists like Benny K atzover an d D a n ­ iela W eiss have joined th e p a rty to o . T hey becam e p ro m in e n t activists inside its secretariat, a n d m ak in g sure th a t o n policy issues G ush E m u n im ’s views an d req u irem en ts w ere co n sta n tly represented .

Transferring the Arabs O ne o f th e m o st co n tro v ersial term s associated w ith the Israeli radical right, an d the larger p erip h ery o f th e Tehiya since 1987, has been the co n cep t of tran sfer — a sh o rth a n d for th e rem oval of th e Palestinians of th e occupied territo rie s an d th e ir resettlem en t in th e n eig h b o rin g A rab countries. T he co n cep t w as first raised in p ublic by R ehavam Z e ’evi, a reserve general an d w ell-k n ow n Israeli h aw k . Z e ’evi arg u ed th a t th e o ld idea o f tran sfer, a legacy o f a series o f y is b u v d eb ates in M a n d a to ry Palestine o f the 1930s, w as relevant to th e p resen t situ a tio n in th e W est B ank an d G aza. H e m ain tain ed th a t since th e W est B ank a n d G aza w ere essential for the security o f Israel an d th eir m illion a n d a h a lf hostile P alestinians w ere a m o rtal liability, the local residents h a d to be tra n sfe rre d o u t. W hen his idea received positive responses from all over the country, he decided to ru n for th e K nesset. F or his list he w as successful in a ttra c tin g several d isg ru n tled Tehiya m em bers, such as Zvi Shiloah an d Yair Sprinzak. Both of these LIM v eterans w ere b itte r over the T ehiya’s decision to join the L ikud coalitio n in 1982 a n d over its “ m o d e ra te ” an d “ u n p rin c ip le d ” stan d on Eretz Y israel.11 Shiloach, w h o h ad w ritte n earlier a b o u t th e tra n sfe r idea in his b o o k , A G re a t L a n d fo r G re a t P e o p le ,11 confided th a t th e w hole ideology w as crystallized d u rin g a sem in ar he co n d u cted in 1985 for several Israeli h ard -lin ers, including Z e ’evi.13 Z e ’evi’s list, M o le d e t (H om eland), m ade the tra n sfe r co n cep t th e sole p lan k in its p la tfo rm , even choosing the letter T as its election sym bol.

The Radical Right in Parliament

173

T he in tro d u c tio n o f tra n sfer to th e n a tio n ’s p u b lic ag en d a in 1 987 in d i­ cates a n o th e r step in th e ra d ic a liz a tio n o f th e ex trem e right. In 198 4 th e only p arty th a t called for th e rem o v al o f th e A rab s w as K ach o f R ab b i K ahane. A t the tim e, everyone, in clu d in g m o st o f the rad ical rig h t, saw K ah an e as a racist an d co n sid ered his o p in io n s b ey o n d th e pale. Even th o se w h o agreed w ith K ah an e in p rin c ip le felt it w as d an g ero u s to spell o u t th e idea in pu b lic; since 1948 it h a d been inadv isab le fo r Israelis to ta lk a b o u t a tran sfer. To b ro ach th e idea w o u ld have im plied a w illingness to create a n o th e r “ A rab refugee p ro b le m ” — th e single issue m o st d am ag in g to Israel in th e in te rn a ­ tional aren a. B ut in th e m id -1 9 8 0 s th e p u b lic clim ate ch an g ed d ram atically . T h e o rg a ­ nized cam p aig n ag a in st K ah an e a n d his racism a fte r 1 984 helped solidify th e o p p o sitio n o f th e cen ter a n d th e left to his ideas, b u t it h a d no effect o n th e grow ing cam p o f th e rad ical right. T h e increasin g frictio n betw een Jew s an d A rabs in th e W est B ank, th e in tifa d a , a n d th e intense P alestin izatio n o f th e Israeli A rabs p ro d u c e d an a tm o sp h e re in w hich any rad ical so lu tio n w as seen as legitim ate. R eh avam Z e ’evi, w h o voiced th e tra n sfe r so lu tio n , w as o rig in al in only one respect: he identified th e sw itch in th e n a tio n ’s p u b lic o p in io n befo re m any o f his o th e r colleagues. Z e ’evi w as, fo r m any years, a p olitical p a ria h . He h ad been a legendary P alm ach fighter, b u t h a d earn ed a b ad re p u ta tio n while serving as th e chief o f th e C en tral C o m m a n d o f th e Israeli arm y. R epeated press re p o rts p o rtra y e d him as a c o rru p t general w h o h a d been using th e m ilitary fo r his o w n p leasu re, m ateria l in terests, a n d publicity. O th ers h a d stressed his b ru ta lity a n d his ten d en cy to th re a te n o p p o n e n ts w ith physical fo rc e .14 In th e late 1970s he w as involved, as a civilian, in a serious scandal. Several o f his friends w ere identified a n d a rrested as th e leaders o f Israel’s o rg a n iz e d crim e. Z e ’evi’s n am e w as rep eated ly m en tio n ed w ith th o se o f n o to rio u s crim in als, a n d he w as involved in a long an d d a m a g ­ ing libel suit a g a in st Israel’s m o st influential daily, H a ’a retz. T h e selection o f Z e ’evi to d ire ct th e E retz Y israel M u seu m in Tel Aviv d id n o t m uch im p ro v e his p u b lic im age. Z e ’evi’s decision to re tu rn to p u b lic life w av in g th e tra n sfe r b a n n e r w as a com eback a tte m p t. H e k n ew th a t n o p a rty w o u ld ever place him high on its K nesset list; his only ch an ce fo r political p o w e r w as to go it alo n e an d try som ething new . In c h o o sin g th e tra n sfe r them e, he to o k in to c o n sid e ra tio n the fact th a t K ah an e w o u ld p ro b a b ly be disqualified in th e 1988 elections, w hich w o u ld release m any th o u sa n d s o f votes c o m m itted to the eviction o f the A rabs. Z e ’evi’s gam ble p ro v e d successful. H is slogan “ A n a ch n u -k a n , h em sham , v e sh a lo m a l Y isra el / ” (“ W e are here, they are th ere, an d peace for Israel!” ) h a d a tre m e n d o u s a p p e a l.15 T h e th re e -m o n th -o ld M o le d e t party, w hich h a d n o experience o r m oney, surprisin g ly sen t tw o rep resen tativ es to the K nesset. Jo in in g Z e ’evi w as th e re tire d p ro fesso r o f chem istry, Yair S prinzak, th e son o f Israel’s first sp eak er a n d a veteran LIM w riter. H e h ad

174

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

let Z e ’evi p u t his nam e on the list in o rd e r to pro v id e M o led e t w ith m inim al public respectability, an d suddenly found him self in the K nesset a t th e age of seventy-seven.16 T h e m o st im p o rta n t difference betw een Z e ’evi’s tran sfer an d K ah an e’s evictio n is th a t Z e ’evi speaks a b o u t an “ an a g re e d -u p o n ” tra n sfer w hile K ahane reco m m en d ed a forced, one-sided, expulsion o f the A rabs. Z e ’evi says th a t th e idea o f an exchange o f p o p u la tio n sh o u ld be p resented by Israel as its m ain d em an d in any fu tu re peace n eg o tiatio n w ith the A rabs. H e does n o t ex pect the local P alestinians to be h ap p y a b o u t the transfer, b u t argues th a t if th e so lu tio n is im posed by Israel a n d the A rab n atio n s as p a rt of a final peace treaty, th e m o ra l agony involved w o u ld greatly dim inish. Z e ’evi is very resentful o f th e analogies th a t are m ade betw een him an d K ahane. H e argues th a t, u nlike K a h a n e ’s b ru ta l so lu tio n , w hich has no preced ent in th e h isto ry o f Z io n ism , his reco m m en d atio n s are legitim ate refo rm u latio n s o f tra n sfe r ideas discussed by m any respected Z io n ists since the em ergence o f th e m ovem ent. T he p la tfo rm o f M o led e t is full of q u o ta ­ tions from th e fou n d ers o f Israel, as well as from p ro m in e n t Israeli p o liti­ cians like the fo rm er generals Itzh ak R abin an d M o rd ech ai G ur, statin g the need to have an Israel free o f A ra b s.17 Z e ’evi’s stro n g est p o in t is his rep eated reference to the tra n sfer th a t actually to o k place in 1948. H e quo tes m any expressions o f satisfactio n and joy m ade by Israel’s m o st d istinguished leaders reg ard in g the blessing of the A rab flight d u rin g an d after th e 1948 W ar o f Independence. T here is a tre m e n d o u s hypocrisy, Z e ’evi argues, in th e ferocious accusations o f racism an d K ahanism leveled ag ain st him by m any leftist m em bers o f k ib b u tzim w hose hom es are b u ilt on fo rm er A rab soil, Kahane talks about eviction, we speak about a transfer. An eviction is neither practical nor political. And it is cruel too. The transfer must be the first item in any negotiation with the Arabs, be it a direct negotiation or an interna­ tional conference. We have to create here a negative magnet that would encourage the Arabs to leave. Moshe Dayan was wrong, in 1967, when he opened the bridges [across the Jordan River]. Had we created a barrier between the local Arabs who had been working in the Arab countries, and their families, they would have taken their families out. There was no need to establish seven universities or to help them develop agriculture. The entire government policy ought to be changed, to establish settlements, to move to the West Bank hundred of thousands of Jews, and to create a situation in which both the Arabs and the Jews will understand that there is no alterna­ tive but a separation of powers.18

C ritics o f M o led e t argue th a t since n o A rab leader w o u ld ever agree to a tran sfer, its “ g o o d ” in ten tio n s w o u ld lead, in p ractice, to a u n ilateral evic­ tio n o f th e A rabs. A gainst such criticism s, w hich focus on the p ractical ab su rd ities involved in th eir p lan , Z e ’evi an d S prinzak p o in t o u t th a t Z io n ­ ism w as never fully realistic in its dem an d s, b u t m any o f its “ u n realistic” p lans w ere ultim ately realized. W ars an d u nexpected developm ents have

The Radical Right in Parliament

17 5

played an im p o rta n t role in th e b u ild in g o f m o d ern Israel, an d m ay in the future. F u rther, they arg u e, th e re are things sh o rt o f forced eviction th a t th e g o v ern m ent o f Israel can d o to m ak e th e tra n sfe r a realistic o p tio n : sto p em ploying A rabs in Israel’s econom y, th erefo re forcing Palestinian w o rk e rs to seek jobs in A rab c o u n trie s, as they did b efo re 1 967; d isco u rag e th e d ev elopm ent o f in d u stry in th e W est B ank, as K ing H ussein o f J o rd a n did w hen he c o n tro lle d th e a re a ; close all W est B ank universities an d colleges, instead sending th e y o u n g intelligentsia to th e A rab w o rld for e d u catio n . The en tire Israeli policy o n th e occu p ied te rrito rie s h as been, acco rd in g to the M o led e t analysis, d isastro u s. Israel sh o u ld long since have sp o n so red th e tran sfer so lu tio n . N evertheless, it is n o t to o late to change Israeli policy on the W est B ank, a n d in any even t Israel really has no a lte rn a tiv e .19 A lthough th e tra n sfe r so lu tio n has been m ostly asso ciated w ith Z e ’evi, o th ­ ers o u tside th e K ah an e cam p have com e to fav o r it since 1986. Soon after Z e’evi’s first sta te m e n t, M ichael D ekel, a L ikud K nesset m em b er an d Israel’s deputy m in ister o f defense, m ade a sim ilar d eclaratio n . D ekel, a c o n fid an t o f Itzhak Sham ir, did n o t get th e e n d o rse m e n t o f his lead er o r o f th e L ikud, an d the p arty line c o n tin u e d to s u p p o rt C am p D avid. N evertheless his sta te m e n t lent the idea g re a t respectability. D espite th e fu ro r a m o n g th e left a b o u t th e g ro w in g “ K a h a n ism ” o f th e Likud, D ekel did n o t re tra c t his w o rd s. Instead he sta te d th a t he really m e a n t rep a tria tio n , a n d n o t tran sfer, as a so lu tio n for b o th A rab an d Jew ish refu ­ gees. A nsw ering his skeptical critics, he asked, W hy sh o u ld n o t th e Iraqi ruling party, a m in o rity Sunni g ro u p in c o n tro l o f a large Shi’ite p o p u la tio n , be in terested in several h u n d re d th o u sa n d W est B ank Sunnis? C o u ld n o t w e use the g re a t Iran ian S hi’ite th re a t to Iraq to solve b o th o u r a n d th eir problem s satisfactorily? O r, w hy s h o u ld n ’t J o rd a n , after reach in g a peace agreem ent w ith Israel, be in terested in stre n g th e n in g its p o sitio n in th e A rab w orld by hav in g m o re citizens?20 Voices w ith in th e L ikud m ad e it clear th a t D ekel’s so lu tio n did n o t fall o n d eaf ears. T h e idea gain ed accep tab ility a t th e general co n v en tio n o f th e Tehiya party, held in K iryat A rb a in 1986. D iscussing th e new p la tfo rm o f th e party, N e’em an suggested th a t any peace w ith th e A rabs w o u ld req u ire, am o n g o th er th ings, th e resettlem en t o f all P alestin ian refugees, living in cam p s in the W est B ank a n d G aza, in th e A rab w o rld .21 To be sure, the Tehiya h ad alw ays co n sid ered A rab e m ig ra tio n from th e W est B ank an d G aza highly desirable. B ut in its earlier p la tfo rm s it h a d co n sta n tly ad v o cated th e “ th ree altern ativ e s” p lan o f G ush E m unim , w hich offered th e o p tio n o f em ig ra tio n as only one o f th re e possibilities. This o rie n ta tio n ch an g ed b efore th e elections o f 1988. In discussing the d em o g rap h ic p ro b le m , th e Tehiya did n o t conceal its o p in io n th a t the p ro b ­ lem of m o st P alestinian A rabs co u ld be solved by tran sfer, ju st as the p ro b ­ lem of m illions o f G reeks an d T urks w as resolved in 1923, o r the p ro b le m o f

176

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

over m illion F rench (and Jew ish) citizens o f A lgeria in 1962. A 1988 Tehiya q u estio n -an d -an sw er p a m p h le t rem inded th e read er th a t in Israel’s w ar of independence, 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 A rabs left the te rrito ry of Israel, an d a sim ilar n u m ­ ber o f Jew s im m ig rated from th e A rab countries. “ In d eed ,” it continued, th ere is n o th in g w r o n g in p rin c ip le in an a g re ed -u p o n p o p u la tio n ex c h a n g e [tra n sfer], as w a s c o n d u c te d b e tw e e n T urkey and G reece, in 1 9 2 3 . . . . In s u m m a tio n , w e are in fa v o r o f a d em a n d to settle th e 6 5 0 ,0 0 0 refugees o u ts id e o f o u r b o rd ers. Such a d e m a n d , w h ich in v o lv e s th e re so lu tio n o f a h u m a n ita r ia n p r o b le m th a t th e w o r ld o u g h t to re co g n iz e, su its ev en the m o ra l a n d im p o s s ib le n o r m s th a t th e Israeli left an d “ y e f e i b a n e f e s h ” [“ the b e a u tifu l s o u ls ” — Isra el’s in te lle c tu a ls] are tryin g to force u p o n u s.22

T h u s, th e difference betw een th e m anifest tra n sfer o f M o led e t an d the “ la te n t” tra n sfe r o f th e Tehiya is th a t th e form er recom m ends the rem oval of all the A rabs o f th e o ccupied territo rie s w hile th e Tehiya only speaks a b o u t the refugees. T z o m e t, w hile sim ilarly avoiding th e tra n sfer concept, also sees the political expediency o f th e rem oval o f the A rab p o p u la tio n o f th e refugee cam ps from th e occupied territo rie s. Its 198 7 K iryat Shm one C o n v en tio n passed a reso lu tio n su p p o rtin g “ an exchange o f p o p u la tio n as a w ay to term in ate violent c o n fro n ta tio n s an d hostile o p e ra tio n s.” 23 Its p latfo rm leaves no d o u b t th a t “ as a p a rt o f every peace agreem ent, the residents o f the refugee cam ps inside E retz Y israel will be reh ab ilitated in th e A ra b cou n tries an d the rem ain in g Jew s in th e A rab countries will im m igrate to Israel.”24

The Ideological World of the Tehiya and Its Satellites O n e o f th e typical features o f th e Tehiya an d its political offspring is th a t w hile they all p ro je ct a very ideological im age, they are devoid o f any original th in k in g . N e ith e r th e Tehiya n o r T z o m e t n o r M o led e t has w ith in its ran k s an innovative political th in k e r w h o has w ritten an y th in g of signifi­ cance on Israeli Z io n ism in its p o s t-1967 co n fig u ratio n . T he Tehiya espe­ cially rem ains w h a t its fo u n d in g p a re n t, th e L and o f Israel M ovem ent, alw ays w as: a co alitio n o f old Z io n ist schools. Eliezer L ivneh’s original theory, w hich has been disp ro v ed by the developm ents o f th e 1970s an d 1980s, is rarely m en tio n ed , an d its leaders, w hen in need o f a fu n d am en tal ideology, d ra w u p o n th e p a st, u p o n the pre-1 9 4 8 Z io n ist th in k in g .25 T h e sam e is tru e o f T z o m e t an d M oled et. T h o u g h R aful is an a n ti­ intellectual w h o says he does n o t need “ an ideology,” the m essage o f his p arty clearly spells o u t the tra d itio n a l p resu p p o sitio n s o f the L ab o r Settle­ m en t M o v e m e n t.26 Eretz Y israel can be redeem ed only by h a rd w o rk an d d o w n -to -e a rth pioneers, people w h o are ready to fight an d die for every piece o f a cu ltiv ated Jew ish land. M o led et, th e “ tra n sfe r” party, is very conscious o f its need fo r a legitim izing set of ideas an d sym bols— so m uch so

The Radical Right in Parliament

177

th a t its h eads a re a t p ain s to p ro v e th a t th e ir “ e x tre m is t” so lu tio n d raw s u pon the h isto rical lu m in aries o f th e L a b o r m o v em en t, Berl K atznelson, Itzhak T a b en k in , a n d D av id B en -G u rio n .27 A co n crete rem in d e r o f th e ideological ro o ts o f th e T eh iy a’s v ario u s schools m ay be fo u n d in th e p a r ty ’s c h a m b e r in th e K nesset.28 T h e w alls bear th e p o rtra its o f Itz h ak T ab en k in , th e id eo lo g ist o f H a k ib u tz H am eu chad, w h o believed in th e re d e m p tio n o f Eretz Israel th ro u g h collective ag ricu ltural settlem en t; o f A b ra h a m Stern (Yair) th e fo u n d er o f Lehi, w h o w an ted to achieve th e sam e goal th ro u g h force a n d m ilitary co n q u e st; o f R abbi A vrham Y itzh ak H a c o h e n K ook, th e revered fo u n d e r o f M erk az H arav ; a n d o f V lad im ir Jab o tin sk y , w h o has never agreed to give u p th e E ast Bank o f th e J o rd a n . N o n e o f th e p re se n t leaders o f th e Tehiya cares th a t som e o f these h isto rical figures w ere b itte r enem ies; they are in fact p ro u d o f the m ax im alist alliance they have forged a m o n g th e o ld w a rrin g ideologues. N onetheless, th e p a rlia m e n ta ry radical rig h tists have th eo retic al arg u m en ts aplenty a n d can express them selves in w ritin g . Several w rite profusely. D r. Israel E ldad a n d G eula C o h en have long been w ritin g co lu m n s fo r som e o f Israel’s m o st resp ected n ew sp ap ers. T h e T eh iy a’s E lyakim H a ’etzni has a t least o n e long essay in every issue o f N e k u d a . Secular rad icals like M o sh e Ben-Yosef also w rite fo r n a tio n a l n ew sp ap ers a n d regularly p u b lish in N ek u d a . Yuval N e ’em an a n d Yair S prinzak are w elco m ed c o m m e n ta to rs in m any jo u rn a ls a n d n ew sp a p e rs, a n d Z vi S hiloah, th e fo rm er e d ito r o f Z o t H a ’a retz, is also n o te d for co p io u s w riting. T h u s, th o u g h th e secular rad ical rig h t h as no o rig in al philo so p h y , it definitely h as an ideological fra m e w o rk , a d istin ct cast o f m ind, a n d a sym bolic system , all o f w hich differ significantly fro m b o th th e K o o k ist w orld o f G ush E m unim a n d th e religious th in k in g o f R ab b i K ahane. N e e d ­ less to say, th e G ush E m unim activists w h o form an essential p a rt o f th e Tehiya p a rty d o n o t sh are th is id e a tio n a l w o rld , b u t they have n o p ro b le m living w ith it o n a d ay -to -d a y basis. W h a t th e p a rlia m e n ta ry radical rig h t consists of, th e re fo re , is a special b lend o f secu lar u ltra n a tio n a lism th a t is m ark ed by several key them es.

An Unselective Idealization of the Yishuv Experience All the sp o k esp erso n s o f th e p a rlia m e n ta ry rad ical rig h t d ra w th e ir in sp ira ­ tion from “ th e o ld E retz Y israel,” a n d co n fer a g re a t em o tio n al value u p o n the p re-state struggle o f th e Z io n is t pioneers. T h e a tta c h m e n t is a lm o st com pletely unselective. It b etray s a stro n g in clin atio n to create a m y th , th e m yth o f th e y ish u v ’s gold en age. T h e b itte r a n d b lo o d y conflicts betw een th e o p p o sin g Z io n is t schools o f th e yishuv are ig n o red ; th e p erio d is seen as b etter th a n th e in fe rio r p re se n t in all w ays. T h e th in k e rs o f th e p re se n t rad ical rig h t p ro p o u n d a highly critical con-

178

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

ception o f Z io n is t regression . T h e crisis of C am p D avid w as only the steepest slide in a m uch b ro a d e r process of n atio n al d eg en eratio n , a co n tin u ­ ous failure to live u p to th e ex p ectatio n s o f the classic pio n eerin g Z ionism . M o d ern Israel faces, they feel, a to ta l collapse: in security an d foreign policy, in the econom y a n d society, in p ublic m orality, an d in n atio n alist-Z io n ist co m m itm en t. T h e re is one source for all these m aladies: “ a loss o f faith in the course o f th e renaissan ce . . . a n d its conversion in to a very n arro w trian g le w hich sta rts an d ends up w ith ‘I-H ere-N o w .’ ” 29 T h e p u rp o se of the “ process of re n a issa n c e ” w as, an d is, a full collective revival of the Jew ish n a tio n in all its an cien t lan d an d a com plete re tu rn to the n a tio n ’s spiritual ro o ts. T he p u rp o se o f th e Tehiya is to stop the d eg en eratio n an d s ta rt anew : W e h a v e c o m e to d a y to esta b lish a n e w m o v e m e n t— a ren a issa n ce m o v e ­ m e n t. . . . It is n ece ssa ry to start a n e w an d to re co n n e ct to th e p ro ce ss o f r e d e m p tio n . . . . In th e c o u r se o f th e return to Z io n , w h ich sta rted in th e last g e n e r a tio n s , s o lid fo u n d a tio n s h a v e b een laid for th e re d e m p tio n o f Israel: th e in g a th e r in g o f th e e x ile d , b u ild in g th e la n d an d its settlem e n t, th e e x p u l­ sio n o f th e fo r eig n ru lers, th e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e sta te an d its so lid ifica tio n , freein g E retz Y isra el territo ries fo c u se d o n th e reu n ited J eru salem , and the e m e r g e n c e o f a s o lid J ew ish so c ie ty w h ic h w o r k s an d lives o n its o w n la n d .” 30

T h e T ehiya’s first m an ifesto co n tain s a m asterful co m prom ise am o n g the v arious Z io n ist tra d itio n s o f its founders. M o d e rn (secular) Z io n ism is n o t m en tio n ed , w hile th e m o d ern “Jew ish ren aissan ce” is, in keeping w ith G ush E m u n im ’s ideas. A nd w hile th e em phasis on the ex p u lsio n o f th e foreign rulers pays h o m ag e to th e fo rm er m em bers of the Irgun an d Lehi, the m en tio ns o f settlem en t an d c o n stru c tio n refer to th e L ab o r tra d itio n . The Tehiya M an ifesto th u s is n o t a G ush E m unim d o cu m en t. It takes in to consid­ e ratio n som e o f th e K o o k ist sym bolic sensitivities w ith o u t giving up its secular u ltra n a tio n a lis t c o n ten t. A co m p arativ e ex a m in a tio n o f the 1979 Tehiya m anifesto an d the 1967 p ro c la m a tio n o f its p a re n t o rg a n iz a tio n , the L and of Israel M o v em en t, is very revealing. T he LIM echoed w h a t seem ed to be the peak o f Z io n ism , the 1967 victory o f the Six-D ay W ar. If it h ad any d o u b ts a b o u t the general ev o lu tion o f Z io n ism , they hard ly show ed. T h e LIM consequently h ad the leisure to be an ideological single-issue m ov em en t struggling ag ain st a w eak cam p o f Israeli m o d erates w ho th o u g h t th a t territo rie s could be tra d e d for peace. T h e Tehiya, w hich shares all the LIM d ream s, is in c o n tra st very b itter and critical. H av in g gone th ro u g h the hostile R abin ad m in istratio n o f the m id -1 9 7 0 s an d th e Begin 1978 “ b e tra y a l,” it feels th a t the entire Z io n ist v en tu re is at risk an d th a t d esp erate action is needed to save it. T he Tehiya, th erefo re, is n o t a single-issue m ovem ent b u t a political p arty w ith a co m p re­ hensive vision. T he g ra n d m yth o f p ioneerin g Z io n ism is ad o p ted as a creed an d the challenge is p resen ted n o t to one specific policy of the presen t regim e

The Radical Right in Parliament

179

b u t to th e th in k in g o f th e en tire Israeli esta b lish m en t. T h e leaders o f th e Tehiya d o n o t leave a single d o u b t th a t th e ir new m o v em en t will “ strive . . . for the lead ersh ip o f th e c o u n try .” 31 T hey im ply th a t all the o th e r p o litical descendants o f th e Z io n is t tra d itio n have d eserted it an d th a t they are th e only ones w h o can save th e n a tio n . T z o m e t a n d M o led e t, especially th e latter, are n o t as b ro a d as th e Tehiya in th e ir p la tfo rm s b u t seem to deliver the sam e m essage.32

The State of Israel and the Question of Democracy The w ritings o f th e m ain ideologues a n d sp o k esp erso n s o f th e secu lar rad ical right d o n o t reveal any system atic th in k in g a b o u t th e role o f th e state in public life o r any co nscious a tte m p t to w o rk o u t a co n cep t o f a state th a t differs from tra d itio n a l c o n cep tio n s held by L abor, R evisionist, o r G eneral Z ionism . T his is s o m e w h a t su rp risin g , given th e intense p re o c c u p a tio n o f G ush E m unim a n d K ach w ith q u estio n s such as th e n a tu re o f th e desired H alak h a state. It w o u ld seem th a t th e secu lar ideologues o f th e rad ical rig h t in ten tio nally avoid th e issue fo r tw o m ain reasons: (a) they d o n o t hav e a distinct c o n cep tio n o f a sta te th a t differs fro m tra d itio n a l p re -1 9 6 7 Z io n ist ideas; (b) to a d m it this fact w o u ld create a m a jo r ideological conflict w ith their religious colleagues. T h u s it a p p e a rs th a t desp ite th e affinity betw een the religious a n d th e secular rad ical rig h t in Israel an d th e ir inten se p olitical c o o p e ra tio n , th e ir fun d am ental ideologies are w o rld s a p a rt, an d are in fact irreco n cilab le. Even G eula C o h en a n d D r. Israel E ldad, th e m o st n eoreligious ideologues o f th e secular rad ical rig h t, a d m it priv ately th a t they are u n w illin g to co m m it them selves to a n y th in g close to a H a la k h a state. T h e ir desired Jew ish state w ould u n d o u b te d ly be “ m o re ” Jew ish th a n th e p resen t S tate o f Israel, re­ spectful o f tra d itio n a n d n a tio n al-relig io u s sym bols. B ut it w o u ld in no w ay be a th eo cracy o r a sta te c o n stitu te d on th e law s o f th e T o rah .33 T he secular rad ical rig h t’s general co n cep tio n o f th e “ s ta te ” is revealed in its sta te m e n ts a b o u t Israeli dem ocracy. T h e secularists are extrem ely touchy a b o u t th e charges o fte n leveled ag ain st them o f being eith er n o n d em o cratic o r a th re a t to Israeli dem ocracy. T h e p u b lic struggle ag ain st R abbi K ah an e, w h ich began a fte r his 1984 election to th e K nesset, an d to o k the sh ape o f “ a defense o f d e m o c ra c y ” ed u catio n al cam p aig n in th e schools and in th e arm y, greatly a la rm e d th e leaders o f this c a m p .34 T hey w ere rig h t to conclude th a t a lth o u g h K ah an e w as view ed as th e m ain th re a t to Israel’s civic o rd er, they to o w ere re g a rd e d w ith g re a t suspicion. T h e m em ories o f the illicit W est B ank settlem en ts o f th e 1970s, th e 1982 struggle in Y am it, the 1984 discovery o f th e Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d , a n d som e o f th e 1985 s ta te ­ m ents o f th e Yesha C ouncil reg ard in g th e p o te n tia l illegality o f th e Peres a d m in istra tio n h a d p laced th e en tire radical rig h t in a very a w k w a rd p o si­ tion vis-à-vis th e n a tio n ’s d e m o c ra tic in stitu tio n s an d tra d itio n . As eith er

180

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

ideological defenders o f these acts o r active p a rtic ip a n ts in m any o f them , they w ere p o rtra y e d by rivals as th e key facilitato rs o f the g ro w in g su p p o rt for K ahane. T his p ressu re h as p ro m p te d th e leaders o f th e radical rig h t to m ake its relatio n to dem o cracy very clear. E arlier am b ig u o u s co m m itm en ts w ere replaced by an explicit sta te m e n t on dem o cracy in the T ehiya’s Id en tity C a rd , th e p a rty p la tfo rm fo r th e 1988 elections: T h e sta te o f Israel is a d e m o c r a tic sta te . T h e d e m o c ra tic g o v e r n m e n t in the sta te o f Israel is an in se p a r a b le p a rt o f th e J e w ish -Z io n ist ch aracter o f the sta te b u t is s u b o r d in a te d to its e x iste n tia l in terests as a b esieg ed co u n try w h ic h h a s b een liv in g in a sta te o f e m erg e n c y for forty years. Ig n o rin g th is c o m p le x u n iq u e n e ss o f th e sta te o f Israel d a m a g es b o th the d e m o c r a tic v a lu e s o f th e n a tio n a n d its vita l n a tio n a l-e x iste n tia l in terests.35

T h e Tehiya leaders, an d th e ir colleagues from M o led et an d T zom et, m ean w h a t they say. T hey th in k o f them selves as d em o crats an d th eir w rit­ ings rarely b etray a desire for any o th e r kin d of state. But the dem ocracy they have in m in d is “ a Z io n ist d em o cracy ,” m eaning th a t th e “ Z io n is t” co m m itm en t to Eretz Y israel is fu n d am en tal. T he State o f Israel has no form al c o n stitu tio n , b u t acco rd in g to these people it clearly has an inform al one, w hich prescribes th a t th e integrity of Eretz Yisrael is su p erio r to the o rd in a ry rule o f m ajority. N o p a rlia m e n ta ry m ajority, n o r any erro n eo u s in te rp re ta tio n o f this m ajo rity by th e go v ern m en t o f the day, m ay be used to act a g a in st this im plicit c o n stitu tio n of the lan d an d of th e people. N o co n cep t o f a b s tra c t civil rights could ever be su p erio r to the collective rig h t o f the n a tio n to its lan d a n d to its security. Z io n ist dem ocracy sh o u ld d e­ fend, acco rd in g to th e spok esp erso n s o f this cam p , n o t only d em ocracy b u t also Z io n ism . A nd if th e tw o collide, Z io n ism takes precedence. R eferring to the m uch-discussed issue of th e need for an Israeli co n stitu ­ tio n a n d th e role o f Israel’s S uprem e C o u rt o f Justice (B a g a tz ) in the public life o f th e n a tio n , D r. Israel E ldad elab o rates: If it is true th a t a c o n s titu tio n is in tr o d u c ed as a safegu ard a g a in st d a n g ers, I am read y to join th e ca m p w h ic h d e m a n d s a c o n stitu tio n for Israel; b u t o n o n e c o n d it io n , th a t w e agree o n th e m e a n in g o f Israel an d th e d a n g ers to its e x is te n c e . F or if th ere is a d a n g e r to Israel th en it is first and fo r e m o st th e d a n g e r o f th e e lim in a tio n o f Z io n is t a n d Jew ish n o rm a tiv ity o f th e sta te , th e d a n g e r o f th e d isin te g r a tio n o f its ca llin g , th e sen se o f its ex iste n c e , th e d a n g e r o f its d is s o lu tio n in to in d iv id u a ls an d rights w h ich are m a d e sacred a c c o r d in g to an a lien reality. . . . A n d if th e Z io n is t in terest— th e J u d a iza tio n o f th e L a n d — a n d th e rig h t o f th e c itiz en as an in d iv id u a l are to c o llid e , w e h a v e to m a k e su re th a t Z io n is m p r ev a ils in th e n a m e o f th e Z io n is t d e m o c ­ racy. . . . Israel h as a c o u r t o f a p p ea l . . . b u t a b o v e th is co u rt, clearly, o p e n ly a n d a ssu red ly th ere is a n o th e r c o u r t— a Z io n is t co u rt o f a p p e a l.” 36

C learly, th o u g h th e secular u ltra n a tio n a list leaders are n o t as d u b io u s a b o u t dem o cracy as th e ir religious colleagues from G ush E m unim an d n o t

The Radical Right in Parliament

181

as hostile to it as R ab b i K ah an e w as, they are nevertheless n o t g re a t s u p p o rt­ ers of m o d ern p lu ra list dem ocracy. T h e n o rm a tiv e w o rld o f d em o cracy in the era o f civil a n d h u m a n rig h ts is alien to these p eo p le a n d has, in th e ir opinion, n o relevance w h a tso e v e r to th e Israeli experience. If it can be proved th a t th e A rab s o f E retz Y israel c o n stitu te a m o rta l d a n g er to th e Z io n ist dem ocracy, th e ir exclu sio n fro m th e system does n o t in any w ay im pair its d e m o c ra tic c h aracter. It is im p o rta n t to stress, how ever, th a t unlike G ush E m u n im , th e id e a tio n a l an d sym bolic w o rld o f m o st o f these people is d em o cratic. In th e final analysis, th e secu lar u ltra n a tio n a lis t cam p in Israel is n o t re v o lu tio n a ry a n d does n o t basically q u estio n th e p rev ailin g concept o f th e sta te on th e n a tio n ’s system o f g o v ern m en t. But the secular rad ical rig h t feels th a t th e b alan ce betw een d em o cracy and Z io n ism , w hich has lo n g shifted in th e d ire ctio n o f th e form er, is in urgent need o f c o rre c tio n . T his is p ro b a b ly w hy th e th ree far-rig h t p artie s speak so m uch a b o u t e d u c a tio n a n d Z io n is t socializatio n . In th e ir view, it is the y oung Israelis, th e g e n e ra tio n o f th e fu tu re, w h o m u st place the n a tio n back on th e rig h t tra c k . A lth o u g h e d u c a tio n h as long been a ch erish ed th em e of the Tehiya, th e re is n o d o u b t th a t T z o m e t has stolen its th u n d e r. R afael Eitan, w h o as chief o f staff d ev o ted g re a t energy a n d resources to th e e d u c a ­ tion of u n d erp riv ileg ed soldiers, h as p laced th e refo rm o f th e n a tio n ’s e d u c a ­ tional system a b o v e se c u r ity a n d se ttle m e n t. O n ly T z o m e t g iv e s e d u c a t i o n th e n o . 1 p riority. . . . in T z o m e t e d u c a tio n h as a b ro a d m e a n in g : 1. E d u c a tio n m e a n s th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f p o te n tia litie s — th e str e n g th e n in g o f th e n a tio n a l c a p a c ity to d o th in g s. 2 . E d u c a tio n m e a n s th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f v a lu e s— th e re in v ig o r a tio n o f th e b e lie f in th e tru th o f Z io n is m . 3 . E d u c a tio n

m eans

th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f c o n s c io u s n e s s — in c rea sin g th e

a w a r e n e ss o f th e in d iv id u a l fo r h is righ ts an d d u tie s in th e co u n try , an d h is se n se o f r e sp o n s ib ility a n d id e n tific a tio n w ith it. W ith o u t an e ffic ie n t, p r o g r e ssiv e , a n d d y n a m ic e d u c a tio n a l sy ste m , th e n a tio n w ill n o t h a v e th e p h y s i c a l a n d s p i r i t u a l a b ility to face th e ch a lle n g e s o f th e fu tu re. W ith o u t a n e d u c a tio n w e sh a ll h a v e n o security, n o e c o n o m ic p r o g r e ss, a n d n o s o c ia l w e lf a r e .37

T he Tehiya a n d M o le d e t are m o re e m p h a tic o n th e need fo r a n a tio n a list tra n sfo rm a tio n o f th e en tire e d u c a tio n a l system . M o le d e t speaks o f “ a to ta l sw itchover o f th e school cu rricu la: th e T orah o f Israel, the h isto ry o f Israel, and th e stu d y o f th e h o m e la n d w ill be in tro d u c e d as first p rio rity , in o rd e r to block th e sp iritu a l e ro sio n , th e assim ilatio n , a n d th e se lf-d e g ra d a tio n .” 38 The Tehiya stresses th e “ special e f f o r t . . . to stren g th en th e s ta te — religious ed u cation w hich o p e ra te s in a n a tio n a list-Z io n ist s p irit.” It fu rth e r vow s to prefer, in “ th e financial allo catio n s w hich go fo r c u ltu re an d a rt, . . . th o se in stitu tio n s a n d p ro je cts w h ich c o n trib u te to th e espousal o f n a tio n a l, social, Z io n ist, a n d Jew ish v a lu e s.” 39

182

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

T he leaders o f th e secular radical rig h t are th o ro u g h ly conscious o f the in terd ep en d en ce o f th e political a n d econom ic system s o f Israel. As ch am p i­ ons o f a cause th a t could easily alienate Israel from th e rest o f the w orld, including th e U nited States, they are aw are o f the need for the Z io n ist republic to be as stro n g a n d p ro d u ctiv e as possible. T h u s in 1984 the Tehiya con clu d ed th a t th e econom y w as in such bad shape th a t the co u n try needed “ an em ergency econom ic reg im e,” w hich w o u ld severely lim it the free m ar­ ket an d op en la b o r barg ain in g : T h e se r io u s c o n d itio n o f th e e c o n o m y an d o u r g r o w in g d ep en d e n c e o n for­ eign aid m a k e it n ece ssa ry to in tr o d u c e an em erg en cy e c o n o m ic regim e for a p e r io d o f o n e to tw o y ea rs th ro u g h K n esset le g isla tio n , and th e in tro d u c tio n o f a w e lfa r e p o lic y th a t w o u ld c lo s e th e so cia l gap . T h ese m easu res w ill be fo u n d e d o n th ree p rin cip les: th e str u g g le for e c o n o m ic in d ep en d en ce, w h ich is a c o n d itio n fo r p o litic a l in d e p e n d e n c e ; a ju st d istrib u tio n o f th e e c o n o m ic b u rd en a m o n g all th e p u b lic strata; a c o u r a g e o u s lea d ersh ip th a t w ill tell the p e o p le th e tr u th .40

T h e p la tfo rm p ro p o se d a to ta l freeze on prices, salaries, an d taxes. It called fo r a large red u ctio n in g o v ern m en t expenses, m a n d a to ry a rb itra tio n o f la b o r relatio n s in th e essential p ublic services, an d stro n g incentives for e x p o rtin g industries. It im plied a te m p o ra ry th o u g h u n stated lim itatio n of m any established d em o cratic freedom s. W hile the Tehiya d ro p p e d the them e of th e “ em ergency econom ic reg im e” in 1988, T zo m et w as still using it. T he 1988 Tehiya p la tfo rm reco m m en d ed an tistrik e legislation an d m an d ato ry a rb itra tio n for the n a tio n ’s essential services. It called for a d rastic cu t in the n a tio n ’s b u reau cra cy a n d an incessant w a r ag ain st the black m ark eteerin g .41 T he u ltra n a tio n a lis t stan d on th e D iasp o ra is co n sisten t w ith its em phasis on a genuine “ Z io n is t” d em ocracy in w hich youngsters are b ro u g h t up largely in o rd e r to stren g th en an d s u p p o rt it. In th e last tw o decades, m any Israeli p arties have m o d e ra te d th eir criticism of D iasp o ra Jew s w h o do n o t im m i­ grate to Israel, b u t the Tehiya, T zo m et, and M o led e t em phatically reiterate the classical Z io n ist p rinciple o f th e “ n egatio n of the D ia sp o ra .” T h e 1984 p la tfo rm o f th e Tehiya, still u n ited w ith T zo m et, stated: T h e o n ly w a y to p rese rv e th e J ew ish n a tio n an d to secure its cu ltu re an d sp iritu a l r e p r o d u c tio n , is th e c o n c e n tr a tio n o f th e en tire n a tio n in Eretz Israel, to w h ic h th e b e g in n in g o f its re d em p tio n is c lo se ly tied . T h e m o v e ­ m e n t sees in a l i y a [im m ig r a tio n ] a n a tio n a l and p erso n a l d u ty and righ t o f ev ery Jew . . . ,42

T h ere is no qu estio n th a t th e p a rlia m e n ta ry radical rig h t is orien ted to w a rd a stro n g an d centralized state, an d views the state of Israel an d its in stitu tio n s as th e m o st im p o rta n t expressions of th e n atio n . It clearly m ea­ sures individual Israelis a n d g roups by th eir c o n trib u tio n to the state an d the n a tio n , a n d n o t vice versa. B ut th e c o n c ep tu a l an d c o n stitu tio n a l fram ew o rk

The Radical Right in Parliament

183

w ithin w hich this o rie n ta tio n is perceived an d ex p ressed is d em o cratic, d ra w ­ ing directly from th e tra d itio n a l Israeli experience. A lth o u g h th e leaders a n d thinkers o f th e p a rlia m e n ta ry rad ical rig h t are critical o f specific policies o f the regim e they d o n o t envision a system o f g o v ern m en t th a t is d ifferen t from the p re se n t one, a n d d o n o t h o ld th e ex istin g regim e as illegitim ate, even partially. T h e ir an sw e r to critics w h o ask h a rd q u estio n s a b o u t th e A rabs is th a t they d o n o t c a te r to a b s tra c t d em o cratic p rin cip les a n d th a t they are “ Z io n is t d e m o c ra ts ” in th e old fash io n o f th e fo u n d in g fath ers o f the yish u v.

National-Military Struggle as a Virtue The secular leaders o f th e rad ical rig h t see g re a t v irtu e in th e m ilitary s tru g ­ gles o f th e n a tio n . U nlike m o st m o d e ra te Israelis, w h o h o p e fo r peace w ith the A rabs a n d seek w ays to a tta in it, th e Tehiya an d its o ffsp rin g are su sp i­ cious o f all av ailab le “ peace so lu tio n s ,” an d co n sta n tly glorify th e m ilitary struggles o f th e n a tio n , p a st, p resen t, a n d fu tu re. T he g ra n d process o f Z io n is t “ re n a issa n c e ” is n o t yet co m p lete, so to rem ain stro n g a n d keep E retz Y israel in its entirety, th e Israelis m u st be ready to w o rk h a rd a n d fight even h a rd e r. T h e re is, they believe, n o th in g exceptional in this a ttitu d e . N a tio n s fight for th e ir freedom a n d th eir te rrito ­ rial integrity long a fte r they have achieved in d ep en d en ce. P atrio tic citizens o ught to k n o w th a t th e struggle is v irtu o u s. As N e ’em an w rites, 1 d o n o t b e lie v e th a t P in sk er a n d H erz l [the fo u n d e rs o f m o d ern Z io n ism ] w o u ld h a v e g iv e n u p th eir id e a s . . . h a d th ey th o u g h t th a t th e Jew ish sta te w o u ld n e e d a v io le n t str u g g le o n its w a y to in d e p e n d e n c e an d th a t it w o u ld c o n s ta n tly h a v e to figh t fo r su r v iv a l. . . . H a d th ey n o t k n o w n h isto ry ? P o liti­ cal Z io n is m h a d b een e s p e c ia lly in flu e n c e d by th e E u ro p ea n n a tio n a lis t m o v e ­ m e n ts. C a n y o u s h o w m e a n a tio n a lis t m o v e m e n t th a t d id n o t g o th ro u g h a v io le n t stru g g le? O r a E u r o p e a n n a tio n -s ta te th a t d id n o t h a v e to figh t for its in d e p e n d e n c e ? . . .

It is str a n g e to th in k th a t so m e b o d y in th e n in eteen th

ce n tu r y c o u ld h a v e th o u g h t th a t w e h a d rea ch ed th e en d o f d a y s. It is true th a t in A l t n e u l a n d [H e r z l’s n o v e l a b o u t th e fu tu re Jew ish state] th e J ew ish sta te d o e s n o t h a v e an arm y, b u t H erz l t o o w a s a b le to d istin g u ish b e tw e e n a n o v e l a n d a reality. . . . A n d b y th e w a y : in th e liberal a n d s o c ia lis t w o r ld th ey all a d m ire V ie tn a m . T h is V ie tn a m th a t fo u g h t th e J a p a n ese tw o years, th en ten y ea rs to g e t its in d e p e n d e n c e [from th e F rench] an d th en fo u g h t th e A m e r ic a n s fo r tw e n ty y e a r s, o n ly to m a k e su re th a t th e en tire la n d rem a in ed u n d iv id e d . A n d w h a t a b o u t th e Irish w h o c o m m it su ic id e for th e in teg rity o f Ireland? A n d th is after a h u n d red y ea r s o f a w a r o f lib e ra tio n ? 43

W h a t is in tere stin g in N e ’e m a n ’s arg u m e n t is n o t th e p ro p o sitio n a b o u t the need fo r a c o n tin u o u s struggle so m uch as th e foreign illu stratio n s by w hich th e a rg u m e n t is su p p o rte d . U nlike his religious p a rtn e rs, w h o believe in the sing u larity o f th e Jew ish people, o r his secu lar colleagues w h o repeat-

184

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

edly base th eir a rg u m en ts o n th e uniqueness of the Jew ish h istorical experi­ ence, N e ’em an is p ro n e to use exam ples o f in te rn a tio n a l history, th u s aim ing to “ n o rm a liz e ” th e Z io n ist case. A ccording to his a p p ro a c h , the ideas o f the Israeli radical rig h t are n o t irra tio n a l ideas th a t can be justified only by the Bible; they are n o rm a l stan d s th a t follow m any precedents in w o rld history. T he p u rp o se o f Z io n ism is, as it h a d been in the p ast, to norm alize the people o f Israel a n d m ake it a n a tio n like all o th ers. A nd because the n atio n is n o rm al now , it o u g h t to follow o th e r g allan t n a tio n a list m ovem ents and fight for its o w n fulfillm ent w ith no guilt feelings. Political d e te rm in a tio n a n d m ilitary struggle are n o t, according to N e ’em an , sources o f tro u b le an d n a tio n a l w eakness an d no one can show th a t peace p resu p p o ses a u to m a tic prosperity. Israel’s g reatest recent event w as n o t th e peace w ith E gypt b u t the Six-D ay W ar. A nd it w as as significant in tern ally as it w as im p o rta n t externally. T h ere w e r e p e o p le w h o th o u g h t th a t “ p e a c e ” w o u ld attra ct a liy a . N o n se n se ! O n th e co n tra ry , th e v ic to r y in th e S ix -D a y W ar b ro u g h t th e g rea test a liy a a w a k e n in g a n d p r o v id e d us w ith tw o h u n d red th o u sa n d Jew s from th e S oviet U n io n . A p u b lic iz e d , d e te r m in e d r e so lu tio n to settle Judea an d Sam aria w o u ld o n ly a ttra ct J e w s.44

Loyal to th eir belief in the v irtu e o f m ilitary struggle, th e Tehiya leaders su p p o rte d th e 1982 invasion o f L ebanon. Even th o u g h it to o k place only tw o m o n th s after th eir forced ev acu atio n from Yam it, they w ere ready to join th e B egin-S haron a d m in istra tio n in this endeavor, to help elim inate the PLO an d renew th e n a tio n ’s m o rale an d vitality. T he w id esp read o p p o sitio n to the w a r w as inco m p reh en sib le to G eula C ohen: I c a n n o t a c c e p t th is D ia s p o r ic v ie w w h ich w e find to d a y in all th e o p p o n e n ts [o f th e w a r ]. T h e y are “ d y in g ” to d ie in p o g r o m s on ly. T h ey w o u ld n o t lift a fin ger u n til th e e n em y c o m e s w ith a k n ife. . . . T h e D ia sp o r ic p e o p le , ev en in o u r te rm s, are n o t a llo w e d to d o w h a t th e en tire w o r ld is a l l o w e d .. . . A n d th e fear o f th e G en tiles: w h a t w o u ld th ey say? W h a t w a s Z io n ism v is-à -v is th e D ia s p o r a m e n ta lity ? It m e a n t th a t o n e w a s ta k in g o n e ’s d estin y in o n e ’s h a n d s .45

It m ay be erro n e o u s to suggest th a t G eula C ohen refuses to leave behind her g lo rious Lehi days a n d her fights in the ran k s of the u n d erg ro u n d . B ut the them e o f an u n en d in g struggle, n atio n al as well as p erso n al, does ap p ear in alm o st every sta te m e n t she m akes o r interview she g rants. C ohen, w h o has an endless energy for th e cause o f Eretz Y israel, believes th a t th e n a tio n ­ alist rev o lu tio n the Lehi sta rte d alm o st fifty years ago is n o t yet over, an d th a t the old fight ag ain st th e B ritish is still going o n, in a slightly different guise. A favorite C o h en im age is her self-p o rtrait as a young girl in k h ak i: “ I feel as if I have k haki u n d er m y dress. I am still a t w ar. Since the tim e I joined the u n d e rg ro u n d at sixteen, I have n o t yet retu rn ed h o m e .”46

The Radical Right in Parliament

185

A Cynical View of a Cynical World W hile m o st o f th e religious sp o k esp erso n s o f th e rad ical rig h t view th e outside w o rld fro m th e o rth o d o x p o sitio n o f “ a p eo p le th a t dw ells a lo n e ,” m any o f its secular th in k e rs have a d ifferen t perspective. Being usually b e tte r educated a n d m o re ex p erien ced th a n th e ir religious c o u n te rp a rts, they k n o w th a t th ere have been c h a p te rs in m o d e rn Z io n ist h isto ry o th e r th a n th e British W h ite Paper, th e H o lo c a u st, a n d th e an ti-Israel reso lu tio n s o f th e U.N. G eneral A ssem bly. T h e ir a ttitu d e vis-à-vis th e co m m u n ity o f n a tio n s is consequently m o re in fo rm ed a n d so p h istic a te d th a n th a t o f G ush E m unim o r K ach. T he w o rld , acc o rd in g to th e secular rad ical rig h t, is n o t as m uch an tiSemitic as it is cynical a n d full o f respect for force a n d p ow er. W eak n a tio n s can ex p ect n o allies o r friends. T h u s Israel’s only h o p e fo r in d ep en d en ce an d respect lies in its po litical d e te rm in a tio n a n d m ilitary m ight. T he m ain e x p o n e n t o f this a p p ro a c h is Yuval N e ’em an , w h o has sp en t m any years a b ro a d . It is a g rave m istak e, a cco rd in g to N e ’em an , to rely too heavily o n th e A m ericans o r to tru s t th eir g u aran tees. T h e U nited States, p rim arily co n cern ed w ith its o w n in terests, has b etray ed such allies as the Shah o f Iran a n d th e T aiw anese. T h e A m ericans are p u sh in g fo r peace in th e M id d le E a st— a process th a t involves im m ense Israeli conces­ sions— n o t because they w ish to help Israel b u t because they w a n t to help them selves. T hey have been losing g ro u n d in th e area a n d w a n t to co n so li­ date th eir p o sitio n th ro u g h Israel. A nd any g u aran tees they give are based on the pro m ises o f th e w o rst o f Israel’s enem ies. N e ’em an th in k s it u tterly naive to accep t these g u a ra n te e s, especially since th e g u a ra n to rs are th e m ­ selves u n stab le: S e n a to r M o y n ih a n h a s a sse sse d th e tim e left, b e fo r e S au d i A ra b ia g o e s th r o u g h th e sa m e p r o c e s s as Iran o r L ybia d id , as tw o years. S h o u l d w e s a c r if ic e th e s t a t e o f I s r a e l f o r t w o y e a r s o f S a u d i o il? . . . W e sh a ll d esert

E retz Y isra e l, w e sh a ll g iv e up S a m a ria a n d w e sh a ll rely o n th e sin c ere d esire o f th e P a le stin ia n s, th e S y ria n s a n d th e Iraqis for p ea ce . T h e y w ill w ith sta n d te m p ta tio n a n d n o t ta k e a d v a n ta g e o f th e o p p o r tu n ity to e lim in a te us th r o u g h a su rp rise a tta c k .47

In 1980, N e ’em an believed th a t th e W est w as losing g ro u n d very fast. Iran w as lo st to K hom eini, A fg h an istan h a d been inv ad ed by th e Soviets, a n d Saudi A rab ia w as o n th e b rin k o f collapse. T h e M id d le E ast w as u n d erg o in g a sw eeping w ave o f a n ti-A m e rican ism , a n d Israel, in o rd e r to survive, h a d to be m a in ta in e d as a “ fortified Isla n d .” 48 This belief becam e stro n g e r w hen P resid en t S ad at w as assassin ated in 1981. N e ’em an saw th e M id d le E ast as an area o f w ars, genocides, co u p s d ’état, a n d instability. O n e th e re fo re h a d to act n o t acco rd in g to w ishful th in k in g , b u t o n th e basis o f a w o rst-case analysis. Israel, said N e ’em an , h ad

186

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

to jum p o ff th e tra in o f C am p D avid before it w as to o late, before the A rabs an d th e A m ericans m ad e new dem ands: W e h a v e read o f th o s e w h o w e r e o n th e train to A u sc h w itz and c o u ld jum p o f f — b u t d id n o t, b e c a u se th ey fe lt it w a s n o t h o n o r a b le . T h is is e x a c tly th e c o n d u c t o f th e ru lin g e sta b lis h m e n t o f Israel— b o th th e g o v er n m en t and the m a in o p p o s it io n — in th eir a tta c h m e n t to C a m p D a v id . For th e A m erican p r e sid e n t [R e a g a n ], C a m p D a v id is a m a tter o f th e d em o c ra tic p ast. . . . T h e E u r o p e a n s a n d th e A ra b s o th e r th a n E g y p t h a v e n ever a ccep ted C a m p D a ­ v id . P re sid en t M u b a r a k lo o k s fo r a w a y to g o b ack to th e b o so m o f th e A rab N a t io n , b u t is rea d y to p la y C a m p D a v id u n til A p ril 1 9 8 2 . . . . O n ly in Israel th ey b e lie v e th a t n o th in g h as c h a n g e d .49

This cynical a n d p o w e r-o rie n te d a p p ro a c h to in te rn a tio n a l relatio n s led the Tehiya leaders in 1981 to develop a special ra tio n a le for the need to b reak Israel’s peace tre a ty w ith E gypt an d the U nited States. W hile the im m ed iate objective w as to end th e re tre a t in Sinai, the logic of th e arg u m en t rested o n a cynical view o f the w ay n atio n s keep in te rn a tio n a l com m itm ents. N a tio n s respect th e ir in te rn a tio n a l treaties only as long as these are in th eir im m ed iate interests. O nce th e in tere st is gone, th e co m m itm en t disappears. T he U nited States h a d , fo r exam ple, b ro k en SALT II un ilaterally because it fo u n d it in its best in tere st to do so. O nly th en h a d it tried to prove the case by sh o w ing b ad faith o n b eh alf o f the R ussians. It h ad also b ro k en its co m m itm en t to T aiw an n o t to establish relatio n s w ith Beijing. In a cynical w o rld , th e a rg u m e n t im plies, you act acco rd in g to y o u r vital interests, n o t acco rd in g to y o u r high-school course in civics. T he Tehiya leaders believe th a t E gypt h a d violated the C am p D avid A ccords enough to justify Israeli w ith d ra w a l from th e m .50 F urth er, w hen the w o rld learns o f Israel’s resolve to keep its lan d , it w ill stan d up an d ap p lau d . A fter it is d o n e w ith its y e llin g , d e n u n c ia tio n s, an d c o n d e m n a tio n s, th e free w o r ld w ill sa lu te an Israel w h ic h w ill be a lo t stronger. T h e w o r ld b o w s to fo r ce, a n d Israel s h o u ld c o n s e q u e n tly n o t be w o r ried w ith a n y o n e .51

A ccording to th e secular radical right, the w o rld co n stan tly applies a d o u b le sta n d a rd . T he w eak are expected to behave differently th a n the stro n g a n d be m o re m oral. T ake th e ou tcry ag ain st the Israeli a p p ro a c h to terro rism an d terro rists. C ritics con d em n Israel for m istreatin g A rab te rro r­ ists a n d blo ck in g m edia coverage o f the in tifa d a . But, they say, there isn ’t m uch co n d e m n a tio n o f o th e r n atio n s in th e sam e situ atio n . T he F alklands W ar, in w hich G re a t B ritain fo u g h t A rgentina, is a fav o r­ ite to p ic o f th e radical right. T he w a r w on th e s u p p o rt of all the free w o rld , th o u g h it w as co n d u cted in a m o st b ru ta l way. T he m edia w ere b arred , an d British soldiers w ere in stru cted to sh o o t to kill an d ta k e no prisoners. F inding o u t from th e B ritish press a b o u t these latter in stru ctio n s, Eliyahu A m ikam , a v eteran co lu m n ist o f th e radical rig h t, w rote:

The Radical Right in Parliament

187

A n d n o w w e ca n a n s w e r th e d istu r b in g q u e stio n : w h a t w o u ld th e w o r ld say if J ew s w o u ld k ill p r iso n e r s o f w a r in Israel? It w o u ld p r o b a b ly say: W h a t ca n y o u e x p e c t o f th e k illers o f G o d ? H a v e n ’t th ey a lso m u rd ered C h ristia n s fo r th e u se o f th eir b lo o d in th eir r e lig io u s rites? T h e y th e m se lv e s a d m it th a t G u sh E m u n im k ills ch ild r e n fo r th e sa m e p u r p o se . . . . A n d w h a t w o u ld th e w o r ld sa y if J ew s w o u ld n o t k ill p r iso n e rs o f w ar? I t w o u l d s a y e x a c t l y th e s a m e t h i n g s .51

T he cynical w o rld , w e are to ld , is ag ain st th e Jew s because they have alw ays been w e a k a n d still seen w eak . It w ill only respect th em if they becom e stro n g a n d behave as th e m ighty do. T h e Six-D ay W ar p ro v ed , according to this p o sitio n , th a t Israel w as a p o w erfu l n atio n . N o d ev elo p ­ m ent since th e w a r h a d justified any chang e in th a t b eh av io r o r p o stu re. W hen the U nited States decides to give Israel m assive m ilitary, eco n o m ic, and p olitical su p p o rt, it does it n o t because o f excessive h u m an ism a n d pity for the just. “ O n ly th e fo o ls ,” w rites Y oash T z id o n , T z o m e t’s secondran k in g K nesset m em ber, b e lie v e th a t an A m e r ic a n su p p o r t, o r o th er , is g iv en o u t o f h u m a n ism an d p h ila n th r o p y . W h e n th e U n ited S ta te s th o u g h t th a t Israel w a s a b u rd en [b e­ fo re 1 9 5 6 ] , it w a s c a u tio u s n o t t o h u rt its o th e r in terests. W h en th e J ew s m a n a g e d to h elp th e m se lv e s , w ith th e a ssista n c e o f F ran ce, at th a t tim e in w a r w ith A ra b n a tio n a lis m (a s u p p o r t a lso b a sed so le ly o n c o m m o n in ter­ e sts), w h e n th e y d e fe a te d th e n e w S o v ie t w e a p o n s in th e S in ai ca m p a ig n an d p r o v e d th eir su rv iv a l p o w e r , th in g s c h a n g e d . . . . O n ly w h e n th e U n ited S ta tes d is c o v e r e d th a t Israel c o u ld b e o f h elp , o n ly th en d id it o p e n its p u rse fo r th e Isra elis.

T zid o n , an air-fo rce reserve colonel, w as assu red by his A m erican m ili­ tary c o n tacts th a t th e U nited S tates w o u ld co n tin u e to s u p p o rt Israel as long as it rem ain ed stro n g a n d u sefu l.53

The

Permanent Hostility of the Arabs

W hile th e a rg u m e n ts o n th e A rab s voiced by th e secu lar rad ical rig h tists resem ble th o se o f th e ir religious allies, th e ir political analysis is deeper. M o st of the ideologues o f th e Tehiya, M o le d e t, an d T z o m e t sp eak , to be sure, o f the Bible as th e m ain te x t o f Eretz Y israel, b u t they a p p ro a c h it m o re from a historical p erspective th a n a th eo lo g ical o r religious one: Eretz Y israel b e­ longs to th e Jew ish peo p le n o t because G o d p ro m ised it to A b rah am 4 0 0 0 years ago, b u t because th e n a tio n w as sh ap ed by this p ro m ise an d has rem ained loyal to it all th ro u g h history. T he real c o n trib u tio n o f th e secular th in k ers o f th e rad ical rig h t to its ideology lies in th e ir very pessim istic analysis o f m o d ern A rab-Jew ish rela­ tions. M u ch o f th e ir to u g h s ta n d o n th e P alestin ian q u estio n derives from

188

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

th eir so m b er u n d e rsta n d in g o f the dynam ics o f A rab natio n alism . T h e A rabs in an d o u t o f E retz Y israel are o ne an d the sam e, an d they are o u t to get the Jew s. “ T he m o n ste r,” says N e ’em an, h a s m a n y d iffe r e n t h e a d s, ea c h p u llin g in its o w n d ir ectio n . K h o m ein ist m ass fa n a tic ism , a su b v e r siv e m ilita ry a c tio n o f th e G adaffi ty p e, th e trad ition al ev il o f th e S y ria n s, th e Iraqi n u c le a r e ffo rt, or th e terrorism o f th e PLO . W h e n Israel is c o n c e r n e d , all o f th em w ill a ct in u n iso n .54

T h e Eretz Y israel A ra b s— “ P alestin ian s” is a p h o n y u n h isto rical term invented in o rd e r to d estro y th e State o f Israel— have alw ays been hostile to the Jew ish claim to Eretz Y israel. T hey w ere violent an d te rro ristic long before there w as a single A rab refugee o r one acre o f occupied territory. T here is n o in d icatio n th a t th e esta b lish m en t o f th e State o f Israel, the SixD ay W ar, o r an y th in g else has ch anged th eir m ind. T hey m ay say they are interested only in having te rrito rie s occupied in 1967, b u t they still have the sam e p u rp o se in m in d , th e d e stru c tio n o f the State of Israel. T h e A r a b s sta r ted th e v io le n c e . W e w e re o n th e d efe n siv e. W e sin cerely b elie v e d th a t w e s h o u ld c o n q u e r la n d by K eren K ayem et [the Jew ish N a ­ tio n a l F und] a n d a cq u ir e it b y la b o r, w ith n o b lo o d sh e d w h a t s o e v e r .. . . T h e A rab v io le n c e , te rro r ism , a n d w a r s are th e A rab resp o n se even to th e n o n ­ o c c u p y in g , p a c ifist, h u m a n ita r ia n , k ib b u tz-sa n e Z io n ism . T h o se w h o see K ed u m im a n d O fra [G u sh E m u n im settlem en ts] as o c c u p ie d areas sh o u ld n o t b e su rp rised to h a v e E in H o d [an a r tists’ v illa g e near H a ifa — an A rab site b e fo r e 1 9 4 8 a n d n o w a ce n ter o f m o d e r a te Israelis] a lso seen as an o c c u p ie d a re a — th e m o r e s o b e c a u se th o s e e v icted from Ein H o d are liv in g an d are s u ffe r in g .55

T h e o u tb re a k o f th e in tifa d a in 1987 an d the g row ing d an g er o f the esta b lish m en t o f a P alestinian state alarm ed th e radical right. Its rejection o f the re p a rtitio n o f Eretz Y israel assum ed an u n p reced en ted sense of urgency. L ik u d ’s call fo r P alestinian a u to n o m y in th e W est B ank, based on the C am p D avid A ccords, as a safeg u ard ag ain st a P alestinian state, has becom e the m ain ta rg e t o f th e radical right. T h e ir to ta l suspicion o f the A rabs has best been expressed in th e press by Israel Eldad: Is it very h ard to u n d e r sta n d w h a t a u to n o m y w o u ld be? . . . T h e flags o f th e P a lestia n v ic to r y w o u ld be flo w n sk y h ig h , in “ o u r ” areas, N a z a r e t an d U m E1 F a h a m , to o . A n a c tin g g o v e r n m e n t w o u ld be e sta b lish e d . T h e P alestin ian a n th e m s w o u ld b e su n g to o . A n d w h a t w o u ld y o u d o a b o u t th e ed u c a tio n th ere . . . w h e n th ey w ill te a ch th e P a lestin ian “ C h a rte r” as a c o n stitu tio n ? 56

T h e Tehiya a n d its political offsp rin g u tterly m istru st the long-range in ten tio n s o f th e A rabs. T h e ir policy consequ en tly starts w ith the p resu p p o si­ tio n th a t n o P alestinian n a tio n exists. T he w hole A rab p ro b lem is a case o f individual residents w hose legal situ a tio n will have to be clarified once the occupied te rrito rie s are a n n ex ed to Israel. T h e 1988 Tehiya p latfo rm gener­ ously prom ises th a t the g o v ern m en t o f Israel “ will n o t force Israeli citizen-

The Radical Right in Parliament

189

ship u p o n th e A rabs o f Ju d e a , S am aria, a n d G a z a ,” a n d says th a t they will be en titled to th e sta tu s o f “ resid en t a lie n s,” w hich g ra n ts them all th e civil rights o f Israelis sh o rt o f th e rig h t to vote an d be elected to the K nesset. C itizenship w ill be g ra n te d individually a n d o n th e basis o f certain ra tio n a l criteria like d e m o g ra p h y a n d th e p re se rv a tio n o f th e Jew ish n a tu re o f soci­ ety. Israel w o u ld , how ever, “ en co u rag e an d help e m ig ra tio n ” a n d insist upo n the rese ttle m e n t o f all th e resid en ts o f th e refugee cam ps in th e A rab w o rld .57 T he Tehiya a n d T z o m e t co n sid e r Israeli A rab s to be p a rt o f th e A rab problem . Israeli A rab s w o u ld be able to keep th eir citizenship only if they serve th re e years o f “ n a tio n a l service” — sim ilar to th e Jew ish co m p u lso ry three-year m ilitary service. T hey w o u ld be en titled to n a tio n a l in su ran ce benefits only if they fulfilled all th e ir civic o b lig atio n s an d d e m o n stra te d their loyalty to th e state. T h o se A rabs, how ever, w h o c o lla b o ra te d in u n d e r­ m ining th e security o f th e sta te w o u ld lose th e ir citizenship a n d possibly be d ep o rted .58 In 1988 th e p la tfo rm s o f all th e p artie s o f the rad ical rig h t reacted to th e in tifada a n d p ro p o se d w ays o f cru sh in g it. T he m o st sim plistic a p p ro a c h to th e p ro b le m is R afael E ita n ’s. R aful, w ho has alw ays believed th a t m ilitary force can solve p olitical p ro b lem s is certain th a t th e u p risin g can be b ro u g h t d o w n in a m a tte r o f days. Life in the A rab cities a n d villages w h o se y o u th are p a rtic ip a tin g in th e u p risin g o u g h t to be m ade u n b e a ra b le . R o a d b lo c k s, curfew s, an d d e p o rta tio n s o f all in d i­ viduals involved w o u ld so u p set th e daily ro u tin e o f the A rab s th a t th e uprising w o u ld end in a few d a y s.59 T he T eh iy a’s p ro g ra m is b ro a d e r a n d m o re so p h isticated . T h e strateg ists of the party, u n lik e R aful, are fully aw are o f th e p o litical n a tu re o f th e uprising a n d its b ro a d g ra ss-ro o ts su p p o rt. T hey k n o w it w o u ld ta k e a com prehensive ca m p a ig n to b rin g it d o w n , a n d they are h o n est a b o u t its d raco n ian n a tu re . T h e in tifa d a , acco rd in g to th e Tehiya, is n o th in g less th a n “ the c o n tin u a tio n o f th e A rab w ars aim ed a t th e d e stru c tio n o f Isra e l.” It should, consequently, be fo u g h t by th e h a rsh e st m easures. N o t only sh o u ld all the ro c k -th ro w e rs be tre a te d like te rro rists a n d be eith er sh o t p o in tb la n k , d ep o rted , o r h av e th e ir h ouses b lo w n u p , b u t th e ir en tire s u p p o rt system o u g h t to be b a n n e d . T h e T ehiya’s p la n fo r cru sh in g th e in tifa d a speaks o f te m p o ra rily o r p erm an en tly sh u ttin g d o w n “ asso ciatio n s, in stitu tio n s, o rg a n iz a tio n s, n ew s­ p ap ers, p ro p a g a n d a cen ters, universities, a n d schools w hich serve as foci o f in citation a n d s a b o ta g e .” M o sq u es th a t serve as san ctu aries o r tra in in g centers for sa b o te u rs w o u ld be subject to th e in sp ectio n o f the arm y o r the police. Since th e in tifa d a enjoys th e s u p p o rt o f a t least 90 p ercen t o f all the o rganized in stitu tio n s o f th e W est B ank a n d G aza, th e real m ean in g o f this plan is n o th in g less th a n th e im p o sitio n o f u n lim ited m artial law on th e W est Bank a n d th e su sp en sio n o f all legal p ro ced u res th a t have governed the area

190

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

for years. Israel’s Suprem e C o u rt o f Justice, w hich has p revented som e d e p o rta tio n s, w o u ld no longer have th a t a u th o rity ; the entire legal system of the occupied te rrito rie s w o u ld instead be m an ag ed by the arm y.60 C ru sh in g the in tifa d a is n o t, how ever, the T ehiya’s com plete so lution of the p ro b lem o f th e W est B ank an d G aza. T he real an sw er should be “ a Z io n ist a n sw e r.” Each vio len t anti-Israel o p e ra tio n sh o u ld to be m et by establishing a new settlem ent. T h e A ra b s o f J u d ea , S am aria a n d G a za , h a v e to u n d ersta n d th a t the in tif a d a sh o u ld o n ly b rin g u p o n th em d a m a g e an d lo sses. T h eir c o n d itio n s w o u ld d e te r io r a te , th eir rig h ts b e re d u ced , a n d th eir in stitu tio n s sh u t d o w n . T h e J ew ish s e ttle m e n ts in Y esh a, o n th e o th er h a n d , w o u ld flourish and the n u m b e r o f J ew s all o v er Eretz Y israel w o u ld be in c rea se d .61

The Treason of the Israeli Intellectuals Every radical rig h t in any co u n try is intensely hostile to w a rd the left, espe­ cially its intellectuals: w rite rs, poets, acto rs, an d o th er artists. T he secular radical rig h t in Israel, no exception to th a t rule, is extrem ely obsessed by the “ tra h iso n des clercs.” T h a t anim osity reached a peak d u rin g the 1988 Pales­ tin ian uprising. W hile the sp okespersons of the right saw the in tifa d a as a th re a t to th e entire Israeli v en tu re in the occupied territo ries, the Israeli intelligentsia w as vocally critical o f the b ru ta l m ethods used in its su p p res­ sion. T he rig htists fo u n d the intellectuals’ p ro tests extrem ely dam aging. T he case o f D r. M u b a ra k A w ad— a P alestinian w h o opened a “ n o n v io len ce” research in stitu te in Jerusalem and w as d ep o rted by the g o v ern m en t for his concealed rebelliousness— becam e a test case; the rig h t decried the m oral s u p p o rt ren d ered to A w ad by num ero u s Israeli intellectuals: T h e re is m o r e th a n cy n ic ism in th e fu n d a m en ta l p o sitio n . . .

o f all th e

“ in te lle c tu a ls ” — o u rs a n d th e w o r ld ’s— w h o d efen d A w ad in th e n a m e o f fr eed o m o f th e sp irit a n d o f “ re se a r c h ” (the stu d y o f n o n -v io le n c e !). H e is n o t v io le n t, d o e s n o t ev e n p rea ch k illin g . H e “o n ly ” calls for re b e llio u sn e ss, a p ­ p la u d s th e rio ts, “ o n ly ” d e m a n d s th e e v ic tio n o f th e con q u ero r. . . . It is im p o s s ib le . . . [b oth ] to su p p o r t n o n v io le n c e and to b rag a b o u t th e su cce ss o f th e r e b e llio n . T h e very call fo r reb e llio u sn e ss an d th e reco g n itio n o f th e PL O a n d its p r o p o s itio n s are alread y v io le n c e per s e .62

T h e in tifa d a created a serious m oral crisis in Israel an d p ro m p te d an u n p reced en ted w ave o f p ro te sts, d e m o n stratio n s, an d sym posia— even an in tern a tio n al conference on the psychological effects o f the uprising. All the p a rtic ip a n ts expressed u n d e rsta n d in g and em p ath y w ith the A rab p o p u la ­ tion. T he A rab sch olars am o n g them , w ho rep o rted on the psychological tra n sfo rm a tio n u n d erg o n e by th e rebellious y o u th , received intense m edia a tte n tio n . A b o u t th a t tim e, tw o M o lo to v cocktails w ere th ro w n a t Tel-Aviv’s

The Radical Right in Parliament

191

m ost cro w d ed sh o p p in g m all, th e D izengoff C enter, trig g erin g a ferocious article from E ldad: T h e D iz e n g o f f C e n te r is n o t just an u rb an cen ter, b u t a p s y c h o lo g ic a l cen ter as w e ll. W h a t h a s d e v e lo p e d th ere for y e a r s , . . .

in its c o ffe e sh o p s an d

th e a te r s, is a cy n ic a l n o w -n e s s , a n e g a tio n o f all th e v a lu e s o f Z io n is m a n d , n e e d le ss to say, o f J u d a i s m .. . . N o , it is n o t th e A rab M o lo t o v c o c k ta ils th r o w n th ere la st w e e k th a t th re a ten o u r e x is te n c e . T h e sp ir itu a l M o lo to v c o c k ta ils w h ich are th r o w n fr o m th is n o w -c e n te r are th e d a n g er, th e d ecay, th e e m p tin e s s — th ese are th e su b jects w o r th y o f th e p s y c h ia tr is ts ’ o b s e r v a tio n .63

R esp o n d in g to th e sam e incident, G eula C o h en sp o k e o f the AIDS plag u e of the Israeli intelligentsia: If th ere is to d a y a m o r a l crisis a t th e very fo u n d a tio n s o f th e n a tio n a l h o m e , it is b e c a u se th e sp ir it o f n o t a fe w o f o u r cr ea tiv e in te llig e n tsia . . . b een in fe c te d b y a v iru s o f a m o d e r n in c u r a b le d isea se: th e A ID S d is e a s e .. . . T h e b o d y o f a n a tio n a ls o h a s a n a tu ra l im m u n iz a tio n sy stem o f its o w n , w h ic h , if in fe c te d a n d d e str o y e d , le a v e s th e b o d y d e fe n se le ss a g a in st every c o m m o n d ise a se . . . . W h e n a h u m a n b e in g , flesh a n d b lo o d , b e c o m e s sick w ith th is d ise a se — h e k n o w s h e is sic k , a n d g o e s to th e h o sp ita l. B ut th o se w h o s e sp irit is in fe c te d w ith th is d is e a s e d o n o t k n o w th a t th ey are sick an d p ro u d ly w a lk th e str eets w h ile sa y in g , “ W e are h e a lth y ! W e are h e a lth y !” G o d s h o u ld really p ity th e m , b u t let H im a ls o p ity u s— b eca u se o f th eir d a m a g e .64

A fter several 1989 an ti-leftist sab o ta g e acts c o m m itted by a secret u n d e r­ g ro u n d called th e S ikarik in , M . Ben-Yosef (H ag ar), a leading M o led e t ideologist, co n clu d ed th a t th e in tellectual left h a d been co m p lain in g a b o u t the rig h t-w in g ex trem ists w h o reso rted to violence ag ain st it, b u t w as itself, in fact, “ th e fa th e r o f violence in social controversy, w hich includes physical violence. W h a te v e r th e rig h t does in this sp h ere c a n n o t be b u t an im itatio n of the o th e r sid e .” 65

Leadership and Political Style D espite th e T ehiya’s o rig in al h o p e o f beco m in g a cohesive m o v em en t o f revival m ade u p o f m any sp irited c h a v u ro t, it has m ostly rem ain ed a p o liti­ cal p a rty o f a few active leaders a n d m any passive follow ers. It is in cap ab le of re w a rd in g a large n u m b e r o f su p p o rte rs w ith m aterial benefits an d u n ab le to co m pete w ith th e o rg a n iz a tio n a l com peten ce o f the N a tio n a l R eligious Party, th o u g h it has tried to a ttra c t religious su p p o rt. E ither because o f th e expense involved in b u ild in g a so p h isticated political m ach in e, o r because o f its p rin cipled rejectio n o f in stru m e n ta l politics, th e Tehiya has rem ain ed a skeleton p a rty w ith very little o rg a n iz a tio n . T h e sam e is tru e o f T z o m e t an d

192

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

M o led et, b o th o f w hich co m m u n icate w ith th eir follow ers m ostly th ro u g h n ew sp ap er ads a n d o ccasional new sletters. It th u s seem s th a t th e m ain political asset o f these p arties is n o t their g rass-roots activism b u t th e quality o f th eir leaders. D espite th eir advanced age, the heads o f the Tehiya, a n d T z o m e t (the case o f M o led et is n o t yet clear), p ro je ct th e im age of tru e believers, w hich is ra th e r rare in Israeli politics. T hey are seen as h o n est individuals w h o do w h a t they say an d say w h a t they do, solid people w h o have sacrificed successful careers for the u n stab le political life o f th e ex trem e right. T ogether w ith the exem plary leadership o f G ush E m unim , they appeal to th o se Israelis w h o are scornful of m ost o f the n a tio n ’s u n p rin c ip led politician s an d w h o lo o k for p ersonal exam ple a n d genuine concern. T h e pro m in en ce o f these leaders an d th e w eakness of th eir o rg an izatio n s m ake the politics of the Tehiya, T zo m et, an d M o led e t very m uch a su m m a­ tion of the individual styles o f th eir leaders. T here is no real su b stitu te in these p artie s for G eula C o h en , Yuval N e ’em an , R afael E itan, o r R ehavam Z e ’evi. T hese individuals d o n ’t co n tro l th eir m ovem ents the w ay K ahane d o m in ated K ach, b u t they nevertheless shape th eir p arties alm o st exclu­ sively. W hile th e G ush E m unim c o m p o n e n t o f the Tehiya follow s the G ush style, w hich has already been ex p lo red , the b ack g ro u n d s o f the secular leaders o f the radical rig h t an d th eir individual ap p ro ach es are different. To a g reat ex ten t, they m ake up the story of the entire secular u ltra n a tio n a list cam p in Israel.

Grand Strategy and Scientific Radicalism— Yuval Ne'eman Since launching a new p a rty to o p pose M enach em Begin an d the C am p D avid A ccords, P rofessor Yuval N e ’em an has m ain tain ed his leadership p o sitio n w ithin the Tehiya party. T his u n p olitical professor, w hose analytic language has never app ealed to th e large m asses, has been able to accom plish so m uch as a result o f three uniq u e apolitical factors: his unchallenged scientific statu s, his stro n g c o n tacts inside Israel’s defense estab lish m en t, an d a p erso n al disin­ terestedness in p o w e r politics. O n e o f Israel’s m o st u n co m m o n politicians, N e ’em an has c o n trib u te d a un iq u e style o f “ ratio n a l rad icalism .” Yuval N e ’em an has been certified a genius since ch ild h o o d . Born in 1925 in M a n d a to ry Palestine, he stu d ied a t the prestigious G im n a sia H erzeliya , a Tel Aviv high school th a t h a d been the cradle o f m any m em bers o f the n a tio n ’s elite. G ra d u a tin g at fifteen, young N e ’em an w en t to the Technion and earn ed his engineering degree before th e 1948 W ar o f Independence. A t the sam e tim e he joined the Palm ach an d w as, by the end o f the w ar, a field officer. In 1952 he g ra d u a te d from the prestigious École Supérieure de G u erre an d the École d ’É ta t-M a jo r in France. D u rin g m o st o f th e 1950s N e ’em an served in the Israeli m ilitary intelli-

The Radical Right in Parliament

193

gence, involved in p la n n in g a n d d ra ftin g co n tin g en cy p lan s for th e arm y. M any Israeli strateg ists, in clu d in g D av id B en -G u rio n a n d Yigal A llon, b e­ lieved in th o se days th a t th e b o rd e rs o f th e S tate o f Israel w ere n o t finally fixed in 1948 a n d th a t an A rab aggression m ig h t justify a new Israeli e x p a n ­ sion.66 It w as d u rin g his intelligence days th a t N e ’em an a d o p te d his longrange strateg ic th in k in g , w h ich em p h asized such co n cep ts as “ s h o rt an d defensible b o rd e rs ,” “ strateg ic d e p th ” a n d “ w a rn in g s p a c e .” 67 A fter co n c lu d in g his b rillia n t arm y career as Israel’s m ilitary a tta c h é in L o n d o n , N e ’em an im m ersed him self in n u clear physics, co m p letin g his d o c ­ to ra te a t th e Im p erial C ollege o f Science an d Technology. In th e early 1960s he m ade his g re a te st scientific discovery, p ro v in g th e existence o f th e s u b ­ atom ic o m eg a-m in u s p a rtic le o f th e nucleus, a t a b o u t th e sam e tim e as th e A m erican M u rra y G e ll-M a n n , w h o la te r w o n th e N o b el Prize, for w hich N e’em an w as also seriously consid ered . Yuval N e ’e m a n ’s e x tra o rd in a ry scientific career a n d his excellent defense co n nections w ere in stru m e n ta l in his a p p o in tm e n t as p resid en t o f the U niver­ sity o f Tel-Aviv, w h ich he guid ed th ro u g h a p erio d o f ex p an sio n in the 1970s. D espite his 1979 decision to sacrifice his b rillia n t career for th e radical cause o f E retz Y israel, Yuval N e ’em an has never ren o u n ced his physics. H e has alw ays been h a p p y to leave his colleagues in c o m m a n d a n d either retire to his o w n la b o ra to ry in Israel o r ta k e a research v acatio n a b ro a d .68 W h en ask ed a b o u t th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een his science an d p o li­ tics, N e ’em an said , A n y o n e w h o rea d s m y a rtic les o n p o litic a l su b jects k n o w s th a t m y secu rity c o n s id e r a tio n s are to ta lly r a tio n a l. I am read y to p ro v e th a t th ey are a lm o st m a th e m a tic a l. B u t th e fu n d a m e n ta l a s s u m p tio n an d th e c o m p r e h e n siv e v ie w b e h in d th e se c u r ity c o n s id e r a tio n s is b a sed o n a Z io n is t b elief. A n d Z io n is m is n o t a ra tio n a l th in g .69

O n a n o th e r o ccasio n he p u t it differently: I am a fa th e r a n d a n a tio n a lis t J ew w h o is ready to figh t for h is p e o p le an d w h o sp e n d s a g r e a t d ea l o f e n er g y o n th is. B u t n o t for a sin g le m o m e n t d o I fo r g e t th a t in th e final a n a ly sis w e are n o th in g b u t fleas o n a m e d io c r e p la n e t w h ic h g o e s a r o u n d o n e o f th e ten m illio n su n s th a t e x is t in o n e o f th e ten b illio n g a la x ie s th a t w e k n o w a b o u t in th e u n iv e r se .70

N e ’e m a n ’s scientific p ro m in e n c e has n o t been th e m ain reaso n for his leadership p o sitio n w ith in th e Tehiya, b u t it has certain ly helped. T h e o th e r leaders, w h o usually seem ra th e r m ystical a n d e m o tio n a l, are pleased w ith this cool ra tio n a lis t w h o p ro v id es th e m ath em atical p ro o f th a t they are rig h t.71 An im p o rta n t th o u g h ra th e r u n p u b licized so u rce o f Yuval N e ’e m a n ’s a u th o rity w ith in th e T ehiya is his close co n n ectio n s w ith Israel’s defense estab lish m en t. N e ’em an w as involved in th e p lan n in g an d strateg ic c o n d u c t of th ree o f Israel’s w ars: in 1956 he w as engag ed in w o rk in g o u t th e secret

194

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

alliance of Israel, France, a n d G re a t B ritain th a t p lo tted the d ow nfall of E gypt’s G am al A bd-el N asser; in 1967 he helped p lo t the surprise a tta c k on E gypt;72 an d in th e 1973 Y om -K ippur W ar N e ’em an w as in W ashington as p a rt of th e Israeli team th a t n eg o tiated th e A m erican airlift to Israel an d the first d isengagem ent agreem ents w ith E gypt.73 In 1974 Shim on Peres, then Israel’s m in ister o f defense, asked him to becom e his special defense aide, a p o sitio n he resigned in 1976 follow ing his g reat d isa p p o in tm e n t w ith the R abin c a b in e t.74 H is experience in defense a n d his expertise in nu clear physics have led to N e ’e m a n ’s c o n tin u o u s involvem ent in th e Israeli nu clear effort. H e has been a m em ber o f th e secret Israeli C o m m ittee for N u clear Energy since the early 1960s, an d w as th e M in istry o f D efense’s chief scientist in the late 1960s. R eports indicate th a t he has never given up this affiliation; it is com m o n k now ledge th a t som e o f th e n a tio n ’s m o st confidential secrets have been shared w ith N e ’e m a n .75 C uriously, w h en N e ’em an served as Israel’s m inister o f science a n d en ­ ergy betw een 1982 a n d 1984, his involvem ent in the settlem en t o f Ju d ea and S am aria w as publicized, b u t his cen tral w o rk in the fields of nu clear energy an d space e x p lo ra tio n w as co n cealed .76 A nd w hen Israel sen t its first reco n ­ naissance satellite in to space in N o v em b er 1988, long after N e ’e m a n ’s tim e in office, he w as o ne o f the m o st im p o rta n t guests a t the secret launching site. T he Tehiya 1988 election cam paign literatu re stressed th a t N e ’em an w as one o f the n a tio n ’s best scientists an d im plied th a t he w as also the fath er of Israel’s first v en tu re to space.77 T he prestige o f Yuval N e ’em an as a scientist an d m ilitary strateg ist explains p a rt of his success w ith in th e Tehiya. T he e x p la n a tio n for th e o th e r p a rt is his rare lack o f in terest in political p o w er an d prestige. H e has alm o st never been p arty to p o w e r struggles w ith in the Tehiya. U nlike G eula C o h en , R aful, an d G ush E m unim , N e ’em an has never h a d a “ c a m p ” o f su p p o rters, n o r has he tried to build one. H e has never m ono p o lized p o sitio n s of fam e an d ex p o su re a t th e expense o f his colleagues. W hen asked once a b o u t his rela­ tion to politics, N e ’em an ad m itted , I h a v e n ev er b een in n eed o f c o m p a n y , in n eed o f p e o p le ’s n o ise a ro u n d m e. I liv e w e ll w ith p e o p le b u t 1 h a v e n o c u r io sity a b o u t th em . . . . T h e o c c u p a tio n in m e d ia tio n , in d e b a te , in c o n v in c in g p e o p le , is so u n p lea sa n t th a t I ask m y se lf o n m a n y o c c a s io n s — W h y th e h ell d o y o u n eed th is? 78

N e ’e m a n ’s lack o f interest in th e perso n al rew ard s of politics has served him well. G eula C o h en , for instance, the Tehiya seco n d -in -co m m an d , w an ts co n sta n t m edia a tte n tio n ; she has never felt envious o f N e ’em an n o r has he do n e an y th in g to rem ind the Israeli public th a t he, n o t C ohen, is the head o f the party. N e ’em an has m ad e it very clear th a t he is m o re interested, in principle, in his science th a n in his politics, an d th a t if he could be certain th a t his services

The Radical Right in Parliament

195

w ere n o lo n g er needed by th e d efenders o f E retz Y israel he w o u ld gladly quit. A nd this h as been, p e rh a p s, th e reaso n w h y his colleagues have n o t let him d o so. A ck n o w led g in g th a t he has n o t been th e in sp irin g lead er th e m ovem ent needs, th ey have nevertheless reco g n ized th a t only a p erso n such as he co uld keep th e p a rty to g eth er. N e ’em an has never been a g o o d Tehiya p a rlia m e n ta ry o r e x tra p a rlia m e n ­ tary activist; he w as m o st effective w h en he held executive p o sitio n s. D e te r­ m ined a n d u n reserv ed , as m in ister o f science a n d energy (1 9 8 2 —1984), N e’em an m oved every shekel he co u ld get his h a n d s on to Ju d e a a n d Sa­ m aria, a n d w as p a r t o f th e g re a t settlem en t b re a k th ro u g h in th e occu p ied territo ries. H e w as also o n e o f th e c a b in e t’s m o st c o m m itted m inisters to the w ar in L e b an o n a n d in general th e g a tek eep er ag ain st m o d e ra tio n a n d c o m ­ prom ise. N e ’e m a n ’s u n iq u e secular im agery m ay n o t be rep resen tativ e o f th e m ain b u lk o f th e p a rty ’s s u p p o rte rs o n election day, b u t it has a d d e d a special ra tio n a l flavor to this rad ical party. It is n o t su rp risin g th a t o n e o f the m ost m em o ra b le pieces by this u n c o m m o n p erso n w as w ritte n in B oston: T h e s e lin e s are w r itte n a g a in s t th e s o u n d s o f R o m e o a n d J u lie t o f P rok ofiev, p e r fo r m e d b y th e B o s to n P h ilh a r m o n ic O rch estra . W h a t a risin g rh yth m ! B ut w e r e w e o n ly t o try a n d sto p for a sin g le m o m e n t, th e en tire s y m p h o n y w o u ld h a v e lo s t its m e a n in g . T h e r e is n ’t h ere a sy stem in e q u ilib riu m in th e p h y sic a l c la s s ic se n se ; a m e lo d y is a d isp a r a tiv e sy stem lik e th e h u m a n b ein g . In th e m a n ’s b o d y th e m o le c u le s are n e v er c o n s ta n t a n d th e b o d y rep la ces th e m d o z e n s o f tim e s th r o u g h life. P e o p le ea t, b reath , e x c r e te , an d s w e a t. All th e a g e n ts c h a n g e a n d n e v e r th e le ss th er e is an id e n tica l c o m p le te n e s s — n o t fo rev er, till th e h a r m o n y d e c lin e s. T h e m e c h a n ism s o f w a ste e x c h a n g e w o r k w o r s e a n d w o r se u n til th e e n tire sy ste m s to p s — an d d ies. Z io n is m is a lso su ch a sy ste m . If it s to p s , it w ill g e t lo st. Its very e x is te n c e d e p e n d s o n its b e in g a p r o c e s s . T h e p r o c e ss c h a n g e s its sh a p e; n e w a cto rs en ter; b u t th e id e n tic a l c o m p le te n e s s is th ere a n d liv in g .” 79

Yuval N e ’em an resigned from th e K nesset in th e beg in n in g o f 1 9 9 0 , a year a fte r his reelection. H is seat w as given to E lyakim H aetzn i o f K iryat A rba, a p ro m in e n t p a rty id eologue w h o h a d lo n g been eager to e n te r th e H ouse. N e ’em an said he w as n o t excited a b o u t a n o th e r fo u r years o f ineffec­ tive o p p o sitio n to th e large L ik u d -L a b o r unity co alitio n , a n d co u ld do m uch b etter in his Tel-Aviv U niversity la b o ra to ry . A t th e sam e tim e, he m ad e it clear th a t this w as by n o m ean s a political retirem en t. T h e M a rc h 1990 crisis b etw een th e L ik u d a n d L ab o r, a n d th e co n se­ q u en t fo rm a tio n o f a n a rro w co alitio n by Itz h ak Sham ir, re tu rn e d Yuval N e ’em an to th e g o v ern m en t. In Ju n e he becam e Israel’s m in ister o f science and energy, a n d a lead in g m em b er in o ne o f Israel’s m o st h aw k ish cab in ets ever. It w as very ind icative o f th e ch an g in g w o rld th a t less th a n tw o m o n th s after his re tu rn to p o w er, this rad ical rig h tist w as th e first Israeli m in ister to be officially received in th e K rem lin by M ik h ail G o rb ach ev , th e lead er o f th e Soviet U nion.

196

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

The Confessional Politics of Geula Cohen In 1987 N e ’em an w as faced w ith a critical decision. R afael E itan a n d G eula C ohen, w h o ra n k e d second a n d th ird in th e K nesset delegation, w ere headed on an irreversible collision course, a n d N e ’em an h a d to tak e sides, even th o u g h there w as th e very real chance th a t th e decision w o u ld split the p arty an d the loser w o u ld leave w ith m any follow ers. Politically a n d ideologically he w as m uch closer to E itan a n d his m atter-o f-fact L a b o r Z io n ism .80 B ut as m uch as he cared fo r R aful a n d recognized his b ro a d electoral appeal, N e ’em an su p p o rte d C o h en , an d R aful seceded. N e ’em an recognized th a t if the Tehiya p a rty a n d th e rad ical rig h t could be said to have a single “ so u l” o r “ s p irit,” it w as G eula C o h en . Ever since h er em o tio n al co n fro n tatio n s w ith M en ach em Begin over th e peace w ith Egypt, C ohen h a d been the m ost rep resentative sym bol o f th e rad ical right, an Israeli exem p lary P asio n aria.81 G eula C o h en w as th e cen tral figure am o n g the circle o f people w h o h ad created th e Tehiya a n d by far its m o st talen ted an d effective co m m u n icato r. N e ’em an could n o t ignore th e fact th a t by 1 987 C o h en h ad also becom e the living w a r goddess o f th e rad ical right; th ere co u ld be n o Tehiya w ith o u t her. G eula C ohen has never excelled as a th eo retic ia n o r a cool an aly st o f political situ atio n s. She feels Eretz Y israel, loves it, an d she is absolutely certain the Jew s can keep it in its entirety. In te rn a tio n a l co n strain ts, political difficulties, a n d tactical p ro b lem s ra te very low in h er th in k in g ; she believes th a t vision, stro n g w ill, a n d u n sh a k a b le d eterm in a tio n are eno u g h to achieve all the n a tio n ’s goals. C ohen h a d been o n the “ Eretz Y israel b a rric a d e s” long before h er 1978 c o n fro n ta tio n w ith Begin. She h a d been the m o st co n sisten t L ikud su p p o rte r of G ush E m unim . T hey needed p a rlia m e n ta ry backing, an d unlike m any lu k ew arm L ikud o r N R P su p p o rte rs, C o h en b ack ed th em to the hilt; in g ra titu d e they m ade her a m em ber o f th eir ex ten d ed sec re ta ria t.82 H er co n sisten t K nesset a tta c k s o n th e R ab in a d m in istra tio n — over its 1 9 7 4 —1975 disengagem ent agreem ents w ith E gypt an d Syria a n d th e failure to settle th e o ccupied te rrito rie s— prefigured the political em ergence o f the radical right. C o h e n — w h o declared in 1979, “ the K nesset is a b a ttle fro n t, n o t a th e a te r; in the b a ttle fro n t you fight, n o t dress in y o u r finest c lo th e s .. . . I am n o t going to let the K nesset c o n d u c t festivals w hen I smell b lo o d ” 83— has m ost recently tu rn e d her confessional politics ag ain st the leftist intellectuals an d the m o d erates. H e r K nesset speeches, p u b lic interview s, Y ed io t A c h ro n o t colum ns, an d n u m ero u s lectures have all so u g h t to d e b u n k Israeli leftists an d the su p p o rters o f th e in tifada.*4 G eula C o h en w as b o rn in Tel Aviv in 1926 to a p o o r Sephardic family. H er m o th er cam e from a M o ro c c a n fam ily th a t h a d settled in Palestine tw o g en erations earlier. H er fa th e r w as a Yem enite d ream er w h o believed th a t the Z io n ist re tu rn to Eretz Y israel m ean t red em p tio n an d the com ing o f the M essiah. A t th e age o f five he h a d w alked across h u n d red s o f miles o f desert w ith a g ro u p o f Yem enite Jew s h ead in g for Palestine. M an y perished along

The Radical Right in Parliament

197

the ro a d ; he survived, becam e a sc h o la r a n d stu d e n t o f K ab b a la h , a n d b u ilt a large fam ily.85 W h en he died a t an early age, he left his d a u g h te r G eula w ith a firm belief in th e n a tio n ’s destin y a n d an irreversible c o m m itm e n t to b rin g it a b o u t. G eu la (“ re d e m p tio n ” in H e b re w — “ M y n am e obliges m e to re ­ deem th e peo p le o f Isra e l” )86 joined Lehi, an ex trem ist u n d e rg ro u n d th a t vow ed in 1940 to lib era te E retz Y israel by force. C o h en w o n fam e as th e a n n o u n c e r o f th e Lehi ra d io s ta tio n . H e r la te r a u to b io g ra p h y , T h e S to ry o f a F ighting W o m en , w as w a rm ly received; even such an o ld foe as D avid BenG u rio n ex pressed his a d m ira tio n for h e r.87 In th e early 1950s, G eula C o h en w as close to C h u g Sulam (L adder Circle) o f D r. Israel E ld ad , w h o p reach ed th e ex p an sio n o f th e b o rd e rs o f Eretz Y israel to J o rd a n , Syria, a n d Iraq ; she o ccasio n ally w ro te fo r its Su lam m agazine. A nd w h en th e m em bers o f a sm all ex-Lehi u n d e rg ro u n d , k n o w n in public as th e K ingdom o f Israel U n d e rg ro u n d , w ere c a u g h t in 1953 a n d sent to jail, G eula w o u ld visit th em every w eek .88 C o h en e a rn e d a H e b re w U niversity m a ste r’s degree in Jew ish p h ilo so p h y and th e Bible a n d becam e a M a ’a riv jo u rn a list in th e m id -1 9 6 0 s. She launched a p o p u la r new w eekly section, “ ro u n d ta b le ,” in w hich she w o u ld interview several lead in g Israeli figures each w eek. C o h en never h id e her political ideas, b u t in th e p ra g m a tic 1960s very few p eo p le co n sid ered h er ex trem ist o p in io n s e ith e r relev an t o r m ean in g fu l. M o st o f h er read ers did n o t care a b o u t these view s as lo n g as C o h en w as a g o o d a n d p ro v o cativ e interview er. A b o u t th a t tim e she estab lish ed th e M id ra sh a L eu m it (N atio n al S em inary)— a school for th e stu d y o f th e lessons o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d — a t the h e a d q u a rte rs o f th e H e ru t p a rty in Tel Aviv. T h e Six-D ay W ar re tu rn e d C o h en to history. She w as as th rilled as h er o th er Lehi c o m rad es, a n d h er M a ’a riv ro u n d ta b le s w ere full o f interview s w ith th e new hero es o f Israel, th e v icto rio u s arm y generals; h er p a rtic u la r favorites w ere Ezer W eizm an a n d Ariel S haro n . She herself b ecam e o n e o f the m o st effective p ro p o n e n ts o f th e new te rrito ria l m ax im alism . In 1969 M en a c h e m Begin ask ed her to rep resen t H e ru t in th e K nesset, w here she p ro v ed an e x tra o rd in a ry p a rlia m e n ta ria n . An a rd e n t fem inist, C ohen h as ta k e n a very p rogressive p o sitio n s on issues such as a b o rtio n , equal o p p o rtu n ity , a n d civil liberties, a n d h as becom e th e sp o k esp erso n for the p o o r a n d th e suffering. She h as ac q u ire d a high re p u ta tio n fo r h o n esty and p erso n al integrity, a n d has been in th e fo re fro n t o f m an y struggles again st th e excessive privileges o f th e K nesset m em b ers.89 A key to th e confessio n al politics o f G eu la C o h en is h er refusal to a p p ro a c h politics in a calc u la te d a n d a m o ra l way. In stead she view s p o li­ tics in an A risto telian sense as a v irtu o u s activity. W h en a jo u rn a list ask ed if she m ig h t retire, she re sp o n d e d , “ G o d fo rb id ! I w o u ld die. I th in k th a t I c a n n o t live w ith o u t it. T h e activity fo r E retz Y israel is a vital d ru g for m e .” 90 W h en ta lk in g a b o u t h e r only child, she said, “ I am very h ap p y th a t my son, T z ah i, is a stu d e n t activ ist in th e stu d e n t u n io n . It is m o st im p o r­ ta n t for m e th a t he does n o t sell w ash ers, for ex am p le. F o r m e, p o litical

198

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

activism is th e m o st respectable o c c u p a tio n in the w o rld .” 91 In 1988, Tzachi H an eg b i w as elected to th e K nesset an d becam e L ik u d ’s youngest K nesset m em ber. C o h e n ’s im m ense d ev o tio n to th e cause, h er love o f politics, h er journalistic skills, h er p a rlia m e n ta ry experience, a n d her p e n c h a n t for p ro v o catio n have all p ro d u ced one o f Israel’s cleverest p a rlia m e n ta ria n s. W hile n o t alw ays respectful o f th e rules o f p a rlia m e n ta ry politics, in the nam e o f Eretz Yisrael, G eula C o h en has tu rn e d p a rlia m e n ta ry politics in to an art. She ad m its th a t all her em o tio n al e ru p tio n s in th e K nesset d u rin g the S ad at visit h ad been p lan n ed in a d v an ce.92 She has indeed m ade full use o f th e b o d y ’s form al and inform al rules. H e r K nesset speeches have alw ays been full o f g reat rh eto ric an d d ra m a , an d she has set a reco rd for being called to o rd e r o r being expelled from th e H all. As a d arlin g o f th e Israeli m edia, C ohen has becom e one o f Israel’s best k n o w n politician s an d a highly effective co m m u n icato r on b eh alf o f th e rad ical right. Som e o f th e g reatest successes o f th e radical rig h t, such as the passage of the Jerusalem L aw an d th e G o lan H eights Law, w ere due to G eula C ohen. In 1980, M en ach em Begin’s solem n co m m itm en ts to Eretz Yisrael w ere g reater th a n his political resolve to carry them o u t; alth o u g h fully co m m itted to the integrity o f Jerusalem , he h a d nonetheless never in tro d u ce d a K nesset bill th a t w o u ld fully legalize th e te m p o ra ry 196 7 decree th a t joined the A rab h alf to the Israeli half. C ohen sta rte d to w o rk very carefully a n d sec retly on a d ra ft bill th a t w o u ld form alize th e unification o f th e city a n d declare it the capital o f the State of Israel. She cam e o u t w ith a flawless d ra ft bill carefully based on all o f B egin’s statem en ts, w hich n o n e of the ex p erts o f Israel’s M in istry o f Justice could reject on legal g ro u n d s. C o h en cau g h t Begin and his people off g u a rd an d su rp rised the entire K nesset. Begin could n o t avoid en d o rsing th e new law, n o r could th e L a b o r party. Everyone recognized th a t the law w o u ld d am age Isreal’s in te rn a tio n a l relatio n s, w hile being p ra c ti­ cally m eaningless in term s o f the daily affairs o f th e city, b u t no Israeli p o litician could publicly o p pose it.93 C ohen rep eated h er success a year later w ith the passage o f a law an n ex in g th e G o lan H eights to Israel. T his tim e, th o u g h , she agreed to p o stp o n e her bill in re tu rn for Begin’s co m m itm en t to pass it six m o n th s later. By late 1981, G eula C ohen could tak e prid e in being p ersonally responsible for the extension o f the de ju re ju risdiction o f Israel to b o th Jerusalem an d th e G o lan H eig h ts.94 W hile h ard ly religious a t all, C ohen is so m eth in g o f a m illen n arian type an d a stro n g believer in the inevitability o f red em p tio n . She k n o w s th a t we are living in an age o f red em p tio n , w hich w eaklings try to p o stp o n e o r cancel. A nd alth o u g h she denies it, C ohen loves to fight. All h er a u to b io ­ g rap h ical w ritings suggest th a t G eula C ohen is en am o red o f the g reat m yth of the Jew ish u n d e rg ro u n d s o f the 194 0 s— a m yth she herself has been so in stru m en tal in fostering:

The Radical Right in Parliament

199

H e w h o m a k e s h is to r y h a s n o tim e , o r h ea rt, for fe elin g s o f v e n g e a n c e , b u t h isto r y its e lf is k n o w n fo r h er s w e e t v e n g e a n c e . “ A g a n g o f m a d m e n ,” th ey o n c e c a lle d th e L eh i fig h ter s, all th o s e “ sa n e p e o p le ” w h o s e ey e s w e r e w id e o p e n to se e fr o m h ere to th e r e — in in c h e s, a n d fro m y esterd a y to to d a y in s e c o n d s , s o b e r to s e e th e v a lle y b e fo r e th ey h a d lo o k e d u p o n th e m o u n ta in . T od ay, th e m a d m e n o f th a t tim e are w r itte n in th e b o o k s a n d are stu d ie d in th e s c h o o ls as th e n a t io n ’s h e r o e s.

C o h e n ’s a tta c h m e n t to th e old u n d e rg ro u n d s goes h a n d in h a n d w ith h er confessional u ltra n a tio n a lis m a n d co n c e p tio n o f struggle. N a tio n s fight b e­ cause it is in th e ir very n a tu re to fulfill them selves a n d to believe th a t th a t fulfillm ent is just. O n e c o u n try ’s justice som etim es fights ag ain st a n o th e r’s justice, yet h isto ry is w ritte n by th o se w h o are n o t on ly ju st b u t stro n g . T h e Palestinians w h o fight Israel a n d insist u p o n th e ir self-d eterm in atio n in Pales­ tine m ay be just, b u t they h a p p e n to be o n th e w ro n g side. T h u s th e tro u b le w ith Israelis w h o s u p p o rt th em is n o t th a t they are m istak en in recognizing the justice o f th e P alestinians, b u t th a t they d o n o t u n d e rsta n d th e q u e stio n of justice. D iscussing th e P alestin ian d e te rm in a tio n to c o n q u e r th e en tire ty of Palestine, G eu la C o h e n said, I w o u ld h a v e d o n e e x a c tly lik e th e m . I w o u ld h a v e fo u g h t. . . . I resp ect th em . I h a v e n ev er b e lie v e d it w a s p o s s ib le to b u y th em o f f th ro u g h an im p r o v e ­ m e n t o f liv in g c o n d it io n s . T h is w a s th e p o s itio n o f th e L a b o r p arty, p a te r n a l­ ism a n d sc o r n . . . . I k n o w th e y b e lie v e th a t th is is th eir h o m e la n d . I b e lie v e , h o w e v e r , th a t th is is m y h o m e la n d , c o m p le te ly m in e. So w e h a v e a str u g g le here. I d o n o t h a te th e en em y , I figh t it. J u stice c a n n o t be d iv id e d an d th e r e fo r e th e s e is a w a r h ere. . . . T h e issu e is str u g g le, a p ro b le m o f p o w e r an d th ere is a w o r ld o u ts id e a n d it w o n d e r s w h o is ju st. Y ossi S arid [a m a jo r s p o k e s m a n o f th e L eft] a n d h is fo llo w e r s d a m a g e th e fa ith th a t w e are just an d e n c o u r a g e th e c o n v ic tio n th a t th e A ra b s are. T h is is w h y th ey d o n o t h elp to s o lv e th e p r o b le m . T h e e n e m y w o u ld n ev er settle for p a rtitio n an d w o u ld n o t ta k e q u a lity o f life e ith e r .95

F o llow ing th e 19 9 0 fo rm a tio n o f a n a rro w co alitio n by Itz h ak S ham ir, G eula C o h en jo in ed th e Israeli g o v e rn m e n t as d ep u ty m in ister in Yuval N e ’e m a n ’s m inistry. T h e new job, w hich did n o t im ply m eaningful executive responsibilities, has nevertheless m ad e th e first lady o f the rad ical rig h t, for the first tim e in h e r life, a m em b er o f th e n a tio n ’s to p d ecisio n -m ak in g body.

Elyakim Haetzni and the Paranoid Style of the Radical Right A m ajo r c h a ra c te ristic o f th e Israeli rad ical rig h t has alw ays been an intense p a ra n o ia , a division o f th e w o rld in to th e sons o f light (the “ loyalists o f E retz Y israel” ) a n d th e sons o f d a rk n e ss (all o th ers), a n d a c o n s ta n t sense o f b etray al by th e latter. N o o n e h as ex pressed th is p a ra n o ia b e tte r th a n

200

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Elyakim H aetzn i of K iryat A rb a, a law yer w h o has recently em erged as the T ehiya’s m o st p ro v o cativ e speaker. H aetzn i w as th e first choice o f the p a rty ’s 1988 co n v en tio n for th e K nesset slot below the incu m b en ts, w hich indicates th a t he is p o p u la r an d c a n n o t be reg ard ed as a m ere nuisance. Clearly, the o p in io n s he expresses are accep tab le to m any activists of the m ovem ent, an d are n o t th e stran g e expressions o f an isolated individual as his Tehiya enem ies w o u ld like to believe. H a e tz n i’s full legitim acy w ithin the p arty w as asserted in late 1989 w hen th e p a rty ap p ro v ed o f his succession of Yuval N e ’em an as th e Tehiya th ird K nesset m em ber. H aetzn i w as b o rn in G erm an y in 1926 an d arriv ed w ith his fam ily in Palestine in th e late 1930s. M an y o f his relatives died d u rin g W orld W ar II, an d the H o lo c a u st h as played a m a jo r role in sh ap in g his consciousness.96 H aetzn i first achieved fam e in Israel in the 1950s as a young leader of S h u rat H a m itn a d v im (V olunteer’s F ro n t), a sm all civic o rg an izatio n th a t to o k on the entire L a b o r e sta b lish m e n t.97 T hey charg ed A m os B en-G urion, the prim e m in iste r’s son a n d th e d ep u ty inspector-general o f the Israeli police, w ith an uneth ical friendship an d s u p p o rt o f an Israeli businessm an suspected of em bezzlem ent. B en -G u rio n ’s libel suit becam e a m ajo r political b attle, in w hich the V olunteer F ro n t’s leaders fo u n d them selves su rro u n d ed an d iso­ lated by a huge g o v ern m en tal m achine an d a hostile estab lish m en t press. The trial an d ap p eal lasted m o re th a n fo u r years an d to tally ex h au sted H aetzni an d his colleagues. T h e ir 1960 acq u ittal on m ost charges w as a py rrh ic vic­ tory, for they ended up w ith no m oney o r energy to co n tin u e the struggle. N ever w o u ld th e yo u n g law yer forget th e far-reach in g arm s o f the L abor o rg an izatio n th a t rallied to defend the B en-G urion nam e an d m ystique. H aetzn i, a successful attorney, w as one of the first Israelis to resp o n d to the challenge o f th e 1967 victory. H e su p p o rte d the Levinger g ro u p in the call for th e resettlem en t o f H e b ro n an d w as one o f the early secular settlers o f K iryat A rb a .98 H e later becam e highly involved in the G ush Em unim b attle for the settlem en t o f Ju d ea an d S am aria, an d his legal services have alw ays been av ailable for W est B ank sq u atters. H aetzn i has also becom e very active in th e local politics o f K iryat A rba an d p ro v id ed the Yesha C ouncil w ith highly qualified legal advice. Elyakim H aetzn i is the p ro p h e t o f d o o m an d gloom of the secular radical right. Ever since th e “ b e tra y a l” o f M en ach em Begin a t C am p D avid, he has been living a p a ra n o ia c life full of suspicions o f the entire w o rld . N o p o liti­ cian in Israel can, acco rd in g to H aetzn i, be tru sted , an d the settlers can rely only o n them selves. T he L a b o r p arty an d th e Left are self-hating Jew s w ho are ready to sell o u t th e entire state in o rd e r to please the w o rld . T h e L ikud, even radical m inisters like Ariel S haro n , are also u nreliable p artn ers. T hey have b etray ed Eretz Y israel in th e p a st an d for the p ro p e r political price will do so again. H a e tz n i’s political p a ra n o ia reached a peak in N o v em b er 1985, w hen he

The Radical Right in Parliament

201

led the Yesha C ouncil in to a d ire ct c o n fro n ta tio n w ith th e g o v ern m en t. A fter Prim e M in iste r S him on Peres c o n d u c te d a successful ro u n d o f talk s w ith King H ussein o f J o rd a n , H a e tz n i sensed b etray al com in g up a n d convinced the council to pass a re so lu tio n d eclarin g illegal any ac t th a t s u rro u n d e d Eretz Y israel te rrito rie s: A n y g o v e r n m e n t o f Israel w h ic h w ill c o m m it th e fo llo w in g crim es . . . w e sh a ll d eem ille g a l, ju st as D e G a u lle tr ea ted th e V ich y g o v e r n m e n t o f M a r sh a l P eta in , w h o b e tr a y e d th e F ren ch p e o p le . . . . W e w ish to w a r n P rim e M in iste r P eres a g a in s t th e se v e r e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th e p la n s th a t h a v e b een p u b lish e d a n d th is is b y p r o v in g th a t th e d iv is io n o f th e L and an d Jeru sa lem w ill n e c e ssa r ily lea d to th e d iv is io n o f th e n a t io n ."

T h e re so lu tio n , w h ich also called fo r a p u b lic p ro te st ag ain st th e p rim e m inister, c re a te d a scan d al. Itz h a k Z a m ir, th e state a tto rn e y g en eral, w a rn e d the Yesha C o u n cil a b o u t th e serious legal im p licatio n s o f its th re a ts. T he Israeli press cam e o u t fiercely a g a in st th e irresp o n sib le reso lu tio n a n d e x c o ri­ ated th e “ Yesha S ta te ” fo r its se p a ra tis m .100 E m b arrassed settlers called for the resig n atio n o f th e leaders o f th e Yesha C o u n cil, a n d th e council w as forced to re tra c t its s ta te m e n t w ith in th re e d a y s .101 But H a e tz n i did n o t apologize. In resp o n se to an a tta c k by R ab b i Yoel B en-N un, th e lead er o f th e m o d e ra te w in g o f G u sh E m unim (w hom he once called “ o u r H a m le t” ) E liyakim H aetzn i w ro te in N e k u d a . It is a d u ty a n d a c o m m a n d m e n t to s h o u t a n d raise th e a la rm . . . . H e w h o ca lls fo r s ile n c e a n d tr a n q u ility , h e lp s to rob E retz Y israel fro m u s. To cla im th a t o u r re je c tin g th e g o v e r n m e n t’s a n d K n e sse t’s a u th o rity to w ith d r a w th e sta te o f Israel fr o m th e L a n d o f Israel a lie n a te s us fro m th e p e o p le m a k es n o se n se . T h e so u r c e o f th e se a r g u m e n ts is a fa tig u e o f so m e o f o u r lea d ers, a se n se o f in ferio r ity , o f s e lf-d im in u tio n v is-â -v is th e left. . . . T h e p e o p le e x p e c t to fin d in u s le a d e r s a n d g u id e s . T h e lu k e w a r m c a lm in g v o ic e s , th e fu tile a n d b a n a l s u g g e s tio n s — to b u ild , to e x p la in , to u n ite — are th e o n e s th a t d is a p ­ p o in t th e n a tio n a n d d riv e it to d esp a ir . It is n ece ssa ry to ch a lle n g e th e th esis th a t th e s ta te is h o ly a n d th a t all th e d e c isio n s o f th e m a jo rity o u g h t to be o b e y e d a t all t im e s .102

H ae tz n i seem s to co n sid e r th e Israeli m ass m edia th e key a ren a for th e public struggle o v er E retz Y israel. H is talk s a n d lectures are full o f references to th e new s b u lletin s o f th e n a tio n ’s official ra d io a n d television. H e is especially sensitive to sta te m e n ts a n d re p o rts he does n o t like, o f w h ich th ere are plenty. M o s t o f Israel’s television re p o rte rs are, acco rd in g to H aetzn i, vicious leftists w h o identify w ith th e enem y a n d are resp o n sib le fo r th e n a tio n ’s g re a t d e m o ra liz a tio n . In stead o f stre n g th e n in g th e p e o p le ’s resolve, they w eak en it by p o rtra y in g th e enem y as h u m a n a n d just, a n d th e Israeli leadership as in c o m p e te n t. It does n o t ta k e m uch to m ak e H ae tz n i an g ry an d he is especially sw eeping in his a tta c k s o n p o litical c o rre sp o n d e n ts. Follow -

202

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

ing a television g ro u p interview w ith Shim on Peres, a favorite H aetzn i ta r­ get, he w ro te: T h e in te r v ie w e r s b e g g e d m o s t o f th e p o litic a l q u e stio n s. B ut w h y th e surprise? It w a s lo n g sin c e p o in te d o u t by o u r E lders th a t a self-im p r iso n ed p erso n can n ev er free h im s e lf fro m jail. F or w h o are th e te le v isio n in terv iew ers if n o t p e o p le w h o are im p r iso n e d w ith Peres in th e sa m e sp iritu al a n d id e o lo g ic a l jail o f le ftist “ P e a c e - N o w - n ik s ,” o f J o r d a n o -P a lestin ia n c o n c e p ts. . . ?103

H aetzn i w rites easily a n d often. H e is by far th e m o st prolific w rite r for N e k u d a . A lm ost every issue o f the m agazine carries his p a ra n o ia c w arnings an d glo om y o b se rv a tio n s, usually in a p ro p h etic , em o tio n al language. L et it be w r itte n d o w n a n d rem em b ered : th e h ea d s o f th e “ n a tio n a list c a m p ,” in c lu d in g th e h e a d s o f th e s e ttle m e n t in Y esha, h a v e n eith er stru g g led nor d e m o n s tr a te d a g a in st th e se e m in g ly d estru ctiv e te n d en cies o f th e la st several m o n th s . M o r e o v e r , th ey h a v e n o t ev e n raised th e q u e stio n s, ask ed for a n ­ sw e r s, o r tried to u n d e r sta n d . F u tu re h isto ria n s w ill find it h ard to u n d er­ sta n d w h y a t th is critica l m o m e n t w a s th is en tire g rea t an d g lo r io u s cam p p a r a ly z e d , d is o r ie n te d , m u te? O n ly th e p sy c h o lo g ists w ill b e a b le to an sw er t h a t .104

It is som etim es u n clear h o w H aetzn i, until 1990 a p riv ate attorney, m akes a living. T h e m an is alw ays involved in som e kin d o f public profitless action: d e m o n stra tin g , p etitio n in g , criticizing, o r suing th e au th o rities, u su ­ ally alo ne. H e is a o n e-m an radical o rg an izatio n . D isap p o in ted w ith the Yesha C o u n c il’s “ m o d e ra tio n ,” he established a new o rg an izatio n , E lisha (C itizens for Ju d e a , S am aria, an d G aza) an d began pub lish in g p ro p a g a n d a leaflets. H e also has been co n sta n tly filing co m p lain ts w ith the police against A rabs identifying w ith the PLO and ag ain st jo u rn alists w h o have been “ siding w ith th e enem y.” 105 In a recent b o o k let, Israel B ro a d ca sts— A P ro ­ file o f P o litica l C o rru p tio n , he presen ted his collection o f “ b ia se d ” q u o ta ­ tions o f Israel’s to p jo u rn a lists, urging readers to call the heads of th e Israel B ro ad castin g Service directly to com plain a b o u t th eir em ployees, an d p ro v id ­ ing th e telep h o n e n u m b ers. Elyakim H a e tz n i’s p o sitio n in th e Tehiya p a rty has been stren g th en ed by th e 1988 elections. H a e tz n i’s co nspiracy com plex has m ade him very critical o f the election strateg y chosen by th e leaders of th e party, w hich w as lu k e­ w arm on th e L ikud a n d very critical of th e Left. U nlike Yuval N e ’em an an d G eula C o h en , he refused to tru s t the L ikud an d w arn ed again a n d again th a t after the elections its leaders w o u ld join forces w ith L ab o r an d b etray the settlers. H e called for a direct ideological c o n fro n ta tio n w ith Itzhak Sham ir an d for a fierce struggle over th e m ore ideological voters o f the L ik u d .106 T h e elections verified H a e tz n i’s w o rst p red ictio n s. T h e Tehiya w as o u t­ flanked on th e rig h t by M o le d e t o f R ehavam Z e ’evi, an d failed to cap tu re m any L ikud voters. Its leaders, w h o expected to send six o r seven rep resen ta­ tives to th e K nesset, gained only th ree seats. F ollow ing a very shifty process

The Radical Right in Parliament

203

of c o a litio n -fo rm a tio n , in th e course o f w hich prom ises m ade by S h am ir th a t Yuval N e ’em an w o u ld have an influential c a b in e t p o st a n d G eula C o h en be m ade a d e p u ty m inister, th e Tehiya w as left o u t in th e cold. T h e L ikud a n d L abor form ed a g ra n d co a litio n th a t ig n o red alm o st all th e T eh iy a’s p rio ri­ ties. Yuval N e ’em an w as p erso n ally in su lted by S h am ir w h o to ld him he could keep th e ir p rev io u s a g reem en t “ in th e m u se u m .” T h e v erification o f all o f H a e tz n i’s w o rst-case p re d ic tio n s m ad e him a d o m in a n t force w ith in th e p a rty ’s councils. T h e D ecem b er 1988 U.S. ag ree­ m ent to ta lk to th e PL O also helped. N ev er b efo re did H a e tz n i’s p a ra n o ia seem m o re realistic. It w as ju st n a tu ra l th a t w h en Yuval N e ’em an decided to resign fro m th e K nesset, a t th e b eginning o f 19 9 0 , his seat w as given to H aetzni.

The "Dugri" Politics of Rafael Eitan T he Tehiya p a rty w as rein fo rced in 1984 w h en R afael (“ R a fu l” ) E itan , the suprem e c o m m a n d e r o f th e arm y b etw een 1978 a n d 19 8 3 , jo in ed th e p a rty w ith a g ro u p o f s u p p o rte rs w h o called them selves T z o m e t (C ro ssro ad s). H e and his follow ers, all m em bers o f k ib b u tzim a n d m o sh av im , w ere stro n g su p p o rters o f th e G re a te r E retz Y israel idea as w ell as being critical o f all o f Israel’s estab lish ed p o litician s. T hey believed th a t the c o n d u c t o f th e n a tio n ’s public affairs h a d gone a stra y a n d th a t sim ple, d o w n -to -e a rth politics co u ld solve th e p ro b le m s o f th e country. W ith o u t ever m en tio n in g th e term , they w ere th e p ro p a g a to rs o f a new style o f Israeli p o litics, D u g ri P olitics, an econom ical, stra ig h tfo rw a rd , an d u n so p h istic a te d p u b lic a c tio n .107 As o ne of Israel’s m o st p o p u la r chiefs o f staff, E itan c o n trib u te d to th e Tehiya a special Eretz Y israel a u ra w h ich th e p a rty h a d been lo o k in g for ever since its 1979 esta b lish m en t. H e also rein fo rced w ith in it th e m ilitary elem ent, w h ich had alw ays believed th a t th e A rab p ro b le m h ad to be seen th ro u g h “ th e sight of th e riffle.” A rugged m o sh av n ik , w h o never gave up his sm all Tel A dashim farm a n d his p riv a te c a rp e n try sh o p w h ere he w o rk e d in his leisure tim e, R aful w as a legend in his o w n tim e. H o w ev er, th e T e h iy a-T zo m et alliance d id n o t w o rk . F o llo w in g a long conflict w ith G eula C o h en a n d o th e r frictio n s, it w as clear th a t th e style o f R aful a n d th e Tehiya sp irit co u ld n o t be reconciled. J o u rn a list S hlom o G e n o sa r observ ed th e huge g ap in style an d o rie n ta ­ tion b etw een R aful a n d all o f th e o th e r Tehiya heads: R a fu l th e se c u la r fe llo w fr o m th e V alley o f Jezrael . . . n ever felt at h o m e w ith th e W a ld m a n s o f th e T eh iy a . T h e ir h o b b y h o r se s are n o t h is. T h eir m e s sia n ic e le m e n ts h a v e n ev er stu c k to h is m in d . H e tru sts h is t w o b are h a n d s m o r e th a n H e a v e n ’s m ir a c le s. T o ch a n g e th e p a r a tr o o p e r b eret to a w o r k in g h a t, y es; to a y a r m u lk e , n o . . . . N o t an id e o lo g ic a l m atter, ju st a d iffe r e n t s t y le .108

204

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

T he R aful m ystique springs from th e sim plicity an d rudeness o f this m an. E itan, w h o fo u g h t in all the w ars o f Israel, alw ays a t th e fro n t, an d has been w o u n d ed several tim es, is n o to rio u s for his p o o r ed u catio n an d farm er­ like m anners. H is friends from th e Israeli p a ra tro o p e rs, a u n it he helped build an d led in som e o f its m o st illu strio u s b attles, prize R aful as a p la to o n com m ander, ad m irin g his co u rag e an d co m b ativ e sp irit b u t they never believed he could rise high in th e m ilitary hierarchy. T h e IDF, everyone th o u g h t, w as too com plex an d so p h isticated for th e m o sb a v n ik from Tel A d a sh im .109 B ut th o u g h R aful w as never g o o d in m ilitary th eo ry an d g ran d strategy, he h a p p en ed to be th e n a tio n ’s best soldier u n d er fire. Each tim e IDF an a ­ lysts review ed an Israeli w a r for fu tu re lessons, th ere w as no q u estio n th a t E itan, th e field c o m m a n d e r an d leader, w as second to none. R aful w as one of the m ain reasons th a t Israel did n o t lose the G o lan H eights d u rin g the Yom K ip p u r W ar. W hen several o f his colleagues died in th e Syrian surprise a tta c k , an d o th ers collapsed o f fatigue o r despair, th e m an refused to break. H e fo u g h t w ith ev erything he h ad an d sto p p ed the Syrians w ith a b ro k en an d dispersed d iv isio n .110 Ezer W eizm an, th e L ik u d ’s first m inister o f defense, chose R aful in 1978 to becom e th e com m an d er-in -ch ief, n o t for his strategy an d o rg an izatio n so m uch as for his leadership an d perso n al exam ple. F or m any Israelis, R aful becam e th e m odel o f th e farm er-fighter w h o has never a b a n d o n e d th e ideal o f pio n eerin g Z io n ism , th a t o f a p ro u d , p ro d u c ­ tive an d self-sufficient w o rk in g Jew. E ita n ’s refusal to change his m an n ers o r rustic h om e in th e m o shav just ad d ed to his g reat ap peal. D u rin g his five years as th e to p co m m a n d e r o f the IDF, w hich included the unsuccessful L ebanon ad v en tu re, E ita n ’s a u th o rity an d leadership rem ain ed u n q u es­ tioned. O rd in a ry soldiers ad m ire d th eir chief for his S abra sim plicity, h u m an to u ch , a n d D u g ri m anners. R aful, w h o h ad given special a tte n tio n to the m ilitary socialization o f deprived y o u th , could occasionally be seen talking w ith o rd in a ry p rivates a b o u t th eir perso n al p ro b lem s, an d som etim es w o u ld even invite them to his sm all m oshav fa rm .111 E itan ’s p ublic career has been at least as p arad o x ical as his m ilitary career. N o one ever th o u g h t th a t this farm er could be a co m p eten t legislator, b u t his 1988 re tu rn to th e K nesset u n d e r the T z o m e t b a n n e r m ade him a legitim ate p a rt of th e political scene. U nlike m o st Tehiya K nesset representatives, w h o have easily becom e m em bers o f th e “ K nesset c lu b ” despite th eir ideological radicalism , R aful has never joined th e political clique, n o r has he tried to do so. H is speeches rem ain extrem ely sh o rt an d u n p o lish ed , an d the bills he sp o n so rs are alw ays very im m atu re; th e p ro s never tak e them seriously. Raful retu rn s th e c o m p lim en t by saying th a t he nam es the donkeys he raises in his m oshav b ack y ard after K nesset m em bers; w hen he has 120 donkeys, he in tends to b rin g them all to Je ru sa le m .112 N evertheless, E ita n ’s service to the n a tio n ’s public life co m m an d s re-

The Radical Right in Parliament

205

spect. D espite a p p e a ra n c e s, he h as becom e o n e o f th e K nesset’s h ard estw o rk in g m em bers. Typically p u ttin g in a fifteen -h o u r day, he has been deeply involved in th e H o u s e ’s c o m m ittee w o rk a n d h as been, in a d d itio n , very loyal to citizens in need o f a K nesset ear. R a fu l’s chem istry w ith th e y o u n g h as m ad e him the m o st p o p u la r speaker in th e n a tio n ’s high schools. R arely a w eek goes by w ith o u t a t least tw o o r th re e school lectures. T h e m a n ’s sim plicity an d D u g ri style are his stock in tra d e ; stu d e n ts love to listen to his q u ick , u n p o lish ed , a n d b ru ta lly honest answ ers. F o r m o st o f w h a t R aful says is less im p o rta n t th a n h o w he says it. R e sp o n d in g to q u estio n s a b o u t his suggestions for d ealin g w ith the in tifada a n d a b o u t th e sim ilarity b etw een Israel a n d S outh A frica in th eir tre a tm e n t o f th e ir “ in fe rio r” peoples, R aful declared : If th e y p u t u p a r o a d b lo c k , th en I w o u ld sen d ten a rm o red carriers to th e p la c e . . . . If th e y th r o w r o c k s o n th e r o a d , I w ill c lo s e th e ro a d fro m N a b a lla to R a m a lla a n d le t th e g u y w h o w a n ts to b u y rice in Jen in g o th ere th ro u g h Jerico a n d D im o n a a n d E ila t. . . . A s fo r S o u th A frica : w h a t k in d o f c o m p a r iso n is this? In S o u th A frica th e y d o n o t rep ress th e b la c k s. T h e y ju st d o n o t let th em ru le o v e r th e W h ite m in o rity . T h e o n ly sim ila r e le m e n t is th a t th e b la c k s w a n t to ta k e o v e r th ere, ju st as th e A r a b s h ere. It is th e r e fo r e n e ce ssa ry to m a k e su re h ere an d th ere th a t th is n e v e r h a p p e n s , b u t o th e r w is e I d o n o t see th e re le v a n c e o f th e ca se to th e s itu a tio n h e r e .113

N o o rd in a ry p o litician , R aful is rarely ready to co m p ro m ise his p rin c i­ ples. W hen all th e T ehiya K nesset m em bers w e n t in 1985 to A rab H e b ro n in o rd er to d e m o n stra te th e ir s u p p o rt fo r th e sq u a tte rs o f G ush E m u n im in direct defiance o f arm y o rd e rs, R aful refused to jo in — never, he said, w o u ld any Israeli so ld ier see him diso b ey in g m ilitary o rd e rs .114 O n e reaso n R aful w as u n c o m fo rta b le in th e Tehiya w as his n a tu ra l d isd ain fo r th e style o f religious politics in Israel. As a n o ld anti-relig io u s L a b o r settler, R aful w as never a t ease w ith th e neo-religiosity o f th e Tehiya. R av K o o k ’s m essage o n the m ystical b o n d b etw een th e religious a n d th e lay d efen d ers o f E retz Yisrael is m eaningless to him ; R a fu l’s affectio n fo r G ush E m u n im w as a l­ w ays lim ited to th e ir co n stru c tiv e settlem en t role. A n o ld sto ry show s h o w h ard it w as fo r th e p io n eers w h o settled in th e G o lan H eig h ts rig h t after the Yom K ip p u r W ar to get help fro m E itan , th en th e h ead o f the a rm y ’s N o r th ­ ern C o m m a n d . “ I’ll give you a g o o d settlem en t sp o t. F ollow m e !” R aful is said to have to ld th e m em bers o f G a riin K eshet. T hey d ro v e a n d d ro v e, an d finally fo u n d them selves by th e b each o f L ake T ib e ria s— well w ith in th e o ld G reen L in e.115 E ita n ’s o p e n re se n tm e n t o f religious politics in Israel h a d led him to b reak ra n k s w ith th e T ehiya a n d v o te ag a in st th e co n tro v ersial am e n d m e n t to the L aw o f R e tu rn th a t states th a t only a p erso n w h o w as b o rn to Jew ish m o th er o r w as co n v e rte d to Ju d a ism by an o r th o d o x rab b i is a Jew [the w h o is a Jew a m e n d m e n t], a n d a g a in st th e p ro h ib itio n o n th e sale o f p o rk .

206

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

R aful, a g re a t believer in th e m oral v irtue o f the Israeli arm y, is resentful of Israeli religious politician s for a n o th e r reason: th eir s u p p o rt of the w ide­ sp read h is h ta m tu t (desertion) o f yeshiva stu d en ts from m ilitary service. The rig h t o f a selected few yeshiva stu d en ts n o t to serve in the Israeli army, and instead to devote all th e ir life to holy studies, h ad been recognized in Israel since th e days o f D avid B en-G urion. B ut in the old days it h ad been lim ited to a very few extrem ely talen ted individuals. In recent years, how ever, w ith the rise of m any yeshivot an d the g ro w th in the p o w er o f th eir political su p p o rt­ ers, the p h e n o m e n o n has becom e w idesp read . Even such an u ltran a tio n alist p arty as the Tehiya, w hich p resu m ab ly w o u ld favor arm y service, has avoided criticizing th e p ractice because o f its G ush E m unim co n n ectio n . But R aful has never sto p p ed criticizing h ish ta m tu t. C learly he w as the w ro n g m an for the Tehiya, an d in 1988, a t loggerheads w ith C o h en , an d w ith N e ’em an su p p o rt­ ing her, R aful decided to go it alo n e— an d succeeded. T h e Ju n e 1990 fo rm a tio n o f a n a rro w governing co alitio n by Itzhak S ham ir has resulted in m ak in g R afael E itan Israel’s m inister o f agriculture. But the joy o f becom ing a full m em ber of the cab in et, an d o f getting a top executive job, did n o t satisfy R aful. his long-tim e co m m itm en t to a sw eeping electoral reform in Israel, an idea su p p o rte d by m o st Israelis b u t u n attra ctiv e to Sham ir, m ade E itan a p o ten tial tro u b le m a k e r in the new governm ent. U pon assum ing office he p ro m ised his voters to q u it th e g o v ern m en t if it does n o t in tro d u ce an electoral reform w ith in a few m o n th s.

The Parliamentary Radical Right and the Likud As significant as th e vitality o f th e p a rlia m e n ta ry radical rig h t is, for years its m ain asset w as th e w eakness and in ep titu d e o f the m o d erate right. The L ikud bloc, w hich represents a b o u t 30 to 35 percen t o f the Jew ish voters, has becom e a p o p u list p arty w ith little creative directio n . A fter Begin retired, its lead ership has been co n sta n tly engaged in p o w e r struggles an d m u tu al sm ear cam paigns. Its co nstituency has been u n ited m ore by an an ti-L ab o r sen tim ent th a n co n stru ctiv e asp iratio n s. M issing are fresh ideas an d an intelligentsia o f any significance. H e ru t, L ik u d ’s m ain p a rty an d ideological center, is in capable o f m ain ­ tain in g a daily n ew sp ap er of its o w n , an d its th ree p u b licatio n s, the w eekly H a ya rd en (R iver Jo rd a n ), the biw eekly B e ’E re tz Israel (Inside the L and of Israel), an d H a ’U m a (The N a tio n ), the political-literary m agazine o f the R evisionist m ovem ent, are dull, u ninspiring, an d full o f an ach ro n istic rein te r­ p re ta tio n s o f V ladim ir Jabotinsky. H e ru t has alw ays suffered from ideologi­ cal shallow ness, b u t for years this w eakness w as hid d en by the uniq u e p erso n ality o f M en ach em Begin. T he old co m m an d er o f th e Irgun w as n o t only H e ru t’s fo u n d in g fath er an d political leader b u t also its living ideolo-

The Radical Right in Parliament

207

gist. In countless speeches a n d press colu m n s he personified th e tra d itio n o f Jab o tin sky a n d gave it a relev an t in te rp re ta tio n . T h ere w as alw ays a radical elem ent in th e w o rld view o f H e ru t, an d Begin him self, in his early days, w as respo n sib le fo r its p ro p a g a tio n . But there w as also th e liberal side o f M en ach em Begin, a n d after th e 1960s it played a g ro w in g role in sh a p in g th e m a n ’s politics. W hile n a tio n a listic to the bones a n d e x trem e in rh e to ric , Begin w as no longer a ra d ic a l.116 Like Jabotinsky, he recognized th a t b ey o n d th e sp h ere o f Jew ish a sp ira tio n s an d politics there existed a legitim ate w o rld . H e never ceased to believe in in te r­ n atio n al law a n d perceived d ip lo m acy a n d co m p ro m ise as viable political concepts. A nd like Ja b o tin sk y b efore him , Begin w as even ready to a d m it (as in th e C am p D avid A ccords) th e legitim acy o f th e P alestin ian claim for n atio n al rights. Today, th e re is no in h e rito r o f B egin’s a p p ro a c h . N o t o n e o f his im m ed i­ ate successors in th e L ikud lead ersh ip is cap ab le o f p reserv in g th e R ev isio n ­ ist tra d itio n , especially its liberal a n d h u m a n istic side. A lth o u g h a new co h o rt is e n terin g th e lead ersh ip o f H e ru t, “ th e p rin c e s” — p eo p le like B enja­ min Begin (M e n a c h e m ’s son), Uzi L a n d a u , R oni M ilo , D an M e rid o r, a n d Ehud O lm a rt— a n d Israel’s fo rm er a m b a s sa d o r to th e U .N ., B enjam in N e ta n iy a h u — they find it h a rd to p ro je c t m o d e ra te n atio n alism . T h e H e ru t they have to fu n ctio n w ith in is a p o p u list p a rty w h o se e x tre m ­ ist an d vocal cen tral co m m ittee is a living c o n tra d ic tio n to th e sp irit an d style o f Ja b o tin sk y an d th e m a tu re Begin. Its ho stility to th e left is so intense th a t to be m o d e ra te in criticizing its policies is seen as treachery. Itz h ak Sham ir, th e head o f th e party , w h o w as skep tical a b o u t th e ag reem en t w ith Egypt, m ay pay lip service to C am p D avid, b u t his language is h o llo w an d unconvincing. W hile he p ro claim s his com p lete allegiance to th e legacy o f Begin, he often speak s in th e Eretz Y israel “ d ia le c t” o f th e Tehiya. So d eso la te is th e ideological e n v iro n m e n t o f the L ikud th a t these days the only rig h t-w in g criticism o f th e excesses o f th e rad ical rig h t com es from several G ush E m u n im ra b b is an d activists n o stalg ic fo r th e early (relative) m o d eratio n a n d sense o f p ro p o rtio n o f th eir m o v em en t. (It is iro n ic th a t even on this d im en sio n o f self-criticism , it is N e k u d a th e jo u rn a l o f th e settlers in Ju d e a a n d S am aria , th a t sets an e x a m p le .117 T h e ir lack o f any in d ep en d en t ideological ju d g m e n t has led all o f Begin’s successors to an u n eq u iv ocal, b u t em pty, s u p p o rt o t th e Israelizatio n o f th e W est B ank.) M o st p ro m in e n t a m o n g th e L ikud su p p o rte rs o f the rad ical rig h t is m inister A riel S h aro n , w h o h as alw ays sto o d fo r te rrito ria l m ax im alism a n d the belief th a t p o litical goals can be achieved by m ilitary m eans. Even in th e 1950s, as c o m m a n d e r o f th e Israeli p a ra tro o p e rs, he a u th o riz e d u nnecessary m ilitary o p e ra tio n s a g a in st th e civilian A rab p o p u la tio n in J o rd a n . A nd in 1970, as a general, he w as th e a rc h ite c t o f th e aggressive ev acu atio n o f th e Beduin tribes o f th e R afiah S alient in Sinai, to m ak e ro o m fo r Israeli settlers. Serving u n d e r Begin a n d D ay an , m in ister o f foreign affairs in B egin’s first

208

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

cab in et, th e am b itio u s S haron restrain ed him self an d su p p o rted C am p D a­ vid, th ereb y securing his political future. But since Begin an d D ayan have left the g o v ern m en t, th e rh e to ric o f th e radical rig h t has becom e m uch m ore p o p u la r th a n th e cold peace w ith Egypt. S h aro n has h ad no difficulty fitting in w ith th e new radical spirit, a political o rie n ta tio n based less on intellec­ tual co nvictions th a n on n a tu ra l drives. H is p e n c h a n t for m ilitarism and te rrito ria l ex p an sio n w as m o st clearly d e m o n stra te d in the L ebanon W ar— w hich w as, to a large ex te n t, his priv ate venture. T h e difference betw een th e new radicals an d S h a ro n ’s g ro u p lies n o t in ideology o r a sp ira tio n s b u t in integrity. U nlike the tru e believers o f the radical right, S h aron a n d his close associates are p o w er o rien ted , an d are ready to co m p ro m ise th eir principles in tim e o f need. They believe it is im p o rta n t to be at th e helm w hile try in g to carry o u t o n e ’s p lan s, ra th e r th an m erely artic u la tin g th em from th e o p p o sitio n benches. B ut the follow ers o f Ariel S h aron a n d o th e r L ikud extrem ists ignore th eir com prom ises an d read th eir statem en ts as a full legitim ation for the p ro g ra m o f the radical rig h t.118 Ariel S h aro n , it sh o u ld be n o ted , did n o t g ro w up in the R evisionist m ilieu an d is in fact, a d irect heir o f L ab o r activism an d m ilitarism . But n o tin g th e stro n g L ikud a ttra c tio n to m ilitary heroism an d m ax im alist p o li­ tics, he has galvanized it in to a su b stan tial p o w er base. T alented, im ag in a­ tive, an d ch arism atic, S haron has been able to keep in the L ikud m any rightists w h o m ight have follow ed th e Tehiya, T zo m et, o r M o led et, h ad these “ p u ris t” p artie s h ad a chance to form the governm ent. S h a ro n ’s ingenuity an d radical appeal w ere m o st originally expressed in D ecem ber 1987, w hen he surprisingly an n o u n ced th a t he w as m oving to the M uslim q u a rte r o f O ld Jerusalem . T he freedom to settle the O ld C ity in its entirety, especially th e M uslim areas close to the Tem ple M o u n t, has been one of th e g reatest sym bolic d em an d s o f th e radical right, w hich all g o v ern ­ m ents o f Israel w ere careful n o t to encourage. B ut in practice the area has becom e increasingly insecure. Several A rab te rro r acts since th e m id -1 9 8 0 s have d isco u rag ed Jew s from trying to live there, an d have even scared m ost visitors away. S h a ro n ’s m ove to the area w as thus a m o st d ra m a tic and exem p lary act, fully c o n so n a n t w ith th e G re a te r Eretz Y israel rh eto ric o f the Likud. In one stro k e S haro n outflan k ed the radical right, a ttra c te d a tte n tio n , displayed leadership, a n d pro v ed he w as m ore loyal to Eretz Yisrael th an m ost o f his colleagues in th e L ikud. S haron m ay be ideologically in ferio r to the “ p u re ” radical right, b u t he p ro b ab ly has m ore su p p o rters. T h e p ro sp erity a n d g ro w th o f th e radical rig h t a t the expense o f the n a tio n a list rig h t cam e to a te m p o ra ry h a lt in 1989. T h e s ta rt o f th e in tifa d a in 1987 a n d th e P L O ’s 1988 co m m itm en t to abide by U nited N a tio n s R eso­ lutions 2 4 2 a n d 338 have created very u n co m fo rtab le co n d itio n s fo r the co n tin u ed develo p m en t o f this cam p. T he fo rm atio n o f a m o d erate unity g o v ern m en t in 1989, w hich neutralized S haro n w ith in the L ikud an d p u sh ed the Tehiya, T zo m et, an d M o led e t in to a very ineffective political o p p o sitio n , h ad a d d ed p ain to misery. T h e re w ere in fact m any indications th a t th e

The Radical Right in Parliament

209

Sham ir g ro u p th a t c o n tro lle d th e L ikud w as m o d e ra tin g its p o sitio n o n E retz Y israel— n o t because o f a deep ideological co n v ictio n b u t as a resu lt o f the internal d am ag e o f th e in tifa d a a n d A m erican an d in te rn a tio n a l pressu re. A new political axis, Itz h a k S h a m ir-Itz h a k R ab in (m inister o f defense) seem ed to be d o m in a tin g Israeli politics, leading it in a p ra g m a tic an d m o d e ra te d irection. T h e h o p es o f th e Israeli m o d erates w ere sh a tte re d in th e su m m er o f 1990. A long rivalry w ith in th e L ik u d -L a b o r g ra n d co alitio n en d ed up w ith the d isso lu tio n o f th e u n ity g o v e rn m e n t a n d th e fo rm a tio n o f a n a rro w rightw ing co alitio n , th e first o f its k in d since th e L e b an o n w ar. Yuval N e ’em an and R afael E itan w ere given key m inisterial p o sitio n s, a n d G eu la C o h en w as m ade d e p u ty m in ister; R eh av am Z e ’evi w h o chose n o t to becom e a full g o v ern m en t m in ister nevertheless pledged to s u p p o rt th e co alitio n in the Knesset. T h e dem ise o f th e S h am ir—R ab in axis, a n d th e reaffirm atio n o f th e L ik u d ’s c o m m itm e n t to Eretz Y israel w ere n o t in itiated by Itzh ak S ham ir, b u t ra th e r forced o n him by his p a rty radicals. T hese rad icals w ere u n h a p p y w ith the 1989 c re a tio n o f th e unity co alitio n , w h ich left th e p artie s o f the radical rig h t w ith n o p o w e r o r influence, a n d a b a n d o n e d th e p a rty ’s h a rd line. T hey co n seq u en tly decided to form a K nesset cau cu s th a t w o u ld c o n ­ stan tly lobby for th e settlem en ts o f th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s a n d fight all attem p ts for te rrito ria l co m p ro m ise a n d concessions to th e PLO . T h e n ew caucus, w hich w as n am ed th e “ Eretz Y israel F ro n t” w as in itiated by L ikud K nesset m em bers M ichael E itan a n d T zachi H an eg b i, a n d included all th e m em bers from th e T ehiya, T z o m e t, M o led e t, L ikud, N a tio n a l R eligious Party, a n d A g u d a t Israel, w h o w o rrie d th a t Eretz Y israel w as “ in d a n g e r.” 119 T he th irty -o n e m em b er caucus w as back ed energetically by th e g ro w in g settler co m m u n ity (nearly 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 by 1990) a n d its in stitu tio n s. As long as S h a m ir’s o p p o n e n ts w ere led by ju n io r K nesset m em bers, they did n o t have a chance. B ut an increasing p o litic a l rift b etw een Prim e M in is­ ter S h am ir a n d L ikud M in isters Levy, S h aro n , an d M o d a i h as given the F ro n t o f Eretz Y israel a m in isterial lead ersh ip cap ab le o f solidifying a fo rm i­ dable o p p o sitio n to S h am ir w ith in his o w n party. T h e new o p p o sitio n suc­ ceeded in c o n ta in in g S h a m ir’s d rift to th e cen ter an d m ad e it im possible for the L a b o r p a rty to rem ain in th e unity go v ern m en t. Its leaders, especially Ariel S h aro n , la te r becam e th e arch itects o f th e Ju n e 199 0 alliance b etw een the L ikud, th e Israeli religious bloc, a n d th e rad ical right. Itzh ak S h am ir w h o successfully av o id ed th e sam e co alitio n in 1 9 8 8 , w as n o w tra p p e d . T h e only altern ativ e to such a c o a litio n w as his resig n atio n a n d retirem en t, for w hich he w as n o t yet ready. By th e su m m er o f 1990 it w as clear th a t th e rad ical rig h t c o n so lid a te d its p o sitio n a n d p o w e r in n a tio n a l p o litics, a n d th a t Israel w as h ead in g to w a rd a m a jo r conflict w ith th e rest o f th e w o rld . T he successful p e n e tra tio n o f th e n a tio n a list rig h t by th e rad ical rig h t is a very significant d ev elo p m en t. It is n o t yet clear w h e th e r th ere is here a “ critical m a ss” th a t can p re v e n t a fu ll re tu rn o f th e occupied te rrito rie s to

210

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

A rab h an d s, b u t it very m uch looks like it. T hese days even lab o r rejects the ev acu atio n of th e settlers from th e W est Bank. T he radical rig h t m ay n o t be able to keep the en tirety o f Eretz Y israel u n d er Israeli co n tro l, b u t it m ay co u n ter th e pressures fo r a to ta l Jew ish “ tra n s fe r” o u t o f the W est B ank and G aza, creatin g co n d itio n s no n e o f its adversaries th o u g h t possible ju st ten years ago.

7 Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism: Kach and the Legacy o f Rabbi Meir Kahane

A One-Man Show By the tim e o f th e assa ssin a tio n o f R ab b i K ah an e in N ew Y ork City, o n N o v em b er 5, 199 0 , K ach h a d com e a lon g w ay since its esta b lish m en t fou rteen years earlier. T h o u g h R ab b i M eir K a h a n e ’s p a rty w as disqualified in 1988 by Israel’s C e n tra l E lections C o m m ittee from p a rtic ip a tin g in the electoral process, its critics co u ld n o t dism iss it as an insignificant o r e p h e m ­ eral p h e n o m e n o n . R ab b i K a h a n e ’s dogged persistence, an d th e g ro w in g acceptance o f his m essage, h a d m ade K ach a th re a t n o t only to the Tehiya and its political o ffsp rin g b u t even to th e L ikud. It w as h ard ly su rp risin g th a t the ap p eal to d isqualify K ach — on th e g ro u n d s o f its racist an d a n tid e m o ­ cratic s ta n d — w as e n d o rse d by th e L ikud a n d tacitly su p p o rte d by th e en tire u ltra n a tio n a lis t cam p . N o t only w as K ah an e feared by Israel’s A rab s; he h a d also becom e th e n ig h tm a re o f m any Israeli Jew s. K ach rem ain s a p ro te st m o v em en t p a r ex cellen ce, a politically o rg an ized rig h t-w ing b ack lash . G ush E m unim a n d th e Tehiya, like K ach, sp rin g a t least in p a rt fro m p ro te st a n d fru s tra tio n , b u t b o th have alw ays been c o n ­ structively o rie n te d ; th e ir rem edies have been settlem en t in Ju d ea an d Sa­ m aria, a n d reju v en atio n o f p io n eerin g Z io n ism . T h e im age they have p r o ­ jected h as been y o u th , o p tim ism , success, a n d self-confidence. In c o n tra st, K ach seem s to a ttra c t b itte r a n d insecure people w h o p ro je ct a sense o f failure: failure in th e Israeli econom y, failure to identify w ith th e n a tio n ’s sym bols o f legitim acy, a n d failure to ad v an ce co n stru ctiv e p ro jects in the m an n er o f G ush E m u n im a n d th e Tehiya. K ach ’s sole a tte m p t to establish a settlem en t in th e W est B ank, ElN a k a m (A venging G o d ), in th e early 1980s, failed m iserably. W hen asked

211

212

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

why, K ahane h a d tw o co n tra d ic to ry answ ers. First, he said, Kach w as never given any lan d , w hich a settlem ent needs. But, second, “ N o n e of the G ush E m unim settlem ents really m atters, for if th e people o f Israel rep en t, all the p ro b lem s w ill be solved by G od, an d if they d o n ’t, no settlem en t will save them from the h a tre d o f th e G entiles an d the w ra th of G o d .” 1 T he style o f K ach is, consequently, negative an d even destructive. It projects a b itter an ti-e stab lish m en t im age w ith sim plistic catch-all so lu tio n s— evict the A rabs from Israel, elim in ate “ H ellen ism ” in the Jew ish state. Studies of the d em o g rap h ics o f th e su p p o rte rs and p o ten tial su p p o rters o f Kach indi­ cate th a t th e p a rty has becom e a p rim e channel for social p ro te st in Israel.2 M o st o f the people w h o fav o r K ach em otionally, even th o u g h they m ay n o t actually vote for it, are a ttra c te d to th e p arty because its an ti-estab lish m en t p o stu re appeals to th eir im m ense social bitterness an d political alienation. R abbi M eir K ahane, a w ell-educated A m erican im m ig ran t, has su rp ris­ ingly been able to galvanize this sen tim en t an d forge it in to political pow er. Pre-election p ublic o p in io n polls show ed K ahane w ith the s u p p o rt o f be­ tw een 3 an d 5 p ercen t o f th e general public. A significant p a rt o f th a t s u p p o rt com es from e m o tio n a l p r o te ste rs, w h o favor the ex trem ist leader because they identify w ith his style an d an ti-estab lish m en t rh eto ric.3 T his p ro te st is d irected n o t only a t Israel’s tra d itio n a l left, b u t also a t the Israeli n a tio n a list right, w hich has greatly d isap p o in ted its su p p o rters since com ­ ing to p o w er.4 T he K ach p h e n o m e n o n seem s to be p u re sociopolitical p ro te st. A lthough K ahane w as an ed u cated a n d so p h isticated p erso n w h o h ad read an d w ritten a g reat deal, it ap p ears th a t m o st o f his follow ers never read his b o o k s and are n o t fam iliar w ith his u ltim ate objectives.5 T h u s w e sh o u ld distinguish betw een K ahane a n d his sm all circle, on th e one h an d , an d the m ov em en t he h ad created , on th e other. It is th e sm all circle of adm irers th a t h ad k ep t K ahane going over the years, w h e th e r in Israel o r the U nited States. T hese people, m any from the days of the Jew ish D efense League, resp o n d ed en thusiastically to his ser­ m ons, joined his o ccasional conspiracies, listened to his lectures, read his b o o k s a n d press colum ns, helped him m ain tain his sm all Jerusalem center, the In stitu te o f the Jew ish Idea, an d h ad recently joined forces to fulfill his d ream o f establishing his o w n yeshiva, th e Yeshiva o f the Jew ish idea.6 T h o u g h K a h a n e ’s inn er circle h a d never been large, it su p p o rte d him p o ­ litically an d em otionally. T h u s K ahane could argue before his d eath th a t even if he w as n o t successful in politics, he at least devoted his life to the Jew ish ed u c a tio n o f y o u th , w ro te w eekly colum ns an d b o o k s, an d m ade sure th a t his Jerusalem m useum , the M useu m o f the F u tu re H o lo c a u st— w hich p u rp o rte d to d o c u m e n t plan s n o w in th e w o rk s for Jew ish geno­ cide— fu n ctio n ed properly. T he K ach m ovem ent, on th e o th e r h a n d , for years w as an o rg an izatio n

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

213

w ith very little su b stan ce. O n ly in 1981 did K ach begin to tak e on som e life w ith th e process intensifying in 1983 after th e fiasco in L eb an o n a n d the resignation o f B egin.7 B ut never h as K ach been an y th in g b u t a rig h t-w in g backlash m obilized politically. F o llow ing K a h a n e ’s election to th e K nesset, K ach estab lish ed offices in Israel’s large cities, b u t th e m o v em en t still lacks c o n te n t an d o rg a n iz a tio n . T he local b ran ch es seem g o o d a t stim u la tin g p ro te sts an d street d e m o n stra ­ tions, b u t are ex trem ely p o o r in term s o f ro u tin e p olitical o p e ra tio n . W ith the single e x cep tio n o f th e K iry at A rb a g ro u p , th e local activists o f K ach ex h ib it n e ith e r lead ersh ip qualities n o r political su b stan ce. R ab bi K ah an e w as th e soul a n d th e engine th a t d ro v e K ach. H e w as the fo u n d in g fa th e r o f th e m ov em en t, its only ideologue, p u b lic sp eak er, an d representative. H e ran K ach in a very p erso n al way, raised its funds, signed m ost o f its checks, a n d m ad e all th e im p o rta n t decisions. H e even to o k care of th e logistics o f his sp eak in g so rtie s.8 K ach n ever h a d any w ritte n fo ru m o f its o w n , a n d K ah an e w as th e only o ne w h o p resen ted its p o sitio n s to th e public. In 1981 K ah an e licensed th e G eneral D irecto r o f th e m o v em en t to address sm all sessions o f fav o rab ly disp o sed settlers— on th e c o n d itio n th a t the m ain m essage w o u ld be a v id eo tap e o f R ab b i K a h a n e ’s o w n m ak in g w hile in R am la p ris o n .9 True, th e p a rty h as som e fo rm al o rg a n s — a se c re ta ria t o f seven peo p le and a general council o f fifty. B ut th e se c re ta ria t h a d been h a n d p ic k e d by K ahane, a n d c o u ld n o t go a g a in st h im .10 A nd th e co u n cil’s m ain fu n ctio n w as to let local activists p a rtic ip a te a n d feel they co u n te d ; n o ideological o r strateg ic d e lib e ra tio n h as ever been c o n d u cted . A ctivists m et only w h en K ahane visited; In his lifetim e n o m a jo r step in th e life o f K ach a n d no m edia event could go o n w ith o u t him . T h e usual local c h a p te r o f K ach a m o u n ts to several activists w h o d o th e g ro u n d w o rk b efo re K a h a n e ’s visits, p o st K ach ’s p o sters, an d h arass d e m o n ­ stra tio n s a n d m eetings o f ideological rivals. M o st o f these activists are low er-m iddle-class religious Jew s w h o m a in ta in th e m o v e m e n t’s o p e ra tio n s from th e ir ho m es w ith little tim e o r energy, ex cep t a t election tim e .11 In c o n tra st, th e m ain c h a p te rs — Jeru salem , Tel Aviv, H aifa, an d K iryat A rb a — w ere co n n ected by a so p h istic a te d w ireless tra n sm issio n n e tw o rk th a t left the rab b i in c o n tro l tw e n ty -fo u r h o u rs a day. T h e only e x cep tio n to K a h a n e ’s to ta l c o n tro l has been th e K iry at A rb a b ran ch o f K ach. It is n o t a sp iritu al o r ideological cen ter o f th e m o v em en t, b u t th e K ach activists th ere are cap ab le an d ex p erien ced settlers w h o in itiate m any activities o n th e ir o w n . T h ey also actively p a rtic ip a te in th e p u b lic life of K iryat A rb a a n d H e b ro n , a n d ta k e p a rt in m any ex traleg al deeds an d vigilante o p e ra tio n s. A b o u t 15 p e rc e n t o f th e K iry at A rb a resid en ts are K ach su p p o rte rs; it is th e only place in Israel w h ere th e p a rty rep resen tativ es succeeded in being v o ted in to th e city council an d even b eco m in g for a tim e coalitio n p a rtn e rs o f th e m a y o r.12

214

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

B ut even th e K iryat A rba activists reg ard ed K ahane as th eir spiritual guide. Som e have been fo rm er A m erican JD L m em bers for w h o m the rabbi w as also a reb b e, a religious a n d p ersonal m en to r. O th ers are people w ho feel th a t G ush E m unim has gone soft on th e A rabs; on th a t q u estio n they have som etim es been m o re extrem e th a n K ahane him self.13 K a h an e’s full co n tro l w as the central fact of this strange political ph e­ n o m en o n . Israel has seen its share o f stro n g individuals w h o have created an d led social an d political m ovem ents, an d its share o f ephem eral onep erson election lists. B ut no Israeli m ovem en t th a t h ad survived h ad ever been so to tally d e p e n d e n t o n o ne person. T he persistence o f R abbi M eir K ahane in his o n e-m an effo rt w as unique, alm o st inexplicable. H e seem ed to be driven by a pow erful co m b in atio n of m issionary zeal an d p erso n al am b itio n . H is long uphill struggle for political p o w er a n d reco g n itio n , a n d his rep eated setbacks, seem ed never to have w eak en ed his c o m m itm e n t to his beliefs n o r led him to m o d erate his radical p o sitio ns in o rd e r to a ttra c t m o re people. T here w ere som e rep o rts th a t he w as a m o ody perso n w h o d isap p e ared for w eeks o r m o n th s a t a tim e, studying in th e yeshiva o r sim ply d oing n o th in g . F o rm er follow ers testify th a t he needed c o n s ta n t actio n a n d publicity, an d becam e depressed w hen he did n o t get a tte n tio n .14 B ut K ahane alw ays retu rn ed , an d in the 1988 cam ­ paign a p p e a re d as healthy a n d vigorous as ev er.15 K ah an e’s com plete confidence th a t he w as the only rep resen tativ e o f the genuine Ju d aism o f o u r tim e, his vehem ent attack s on the entire ro ster of the n a tio n ’s leaders, his m o ral a d m o n itio n s an d verbal w hippings, his refusal to m o d erate his criticism s even th o u g h his ideas an d tactics w ere n o t shared by a single recognized h alak h ic au th o rity , an d his readiness to fight it o u t alone in d icated th a t he view ed him self as a biblical p ro p h et. M an y of his w ritings s ta rt w ith “ M y p e o p le ” o r “ Listen, Je w s” an d are filled w ith prophecies of d o o m an d gloom o r w ith incredible p ro m ise s.16 But K a h a n e ’s am b itio n s w en t beyond th o se o f the “ o rd in a ry ” p ro p h et. H is p e n c h a n t for physical violence led him to rep eat th a t he w an ted to co n tro l th e M in istry o f D efense, then becom e the n a tio n ’s unchallenged ruler. W hen asked w h o in Jew ish history w as his closest m odel, he re­ sp o n d ed w ith a slight h esita tio n , “ I’d say King D avid. It w as said o f King D avid th a t he studied every night, an d in the m o rn in g he w o u ld w ak e up an d m ake w a r.” 17 W h atev er religious o r psychological in te rp re ta tio n is given to K ah an e’s personality, it is clear th a t K ach has been created specifically to fulfill his ideas. U ntil K a h a n e ’s d eath , the story o f K ach w as his perso n al story, an o rth o d o x rab b i, a jo u rn a list, a self-styled ideologue, an d a street leader. It w as the tale o f one m a n ’s effo rt to go again st the rest of the w o rld an d w in. K ah an e’s unex p ected assassin atio n destroy ed all these dream s. It d ealt a huge b lo w to his close activists, a n d to th e m o v em en t in general, an d left their fu tu re very m uch in the d ark .

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

215

Catastrophic Messianism and Fundamentalist Determinism: The Ideo-Theology of Rabbi Kahane R abbi M eir K ah an e w as a prolific w rite r a n d an in n o v ativ e ideologue. Ever since he esta b lish ed th e Jew ish D efense L eague in 1968, K ah an e h a d been w ritin g extensively o n p u b lic m a tte rs w ith tw elve b o o k s a n d h u n d re d s o f p am p h lets a n d n e w sp a p e r colum ns. U nlike th e leaders o f G ush E m u n im , w ho grew up in a very stru c tu re d a n d collective am b ian ce, a n d w h o h a d a n atu ral co n stitu en cy w ith w h o m to converse, K ah an e alw ays o p e ra te d o u t­ side o f estab lish ed o rg a n iz a tio n s, a n d need ed to w rite a b o u t his ideas to convince people o f his view s. K a h a n e ’s w ritin g s a re u n m ista k a b ly th e p ro d u c t o f a rad ical m ind th a t blends his o r th o d o x e d u c a tio n o f th e N e w Y ork M irre r Yeshiva, his B.A. in political science from B rooklyn C ollege, his law degree from N ew Y ork Law School, a n d his m a ste r’s degree in in te rn a tio n a l affairs from N ew York U niversity.18 T h o u g h K a h a n e ’s th o u g h t is n o t as th eologically p ro fo u n d as Rav K o o k ’s, it nevertheless is a cohesive system o f religious ideology. T his system is m a rk e d by basic a ssu m p tio n s d ra w n from selective a n d highly ten d en tio u s in te rp re ta tio n s o f th e Bible a n d H a la k h ic a u th o ritie s, by d e riv a ­ tive p ro p o sitio n s o f a general political c h a ra c te r,a n d by radical co n clu sio n s. T he R evisionist influence o f V lad im ir Ja b o tin sk y is very m ark ed , an d K ahane once a c k n o w led g ed the influence o f D r. Israel E ldad, th e rig h t-w in g ideologue o f th e K ingdom o f Israel school. C ertain em p h ases in his w ritin g changed ov er th e years, b u t his cast o f m ind rem ain ed th e sam e. T h e m o st strik in g elem ent in K a h a n e ’s system is his d eterm in istic fu n d a ­ m entalism . N o o th e r Z io n is t religious w rite r h ad so insisted on th e d o c trin e of in e rra n c y — th e necessity to read th e Bible as a set o f rules an d live by th e m .19 T h e fu n d a m e n ta lism o f R ab b i K ah an e is to ta l, d irect, an d devoid o f mystery. So is his style o f w ritin g a n d p reach in g . M an y o f his b o o k s are m ore rem in iscen t o f th e C h ristia n evangelism o f Jim m y S w ag g art an d O ra l R oberts th a n th e teach in g o f R av K ook. K ah ane h a d never a d m itte d th a t he saw him self as m o d ern J u d a is m ’s angry p ro p h e t, b u t th e style a n d p assio n o f his w ritin g s c o m m u n icate th e im pression m o st clearly: T h e peo p le o f Israel are living in sin an d are a b o u t to be p u n ish ed . T h e ir only h o p e is rep en ten ce, th e so o n er th e better. Som e­ tim es K ah an e w rite s as th e p ro p h e t th ro w n in to p riso n (Jerem iah) an d a t o th ers as th e p ro p h e t o f d o o m (Ezekiel). K a h a n e ’s G o d is, o f co u rse, th e A lm ighty H im self, b u t th ere is no m ys­ tery a b o u t H im o r a b o u t H is w ays o f co n d u c tin g th e w o rld . Basically H e is a suprem e a n d sovereign w a rlo rd w h o m u st be to ta lly obeyed. K a h a n e ’s G od is very h u m a n — if H is in stru c tio n s are carefully follow ed, H e is pleased; if they are d isreg ard ed , H e gets angry. A nd since K a h a n e ’s Bible m akes G o d ’s specific o rd e rs a n d po litical reco m m e n d a tio n s clear an d u n eq u iv o cal, th ere sh o u ld be no difficulty o b ey in g H im . T h ere is, fu rth e rm o re , n o q u estio n

216

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

a b o u t th e p u n ish m e n t th a t aw aits those w h o d o n o t, for G o d is E l N akattt V esbiiem (the A venging G od). As respectful as th e rab b i is o f the Bible, he read it as if it w ere a tw en tieth -c en tu ry m an u al for th e c o n d u c t o f public affairs. W hen an A m eri­ can jo u rn a list once asked a b o u t th e realism o f K ah an e’s political sugges­ tions, he resp o n d ed , “ M y w hole system is based on the p resu p p o sitio n th a t G o d is stro n g er th a n P resident R e a g a n .” 20 H e has no K ookist p ro b lem s w ith G o d ’s m ysterious w ays. In J ew ish h isto ry , fro m tim e im m e m o r ia l, an d in J ew ish h isto ry tod ay, th at w h ic h w ill b e is c o n d itio n e d o n o n e th in g o n ly : s t a t u t e s and

“If you

“If

y o u s h a ll w a lk in M y

s h a ll d is d a in M y s t a t u t e s . ” . . . T h e form er g u aran tees

p e a c e a n d tr a n q u illity a n d b liss a n d r e d e m p tio n . T h e latter assu res traged y a n d c a ta str o p h e . T h e re is n o e sc a p e from th is im m u ta b le la w o f cr ea tio n . But if o n e d o e s , in d e e d , w a lk in th e fo o ts te p s o f his C reator, th en th e F ather o f th e J ew ish p e o p le , th e A ll-M ig h ty , h as o b lig a te d H im se lf to g iv e to H is ch ild ren th e p r o m ise d rew a rd . T h is is th e a n sw er, th is is th e k ey to th e G ate o f r e d e m p tio n . O n e w h o u n d er sta n d s it sh all en ter it. O n e w h o d o e s n o t is d o o m e d to b e sca ttere d as th e c h a ff in th e w in d a n d , G —d fo rb id , to take m a n y o f h is b ro th er s a n d sisters w ith h im .” 21

K a h an e’s fu n d a m e n ta list reliance on the Bible as the ultim ate guide w as m atch ed by his equally bo ld assertio n th a t he, an d he alone, possessed the tru th . T his w as indeed stran g e, for K ahan e insisted th a t he fu n ctio n ed w ith in a very stru c tu re d a n d in v o lu n tary theology, th e H a la k h a . Since there are th o u sa n d s o f o rth o d o x rab b is an d scholars w h o are en titled , according to the Jew ish tra d itio n , to read H a la k h a an d ex p lain it, one w o u ld n atu rally expect K ahane to have referred to a t least a few living au th o rities. B ut such reference did n o t exist. W hile he did n o t p re te n d to be an a u th o rity o n every aspect o f Jew ish law (alth o u g h he repeated ly let one k n o w th a t he w as a Talmid Hachant— a Jew ish sc h o la r— in the full sense of the term ), he saw him self as the sole a u th o rity on political an d n atio n al m a tte rs.22 In 1974, K ahane established his C en ter o f the Jew ish Idea to p ro p ag ate his theories a n d beliefs. M o st o f his p u b licatio n s cam e from the center an d left no d o u b t as to the ra b b i’s self-evaluation: “ R abbi M eir K ahane, P hiloso­ pher! V isionary! R evolu tio n ary ! T he m o st exciting, dynam ic, d iffere n t J ew ­ ish leader . . . th e e x p o n e n t o f th e A uthentic Jew ish id e a .” 23 In his recent U n c o m fo rta b le Q u e stio n s to C o m fo r ta b le Jew s, K ahane w en t a step further. D efending his so-called “ K a h a n ism ,” w hich has com e u n d er m ajo r public a tta c k in Israel since 1984, he arg u ed ag ain st his “ leftist” critics: L et th ere be n o m ista k e . . . . T h e se are th e real fa scists, th e real k illers. T h ey h a te a n d w ish to d estr o y K a h a n e— b u t o n ly as a sy m b o l o f th a t w h ich is th e ta rg et o f th eir u ltim a te h a te. T h e y h a te K a h a n e b eca u se th ey h ate Ju d aism a n d J e w s, a n d th e m se lv e s. A n d th ere is n o th in g th ey w ill n o t d o in ord er to w ip e o u t th a t K a h a n ism th ey co r rec tly see as true J u d a ism .24

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

21 7

K ah anism , th en , is n o t ju st a n o th e r a p p ro a c h to th e c o n d u c t o f p u b lic affairs, it is th e tru e J u d a ism , a n d K ah an e is its p ro p h e t, th e only legitim ate rep resen tativ e o f “ th e a u th e n tic Jew ish id e a ” in this g en eratio n . K a h a n e ’s self-confidence a n d to ta l co n v ictio n in his p erso n al u n iq u en ess a n d calling w ere co nfirm ed in p riv a te interview s, in w h ich he a d m itte d th a t he h a d n o respect fo r th e teach in g s o f R av K ook, an d th a t G ush E m u n im m ad e n o difference in th e w o rld . R av S hach, th e m o st revered a u th o rity o f th e u l­ tra o rth o d o x L ith u e n ia n yesh iv o t in Israel is, acco rd in g to K ah an e “ e n o r­ m ous Jew ,” b u t o n p o litical a n d n a tio n a l m a tte rs he is w ro n g since he still “ lives in th e D ia s p o ra .” T h e re w ere, a cco rd in g to K a h a n e ’s a c c o u n t, several a u th o ritie s th a t ag reed w ith h im — m o st n o te w o rth y a m o n g th em w as R ab b i M o rd ech ai E liyahu, Israel’s chief S ep h arad i ra b b i— b u t n o n e o f th em h a d the co u rag e to s ta n d u p publicly a n d be c o u n te d .25 T h u s, th ere w as only o ne p erson in this sinful g e n e ra tio n w h o to ld th e tru th , R ab b i M eir K ahane. W hile K a h a n e ’s id eo -th e o lo g y h as been e x p o u n d e d in m any b o o k s an d essays, it can usefully be su m m arized in several key p o in ts, as follow s.

The Uniqueness of the Jewish People K a h an e’s fu n d a m e n ta l, insistently re p e a te d ax io m is th a t th e Jew ish p eo p le is u n iq u e, sin g u lar a n d holy, th e only n a tio n chosen by G o d : T h e J e w ish p e o p le is a u n iq u e , d istin c t, a n d sep a ra te p e o p le , d iv in e ly c h o se n at S in a i, a r e lig io n -n a tio n , tr a n sc e n d in g th e fo o lis h n e s s a n d d a n g e r o f sh a l­ lo w

s e c u la r n a tio n a lis m

th a t m erely d iv id e s w ith o u t ra isin g up. . . .

Its

c h o s e n n e s s is n o t a ra cia l o r n a tio n a l th in g , b u t b a sed o n th e c h o se n m issio n ; i.e ., it is a p e o p le th a t w a s g iv e n a sa cr ed la w , th e T orah , an d an im m u ta b le d e stin y to liv e a n d u p h o ld th e T orah s o as to serve as a lig h t u n to th e n a tio n s . . . . A ll th a t h a s h a p p e n e d , h a p p e n s, an d w ill h a p p en g o e s a c c o r d in g to a d iv in e p la n a t th e ce n te r o f w h ic h sta n d s th e Jew ish p e o p le .26

K a h a n e ’s “ s in g u la rity ” ax io m is n o t a d etach ed th eo retic al p ro p o sitio n to w h ich m o st Jew s m ig h t possibly agree, b u t a fu n d a m e n ta list o p e ra tio n a l statem en t. It m eans th a t th e Jew ish n a tio n is d ifferen t fro m the rest o f the w o rld a n d is n o t, a n d o u g h t n o t to be, b o u n d by ex tern al law s o r un iv ersal n orm s. O n th e co n trary , it possesses a com p lete system o f b eh av io r th a t is exclusively its o w n , a n d it ow es no respect to th e m o ral o r b eh av io ral n o rm s of o th e r p h ilo so p h ies o r n a tio n s. U niversalism , w h atev er its w o rth to m a n ­ kin d in general, does n o t co n cern the Jew ish people. A nd since th e A lm ighty G o d o f Israel sta n d s b eh in d his people, its u n iq u e p a th is b o u n d to lead to success. L et us n o t fo r g e t th a t w e c a m e to E retz Y israel in ord er to e sta b lish a J ew ish sta te a n d n o t a W e ste r n -sty le sta te . J ew ish v a lu e s, n o t ep h em e ra l W estern

218

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right v a lu e s, s h o u ld g u id e u s. N e ith e r lib e ra lism an d d em o c ra cy n or a so -c a lled p r o g r e ssiv e o u t lo o k sh o u ld d e te r m in e w h a t is g o o d o r b ad for u s.27

K a h a n e ’s p a rtic u la r a p p ro a c h extends to the claim th a t the Jew ish n atio n is “ th e h e a rt o f th e h e a rt o f th e w o rld an d the reaso n for its ex isten ce.” W h at m atters, consequently, is n o t w h a t is going on in th e w o rld b u t w h a t is h ap p en in g to th e Jew ish people. T he rest is nonsense, an u n im p o rta n t fo o t­ n o te to Jew ish h isto ry a n d reality. It follow s th a t K ah an e has n o m ean in gfu l c o n c e p t o f in tern a tio n a l rela tio n s o r in tern a tio n a l law : If th ere exists a sphere o f in te rn a tio n a l relatio n s in w hich the n atio n s o f the w o rld in teract an d have som e co m m o n g ro u n d rules, th a t reality belongs to a low er level of h u m an actio n . It c a n n o t, a n d sh o u ld n o t, b in d o r restrict the State o f Israel.

Kahane's Theory of Revenge and the Call for Jewish Isolationism T h ere is a n o th e r p o w erfu l source for K a h a n e ’s hostility to the rest o f the w o rld , a m o st p ro fo u n d anim osity to w a rd an d m istru st o f the G o y im (G en­ tiles). Since tim e im m em orial Jew s have expressed an tag o n ism to w a rd the cruel G entile n a tio n s th a t have p ersecuted the Jew s an d m u rd e red them . K ahane w as w ith o u t d o u b t the m o st extrem e m o d ern rep resen tativ e of this sch o o l.28 K a h a n e ’s ho stility to the G entiles is certainly the stro n g est em o ­ tio n al a n d psychological them e o f his political theology. T h ere is n o t a single essay o r b o o k in w hich this enm ity an d th irst for revenge do n o t surface. K ah an e’s em o tio n a l reactio n to th e G entiles is so p ro fo u n d th a t they, n o t th e Jew s, are p a r a d o x ic a lly resp o n sib le fo r th e esta b lish m en t o f th e S ta te o f Israel. Israel w as estab lish ed , acco rd in g to K ahane, n o t because the Z io n ists (w ho did n o t repent!) deserved it, b u t as a result o f the actions o f the G entiles. T he p eren n ial h u m iliatio n o f th e Jews by the G entiles w as, a c c o rd ­ ing to this stran g e theory, also a h u m iliatio n of G o d , W ho established the State o f Israel as H is revenge ag ain st th e G entiles. W hile the revenge th eo ry w as only fully developed in the 1980s, it is alread y no ticeab le in an essay K ahane w ro te after the 1974 te rro r a tta c k on a school in K iryat Shm one th a t to o k the lives of m any children. In th a t essay, H illu l H a sh em (the d esecratio n o f the nam e o f G od), K ahane developed his an sw er to th e K ookist p ro p o sitio n s on m o d ern red em p tio n an d the origins of the S tate o f Israel: T h e d e b a te a b o u t th e r e lig io u s le g itim a c y o f th e State o f Israel and its p la c e in o u r h isto r y h as b een c o n d u c te d w ith in r e lig io u s circles for a lo n g tim e. It has fo c u se d o n th e p en e tr a tin g an d real q u e stio n : H o w can a relig io u s Jew see th e hand o f

G—d

in a sta te th a t w a s e sta b lish e d by Jew s w h o n o t o n ly d o n o t

fo llo w th e p a th s o f

G—d,

b u t reject H im o p e n ly or, at b est, are p a ssiv e to H is

b le ssed e x iste n c e ? . . . T h e S tate o f Israel w a s esta b lish e d n o t b eca u se th e Jew d eser v ed it, fo r th e Jew is as h e h a s b een b efo r e, rejectin g from h is p a th s, a n d ig n o r in g H is T orah . . . .

G—d

G—d,

d ev ia tin g

created th is sta te n o t for th e

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

219

J e w a n d n o t as a re w a r d fo r h is ju stic e a n d g o o d d eed s. It is b e c a u se H e , b le sse d b e H is N a m e , d e c id e d th a t H e c o u ld n o lo n g e r ta k e th e d e se c r a tio n o f h is n a m e a n d th e la u g h te r , th e d isg r a ce, an d th e p e r se c u tio n o f th e p e o p le th a t w a s n a m e d a fter h im , s o H e o r d e r e d th e S ta te o f Israel to b e, w h ic h is a to ta l c o n tr a d ic tio n to th e D ia s p o r a . If th e D ia s p o r a , w ith its h u m ilia tio n s , d efe a ts, p e r se c u tio n s, se c o n d -c la ss sta tu s o f a m in o r ity . . . m e a n s H illu l H a s h e m , th en a so v e r e ig n J ew ish sta te w h ic h p r o v id e s th e J e w h o m e , m a jo r ity sta tu s, la n d o f h is o w n , a m ilita ry o f h is o w n , a n d a v ic to r y o v e r th e d e fe a te d G en tile in th e b a ttlefie ld , is e x a c t l y t h e o p p o s i t e , K id u sh H a s h e m (th e sa n c tific a tio n o f th e n a m e o f G —d ). It is

th e r e a sse r tio n , th e p r o o f, th e te s tim o n y fo r th e e x is te n c e o f G - d an d h is g o v e r n m e n t.29

T h u s, K a h a n e ’s S tate o f Israel is n o t a re w a rd fo r th e Jew s, b u t a p u n ish ­ m en t fo r th e G entiles! T h e specific G entiles m ay n o t be th e sam e, b u t they are alw ays th e re — th e N azis, th e blacks, th e C h ristian s, th e R ussians, an d , o f course, th e A rabs. K a h a n e ’s rad icalism , p assio n a n d c o m m itm e n t seem to be exclusively ro o te d in this o n e elem ent, th e in satiab le urge to b e a t th e G o y , to re sp o n d in k in d for tw o m illennia o f vilification o f th e Jew s. H o w ev er, since he claim s to be m o re th a n an in d iv id u al Jew w h o seeks revenge, a n d is ra th e r expressin g th e H a la k h a o p in io n a n d th e voice o f G o d , th e vengeance the Jew s are su p p o se d to ta k e is n o t sim ply a p erso n al act, b u t th e revenge o f G o d for th e h u m ilia tio n H e suffered th ro u g h the d esecratio n o f H is people. D o y o u w a n t to k n o w h o w th e N a m e o f G —d is d esec ra te d in th e ey e s o f th e m o c k in g a n d s n e e r in g n a tio n s? It is w h e n th e J e w , H is p e o p le , H is c h o s e n , is d e se c r a te d ! W h e n th e J e w is b e a te n , G - d is p ro fa n ed ! W h en th e J e w is h u m ilia te d , G —d is s h a m e d ! W h e n th e J e w is a tta c k e d , it is an a ssa u lt u p o n th e N a m e o f G - d ! . . . E very p o g r o m is a d e se c r a tio n o f th e N a m e . E very A u s c h w itz an d e x p u l­ s io n a n d m u rd er a n d rap e o f a J ew is th e h u m ilia tio n o f G —d. E very tim e a J ew is b e a te n b y a g e n tile b e c a u se h e is a Jew , th is is th e esse n c e o f H illu l H ash em ! . . . A n en d to E x ile — th a t is K id u sh H a sh e m . A n en d to th e s h a m e an d b e a tin g s a n d th e m o n u m e n ts to o u r m u rd ered a n d o u r m a rty rized . . . . A n en d to th e G e n tile fist u p o n a J ew ish fa ce. . . . A J ew ish fist in th e fa c e o f a n a s to n is h e d g e n tile w o r ld th a t h a d n o t seen it fo r t w o m ille n n ia , th is is K id u sh H a s h e m . J ew ish d o m in io n o v e r th e C h r is­ tia n h o ly p la c e s w h ile th e C h u rch th a t su ck ed o u r b lo o d v o m its its rage an d fr u str a tio n . T h is is K id u sh H a s h e m . A J ew ish A ir F o rce th a t is b etter th a n a n y o th e r a n d th a t fo r c e s a L e b a n e se a irlin er d o w n s o th a t w e ca n im p r iso n m u rd erers o f J e w s rath er th a n h a v in g to rep ea t th e c e n tu r ie s-o ld p a ttern o f b e g g in g th e g e n tile to d o it fo r u s. T h is is K id u sh H a sh e m . . . . R e a d in g an gry ed ito r ia ls a b o u t J e w ish “ a g g r e s s io n ” a n d “ v io la t io n s ” rather th a n flo w e ry e u lo g ie s o v e r d e a d J e w ish v ic tim s. T h a t is K id u sh H a s h e m .30

K a h a n e ’s use o f th e fo rm al H a la k h ic term in o lo g y o f H illu l H a sh em , an d K id u sh H a sh e m sh o u ld n o t m islead th e read er. T h e san ctificatio n o f th e nam e o f G o d is n o t th e m ain objective. W h a t really com es o u t o f these

220

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

em o tio n al statem en ts is his conviction th a t th e very definition o f Jew ish freedom im plies th e ability to h u m iliate the G entile. T h e stro n g er th e Jew is, th e m o re v iolent a n d aggressive, th e freer he becom es. K ah ane m ay n o t have gone as far as G eorges Sorel an d F ran tz F an o n in claim ing th a t violence is a m o ra l force in h isto ry o r th a t violence sets one free, b u t he does sh are m any tra its w ith b o th , especially F an o n .31 For w h at he is p ro p o sin g is th a t an in d e p e n d e n t Jew ish state is n o t enough. Jew ish sovereignty solves only th e m isery o f exile. T h ere is a n o th e r w o u n d th a t has to be h ealed, th e p ain o f h u m ilia tio n , v ictim izatio n , an d genocide. K ahane does n o t c o n c e n tra te solely o n the H o lo cau st, th o u g h his reactio n to the N azi genocide has alw ays been p ro fo u n d . F or him , th o u g h , the H o lo cau st w as a n a tu ra l p ro d u c t o f anti-S em itism , one th a t could develop in any “ n o rm a l” n a tio n an d is still a h istorical possibility.32 T he H o lo cau st an d the countless p o g ro m s th a t p receded it have left in th e n a tio n ’s collective psyche an alm o st irre p a ra b le d am age, w hich can be redressed only by a concrete revenge, a physical h u m ilia tio n o f th e G entiles. T h erefo re K ahane, like F an o n , is n o t satisfied w ith a peaceful lib eratio n . A m ilitary force th a t asto n ishes th e w o rld is needed, “ a fist in the face o f the G en tile.” 33 K ah ane rejects th e G entiles for a n o th e r reaso n : th eir non-Jew ish p o iso n ­ ous ideas have a ttra c te d y o u n g Jew s since tim e im m em orial, an d have led them to believe th a t these ideologies could solve the p ro b lem s o f the w o rld . H o w w e b e lie v e d all th e fa lse p r o p h e ts an d h o w w e d rank eagerly from all th e p o is o n e d w a te r ! H o w w e ran to w a r d all th e g litterin g fraud s an d a w a y fro m th e str o n g a n d etern a l J ew ish v erities! H o w w e b eliev ed in R efo rm an d A ss im ila tio n a n d E n lig h te n m e n t an d C u ltu ral P lu ralism an d L ib eralism an d D e m o c r a c y a n d S o c ia lism a n d M a r x ism an d P articip atory D e m o c r a c y an d C h a irm a n M a o a n d C o m r a d e L eon (T rotsky) and R a tio n a lism an d th e in h er­ e n t d e c e n c y o f m a n . . . . A ll o f it d ie d in flam es o f A u sc h w itz an d th e m o c k ­ ery o f S ta lin ist trials a n d th e m a d n e ss o f an irration al m o b .34

T h u s th e inescapable co nclusion is th a t Jew s sh o u ld finally isolate th e m ­ selves from th e rest o f the w o rld . G iven the d an g er o f a fu tu re h o lo cau st o r even o f a n o n v io le n t cu ltu ra l elim in atio n th ro u g h assim ilation, they sho u ld all flock to Israel a n d sever th eir ties w ith the hostile w orld. A t stak e is th e very survival o f all D iasp o ra Jew s, an d , acco rd in g to K ahane, tim e is ru n ­ ning o u t. N o n a tio n o r d ip lo m a tic relatio n s o r econom ic ties will p ro te c t them . B ut the people o f Israel are th e children o f G o d , an d H e ra th e r th a n any rea lp o litik will solve all th eir p roblem s. T h e “ increasing isolation o f the Jew ish people is a blessing a n d n o t a curse an d a sign o f the sure com ing o f the final re d e m p tio n .” 35

Catastrophic Messianism K ah an e’s early JD L m essage w as far m ore political th a n religious, w ith n eith er m essianic p h ilo so p h y n o r m illen n arian dream s a b o u t tra n sfo rm in g

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

221

Israel in to a H a la k h ic state. B ut since th e Six-D ay W ar, Z io n ist fu n d a m e n ta l­ ism a n d G ush E m u n im have in tro d u c e d to Israel’s p u b lic d isco u rse a new p arad ig m th a t open ly em b races m essianic language. In this c o n te x t, a relig io u s-m ax im alist creed co u ld be tak en seriously only if it in clu d ed a m essianic c o m p o n e n t, a n d K ah an e quickly began to assert th a t th e Jew ish n a tio n is living in a m essianic era in w hich it is a b o u t to be redeem ed. T his h ad eventually becom e a fu n d a m e n ta l te n e t fo r him , an u n q u e stio n a b le p resu p p o sitio n o f his w h o le th eo ry : W e are all sta n d in g . . . a t o n e o f th e g r e a test m o m e n ts o f J ew ish h istory. . . . It is as clea r as th e s u n s h in e th a t A lm ig h ty G —d is read y n o w to b rin g us o v er th e final r e d e m p tio n , a n d th a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e freed o m is a lrea d y w o r k ­ in g . W e e n v is io n n o w th e h isto r ic a l m o m e n t o f r e d e m p tio n .36

T h o u g h re d e m p tio n becam e cen tral to K a h a n e ’s p olitical p ro g ra m , the co n cep t is one o f th e w eak est a n d m o st artificial p a rts o f his g ra n d theory. Even w ith in his generally sim plistic system it so u n d s m echanical an d u n c o n ­ vincing. K ah an e addresses th e issue o f red e m p tio n as if it is som e k in d o f celeb ratio n th a t m ay o r m ay n o t h a p p e n to m o rro w , acco rd in g to th e b e h a v ­ ior o f th e people. N o w h e re does this stran g e a n d m ech an istic a p p ro a c h show m o re clearly th a n w h en K ah an e w rites th a t th e event m ig h t alread y have tak en place h a d th e leaders o f th e n a tio n d o n e th e rig h t thing: W e s t o o d o n th e b rin k o f a c o m p le te r e d e m p tio n . If w e h a d o n ly h a d th e c o u r a g e a n d th e fa ith to k eep it! If w e h a d d ecla red a b o u t th e lib era ted territo ries: “ T h e s e are o u r s a n d h a v e ju st b een r e tu rn ed ” ! If w e h ad o ffic ia lly a n n e x e d th em to th e sta te o f Israel; if w e h a d ta k en th e G e n tile s ’s a b o m in a ­ tio n s fr o m th e T em p le M o u n t; if w e h a d e x p e lle d o u r h aters from th e c o u n ­ try; if w e h a d m a d e free J ew ish s e ttle m e n t all o v e r E retz Y israel m a n d a to r y — if w e h a d d o n e all th e se th in g s w ith o u t c o n sid e r in g th e re a ctio n o f th e G o y , w ith o u t fe a r in g w h a t h e sa y s o r d o e s , th e M e ssia h w o u ld h a v e c o m e th ro u g h th e o p e n d o o r a n d b r o u g h t us th e r e d e m p tio n .37

Even g re a t Jew ish a u th o ritie s are u n su re o n such m ysterious q u estio n s as th e m ean in g a n d sh ap e o f th e M essiah a n d th e circu m stan ces o f his com ing, b u t this does n o t seem to b o th e r K ah an e a t all. N o r does he see fit to discuss o r d eb a te th e m o st im p o rta n t m essianic p h ilo so p h y o f o u r tim e, the K o o k ist th eo lo g y a n d its v a rio u s in te rp re ta tio n s. K a h a n e ’s M essiah does n o t need definition o r e x p la n a tio n . H e is sim ply to com e a t th e m o m en t, as defined by K ahane, w h en th e Jew ish p eo p le are ready. O n e o f th e key features o f K a h a n e ’s m essianism is its c a ta stro p h ic c h a r­ acter. T h e re w as alw ays an ap o caly p tic elem en t in his w ritin g , a m essage o f u tm o st urgency vis-à-vis a possible h o lo c a u st. L ong before he m oved to Israel, K ah an e p re d ic te d th e v io len t dem ise o f th e D iasp o ra: n o t only w as Soviet Jew ry a b o u t to die b u t A m erican Jew ry w as as well. To av ert disaster, K ah an e p rescrib ed “ a p ro g ra m for Jew ish su rv iv a l.” 38 Israel w as, in th o se early days, a secure san ctu ary . B ut th e ra b b i’s a p o c a ly p tic vision a p p a re n tly follow ed him to the H oly

222

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Land. In 1973 an d 1974 K ahane w ro te tw o essays: Israel's E te rn ity a n d V icto ry an d N u m b e rs 2 3 :9 , in w hich he first developed his catastro p h ic m essianism .39 T h e en tire th eo ry w as based on a verse from Isaiah “ In its tim e, I will h u rry it (the re d e m p tio n )” (Isaiah 60), and on its rabbinical in te rp re ta tio n , “ If they, th e Jew s, m erit it, I will h u rry it. If they d o n o t m erit it, it will com e ‘in its tim e ’ ” (Sanhedrin 93). R ed em p tio n , th en , is an inevita­ ble p a rt o f G o d ’s p lan a n d w ill com e regardless o f w h a t the people of Israel do. W h a t is left to th e Jew s is the d eterm in a tio n of h o w a n d w h en redem p­ tion tak es place. If they rep en t, acco rd in g to K a h a n e ’s in te rp re ta tio n , red em p tio n will com e quickly an d w ith o u t p ain . B ut if they do n o t, red em p tio n will com e after g reat tro u b le s, w ars, a n d disasters. T he estab lish m en t of the State of Israel in 1948 a n d th e victory o f 1967 w ere u n m istak ab le signs of G o d ’s desire to “ h u rry it” — p ro v id e d th e n a tio n w as ready to repent. B ut the Yom K ip p u r W ar p ro v ed th ere w as a serious p roblem on the ro ad to salvation. A t th a t p o in t K ahane w a rn e d the people of Israel a b o u t the disasters in sto re sh o u ld they n o t resp o n d to G o d ’s gesture an d retu rn to o rth o d o x Ju d aism . In 1980 K ahane h a d plenty o f tim e to reconsider his g ran d ideotheology. H e w as p laced w ith o u t trial for nine m o n th s in the R am la m ax im um -security p riso n for p lan n in g to blo w up the D om e o f the R ock on th e Tem ple M o u n t (one o f m any such schem es). It w as a p ro d u ctiv e perio d , for he com pleted tw o m a jo r b o o k s, T h o rn s in Your E yes an d O n R e d e m p ­ tio n a n d Faith, a n d a highly original essay, F o rty Years. T he later b o o k ’s novelty w as K a h an e’s d a rin g conclusion th a t in 1948, the y ear Israel o b ta in e d its independence, the n atio n w as given a grace p erio d o f forty years in w hich to rep en t an d p rep are for G o d ’s h u rried red em p tio n . B ut a w a rn in g w as im plied: if no repentence to o k place, the in evita b le red em p tio n (“ in its tim e ” ) w as to occur, n o t o u t o f G o d ’s grace b u t o u t o f H is fury, an d th ro u g h a tre m en d o u s disaster. T he m iraculous victory in 196 7 sh o w ed th a t G o d w as keeping H is p a rt of the b arg ain an d th a t it w as n o w tim e for the people to fulfill its p art. But the n atio n h a d n o t yet rep en ted by 1980, an d its tim e w as ru n n in g o u t. C o n sid e r , J ew . . . i f it is tr u e t h a t th e f o r t y y e a r s b e g a n w i t h th e r is e o f th e S ta t e — h o w m a n y y e a r s a r e le ft?

T o o few . S o little tim e to m a k e th e g reat d ecisio n th a t w ill eith er b rin g us th e g rea t a n d g lo r io u s r e d e m p tio n , sw iftly, m ajestically, sp ared th e terrible su ffer in g s a n d n e e d le ss a g o n ie s , o r G —d fo rb id , th e m a d n ess o f c h o o s in g th e p a th o f u n n ec essa ry , n e e d le ss h o lo c a u s t, m o re h orrib le th an a n y th in g w e h a v e y e t en d u r ed . . . . M y p e o p le ; m y d ear a n d fo o lis h p e o p le ! W e sp eak o f y o u r life an d th o se o f y o u r see d , y o u r ch ild r en a n d g ra n d ch ild ren . C h o o se w isely ! C h o o s e life! T h e M a g n ific e n c e is y o u rs for th e a sk in g . T h e h orror w ill be y o u rs for th e b lin d n e ss. C h o o s e life, b u t q u ick ly ; th ere is little tim e left. T h e f o r t y y e a r s tic k a w a y . 40

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

223

Since 1980 K ah an e h a d becom e th e p ro p h e t o f d o o m a n d gloom . O n e m ight w o n d e r h o w deeply he believed in his o w n p red ictio n s, a n d w h e th e r they w ere an article o f faith o f a p ro p h e t in th e tra d itio n o f Jerem iah , o r an expression o f a tro u b le d p erso n w h o k n o w s no o n e tak es his w a rn in g seri­ ously. B ut w h en he discussed th e issue o f c a ta s tro p h e in p riv a te interview s, he said th a t even if he w ere th e p rim e m inister, a c a ta stro p h e w o u ld still tak e place if th e n a tio n did n o t re p e n t w illingly.41

The Sanctity of Eretz Yisrael Like o th e r Z io n is t fu n d a m e n ta lists, K ah an e is certain th a t all o f Eretz Yisrael is holy, a n d th a t th e Jew s have an inalien ab le rig h t to every p a rt o f it, In d e ed , th ere e x is ts a J ew ish sta te , a h o m e la n d for th e Jew ish p e o p le s a n c ti­ fied b y a d iv in e p r o m is e . T h is is th e b a sis o f th e J ew ish righ t. It is n o t a re q u e st, an a p p e a l o r a p r o p o s it io n . It is a p o w e r o f righ t th a t d o e s n o t r e c o g n iz e a n y d e n ia l. . . . E retz Y israel is th e lan d o f th e Jew ish p e o p le a n d it cla im s h e g e m o n y o v e r all o f it. O u r cla im c a n n o t b e a p p e a le d . It is as o ld as th e d iv in e p r o m ise th a t w a s g iv en to th e n a tio n ’s fo u n d in g fa th e rs.42

G o d ’s p ro m ise to A b ra h a m is th u s as valid n o w as it w as 4 0 0 0 years ago, an d the Jew ish rig h t “ is n o t only fo r a sovereign state b u t for an o w n ersh ip over th e b o rd e rs o f th e en tire Eretz Y israel.” T h e fact th a t J o rd a n an d o th e r A rab c o u n trie s n o w occupy p a rt o f th a t is irrelev an t, because they are illegal u su rp ers. A cco rd in g to K ah an e, th e 1947 Israeli ag reem en t to have a Jew ish state in only a sm all p a rt o f th e lan d w as a tactical ag reem en t w h en th ere w as no altern ativ e . “ It w as n e ith e r a concession n o r can cellatio n o f the Jew ish rig h t to E retz Y israel, only an expressio n o f an a sp ira tio n for peace and th e realizatio n o f p a rt o f th e Jew ish claim s u ntil th e M essiah com es a n d solves q u estio n s a n d p ro b le m s .” 43 Since th e enem ies o f Israel have re p u d i­ ated all th e ag reem ents they m ade, th e n a tio n has re tu rn e d by rig h t to Ju d ea an d S am aria, a n d th a t a c t is irreversible. N o w if the A rabs agree to peace w ith in th e ir p re se n t b o rd e rs, th ere sh o u ld n o t be a n o th e r w a r; they m ay have th e ir P alestine in w h a te v e r te rrito rie s they n o w h o ld . “ B ut if they challenge us a n d force a w a r u p o n us, th en , G o d w illing, the rest o f the Jew ish lan d w ill be redeem ed a n d re tu rn e d to its legal o w n e rs .” 44 K a h a n e ’s general p o sitio n o n th e te rrito ria l issue is n o t p artic u la rly ra d i­ cal. Surprisingly, he does n o t call fo r M ilh e m e t M itz v a (an o b lig a to ry w ar) to regain th e en tire p ro m ise d lan d ; in this m a tte r he follow s the m ore cau tio u s H a la k h a a u th o ritie s. B ut o n th e issue o f the occupied te rrito rie s he is as radical as o n e c o u ld be. A ccording to K a h a n e ’s la te st in te rp re ta tio n , in 1967 G o d directed the Six-D ay W ar, so it is a crim in al offense n o t to ab id e by his co m m an d : Jew s sho u ld be read y to die ra th e r th a n s u rre n d e r the L and. Yehareg U va l Y aavor (Be killed ra th e r th a n sin) is th e rule th a t sh o u ld govern the case. K a h a n e ’s

224

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

p o sitio n on th e te rrito ria l q u estio n includes b o th a p ro fo u n d fu n d am en talist a tta c h m e n t a n d stro n g insistence on te rrito ria l integrity. Indeed, he fu rth e r m ain tain s th a t Israel’s n atio n al interests d ictate th a t even occupied te rrito rie s th a t w ere n o t included in the biblical prom ise m ay n o t be re tu rn e d to th e enem y. O nly u n d e r the strict co n d itio n s th a t im ply u n co n d itio n al su rren d er, irrevocable readiness for peace, an d recognition of Ju d a ism ’s religious su p erio rity is n eg o tiatio n over te rrito ry perm issible. T his places him a m o n g th e m o st ex trem e m em bers o f the G reater Israel sch o o l.45

The Arabs N o political issue occu p ied an d obsessed R abbi M eir K ahane m ore th a n the q u estio n o f th e A rabs in Israel a n d the occupied territo ries, even before he m oved to Israel. W hen th e JD L em b ark ed o n its violent course in late 1969, it d e m o n stra te d a n d p ro te ste d a t the A rab U .N . delegations in N ew Y ork.46 A fter he cam e to Israel in 1971, th e A rabs becam e K ah an e’s p rim e targ et, b o th for polem ics a n d for aggressive actions. K a h an e’s p ro fo u n d in te rn a liz a tio n o f the age-old suffering o f the Jew s, and his co n seq u en t hostility to th e G entiles h a d been the m o st d o m in a n t force in his political psychology. A nd for K ahane, the A rabs w ere the u lti­ m ate G entiles. T h e m ajo rity o f them have never recognized the Z io n ist ven tu re in Palestine. T h e ir m o st im p o rta n t leader in M a n d a to ry Palestine, H aj A m in al-H usseini, th e G ra n d M u fti o f Jerusalem , conspired w ith H itler to p a rtic ip a te in th e N azi “ final s o lu tio n ,” a n d h ad been involved in m any p o g ro m s ag ain st u n a rm e d Jew s. Since 1948, th e A rabs have been resp o n si­ ble for five w ars w ith th e Jew s, and have vow ed, after each defeat, to d estroy Israel. A rab terro rism has been a m ajo r facto r in the life o f m o d ern Israel, an d the 1968 PLO C h a rte r in c o rp o ra te d it in to a cohesive ideology. It w o u ld be su rp risin g if an obsessed ideologue like K ahane h a d n o t m ade the A rab issue his m ajo r stock in tra d e. K ah an e stated his th eo ry in a nutshell by saying th a t th e A rabs are “ th o rn s in o u r eyes.” T hey are vicious and m o rtally d an g ero u s, an d they o u g h t to be expelled from the Jew ish state by any m eans. K a h an e’s th eo retic al discussion o f th e A rab p ro b lem has tw o aspects, religious fu n d am en talism a n d secular nation alism . Like the w riters o f G ush E m unim , K ah an e addresses tw o m ajo r questions: First, do the A rabs have any collective o r individual rights in th e state o f Israel? Second, w h a t sho u ld the g o v ern m en t o f Israel do a b o u t the an sw er to this question? M o st o f the G ush leaders visualize several possible solu tio n s, b u t K ah an e— w h o cited m ost of the sam e H a la k h ic sources— is decisive. H is fu n d am en tal p ro p o si­ tion is th a t all a u th o rita tiv e Jew ish sources m ake it clear th a t the Prom ised L and w as given to the chosen people in a specific way. T hey w ere n o t offered a choice, b u t w ere c o m m an d ed to live there a n d shape A m Segula (A special natio n ) in iso latio n , w ith no interference from others:

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

225

It is im p o s s ib le t o s h a p e h o ly , g lo r io u s an d v ir tu o u s p e o p le as a m in o rity in th e la n d o f a n o th e r n a tio n , sin c e th e c u ltu re o f th e m a jo rity is in e v ita b ly b o u n d to p e n e tr a te , in flu e n c e , c o r r u p t, te m p t, a n d d isto rt. T h e J ew is c o m ­ m a n d e d to m a k e a h o ly n a tio n o u t o f h im se lf, a n d th is is p o s s ib le o n ly in is o la tio n , free o f o th e r s ’ in flu e n c e . T h is is th e re a so n w h y th e sp ecia l J ew ish p e o p le . . . w a s g iv e n a se p a r a te a n d u n iq u e la n d to live in , in ord er to crea te a h o ly , v ir tu o u s s o c ie ty th a t w o u ld b e c o m e a lig h t u n to th e G e n tile s, to be se p a r a te d a n d f o llo w e d . . . . T h e la n d w a s t a k e n fro m th e G e n tile s— th e C a n a a n ite s — in o r d e r to m a k e it p o s s ib le fo r th e J ew to fulfill h is c a llin g .47

K ah an e does n o t m ak e th e usual n a tio n a listic a rg u m e n t— th a t the la n d is Jew ish p ro p e rty b ecause it belonged to th e Jew s b efo re they w ere forced in to exile, since they never gave it u p willingly. In stead he argues th a t th e lan d is o w n ed by th e Jew s because they e x p r o p r ia te d it in th e n am e o f G o d a n d his sovereign w ill— an a c t th a t can be rep eated to d a y w ith no rem o rse, since G o d ’s w ill h as n o t chan g ed . C on sequently, secu lar legal a rg u m en ts o n th e Jew ish a b so lu te rig h t to th e land are irrelev an t. K a h a n e ’s G o d , actin g in a very personified way, has seen and u n d e rsto o d since tim e im m em o rial th e p ro b le m s th a t m ig h t em erge if the issue o f th e o w n e rsh ip o f th e lan d h a d n o t been settled clearly. G o d th erefo re m ad e it ab so lu tely clear th a t only o n e n a tio n h a d the rig h t to Eretz Y israel.48 K a h a n e ’s p o sitio n is th a t aliens in general an d A rab s in p a rtic u la r have no a p r io r i rights in th e c o u n try w hatso ev er. W h atev er rights they m ay enjoy depends o n th e g o o d w ill o f th e Jew s, th e full o w n ers o f th e country. A nd these rights a re lim ited a t best, fo r th e H a la k h a in stru cts th a t alien residents can never be eq u al m em bers o f th e co m m u n ity a n d enjoy full p o litical rights. T h u s, even M u slim s w h o qualify fo r som e rights can never becom e full citizens o f th e sta te o f Israel. A M u slim m ay rem ain on th e lan d as an alien resident, pay special tax es, su b m it to special la b o r reg u latio n s, an d sw ear allegiance to th e state. B ut even th en , he will n o t be able to live in Jeru salem , will o ccasio n ally be ch ecked for his loyalty, a n d in general m u st be “ h u m b le an d lo w .” 49 T h e A rabs w h o are n o t ready to live acco rd in g to these rules, a n d th u s rem ain ho stile to th e Jew s, will in K a h a n e ’s schem e be tre a te d acco rd in g to the biblical reg u latio n s ap p lied by Jo sh u a B en-N un to the an cien t C a n a a n ­ ites. Jo sh u a , he rem in d s us, sen t th e C a n a a n ite s letters offerin g th em th ree altern atives: leave th e lan d , fight fo r it a n d b e a r the co n sequences, o r p eace­ fully s u rre n d e r to th e Jew s a n d o b ta in th e sta tu s o f loyal resid en t alien .50 K a h a n e ’s fu n d a m e n ta list a p p ro a c h , a stric t tw e n tie th -c e n tu ry a p p lic a ­ tion o f a th re e -th o u sa n d -y e a r-o ld biblical ru ling, is au g m en ted by a m eticu ­ lous se c u la r-n a tio n a list analysis. A ccording to K ah an e, th ere is no P alestin ­ ian p eople to deserve th e rig h t o f self-d eterm in atio n . T h e real P alestinian q u estio n is basically a p ro b le m o f individual A rab s w h o live in Eretz Y israel, w h o sh o u ld be tre a te d as indiv id u als. “ T h e re are A rabs, th o se w h o h a d lived for years in E retz Y israel, a n d they are p a rt a n d parcel o f th e A rab n a tio n .

226

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

We respect à n d recognize th e ir existence, b u t they are n o t Palestinians, for such n a tio n a l d efinition h a d never e x iste d .” 51 N o n eth eless, K ah an e w as aw are th a t th ere are A rabs w h o b elieve they are Palestinians a n d are ready to fight for th a t conviction, an aw areness th a t m ade him by far th e m o st pessim istic Israeli ideologue on this issue. Unlike m o st o f th e th in k ers o f th e rad ical right, he believed th a t even th e Israeli A rab s— th o se w h o stayed in Israel after 1948 an d received full Israeli citizen ship— have been “ th in k in g P alestin ian ” all along. Like the A rabs of the W est B ank, they believe they are P alestinian an d consequently pose a m o rtal d a n g er to Israel. N o t o n ly th e A r a b s o f th e lib e ra te d territories see th em selv es as “ P a lestin ia n ” a n d b e lie v e th a t th e J ew s p lu n d e r e d th eir h o m e la n d . E ven th e A rabs . . . w h o h a v e re ceiv ed Israeli c itiz e n sh ip sin c e 1 9 4 8 . . . w h o en jo y freed o m in th e J ew ish sta te , th in k th a t. . . . L et us su p p o s e th a t th e p ea ce h a d s o m e h o w b een a ch iev ed an d th a t all th e “ o u t s id e ” A ra b s . . . h a v e r e c o g n iz e d Israel. Israel w o u ld n o t be freed o f A rab n a tio n a lis m ev en th en . She w ill n o t be freed from th e b u rd en o f th e in sid e A rab p o p u la tio n . . . a large p u b lic th a t is h o stile to th e J ew ish m ajor­ ity a n d th e Jew ish sta te , a n d w is h e s to see it d estr o y ed , or at lea st see its ch a ra c ter a n d n a tio n a l id e n tity c h a n g e d .52

T he Israeli A rabs, acco rd in g to K ahane, are m o re d an g ero u s th a n the A rabs o f the o ccup ied te rrito rie s; they enjoy full political rights a n d can use Israeli law to p ro te c t th e ir subversive activities. T h o u g h they do n o t serve in the arm y and pay very little in tax es, they are en titled to all the benefits of the Israeli w elfare system . T he “ d em o g rap h ic p ro b le m ” — the d an g er th a t the A rabs will eventually o u tn u m b e r the Jew s an d tak e over th e state by d em o cratic m ean s— applies to Israeli A rabs as m uch as to the A rabs o f the occupied territo rie s. Israeli A rabs ta k e special ad v an tag e of the N a tio n a l Insurance In stitu te, w hich encourages large fam ilies by giving generous al­ low ances to fam ilies w ith m o re th an th ree children. T h u s, K ahane m ain ­ tain ed , they do n o t have to m ak e w a r again st Israel in o rd e r to tak e over. Since th eir b irth rate is m uch higher th a n th a t o f the Jew s, all they have to do is p ro d u ce m any ch ild re n .53 O nce th e A rabs becom e 30 o r 40 p ercen t of the p o p u la tio n , they will be in a p o sitio n to d ictate Israeli politics. T hey will d em an d g reater rep resen ta­ tion and m ore pow er. Since Israel’s go v ern m en t has alw ays relied on coali­ tions in w hich sm all p a rtn e rs have h ad g reat influence, the A rabs w o u ld need only a b o u t 25 p ercen t o f th e K nesset seats to becom e the m ajo r p ow erb ro k er o f Israeli politics. T h u s K ahane believed th a t if the presen t system of Israeli g o v ern m en t is n o t changed so o n , the Jew ish state will be destroyed. T h e c o n fr o n ta tio n w ill c o m e w h e n th e Israeli A rabs b e co m e o n e -fo u r th or o n e -th ir d o f th e n a tio n ’s p o p u la tio n . T h e riots an d civil d iso b e d ie n c e w ill be seen o n te le v isio n scr een s all o v er th e w o r ld . B o m b s w ill e x p lo d e and d o z e n s

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

227

w ill d ie in th e c o n fr o n t a tio n s b e tw e e n so ld ie r s an d A rab c itiz en s. . . . W o rld p u b lic o p in io n w ill tu rn a g a in s t Israel a n d th e A m erica n J ew s w ill arg u e an d sp lit. In th e K n e sse t, tw e n ty -fiv e o r th irty A rab K n esset m em b ers w ill d istu rb th e s e s s io n s , an d w ill d e m a n d a u to n o m y a n d p ro p er r e p r esen ta tio n for th e A r a b s. A liy a to Israel w ill p r a c tic a lly s to p . . . an d th e rate o f e m ig r a tio n , o n th e o th e r h a n d , w ill in c r e a s e .54

W ith P alestin ian ex trem ism w ith in Israel c o n tin u in g to rise, K ah an e a r­ gued th a t his co n clu sio n “ they m u st g o ” w as increasingly tru e an d relevant.

Judaism versus Democracy Ju st as K a h a n e ’s p o sitio n o n th e A rabs becam e m o re rad ical, so d id his view s of dem ocracy. T h e ra b b i w as by far th e m o st vocal enem y o f th e d e m o cratic principle a n d system o f g o v e rn m e n t is p resen t-d ay Israel. A t th e b eg in n in g o f his career in th e U nited States, K ah an e h a d little to say a b o u t d em o cracy a n d c o n c e n tra te d o n Jew ish self-defense ag ain st eth n ic hostility. In Israel, h o w ­ ever, as his rad ical so lu tio n for th e A rab p ro b le m crystallized, K ah an e h a d rep eatedly been accused o f being an ti-d e m o c ra tic . H e co n seq u en tly h a d to clarify his s ta n d o n th e q u e stio n o f d em o cracy a n d th e rule o f law. H is 19 7 7 b o o k L a w a n d O r d e r in Isra el co n cern ed th e co n tro v ersy o v er the illicit se ttle m e n t o f E lon M o re h . H ere K ah an e m ad e clear th a t he c o n sid ­ ered d em o cracy an alien, G entile idea. If a d em o cratically elected Jew ish g o v ern m en t obeys religious law s a n d an in te rp re ta tio n o f O rth o d o x a u th o ri­ ties, th en it is ad m issible a n d fine: b u t if it does n o t, all its law s, reg u latio n s, an d policies are u n a c c e p ta b le a n d false.55 Before 1978 K ah an e w as still o p tim istic a b o u t th e ability o f th e “ rig h t” rulers o f Israel to en co u rag e th e A rabs to leave Eretz Y israel a n d to in tro ­ duce a m o re intense Jew ish c u ltu re a n d e d u c a tio n th ro u g h th e d e m o cratic process. T hese changes, he th o u g h t, co u ld be acco m p lish ed w ith o u t a fu n d a ­ m en tal c o n s titu tio n a l rev o lu tio n in Israel. B ut th e 1978 C am p D avid A c­ cords a n d th e p u b lic c am p aig n to silence him after his 198 4 election to the K nesset rad icalized his p o sitio n a g re a t deal. T h e first salvo in his c o m p re h e n ­ sive a tta c k o n liberal d em o cracy in general, an d Israeli d em o cracy in p a rtic u ­ lar, w as his 19 8 0 a tta c k o n Isra e l’s D eclaratio n o f In d ep en d en ce, w hich h a d becom e his p rin c ip le ideological ta rg e t. In his m o st recen t b o o k , U n c o m fo r t­ a ble Q u e stio n s to C o m fo r ta b le Jew s, K ah an e gives o n e o f his m o st forceful th eo retical a rg u m e n ts o n th e fu n d a m e n ta l gap betw een Ju d aism an d liberal dem ocracy. T h e lib era l w e s t s p e a k s a b o u t th e ru le o f d em o cra cy , o f th e a u th o r ity o f th e m a jo rity , w h ile J u d a ism sp e a k s o f th e D iv in e tru th th a t is im m u ta b le a n d n o t su b je c t t o th e b a llo t b o x o r to m a jo r ity error. T h e liberal w e st sp ea k s a b o u t th e a b s o lu te e q u a lity o f all p e o p le w h ile J u d a ism sp ea k s o f sp iritu a l s t a t u s , o f

228

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right th e c h o s e n n e s s o f th e J e w a b o v e all o th e r p e o p le , o f th e sp ecia l an d ex c lu siv e r e la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n G —d a n d Israel. T h e liberal w e st sp ea k s o f su b jective tr u th , o f n o o n e b e in g a b le t o cla im o r to k n o w w h a t is a b so lu te truth, w h ile J u d a ism sp e a k s o f o b je c tiv e , etern a l truth th a t is k n o w n , h a v in g b een given b y G —d a t S in a i. . . . B ut a b o v e a ll, J u d a ism d iffers fro m lib eral an d n o n - lib e r a l w e stern valu es in th a t th e fo u n d a tio n u p o n w h ic h it rests is th a t o f “ th e y o k e o f H e a v e n ,” th e a c c e p ta n c e o f G —d ’s la w a n d v a lu e s a n d c o n c e p ts as tru th , w ith o u t te stin g th em in th e fires o f o n e ’s o w n k n o w le d g e , c h o ic e , d esires, an d a cc ep ­ ta n ce . . . .

It is th e A lm ig h ty w h o crea ted th e w o r ld a n d th e w o r d , w h o

cr ea te d fin ite a n d stu m b lin g m a n , w h o created ju stice an d d ece n c y and m ercy a n d g o o d , a n d w e a c c e p t th a t b eca u se o f th at. It is th is Y ok e o f H e a v e n , th e s e ttin g a sid e o f o u r w ill b e fo r e H is . . . , th a t is th e fu n d a m en ta l o f J u d a is m .56

K a h a n e ’s first a rg u m e n t a b o u t th e epistem ological difference betw een the liberal W est a n d Ju d aism , is, o f course, n o t new an d does n o t p e rta in to Ju d aism alone. Every fu n d a m e n ta list p reach er could p ro b ab ly m ake the sam e p ro p o sitio n , ju st as every d evoted M a rx ist o r ideological fascist could. H is second a rg u m e n t reg ard in g th e com plete sovereignty o f G o d an d the p ro h ib itio n o n testin g H is decrees leaves very little to the ju d g m en t o f the individual believer. T h e p ractical conclusio n o f this to ta listic (or p erh ap s to ta lita ria n ) Jew ish epistem ology is th a t th e individual Jew, his family, an d his co m m u n ity have no civil rights in th e m o d ern sense— a “ b lasp h e m o u s” co n cep t th a t is m eaningless an d useless. T h e lib eral w e s t sp e a k s o f to le r a n c e a n d th e o b lig a tio n to resp ect all v iew s reg a rd less o f th eir rig h tn ess o r w r o n g n e ss, w h ile Ju d aism d em a n d s th a t th e J ew c h o o s e truth a n d th e p a th o f righ t a n d n o t to ler a te evil in h is m id st. A n d so th e h o m o s e x u a l, th e p r o stitu te , th e a b o r tio n ist, th e a d d ict are n o t p erm it­ ted th e to le r a n c e o f liv in g th eir o w n lives as th ey see fit, for Ju d aism is n o t a ce rtifica te o f lic e n se , b u t o f o b l i g a t i o n .. . . T h e liberal w e st ca teg o rica lly n e g a te s certa in c o n c e p ts — i.e ., v e n g e a n c e , h a te, an d v io le n c e — a lm o st a p r i ­ o r i, w h ile J u d a ism sp e a k s o f “ a tim e to lo v e an d a tim e to h a te, a tim e for w ar

an d a tim e fo r p e a c e ,” w ith th e n eed a n d c o m m a n d m e n t to lo v e th e g o o d an d h a te th e e v il, to se e k p e a c e b u t to g o to w a r a g a in st th e w ic k e d , w ith v e n ­ g e a n c e at th e p ro p er tim e , a n o b l i g a ti o n in ord er to s h o w th a t th ere is a Ju dge a n d th ere is ju stice in th e w o r ld .57

D em ocracy, so it ap p e a rs, d istu rb s K ahane n o t because of the A rab p ro b lem a n d its d a n g er to th e existence o f Israel, b u t because it is to tally alien to the Ju d aism o f th e T orah. T he fact th a t 3 0 0 0 years have passed since the law s o f th e T orah w ere w ritte n does n o t d istu rb K ahane a t all. H e sees the en tire experience o f liberal dem ocracy, in w hich Jew s have tak en a m ajo r p a rt in th e last tw o centuries, as m eaningless. O nly rarely does K ahane ad m it th a t W estern d em ocracy is p referab le to som e o th er system s.58 T he vices of this perm issive system — “ a state in w hich all the ugliness an d obscen-

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

229

ity o f an im al h ed o n ism a n d bestial selfishness can be given free rein in o rd e r to enslave a n d th en d estro y th e special D ivine im age th a t w as given to m a n ” 59— a n d th e decad en ce o f its society a n d c u ltu re have such a d an g ero u s and c o rru p tin g influence on y o u th th a t no elem en t o f d em o cracy can be good. K a h a n e ’s a tta c k s o n d em o cracy are full o f v itrio lic co m m en ts a n d b itter irony: L ib eral d e m o c r a c y is a s o c io lo g is t ’s G a rd en o f E d en , a k in d o f P arad ise F o u n d , o f M a r g a r e t M e a d is m . H a v in g d isc o v e r e d th a t th ere e x is ts a P acific isla n d w ith n a tiv e s w h o e a t th eir m o th e r s-in -la w , th e liberal d e m o c r a ts p o s tu ­ la te th a t th ere is su rely n o o b je c tiv e p r o h ib itio n to ea t m o th e r s-in -la w , th a t th e fa ilu re to e a t m o th e r s -in -la w is rather a sp ecific cu ltu ra l a b erra tio n o f th e w e st, a n d th is h o ld s tru e o f all ta b o o s a n d p r o h ib itio n s. T ru th , sa y s lib eral d e m o c r a c y , is in th e m in d o f th e b e liev er an d n o o n e h a s th e righ t to d ecla re th a t h e p o s s e s s e s it a n d th e r e fo r e d e m a n d th e rig h t to im p o s e it o n a m a jo rity th a t d isa g r e e s o r d e n ie s it as b e in g tr u th .60

O rth o d o x Ju d a ism sim ply c a n ’t be assessed a cco rd in g to th e n o rm s o f liberal h u m a n ism a n d dem ocracy, a n d this fact lies a t th e ro o t o f K a h a n e ’s a p p a re n tly ru d e a n d d isc rim in a to ry tre a tm e n t o f A rabs. Ju d aism , in his view, sim ply does n o t recognize th e A rabs as equal to th e Jew s a n d is very specific a b o u t th e ir low sta tu s a n d fu tu re in th e Jew ish state. In U n c o m fo r t­ a b le Q u e stio n s , K ah an e is a t p ain s to p ro v e th a t th e Ju d aism he w rites a b o u t is th e sam e Ju d a ism th a t says to greet th e G entile in th e m ark e tp la c e w ith sh a lo m (peace) a n d believes th a t all m en are created in th e im age o f G od. O p p o n e n ts arg u e th a t K ah an e tak es from th e Bible an d H a la k h a only w h a t suits his w a rlik e th eo rie s, a n d ignores th e h u m a n an d c o m p a ssio n a te face o f Ju d aism . K ah an e resp o n d s th a t Ju d aism m akes a fu n d am en tal d istin ctio n betw een th e p riv a te a n d p erso n al sp h ere o f th e in d iv id u al a n d th e n a tio n a l an d political sphere. T h e g r e a te st v a lu e is p ea ce ? O f c o u r se . . . . T h e Jew g reets th e g e n tile w ith p e a c e , a n d h e d e a ls w ith h im w ith re sp ect a n d h o n o r a n d d e c e n c y in all his p riv a te a n d p e r so n a l r e la tio n s w ith h im — b u t n o t as a c i tiz e n o f th e J ew ish sta te . N o t as o n e w h o h a s a n y n a ti o n a l sa y in th e Jew ish sta te . A n d ce rta in ly n o t ev e n “ s h a lo m ” to an e n e m y . “ A ll m e n are m a d e in th e im a g e o f G - d ? ” A g r eed , em b r a ced w h o le h e a r t­ ed ly. A n d w h a t re le v a n c y is th a t to all o f th e a b o v e? A ll m en are m a d e in th e im a g e o f G —d , a n d w h e n th e y are d e c e n t w e o w e th em th e b a sic d e c e n c y an d re sp e ct w e w o u ld o w e t o a n y Jew . B ut a g a in , th is is lim ited to th e p riv a te an d p e r so n a l sp h e re. T h e n a tio n a l sp h e r e — sta te an d p e o p le a n d c itiz e n sh ip an d eq u a l p o litic a l rig h ts in a J e w ish s ta te — are n o t th e p r o v in c e o f n o n -J ew s. O n e is o b lig a te d to run m iles to h elp a d e c e n t g e n tile in h is p erso n a l p r o b ­ le m s b u t n o t a n in c h in th e sp h e r e o f n a tio n a l e q u a lity .61

Any “ H e lle n ist” o r “ N e o -H e lle n ist” w h o a tta c k s him is “ sta n d in g o u t­ side th e p ale o f th a t Ju d aism w h ich , to his h o rro r, is th e ‘K a h a n ism ’ o f his g ra n d p a re n ts as fa r b ack as S in ai.”

230

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

The Status of the State and a Jewish State K ah an e’s rep eated a tta c k s on th e n o rm s, politics, an d cu ltu re o f dem ocracy an d Israel’s d em ocracy in p a rtic u la r, set him a p a rt from m o st o f the rest of the rad ical right. T h e K o o k ist theology, for ex am p le, sees the secular state of Israel as th e legitim ate p re c u rso r o f the H alak h ic K ingdom o f Israel; despite the m istakes o f its lay leaders, it is holy. G o d will see to it, in his m ysterious w ays, th a t in d ue tim e its citizens will rep en t an d it will becom e fully Jew ish. But in th e m ean tim e th e g o v ern m en t is duly c o n stitu ted an d deserves full respect a n d obedience. F or K ah an e th o u g h , th e holiness o f th e m o d ern state o f Israel does n o t ex ten d to its lay in stitu tio n s a n d leaders. T he state is holy because G od w illed it to be, as an in stru m e n t to avenge H is d esecrated nam e am o n g the G entiles. T he lay leaders o f Israel w h o do n o t recognize the greatness of G od an d refuse to re p e n t are sinners. T h e ir actions, policies, an d non-Jew ish b eh av io r are b lasp h em o u s. T h e ir law s an d in stitu tio n s do n o t deserve alle­ giance o r obedience. 1 w ill n ev er a c c e p t th e “ r ig h t” o f m an an d sta te to be u gly an d selfish and a d d ic te d to ev il a n d a n im a lism . I w ill n ever a ccep t a sta te th a t in san ely sa n ctifies th e c o n c e p t o f “ fr e e d o m ” o f p o r n o g ra p h y an d u n b rid led , illicit, a n d p erv e rte d s e x , a n d m u rd er o u s a b o r tio n s, an d artistic n a tio n a l su icid e, a n d d ru g s th a t ra v a g e th e so u l a n d k ill th e sp irit o f h ea v en w ith in th e u n iq u e c h ild ca lle d m a n . N e v e r . T h a t is n o t fr eed o m . T h a t is slavery. . . . A n d the A lm ig h ty w h o to o k th e Jew o u t o f th e p h y sica l b o n d a g e o f E gypt n ever m e a n t to th en ta k e h im u p to h is o w n land to b u ild a sta te o f slavery o f the so u l a n d s p ir it.62

K ahane criticized th e political cultu re o f Israel for being “ H ellen istic” an d its leaders for being “ H ellen ized ” — to be fo u g h t ag ain st ju st as th e M accabees fo u g h t an earlier H ellenized leadership. K ah an e’s vitriolic a t­ tacks on th e “ H ellen ized ” an d “ G en tilized ” in d icated th a t this struggle w as o f even g re a te r im p o rta n c e th a n th e fight ag ain st the A rabs, for it involved the very soul o f th e n a tio n .63 D u rin g the K nesset d eb ate over a bill to b a r the p ro d u c tio n and selling o f p o rk , K ahane to ld his colleagues th a t: a h u g e str u g g le is g o in g o n to d a y , m u ch larger th an th e J ew ish -A ra b crisis, th e str u g g le b e tw e e n th e J ew s a n d th e H e llen iz ed . T h is is th e m od ern p h a se o f an a n c ie n t w ar. . . . T h e first p erso n k illed by th e M a c c a b e e s w a s a Jew w h o w a n te d to e a t p o rk . A n d in th is h all to d a y a sp ecies h as fo u n d his p r o g e n y — th e p ig s w h o d e fe n d th e p o rk . T h e real o b s ta c le to th e s a lv a tio n o f th e p e o p le o f Israel . . . is th e p res­ e n ce o f o n e p o r tio n o f th e n a tio n , th e h aters o f I s r a e l.. . . T h e real stru g g le is w ith th e m , th e str u g g le b e tw e e n th e real Jew s an d th e g en tilized . . . .

K ah an e’s ferocious a tta c k s on th e “ H ellen ized ” leaders of Israel an d on th eir “ H ellen istic” regim e, like his b attle again st dem ocracy, w as a c o n tin u a ­ tion o f a p erennial struggle th a t sta rte d long before the principles o f m odern

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

231

d em ocracy w ere w o rk e d o u t, in clu d in g th e p rin cip les o f d em o cratic o p p o si­ tion. T h u s it is legitim ate to use th e an cien t in stru m en ts o f p olitical fight w ith no rem orse o r h e sita tio n . A lth o u g h K ah an e sp o k e openly ag ain st Jew ish civil w ar, the an alo g y w ith th e “ H elle n iz e d ” w as very in stru ctiv e.65 Ju d a h th e M accab ee did n o t kill only G reeks. H e a n d his M accab ee b ro th e rs killed m any Jew s in th e n am e o f G o d . G iven K a h a n e ’s fu n d a m e n ta list co n v in ctio n th a t th e g lo rio u s p a s t can a n d o u g h t to be relived, his A u g u st 1984 co lu m n in The Jew ish P ress, in w h ich he a d v o c a te d th e co m p lete elim in atio n o f Jew ish political leaders w h o se actio n s are “ consciously aim ed a t d estro y in g th e sa ­ cred values o f th e Jew a n d th e S ta te ,” w as n o t su rp risin g .66

The Political Program of Rabbi Kahane T he o p e ra tio n a l p lan o f R ab b i K ah an e w as directly derived from his fu n d a ­ m ental ideology. It called fo r tw o tra n sfo rm a tio n s in Israel— a ch an g e in the sta tu s a n d co n d itio n s o f th e A rabs, a n d a tra n sfig u ra tio n o f Israeli Ju d aism . H is so lu tio n to th e A rab q u e stio n w as sim ple a n d sh o rt: “ S ep aratio n , only s e p a ra tio n .” It w as b ased o n tw o essential policies: first, a fo rced ex p u lsion o f large n u m b ers o f d is lo y a l A rabs fro m th e lan d o f Israel; second, a legal d e ro g a tio n o f th e rem ain in g lo y a l A rab s to second-class resid en ts inside Israel. Since 1972, K ah an e co n sisten tly a rg u ed th a t the A rab s m u st be rem o v ed from Israel. B ut his first p lan w as a ra th e r “ m o d e ra te ” a tte m p t to entice the A rabs to leave v o lu n tarily .67 H is 1973 b o o k T h e C h a llen g e laid o u t his full p lan: a tru s t fund o f $ 2 0 m illion, d o n a te d by rich Jew s, w o u ld finance A rab e m ig ra tio n . T h e peo p le behind th e fu n d w ere also su p p o sed to lo o k for e m ig ra tio n sites in several co u n tries a n d m ake a rra n g e m e n ts fo r a larg er o p e ra tio n . Even if th ere w ere n o t m any em ig ra n ts, they w o u ld nevertheless m ake a difference a n d set a tre n d .68 Israeli A rab s w ere p ro m ised im m u n ity fro m this o p e ra tio n , an d A rabs from th e occu p ied te rrito rie s, w h o w ere ready to sw ear allegiance to the state, w ere to receive citizenship a fte r five years of n a tu ra liz a tio n . B ut by 1981 K ah an e becam e m uch m o re rad ical. So h a d his “ s e p a ra ­ tio n ” p ro g ra m . T h e g o v e rn m e n t o f Israel w as n o w to m an ag e th e em ig ra tio n plan. Israeli A rab s, like th e resid en ts o f th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s, w ere n o w to be en co u rag ed to leave. In T h o rn s in Your E yes, K ah an e talk s a b o u t em ig ra ­ tio n eith er to n e ig h b o rin g A rab c o u n trie s o r to o th e r co u n tries. W illing em ig ran ts w o u ld be co m p e n sa te d for th e ir p ro p e rty on the sam e scale as A rab c o u n trie s w o u ld pay Jew s e m ig ra tin g to Israel, a n d they w o u ld be given job tra in in g so they w o u ld arrive in th eir new co u n tries p re p a re d for the job m a rk e t. B ut th e m o st im p o rta n t new elem en t in th e 1981 p lan is th a t it is n o lo n g er volu n tary . All th o se A rabs deem ed disloyal by the g o v ern m en t of Israel w o u ld be forced to leave. A nyone w h o o p p o sed th e o rd e r to leave

232

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

w o u ld fo rfeit th e rig h t to an em ig ratio n allow ance an d w ould later be expelled by force.69 T he altern ativ e to forced em ig ratio n w o u ld be a public expression of allegiance to th e State o f Israel, recognizing th e inalienable rig h t of the Jews to Eretz Y israel in its entirety. B ut even this co m m itm en t w o u ld entitle A rabs only to residency rights; p a rtic ip a tio n in n atio n al politics w o u ld be o u t of the q u estio n . Every yo u n g A rab w o u ld have to join a n atio n al la b o r brigade for the sam e p erio d th a t yo u n g Jew s serve in th e arm y, follow ed by sim ilar reserve duty. W ith in th e reo rg an ized Jew ish state there w o u ld be a strict sep aratio n b etw een Jew s a n d G entiles, an d in term arriag e o r sexual in ter­ course betw een a Jew a n d a G entile w o u ld be a cap ital crim e. M ale A rabs w h o a p p ro a c h Jew ish girls w o u ld be subject to fifty years in jail.70 Alien residency p erm its w o u ld have to be renew ed each year, so each resid en t’s loyalty can be carefully an d co n tin u o u sly checked. B ut even A rabs w h o fulfill all req u irem en ts w o u ld n o t be com pletely secure. T he to ta l n u m ­ ber o f alien residents w o u ld be set each year acco rd in g to the n a tio n ’s econom ic a n d security needs, so even “ lo y al” A rabs m ight have to be ex ­ pelled. K ah an e did n o t foresee a m ajo r pro b lem in p u ttin g his “ s e p a ra tio n ” p lan in to effect: th e A rabs w ere so scared o f him th a t a t the m o m en t he becam e Israel’s prim e m in ister o r m inister o f defense, m o st o f th em will sim ply leave.71 H a d th e 1967 Israeli go v ern m en t been stro n g an d decisive, m o st o f th e disloyal A rabs w o u ld have left already, as they did in 1948. As fo r th e Jew ish p ro g ra m o f his fu tu re ad m in istra tio n , K ahane w as surprisingly m o d erate. H is latest p lan , w hich ap p eared in U n co m fo rta b le Q u e stio n s, called fo r “ a state o f a Jew ish to ta lity ,” w hich m eans am ong o th e r things th e new law s o n Jew ish state ed u catio n , the sanctification o f the S ab b ath , an d the p ro h ib itio n of in term arriag e. B ut it also m akes a ra th e r u n ex p ected ap o lo g etic c o m m itm en t to p arlia m e n ta ry dem ocracy: T h e p ity is— th e tra g ed y is— th a t m o s t Jew s d o n o t b eliev e th a t Ju d aism is D iv in e a n d th er efo r e d o n o t a c c e p t it as th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e state. A n d so , b e c a u se o f th a t— b u t o n ly b e c a u se an y a ttem p t to esta b lish a true Torah sta te w o u ld lea d to a b itter civil w a r a m o n g J ew s— I w o u ld n o t b e p rep ared to esta b lish a sta te th a t w o u ld bar e le c tio n s in v o lv in g p arties th a t d o n o t accep t T orah la w as a u th o rity . B ut k n o w th a t p u n ish m en t w ill be fo r th c o m in g a g a in st a p e o p le th a t refu ses to crea te th e k in d o f so ciety th a t G —d d em a n d s. T ragedy. B ut w e ca n n ev er crea te th e c o n d itio n s th a t w ill lead to certain civil w a r a m o n g th e J e w s.72

W h a t K ah an e does n o t ex p lain , o f course, is w hy he feels th a t only the a b ro g a tio n o f d em ocracy w o u ld cause a civil w ar. W ould he be w illing to give u p his p lan fo r th e eviction o f th e A rabs if this issue also becom es a casus belli fo r a significant n u m b er o f Israelis? A nd w h a t a b o u t the o th e r p ro v o cativ e item s in his p ro g ra m , such as th e suspension of the tra d itio n a l Israeli legal o rd e r in th e case o f A rab terro rists? In this statem en t K ahane refrains from his usual biblical analogies. H e d o esn ’t even m en tio n the

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

233

p rophets o f Israel— w h o m elsew here he cites rep eated ly as guides for p re s­ ent a ctio n — w h o w ere n ever read y to m ake such concessions. K ah an e m ay be serious in w h a t he w rites in this p a ra g ra p h , b u t it is to tally in co n sisten t w ith everything else he h as ever w ritte n . O n e c a n n o t b u t su sp ect th a t this concessio n w as m ade w ith an eye o n Israel’s C e n tra l E lections C o m m ittee, w hich w as ex p ected to rule b efore th e 1988 elections w h e th e r K a h a n e ’s p la tfo rm c o n fo rm ed w ith the req u irem en ts of dem ocracy. A fter K a h a n e ’s 1984 election to th e K nesset, it p assed a bill barrin g racist a n d a n ti-d e m o c ra tic p artie s from p a rtic ip a tin g in the elec­ tions. T h e e x p la n a tio n o f K a h a n e ’s m o d e ra tio n in his c h a p te r o n the Jew ish State m ay have h a d m o re to d o w ith th e new law th a n w ith th e ra b b i’s tru e intentions. But th ere is a n o th e r possible e x p la n a tio n . K a h a n e ’s p ro p o se d refo rm s w ould n o t leave m uch ro o m o r freedom for o th e r p artie s rep resen tin g secu­ lar Jew s. F or Israel u n d e r K ah an e w o u ld becom e “ a state o f Jew ish to ta lity .” All public schools w o u ld be religious, a n d b o o k s an d cu ltu ra l activities w ould be strictly cen so red . A to ta l resp ect for th e S ab b ath an d th e rules o f K ashrut w o u ld be en fo rced to o . T h o u g h th is m ay n o t seem such a radical p ro g ram , th e im plied co n sequences o f K a h a n e ’s p lan w o u ld be n o th in g less than a to ta l tra n sfo rm a tio n o f th e Israeli society. K ah an e’s real p ro g ra m in clu d ed an en tire o v erh au l o f the Israeli legal system , th e e x p u lsio n o f th e A rabs, th e rem oval o f th e M u slim sh rin es o n Temple M o u n t, th e e sta b lish m e n t o f Jew ish a n ti-te rro r sq u ad s th a t w o u ld punish anti-S em ites all o v er th e w o rld , a to ta l rejection o f th e C h ristia n M ission, a n d a co m p lete re p u d ia tio n o f any form o f Ju d aism o th e r th a n o rthodoxy. U nder such c o n d itio n s, n o secular political p a rty w o u ld be able to function.

Political Style: The Dynamics of Quasi-Fascism We have e x am in ed K a h a n e ’s th in k in g to identify his place o n th e ideological m ap o f th e rad ical rig h t. B ut only a close e x a m in a tio n o f K ach ’s actu al m o d u s o p e ra n d i, its im agery, ritu als, a n d iden tificatio n sy m b o ls— can lo cate it on a general po litical m ap. Such an e x a m in a tio n suggests th a t K ach is w h at m ig h t be called a q u a si-fa sc ist m o v e m e n t. T h e term q u asi-fascist im ­ plies a d istin ct po litical style (th o u g h n o t th e ideology) th a t w as typical o f the n o n ru lin g fascist m o vem ents in C en tral a n d W estern E u ro p e befo re W orld W ar II, a n d o f n eo fascist m ovem ents today. Fascist m ovem ents are ch aracterized by a c o m b in a tio n o f b itte r an ti-e stab lish m en t sen tim en t, an appeal to insecure w o rk in g -class a n d low er-m id d le-class p eople, a b ro a d use of e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry a n d ex traleg al actio n , a n d a sy stem atic re so rt to street hooliganism , violence, a n d occasio n al te rro rism . W h a t distinguishes th e quasi-fascist fro m th e fascist m o v em en t is basically its ideology. T h e classi­ cal fascist ideology is secular, rev o lu tio n ary , an ti-relig io u s, a n d an ti-lib eral.

234

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

It aspires to th e esta b lish m en t o f a new o rd er, w hich is an ti-d em o cratic, hostile to bou rg eo is d ec a d e n t society, an d o rien ted to w a rd physical stru g ­ gle.73 A q uasi-fascist m ovem ent, acco rd in g to the presen t definition, does n o t have all these elem ents, b u t it has a stro n g b e h a v io ra l sim ila rity to the fascist m ovem ents. K ach fits th e quasi-fascist m odel b etter th a n any o th e r k n o w n m odel o f political actio n . T h o u g h it functio n s w ith in a d em o cratic system , its politics are co n d u cted o u tsid e th e rules o f the d em o cratic o rd er. It could be argued th a t b efore he reach ed p a rlia m e n t, K ahan e h ad to use fascist tactics to a ttra c t a tte n tio n a n d rem ain in th e political a re n a .74 But since his 1984 election to th e K nesset, the political style he forged for m any years has n o t changed. W hen asked in an interview w hy he h ad n o t chan g ed his ru d e political m an n ers since e n terin g p a rlia m e n t, in o rd e r to gain legitim acy and respectability, K ahane shrugged a n d said he did n o t u n d e rsta n d the q u es­ tion. “ I did w h a t I h a d to do. I am a m an o f tru th an d I do n o t recognize any o th e r w ay to tell th e tr u th .” 75 T he b eh av io r m ay be co u n terp ro d u ctiv e: m any Israelis, w h o eith er identify w ith K ah an e’s ideology o r his political p ro g ra m , w o u ld never join K ach precisely because they are d eterred by its political style, w hich is alm o st u n p reced en ted in Israel’s public life. T h e p ractice o f K ah an e a n d his follow ers show s th a t th e quasi-fascist b eh av io r is m o re th a n a p ublicity tactic. It w as the second n a tu re o f K ahane, an d rem ains th e d o m in a n t b eh av io r o f m o st o f K ach’s activists, an d o f m any of th eir follow ers. It seem s to have fo u r com p o n en ts.

Legitimation and Use of Violence and Terrorism Ever since th e early days o f th e Jew ish D efense League in N ew Y ork, K ahane em phasized the im p o rta n c e o f physical force. O n e o f the pillars of th e JD L ’s ideology w as th e n o tio n o f “Jew ish iro n .” K ahane, it is tru e, did n o t invent either the idea o r th e m e ta p h o r: he a d o p te d it from th e ideology o f V ladim ir Jabotinsky. T he ex pression B a rzel Yisrael (Iron Israel), acco rd in g to Jab o tin sky, m e a n t th a t in th e D iasp o ra o r u n d e r foreign rule, Jew s w ere no longer to b o w to th eir o p p resso rs b u t w ere to resp o n d to them in kind, w ith physical force, if necessary. It also m ean t th a t the sovereign Jew ish state sh o u ld have a stro n g arm y, cap ab le o f defending it again st all th reats. K ahane w as so im pressed w ith the n o tio n of “ iro n ,” an d the ap p licatio n of physical force fo r self-defense, th a t he divided the JD L in A m erica in to tw o g roups: th e C h a ya g ro u p s an d th e S cholar g roups. C h aya in H eb rew m eans an im al, an d C h a ya squ ad s w ere in charge o f the use o f violence ag ain st th e J D L ’s riv als.76 W hen he w as b ro u g h t to trial in N ew York in 1971, one o f th e m ain charges ag ain st K ah an e w as illegal possession o f guns, a m m u n itio n an d explosives. K ah an e— w h o h ad no h esitatio n allying him self w ith th e M afia boss Joseph C o lo m b o , Sr. fo u n d er o f th e fake ItalianA m erican Civil R ights A sso ciatio n 77— h ad no p ro b lem tra n sla tin g th e idea

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

235

of “ Iron Isra e l” in to th e a c tu a l use o f firearm s ag ain st th e enem ies o f the Jews. Som e o f his fo llo w e rs— m em bers o f th e JD L a n d p ro b a b ly o f a C h a ya sq u ad — p la n te d a b o m b in th e offices o f Sol H u ro k , th e Jew ish im p resario w ho used to b rin g R ussian artists to A m erica. T h e b o m b set th e place ablaze and killed a y o u n g Jew ish secretary w h o w o rk e d for H u ro k .78 It w as th e first o f a series o f te rro ris t acts th a t identified th e b eh av io r o f the JD L a n d its sp lin te r g ro u p s long a fte r K ah an e left th e U nited States. Since th e m id -1 9 7 0 s, th e A m erican JD L h as been co n sisten tly classed by the FBI as a te rro ris t o rg a n iz a tio n . K ah an e never d en ied his p e n c h a n t fo r violence, a n d in his o w n a c c o u n t of the Jew ish D efense L eague, he d ev o ted a w h o le c h a p te r to th e ju stificatio n and ra tio n a liz a tio n o f its violence. W hile m ak in g th e usual a rg u m e n t th a t “ violence a g a in st e v il is n o t th e sam e as violence ag ain st g o o d ,” an d th a t violence fo r self-defense is fully legitim ate, K ah an e reach ed his fam o u s c o n ­ clusion th a t since Jew s have been victim ized fo r so long, “Jew ish violence in defense o f Jew ish in te re st is n e v e r b a d .” 79 Jew ish violence, acco rd in g to this theory, is n o th in g b u t an e x ten sio n o f Jew ish love, A h a v a t Y israel .80 In Israel, th e re w as n o place for fu rth e r ex p ressio n o f “Jew ish iro n ,” because the co u n try h a d been sovereign since 1948 an d J a b o tin s k y ’s n o tio n has been realized in th e Israel D efense Forces (IDF). B ut unlike Ja b o tin s k y ’s reco g ­ nized successors, M e ir K ah an e w as a p p a re n tly n o t satisfied. T h o u g h he did n o t establish C h a ya team s in Israel, he m ain ta in e d th a t if th e state w as unable o r u n re a d y to re a c t in k in d ag a in st th o se w h o spill “ so m uch as on e d ro p o f Jew ish b lo o d ,” th en it w as th e d u ty o f in d iv id u al Israelis to d o so. Slowly a n d w ith o u t develo p in g a full-fledged ideology o f te rro rism , K ah an e to o k to legitim izing a n ti-A ra b te rro r, a m essage his follow ers fully ab so rb e d and acted u p o n . O n e o f K a h a n e ’s g re a t h isto rical heroes h a d alw ays been D avid R aziel, th e first c o m m a n d e r o f th e Etzel u n d e rg ro u n d in Palestine in the late 1930s. In 1 9 3 7 Raziel in tro d u c e d m assive Jew ish c o u n te rte rro rism against th e A rab s, o p p o sin g th e official Z io n ist policy o f H a vla g a (selfrestraint). R aziel’s id e a — th a t A rab civilians, even th o u g h they are u n in ­ volved, sh o u ld p ay fo r w h a t w as h a p p e n in g to Jew ish civilians— has been especially a ttra c tiv e to K a h a n e .81 A nd he never cared to recognize th e fact th a t R aziel’s successors, in clu d in g a n o th e r h ero o f his, M en ach em Begin, had re n o u n c e d in d iscrim in ate te rro rism by the 1940s a n d h a d , since th e estab lishm ent o f th e S tate o f Israel, respected th e law an d tru ste d in th e Israeli arm y. In 1974, K ah an e first b ro a c h e d th e co n cep t o f T.N .T. (acronym for terror n e g e d terror, i.e., Jew ish te rro rism ag ain st A rab terro rism ). In T h e Jewish Idea, he suggested th a t a “ w o rld w id e Jew ish a n ti-te rro r g ro u p ” be established. “ T h is g ro u p m u st be o rg an ized an d aided in e x a c tly th e sa m e w a y as th e te rro rists a re a id e d b y th e A ra b g o v e rn m e n ts. W ith a to tally serious face, th e g o v e rn m e n t o f Israel m u st deny any co n n ectio n w ith th e g roup, even w hile allo w in g th e sa m e tra in in g bases o n its soil as th e A rab

236

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

states allow th e te rro ris ts .” 82 H e even reco m m en d ed using indiscrim inate terro rism ag ain st th e p o p u la tio n s o f tho se A rab co u n tries th a t pro v id e the PLO w ith financial, p o litical, an d m ilitary s u p p o rt.83 K ah an e’s espousal o f b ru ta l Jew ish c o u n te rte rro rism h ad n o t changed m uch over the years, an d in his latest b o o k he vow ed to establish, upon assum ing the leadership o f Israel, special Jew ish a n ti-te rro r g ro u p s th at w o u ld o p e ra te all over th e w o rld an d help Jews w herever th ere is tro u b le, d isreg arding the local a u th o ritie s an d th eir law s. Since th e g o v ern m en t of Israel w as n o t receptive to his n o tio n s, K ah an e’s follow ers an d o th e r indi­ viduals inspired by his idea soon sta rte d to act o n th eir o w n . O u t o f fear of the Israeli police a n d secret services, they did n o t try to establish a p erm a­ n en t te rro r o rg a n iz a tio n , b u t ra th e r engaged in occasional an ti-A rab atro c i­ ties, using th e sym bol o f T .N .T .84 K ah an e’s devotees w ere actively involved in the intensification o f the conflict betw een Jew s a n d A rabs in H e b ro n in th e 1970s. Yossi D ayan, a stu d e n t o f K ahane a n d later the secretary-general o f K ach, has been cau g h t an d arrested several tim es for p ro v o k in g A rabs in the C ave o f the Patriarchs. In an interview he once said, “ I have h ad m o re trials th a n the n u m b er of stars on the A m erican flag .” 85 Before the recen t A rab uprising, w hich chan g ed all th e rules o f p ublic c o n d u c t in the W est B ank, it w as usually K ah an e’s follow ers w h o acted in response to A rab attack s, alth o u g h by the m iddle of th e 1980s such p retex ts as acting only in reactio n to A rab violence seem ed decreasingly necessary. C raig Leitner, a K ahane stu d en t, described a typical m id -1 9 8 0 s o p e ra tio n : O n e d a y to w a r d s th e en d o f July 1 9 8 4 , I agreed w ith M ik e G o z o v sk y an d Y ehu d a R ich te r to o p e r a te a g a in st th e A rab s. W e left K iryat A rba in a hired car, h e a d e d to w a r d s J eru sa lem . . . . T h a t n ig h t a ro u n d 2 3 : 0 0 , w e w e n t to th e N e v e Y a a k o v area. Y ehu d a w a s d riv in g . A ro u n d m id n ig h t, w e sa w an A rab in h is tw e n tie s w a lk in g a lo n g th e ro a d . I sa id , “ L et’s sto p th e c a r .” I w e n t o u t a n d h it th e A rab w ith m y fist o n th e sh o u ld er. I a lso k ick ed h im . H e esc a p e d in to th e n ig h t. W e c o n tin u e d to H e b r o n an d it w a s d e c id e d — I d o n ’t rem em ­ ber by w h o m — to burn A rab cars. W e h a d in o u r car tw o p la stic b o ttles c o n ta in in g fo u r a n d a h a lf liters o f g a s o lin e . In H e b r o n , Y ehuda sto p p e d th e car. M ik e to o k th e g a s o lin e a n d p o u r e d it u n d er several cars, m a y b e th ree. A fter Y ehu d a se t th e cars afire, w e m o v e d , n o t w a itin g to see w h a t w o u ld h a p p e n . T h e re w e r e d o g s a ro u n d a n d I w a s afraid th a t th ey w o u ld w a k e up th e n e ig h b o r s, o r p erh a p s b ite us a n d w e w o u ld g et ra b ies.86

L eitner a n d his friends later fired on an A rab bus, w o u n d in g several passengers. W hen asked for his reactio n to th eir activities, K ahane expressed to tal ap p ro v al. H e said th a t he w as sorry th a t they w o u ld have to spend years in p riso n , a n d ad d ed th a t, in his eyes, they w ere M accabees. Later, K ahane placed Y ehuda R ichter, the m ain suspect in th e o p e ra tio n , as n u m ­ ber tw o on his list for th e K nesset. H a d K ach w o n tw o seats in 1984, R ichter w o u ld have been released from p riso n , due to th e im m unity of Israel’s K nesset m em bers. R ichter w as also k n o w n as th e co m m an d er of th e “ suicide

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

237

sq u a d ” in th e sh elter a t Y am it. W h en asked once by a jo u rn a list w h e th e r he w ould be w illing to in stru c t his follow ers n o t to h it in n o cen t A rab s w h o hap p en ed to be n e a r a te rro r a tta c k , K ah an e resp o n d ed , “ N o , I w o u ld n o t. As long as they are h ere w e a re lost. I have n o w ay o f k n o w in g if this A rab o r an o th er is in n o cen t. T h e real d a n g e r is th e d e m o g ra p h ic s.” 87 K ach’s m o st aggressive local stro n g h o ld has alw ays been K iry at A rb a. A ctiv­ ists such as Yossi D ay an , Eli H a z e ’ev (w ho w as killed in th e 1980 PLO attack o n th e Yeshiva stu d e n ts by th e Beit H a d a ssa h in H e b ro n ), B aruch M arzel, a n d Shm uel B en-Y ishai have in itiated co u n tless v io len t o p e ra tio n s against th e local A rabs since th e m id -1 9 7 0 s. U nlike R ab b i Levinger a n d Elyakim H a e tz n i, w h o have said all alo n g th a t they are in terested in peaceful coexistence w ith th e n ativ e resid en ts, K ach p eo p le have never concealed their h o p e fo r a m assive em ig ra tio n . T h e on ly reaso n for th e ir relative restrain t h as been th e ir fear o f th e arm y. In 1986, they esta b lish ed th e C o m m ittee fo r th e P reserv atio n o f Security, w hose sta te d p u rp o se w as to p a tro l th e ro ad s in th e area ag a in st ro ck throw ers. B ut d u rin g th e in tifa d a , th e c o m m ittee becam e a m o st aggressive vigilante g ro u p . Its n o to rio u s c o m m an d er, Shm uel B en-Y ishai, publicly d e ­ clared th a t any in cid en t involving h a ra ssm e n t o f Jew ish traffic w o u ld m ak e him sh o o t to kill w ith o u t w arn in g . I d o n o t s h o o t in th e air, I s h o o t to k ill. . . . It is stu p id to fire th e en tire m a g a z in e in th e air! O n ly th e J ew s s p e a k a b o u t th e “ p u rity o f th e a r m s .” Ju st a m in u te ! L isten w h o is ta lk in g a b o u t m o ra lity : S h am ir, th e b ig g e st terrorist? R a b in , w h o k ille d J ew s o n A lta le n a ? T h e A m e rica n s, w h o m u rd ered th e In d ia n s? 88

K ach w as v io len t lo n g b efo re th e recen t P alestin ian up risin g . Its en tire p o stu re — th e yellow sh irts w ith th e b lack clenched fists, th e a tta c k s on A rab families w ith in th e G reen Line w h o m ove in to Jew ish n e ig h b o rh o o d s, th e chasing o f in n o c e n t A ra b w o rk e rs for th e fun o f it, th e an ti-A rab “ v ictory p a ra d e s,” th e a tte m p ts to b re a k up leftist m eetings in a style rem in iscen t o f the Italian fascists o f th e 1 9 2 0 s— have all spelled o u t h o o lig an ism a n d v io­ lence. B ut th e 1988 P alestinian u p risin g p ro m p te d K ach to e x p a n d its activ i­ ties. K ach ’s recen t o p e ra tio n s, w hich have alread y cau sed th e d eath o f sev­ eral A rabs, in d icate th a t its m ain activists are certain th a t th e decisive b a ttle for Eretz Y israel h as alread y sta rte d .

Xenophobia, Social Darwinism, and Racist Symbolism K ah an e’s a n ti-A ra b stra in h as alread y been discussed. Even as a p o litical stan d , it is p ro fo u n d ly rad ical a n d ex cep tio n al in Israeli term s. A lm o st no o ne else cam e u p w ith such a b lu n t p ro p o sitio n fo r m ass A rab ex p u lsio n a n d for system atic d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st th e rem ain in g A rab residents. K a h a n e ’s

238

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

p o p u la r p u b licatio n s an d speeches, how ever, reveal an even deeper layer of anim osity. T hey sho w th a t K ach, like m any m ovem ents o f the radical right in the U nited States a n d E u ro p e, displays a stro n g x e n o p h o b ia , w ith heavy racist o vertones. T h e racist p ro p a g a n d a o f K ach follow s th e usual racist p a tte rn in its m ix tu re o f su p erio rity com plex, sexual anxiety, an d certain elem ents o f an inferiority com plex. A rabs are seen as b o th in ferio r an d su p e rio r— inferior as all th e G entiles are, nam ely by n o t being the chosen people o f G od; su p erio r in n u m b ers, g ro w th rate, an d cruelty. T hey are the in carn atio n of the ruthless G entiles w h o have p ersecuted th e Jew all th ro u g h history. As early as 1973 K ahane coined the term s H e b ro n ism an d th e m e n ta lity o f H eb ro n . W h a t is th e m e n ta lity o f H eb ro n ? T h is is th e A rab m en ta lity th a t ca lls for the a n n ih ila tio n o f ev ery J ew liv in g in Israel. T h is is th e reality o f th a t 1 9 2 9 su m m er d a y w h e n m e n , w o m e n , a n d ch ild ren w ere sla u g h tered an d m a ssa ­ cred in H e b r o n ’s str eets, h o u s e s , a n d J ew ish sto res. W h en Y eshiva stu d en ts a n d th eir fa m ilie s, A sh k e n a z im a n d S efa ra d im , w e re tortu red an d raped, a lth o u g h th ey w e r e n o t Z io n is ts . T h is is th e reality o f th e d istu rb a n ces o f 1 9 2 0 , 1 9 2 1 , 1 9 3 6 —3 9 , a n d 1 9 4 7 . “ H e b r o n ,” in sh o rt, is th e A rab p lan w h ich th e A ra b s are read y to re p ea t every d ay if th ey ju st c o u ld .89

T h ere is a stro n g d u ality in K a h an e’s descrip tio n s o f the A rabs. O n the one h a n d , they are p ro u d , d eterm in ed , a n d sm art people w h o p u rsu e th eir n atio n al interest, as all n atio n alists p a trio ts do; th eir resistance to th e hege­ m ony o f th e Jew s is u n d e rsta n d a b le , because u n d e r Jew ish rule they c a n n o t fulfill them selves an d be a free people. B ut they are also called “ d o g s,” “ ro a c h e s,” “ N a z is ,” a n d “ m u rd e re rs,” as treach ero u s as snakes a n d as d an g ero u s as w olves. N o t only are they collectively d an g ero u s, b u t they have also developed m eth o d s to individually defile th e p u rity o f the Jew ish n atio n . T hey d ate Jew ish w o m en , sleep w ith th em , a n d even w a n t to m arry them an d tak e them to th e ir villages. K a h a n e ’s leaflets o n this issue w ere b lu n t, b ru ta l, an d highly offensive. Leaflets passed o u t to non-Israeli Jew ish w o m en studying in Israel say, a m o n g o th e r things, “ You are Jew ish— be p ro u d o f it! D o n o t d ate A ra b s!” T h e leaflets also q u o te d a lectu rer “ well versed in the a tm o ­ sphere o f A rab stu d e n t life” on cam pus as saying: “ I w o u ld n ’t say it for all o f the m ixed [A rab-Jew ish] couples on cam p u s, b u t in som e o f the cases it is very m uch a m a tte r o f (being) th e best w ay of screw ing the Jew ish sta te — to screw a Jew ish girl a n d b ro a d c a st the fact as w idely as p o ssib le.” 90 K ahane intensely used the sexual anxiety o f insecure low er-class Israelis, especially in p o o r areas an d d ev elo p m en t to w n s. In 1979, K ach m em bers talk ed a b o u t th e esta b lish m en t o f “Jew ish h o n o r g u a rd s,” w hich w ere to identify Jew ish w om en d a tin g A rabs, to w a rn them a b o u t the consequences, an d to in tim id ate them . In th e 1980s, there w as no need for h o n o r guards.

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

239

A nxious fam ilies o f girls d a tin g A rabs fo u n d th eir w ay to K ah an e a n d m ad e him th eir official p ro te c to r. It is n o t clear w h e th e r th e n u m b e r o f A rab s d a tin g Jew ish w o m en , espe­ cially from religious fam ilies, has g ro w n , b u t th e sensitivity to th e issue certainly has. Several o f K a h a n e ’s follow ers have “ re sc u e d ” Jew ish w o m en w ho h ad m a rrie d A rab m en a n d becom e u n h a p p y w ith life in th e A rab village. Since Jew s rem ain Jew ish w h a te v e r fo rm al co n v ersio n they u n d erg o , and since acc o rd in g to th e H a la k h a th e ch ild ren o f a Jew ish m o th e r are Jew ish, these rescue o p e ra tio n s w ere hailed as a g reat Jew ish m itz v a (v irtu ­ ous acco m p lish m en t) a n d w ere highly publicized a m o n g K a h a n e ’s p o te n tia l constituency.91 N o w h ere h a d K a h a n e ’s b ra n d o f Social D arw in ism been so clearly d e m o n ­ strated as in a bill he su b m itte d to th e K nesset. T h e p ro p o se d “ law to p rev en t assim ilation betw een Jew s a n d non-Jew s, a n d for th e p reserv atio n o f the sanctity o f th e people o f Isra e l” w o u ld com pletely se p a ra te Jew s a n d non-Jew s in Israel: in schools, cam ps, d o rm ito rie s, beaches, n e ig h b o rh o o d s, a n d a p a r t­ m ent b u ildings. It w o u ld fu rth e r in tro d u c e special an ti-a ssim ilatio n p ro g ra m s to the n a tio n a l school system a n d com pletely elim in ate all non-Jew ish p re a c h ­ ing an d teach in g ; v io la to rs w o u ld be sentenced to five years in p riso n . T h e law also bars m ixed m arriag e a n d d atin g , an d offers especially severe p u n ish m e n t for G entiles w h o seduce Jew ish w o m en by p re te n d in g they are Jew s. L ikud Knesset m em b er M ichael E itan has c o m p a re d K a h a n e ’s p ro p o se d law s to the N azis’ racist N ü rm b e rg L a w s.92 K ahane, as w e have seen, did n o t accep t th e ch arg e th a t he w as a racist. His w ritings an d lectures are full o f references to th e Bible, M aim o n id es, an d o th er g re a t a u th o ritie s; th a t, he felt, e x o n e ra te d him from th e charge. T h e problem is th a t his fu n d a m e n ta lis t rea d in g o f th e H a la k h a w a s racist. N o t a single T orah a u th o rity , to d a y — p ro m in e n t rab b is w h o read th e holy sources just as K ah an e did a n d m ay be ju st as u n h a p p y w ith d em o cracy a n d m o d ern cu ltu re— s u p p o rte d his legal initiatives. N o t a single o n e o f th e m — all g o o d Jews w h o w o rry a g re a t deal a b o u t a ssim ila tio n — speaks like K ah an e, o r uses sim ilar sla n d e ro u s a n d racist expression s. A typical K ah an e speech w e n t like this: T h e A r a b s are ca n ce r, ca n ce r, ca n c e r in th e m id st o f us. B ut th ere is n o t a sin g le m a n w h o is w illin g to s ta n d up a n d say it. I talk to y o u n g J ew s w h o are ju st o u t o f th e arm y a n d th e y d o n o t h a v e jo b s. N o jobs? T h ere are jo b s! T h e A r a b s h a v e jo b s! . . . W h y ? B eca u se th e g reed y Jew ish e m p lo y e r k eep s tw o A r a b s fo r th e p r ic e o f o n e Jew . A n a b n o r m a l n a tio n ! A n a tio n o f su icid ers. . . . I am te llin g y o u w h a t ea c h o f y o u th in k s d eep in h is heart: th ere is o n ly o n e s o lu tio n , n o o th e r , n o p a rtia l s o lu tio n : th e A ra b s o u t! o u t! . . . D o n o t ask m e h o w . . . . L et m e b e c o m e d e fe n se m in ister for tw o m o n th s an d y o u w ill n o t h a v e a sin g le c o c k r o a c h a ro u n d here! 1 p r o m ise y o u a c le a n E retz Y isra el! G iv e m e th e p o w e r to ta k e care o f th em ! [sta n d in g o v a tio n s ]93

240

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

K ah an e’s slogan “ I say w h a t you th in k ” w as u n d o u b ted ly one of his m o st effective racist tactics. H e w as well aw are th a t he spoke to Jew s w ho, as a p ersecuted m inority, have been tra d itio n a lly socialized to civility and to lerance. B ut he also knew th a t A rab violence an d terro rism h ad given m any Israelis second th o u g h ts a b o u t this to leran ce, an d th a t som e feel a conflict betw een th e ir tra d itio n a l civility an d th eir drive for revenge. K a h an e’s racist rh e to ric w as directed a t exactly this conflict. W h a t this licensed rab b i did, in a sense, w as to tell people th a t they sh o u ld n o t be ash am ed o f th eir m o st b ru ta l drives because these are b o th justified and san ctio n ed by th e H a la k h a . T h e re is n o sham e o r disgrace in the hidden desire to drive o u t th e A rabs, because they are b o th inferior an d vicious.

Propaganda and Smear Campaigns A typical featu re o f fascist a n d quasi-fascist m ovem ents is th eir q uick shift from ideology to p ro p a g a n d a an d from p ro p a g a n d a to sm ear cam paigns. These tactics are effective w ith th e typical cro w d th a t is a ttra c te d to such m ovem ents, th e scared an d insecure, a n d K ach follow s the p a tte rn . O n e can find som e very th o u g h tfu l essays by R abbi K ahane in w hich he seriously tried to derive his political ideology from th e H oly Scripture an d d istin ­ guished rab b in ic al exegesis, b u t he also p ro d u ced vulgar speeches an d leaf­ lets w hose co n ten ts a m o u n t to crim inal incitem ent. T h e p ro p a g a n d a style o f K ach is im m ensely different from th a t o f all the o th e r c o m p o n en ts o f th e radical right. G ush E m unim , the Tehiva, T zom et, M o led et, an d th e c u ltu ra l radicals have often been as hostile to th e A rabs, an d as critical o f the g o v ern m en t as K ahane, b u t they differed from him o n tw o p o in ts of style: th e ir w ritte n rh e to ric an d th eir verbal rh eto ric are one an d the sam e; an d they speak to d ifferent publics in the sam e language. W h a t m ade K ah an e so resem ble the p ro p a g a n d a m asters of classical fascism w as his incredible d em agoguery an d linguistic o p p o rtu n ism . W hen K ahane talk ed to a learned p ublic in a yeshiva o r in one o f the G ush E m unim settlem ents, he w as the T a lm id H a ch a m (Jew ish scholar). All his arg u m en ts w ere su p p o rte d by T orah q u o ta tio n s a n d H alak h ic references. H e w as co m ­ posed, spoke a t ease, an d talk ed in the learn ed style of his w ritings. H is political in sin u atio n s w ere exactly in sym path y w ith those o f the audience: the love o f Eretz Y israel, the d an g er o f the PLO , the th re a t o f the leftists. W hen K ahane w as invited to an A m erican cam p u s— in 1988 he spoke a t Yale an d P rin ce to n — he w as again serious, poised, an d self-controlled, b u t th en he w as also th e th eo lo g ia n , th e Jew ish rab b i w h o speaks to th e G entiles in th e divinity school in th e ir o w n language: dry, logical, learned, an d p o l­ ished. T he audience could h ard ly believe th a t the ra b b i’s real p u lp it w as n o t the sp e a k e r’s sta n d in the faculty club, b u t the p latfo rm in the m arketplace. But it w as in the m ark etp la ce an d in th e public sq u are th a t K ahane g o t his m ain su p p o rt. K a h a n e ’s p ro p a g a n d a and sm ear cam paigns h ad alw ays been

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

241

m ark ed by extrem ely b itte r a n ti-e sta b lish m e n t rh eto ric, by a cau stic ex p o su re of “ th e co n cealed a n d vicious, th e tr u e ,” face o f th e Jew ish lead ersh ip o f his tim e. T h e re w ere few leaders o f th e A m erican Jew ish co m m u n ity o r Israeli society w h o m he h a d n o t castig a te d as tra ito rs o r G entile-lovers: th e p eo p le w ho “ G en tiliz e d ” Jew ish e d u c a tio n in th e U nited S tates, d id n o t d o a single thing to help E u ro p e a n Jew ry d u rin g th e Second W o rld W ar, a n d w ere la te r fearful o f th e A m erican b la c k s;94 th e peo p le w h o h arassed th e real freedom fighters in P alestine (i.e., m em bers o f th e Irgun o r th e Lehi), w ro te th e falla­ cious d e c la ra tio n o f Israel’s in d ep en d en ce, an d did n o t drive a ll th e A rabs o u t;95 th e peo p le w h o are read y n o w to m ak e te rrito ria l co n cessio n s— in sho rt, th e “ gentilized a n d H ellenized Je w s.” 96 O n e o f socio lo g ist K arl M a n n h e im ’s m o st b rillia n t discussions o f the ideological b attles o f his tim e h a d to d o w ith th e p h e n o m e n o n o f un m a s k ­ ing, o r d eb u n k in g , official po litical ideologies. W h a t M a n n h e im n o ticed am ong b o th th e fascists a n d th e co m m u n ists o f his tim e w as th eir need to expose th e “ tr u e ” face o f th e enem y, its “ re a l” class o r c u ltu ra l h id d en interests.97 K a h a n e ’s m a rk e tp la c e rh e to ric w as a p erfect ex am p le o f th is “ u n m a sk in g ” p h e n o m e n o n , a n d n o t a single sp eak er in Israel co u ld m atch him in his expertise. N o w h e re does K a h a n e ’s p ro g ressio n from ideology to p ro p a g a n d a a n d from p ro p a g a n d a to sm ea r c am p aig n sh o w m o re clearly th a n in his tre a t­ m ent o f th e p ro b le m o f th e o rie n ta l Jew s in Israel. In 1973 he w ro te in T h e C hallenge, M a n y p e o p le ta lk a b o u t th e s o c ia l g a p , b u t fe w o f th em h a v e ever v isite d a p o o r n e ig h b o r h o o d . S p e a k in g a b o u t th e so c ia l p r o b le m , th ey p a y lip serv ice an d p a c ify th eir c o n s c ie n c e in th e r o u tin e te x t th a t th e b u d g et is in su ffic ien t fo r b o th ta rg ets: sec u r ity a n d th e w a r o n p overty. It is d e p ressin g to w a tc h p e o p le s w e p t by th e flo o d o f d e m a g o g u e r y a b o u t th e m isery w h ic h airs so c ia l an d e th n ic h a tre d fo r th e b en efit o f th e p o litic a l p ro s. A w h o le ca m p o f p a y ers o f lip ser v ic e is s ittin g o n a p o w d e r k eg a n d fo o ls itse lf th a t th ere w ill b e n o fire. T h e c a m p o f th e d e m a g o g u e s h ea ts th e p o w d e r k eg an d k n o w in g ly p la y s w ith th e fire.98

K ahane u n d e rsto o d w h a t w as th en called “ th e p ro b le m o f th e eth n ic-so cial g a p ,” a n d w as keenly a w a re o f th e explosive p o te n tia l o f th e issue. A nd despite his d e n u n c ia tio n o f th e “ payers o f lip serv ice,” he w as n o t b lin d to th e p o ten tial benefits o f using th e eth n ic a n d social p ro b le m s o f Israel to b ro a d e n his political base. W h en asked in an early 1973 interview a b o u t w h o m he sees as his p o te n tia l constituency, K ah an e resp o n d ed , “ I go to th e n e ig h b o rh o o d s, to th e p o o r, to th e peo p le w h o have n o th in g a n d are n o t in terested in a n y ­ thing, a n d I offer th em actio n . T h e re is d ra m a here, it is in terestin g because it opens new vistas fo r a b itter, fru stra te d peo p le full o f p ro b le m s .” 99 As early as 198 0 K ah an e s ta rte d to ad d ress th e S ep h arad i Jew s in Israel, especially th e p o o r fro m th e d e v elo p m en t to w n s, arg u in g th a t n o t only h a d the g o v ern m en t d o n e n o th in g a b o u t th e A rabs, b u t it w as also d e lib e ra te ly

242

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

d iscrim in atin g ag ain st S ephardim . A ccording to this line of arg u m en t, the A shkenazi g o v ern m en t h a d never do n e eno u g h for the Sepharadi im m i­ g ran ts, a n d n o w its lenient policies to w a rd th e A rabs, an d the p ay m en t of subsidies for large A rab fam ilies a t a tim e o f serious econom ic crisis, w ere a b o u t to d estro y them . If th e A rabs w ere n o t co n sta n tly subsidized an d their tax evasions ig n o red , Jew s could live in p ro sp e rity — especially Jew s from the w eak er econom ic s tra ta o f th e p o p u la tio n . K ah ane kn ew his audience. T he S epharadi Jew s have indeed suffered from a difficult a b so rp tio n process, especially d u rin g th e 1950s, an d from cu ltu ral d iscrim in atio n . N o t a few o f them have developed a genuine antiA shkenazi sen tim en t a n d a special anim osity to w a rd the L ab o r m ovem ent, w hich d o m in a te d th e c o u n try fo r m any years. B ut K ahane, an A shkenazi im m ig ran t from th e U nited States, accen tu ated th eir sentim ents in a w ay no one h a d d o n e before. T h ere w as said to be a “ conspiracy o f th e A shkenazi estab lish m en t to help th e A rabs instead o f th e S epharadi Jew s.” T he A shke­ nazi leadership w as p o rtra y e d as n o t carin g a b o u t values like p atern alism an d chastity. It allo w ed A rabs in to Jew ish society an d m ade it possible for A rab y oun g sters to seduce p o o r S epharadi Jew ish girls. Playing o n th e sensitivities o f som e in his audience, K ahane w en t to devel­ o p m en t to w n s a n d p o o r n eig h b o rh o o d s an d to ld lu rid stories. H e to ld the “ Y em enites” th a t d u rin g th e 1950s, six h u n d re d Y em enite babies w ere stolen from th eir m o th ers in th e hosp itals, rig h t after th eir b irth , an d given to re­ spected A shkenazi fam ilies for a d o p tio n . T he p aren ts, w h o h ad ju st arriv ed in Israel, w ere to ld th a t th e children died, an d h ad no m eans to check on the sto ry .100 T he “ Ira q is ” w ere to ld by K ahane, w h o h a d spent m any m o n th s in jail, th a t Israel’s p riso n s w ere full o f Iraqi crim inals. T hey w ere th en asked in a rheto rical w ay w h e th e r there w ere Jew ish m u rd erers o r b a n k ro b b ers in Iraq. Since th e ex p ected an sw er w as generally negative, K ah an e’s audience w as left w ith no d o u b t as to th e identity o f th e real crim inal: the A shkenazi estab lish ­ m ent, w hich ru in ed th e tra d itio n a l fam ily an d its m orals and drove the you n g to crim e. K ahane w as especially effective w ith the N o rth A frican im m igrants w h o w ere rem inded th a t in th eir native co u n trie s— M o ro cco , Tunisia, A lgeria— th eir d a u g h te rs never d ated A rab boys. But in in d ep en d en t Israel, the d ream o f g en eratio n s o f suffering Jew s, they did so. W h a t K ahane usually fo rg o t to rem ind his audience w as th a t th e A shke­ nazi esta b lish m en t th a t m any o f th em h a te d — the L ab o r m ovem ent, the H ista d ru t, the k ib b u tz im — has been o u t o f office since 1977, an d th a t a new estab lish m en t h a d em erged, the A shkenazi-S epharadi leadership o f the Likud. Since m any o f these people su p p o rte d th e L ikud, the sh rew d K ahane rarely m en tio n ed th a t th e real econom ic disaster o f Israel to o k place u n d er a L ikud a d m in istra tio n . H e also did n o t m en tio n th a t the L ikud a n d the religious parties w ere as responsible as th e L a b o r m ovem ent an d th e “ left­ ists” for the law s th a t gave the A rab citizens o f Israel all n atio n al insu ran ce benefits. It w as m uch easier for K ahane to su stain the m yth th a t L ab o r w as

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

243

still in p o w e r a n d th a t its m an ip u la tiv e leaders w ere b eh in d all th e m iseries and tro u b le s .101

The Leader's Principle W hen th e JD L w as esta b lish ed in A m erica in 1968, it w as a collective venture o f several N e w Y ork Jew s c o o p e ra tin g to fo u n d th e m o v em en t u n d er th e in sp ira tio n o f M e ir K ah an e. In 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 7 0 , th o u g h it w as alread y clear th a t K ah an e w as th e id eologue, th e n ew sm ak er, an d th e lead er o f th e g roup, he w as still nevertheless a c c o u n ta b le to several colleagues in th e JD L . In Israel this s itu a tio n ch an g ed . K ach w as K a h a n e ’s o w n p ro d u c t. People of som e th e o re tic a l a n d p ra c tic a l w eig h t, like Yoel L ern er a n d Yossi D ay an , w ho w ere once p a rt o f th e m o v em en t, w ere never allo w ed any lead ersh ip roles.102 A nd th u s, gradually, w ith no th eo retic al insistence o n th e “ lead er p rin c ip le,” K ah an e h a d becom e th e sole ideo lo g u e, th e only d ecisio n -m ak er, the key speak er, a n d th e fu n d -ra ise r o f K ach. H e m ade all p u b lic statem en ts, and no m a jo r m ove w as ever m ad e w ith o u t his a p p ro v a l. H e inevitably found a reaso n to discharge any ta le n te d m em b er w h o rose to p ro m in en c e in Kach. Since K ahane h a d never subjected him self to a th o ro u g h psychological interview , it is h a rd to tell w h a t led him to d o as he did. B ut clearly K ah an e had alw ays h a d an in satiab le need for publicity a n d to ta l confidence in his leadership abilities. In A m erica, K ah an e never sp ared a gim m ick to m ak e the front page o f th e N e w York T im es o r th e D a ily N e w s . H is p olitical p e rso n a l­ ity seems to have been sh ap ed by th e A m erica o f th e late 1960s an d by p u ndits like Jerry R u b in , w h o once said “ You c a n ’t m ake a rev o lu tio n w ith o u t a co lo r T V .” W hen he first cam e to Israel in 1971, K ah an e h a d to in v e n t events in o rd er to c o n sta n tly rem ain in th e new s. Since as a new im m ig ra n t he d id n o t have credibility to deal w ith th e A rab q u e stio n , co n sid ered a high statesecurity m a tte r, K ah an e cam e up w ith very b izarre ideas such as d e m o n s tra t­ ing ag ainst a visit o f th e P resid en t o f N ig eria, a tta c k in g th e claim s o f the black Jew s o f D im o n a to being fully Jew ish, a n d in v ad in g th e Finnish em ­ bassy in Tel Aviv to c o n fro n t th e d ip lo m a tic rep resen tativ es o f th e Soviet U nion a b o u t Soviet Jew ry. To c o u n te r th e n o to rio u s C h ristian o rg a n iz a tio n Jews for Jesus, K ah an e in v en ted “ C h ristian s fo r M o se s.” 103 Jo u rn a list Y air K otier, w h o stu d ied som e o f K a h a n e ’s m o st sp ectacu lar activities o f th e early 1970s, reach ed th e co n clu sio n th a t m any o f th o se events w ere fak ed , p la n n e d p u rely fo r publicity. K a h a n e ’s fam o u s 1972 a tte m p t to sm uggle arm s o u t o f Israel, in o rd e r to avenge th e b lo o d o f th e Israeli athletes m u rd e re d in M u n ic h by b lo w in g u p th e L ybian em bassy in Brussels, w as leaked, a c c o rd in g to K otier, by K ah an e him self. Yosef Schnei­ der, w h o w as K a h a n e ’s first lie u te n a n t in th e 1970s Israeli JD L , to ld K otier:

244

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right F or K a h a n e th e en d ju stifies th e m e a n s. E v ery th in g for K ah an e is p ub lic re la tio n s. H e d is c lo se s d e ta ils a b o u t p la n s th a t are alread y in th e o v e n , to the a u th o r itie s, in o r d e r n o t to d a m a g e h im self an d h is p e o p le , n o t to have arrests. In th is w a y h e re a ch es h is g o a l: w id e p u b licity for h im se lf and large e c h o fo r h is d e e d s .104

A rare insight in to K a h a n e ’s self-perception as an u n d isp u ted leader has been p ro v id ed by Eli A dir, K ach ’s fo rm er directo r-g en eral. A dir w o rk ed for K ahane for only nine m o n th s in 1984. M an y political observers o f Kach believed th a t A dir w as th e best th in g th a t h ad h ap p en ed to K ahane in a long tim e, th a t he offered a rare o p p o rtu n ity to change K ach’s illegitim ate p o liti­ cal im age an d gain respectability. A dir, a th irty -y ear-o ld p la to o n com ­ m an d er in th e Israeli reserves, w as exactly w h a t K ahane needed. A g rad u ate o f T echnion in co n stru c tio n engineering w ith a m a ste r’s degree in in d u strial m an ag em en t, A dir did n o t p ro je ct b o rd erlin e crim inality o f the usual Kach activist. H e w as a sa b ra (a native Israeli), spoke the m atter-o f-fact language o f th e new g en eratio n o f Israeli university g rad u ates, an d seem ed very accom ­ plished. T h e fact th a t a ra tio n a l an d successful engineer like A dir w as ready to join forces w ith K ah an e could have h ad a g reat effect on m any Israelis w h o w o u ld never give th e ex trem ist rab b i a second th o u g h t. D u rin g his T echnion years, A dir h ad p a rtic ip a te d in the g ro w in g c o n fro n ­ ta tio n betw een Jew s an d A rabs on the cam p u s, an d w as once seriously stab b ed by an A rab stu d en t. L ong before A dir joined K ach, he w as m ade a hero by K ahane, w h o to ld his sto ry in T h o m s in Your E yes. T he incident w as used by K ahane to illu strate his a rg u m en t th a t there w as no ro o m for reco n ciliation betw een Jew s an d A ra b s.105 B ut just nine m o n th s after he joined K ach, becom ing the d arlin g o f the press, A dir follow ed Y oseph Schneider, Yoel Lerner, an d Yossi D a y a n — earlier K ahane lie u te n a n ts— by leaving the m ovem ent. H is acc o u n t o f his p re m a tu re d e p a rtu re provides the m o st recent inside ev alu atio n o f K ah an e’s b eh av io r a n d self-perception: A c c o r d in g to h is u n d e r sta n d in g , e v e r y b o d y h e d o es n o t lik e sh o u ld b e re­ m o v e d in th e m o s t b ru tal w a y p o ssib le . It starts w ith th e A rab q u e stio n , w h e r e th e s o lu tio n is to r e m o v e an A rab by fo rce, even to rem o v e an A rab v illa g e b y fo r ce. It c o n tin u e s in th e a p p ro a ch to th e p a rlia m en ta ry b o d ie s o f th e left a n d e x te n d s to h is c lo s e s t frien d s. T h e w h o le a tm o sp h ere is o n e o f c o n s ta n t str u g g le, fro n ta l c o n flic t w ith e v e ry th in g th a t sta n d s in h is w a y , a c o n s ta n t s h o w o f force. T h e re is n ev er an y a tte m p t to ta lk , to c o n v in c e . T h e a n sw er is a lw a y s, “T h is is th e w a y I w a n t i t .” W h en sev eral m em b ers o f K ach c o m m e n te d th a t it is n o t p r u d e n t to call th e A ra b s “ d o g s ” in p u b lic, K ahan e re sp o n d ed , “ B ut th ey a r e !” T h is sty le d eters m a n y p e o p le . N a tu r a lly he su rro u n d s h im se lf w ith p e o p le w h o n eed to be to ld w h a t to d o , and h e tells th em . T h u s, it is co r rec t to sa y th a t th e m o v e m e n t is in d eed K ah an e, an d th a t th ere is n o K ach w ith o u t h im .106

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

245

R abbi M e ir K ah an e lived in a w o rld o f his o w n , b o u n d e d an d defined by his o w n tru th , m ission, a n d rules. H e no lo n g er even p re te n d e d to be eq u al to o th ers, his m o v e m e n t’s m em bers includ ed . A K ach activist w h o once came to K ahane to discuss w ith him th e n o m in a tio n o f delegates to th e p arty ’s general co n v en tio n h e a rd him say, “ It’s a g o o d th in g K ach isn ’t a dem ocracy. I’m th e only o n e to decide w h a t will a n d will n o t b e .” 107

From Disqualification to Assassination Two w eeks b efo re th e general elections in O c to b e r 1988, K ach w as d is­ qualified fro m ru n n in g for th e K nesset. T h e disq u alificatio n w as the m o st devastating b lo w to th e po litical hopes o f this m o v em en t. T h e ju d g m en t, first p ro n o u n c e d by th e C e n tra l E lections C o m m ittee an d la te r u p h eld by the S uprem e C o u rt, m e a n t th a t th e m o v em en t co u ld n o t ru n fo r p o litical office an d th a t its h ead , K ah an e, lo st his p o sitio n as m em b er o f p a rlia m e n t. The d isq u alificatio n d ro v e K ach b ack to its p re -1 9 8 4 sta tu s, th a t o f a sem ilegitim ate e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry m ovem en t. A nd it greatly red u ced its chances o f gain in g legitim acy a n d becom in g an influential force in th e n a tio n ’s p u b lic life. T he d isq u alificatio n w as expected. T h e p a rty h ad first been disqualified by the C e n tra l E lections C o m m ittee before th e 1984 n a tio n a l elections, o n the g ro u n d s o f K a h a n e ’s racist p la tfo rm a n d his rejection o f Israeli d em o c­ racy. But a t th e tim e this act w as o v erru led by th e S uprem e C o u rt for lack o f p ro p er legislation. T h o u g h th e c o u rt agreed w ith all the arg u m en ts o f th e com m ittee, it ruled th a t Israel’s electoral law h a d no ap p licab le p ro v isio n th a t b a rre d racist o r a n ti-d e m o c ra tic p artie s from e lectio n s.108 T he ru lin g w as a clear m essage to th e K nesset to am en d th e electo ral law, and K a h a n e ’s election to th e K nesset in 198 4 m ade this legislation all th e m ore u rg en t, a n d in 1985 th e a m e n d m e n t w as passed. T h e p ro v isio n sta te d th a t any p a rty w h o se p la tfo rm w as racist a n d an ti-d e m o c ra tic , a n d w hose behavior involved “ in citem en t to ra c ism ,” w as u n q u alified to ru n fo r th e K nesset.109 T he only one w h o did n o t ta k e th e new legislation seriously w as R ab b i M eir K ahane. H e h a d a lm o st th re e years to face the new challenge an d p rep are for it. S urprisingly, he did n o th in g . G iven his long ex trem ist reco rd it is n o t c ertain w h e th e r he co u ld have m et th e co n d itio n s o f the new law, b u t he certain ly m ad e n o such effort. Instead o f m o d e ra tin g his p o sitio n s tactically, m ak in g a c o n d itio n a l c o m m itm e n t to dem ocracy, a n d in stru ctin g his follow ers to te m p o ra rily reduce th eir vio len t profile, K ah an e intensified his cru sade a g a in st th e “ tre a c h e ro u s A ra b s,” th e “ G en tilized ” Jew s, an d their elected a n d n o m in a te d officials. H is p ro p o sa ls in th e K nesset w ere extrem ely ra c ist a n d his speeches w ere as vitrio lic as ever. Fully convinced o f his g ro w ing p o p u la rity a n d ap p eal, K ah an e acted a n d spoke as if n o th in g

246

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

could sto p him . H e ridiculed the K nesset, insulted m any o f its m em bers, and often called for the d isso lu tio n o f the duly elected g o v ern m en t.110 A series o f special K nesset resolutions, w hich greatly lim ited K ahane’s p a rlia m e n ta ry im m unity a n d fo rb ad e any m o re of his p ro v o cativ e visits to A rab villages, w ere d isreg ard ed by the m ilitan t rabbi. H e also disregarded a reso lu tion by Israel’s B road castin g A u th o rity n o t to cover his activities, w hich reduced his p ublic im p act a g reat d e a l.111 K ah an e’s visits of the n a tio n ’s p o o r n e ig h b o rh o o d s an d d evelopm en t to w n s convinced him th at the p eople loved him , an d th a t it w as just a m a tte r of tim e before he w ould be v oted in to full pow er. K ahane, w h o a p p a re n tly never regarded the law as an effective in stru ­ m ent o f g o v ern m en t, w as so m eh o w certain th a t G od, w h o b ro u g h t him to the K nesset, w o u ld help keep him there. As late as sum m er 1988, an d ag ain st th e gro w in g skepticism o f his atto rn e y s, he w as still o p tim istic a b o u t his chances to ru n in th e com ing elections. A nd w hen asked w hy he did n ot change his im age an d tactics in o rd e r to facilitate his law yers’ job, he said th a t all his acts w ere d ictated by the H a la k h a an d th a t th ere w as n o th in g he could d o a b o u t it. W hen fu rth e r pressed a b o u t the o th er o rth o d o x rabbis in the K nesset, w h o w ere also acting in the nam e o f the H a la k h a , K ahane said they w ere all w ro n g .112 T he disqualification o f K ach cam e, parado x ically , a t one of its peaks of popularity. Since his 1984 election, K ah an e’s appeal h ad risen an d declined several tim es. B ut the 1988 o u tb re a k of the in tifa d a played rig h t in to his h ands. N o t only w as it “ goo d for b u sin ess,” b u t K ahane could rightly claim th a t he alone p red icted th e Palestinian uprising an d th a t it v alid ated all his theories. T he unw illingness o f th e S ham ir g o v ern m en t to crush the in tifa d a in fu riated n o t only th e im m ediate constituen cy of the radical rig h t b u t also n u m ero u s L ikud su p p o rters. M an y of these, p o ten tial K ahane fans anyw ay, w ere fu rth e r roused by the ra b b i’s b itter attack s on the “ s o ft” Israeli esta b ­ lishm ent, w hich n o w included Itzhak Sham ir. By the su m m er of 1988, there w ere several in d icatio n s th a t three to five Kach m em bers w o u ld be elected to the K nesset; K ahane him self w as speaking a b o u t seven to ten m em bers. K ach’s activists, w h o w ere p rom ised by th eir leader th a t everything w o u ld be all right, w ere e n th u sia stic .113 They w o rk ed a ro u n d the clock, sensing the com ing victory. K ah an e’s im m ediate reactio n to the disqualification o f K ach w as su rp ris­ ingly m ild. H e seem ed alm o st happy, for once again he w as at the center o f the n a tio n ’s a tte n tio n . D ozens o f foreign co rresp o n d en ts show ed up in his office. In countless interview s an d lectures he u n m ask ed the “ re a l” face o f Israeli dem ocracy, w hich ch arged him w ith racism an d d iscrim in atio n b u t actually u n d erm in e d its very principles by disenfranchising his su p p o rters. H e p redicted th e n ear dem ise o f the “ H ellen ized ” Israeli regim e an d vow ed to be th ere to pick up th e p ieces.114 But the m ovem ent itself gave, in c o n tra st, a very p o o r show. N eith er its

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

247

core activists n o r th e h u n d re d s o f its v o lu n teers w ere cap ab le o f o rg an izin g protests a n d d e m o n stra tio n s. T h e highly pub licized “ p o p u la r a ffe c tio n ” to K ahane w as n o t a p p a re n t in th e streets. M o reo v er, th e ra b b i’s call for his su p p o rters n o t to v o te fo r o th e r p artie s a n d to d e m o n stra te ag ain st the system by p u ttin g w h ite slips in th e b a llo t boxes w as p o o rly atte n d e d . M o st of K ah an e’s s u p p o rte rs v o ted fo r M o le d e t o r for Shas, th e religious p a rty o f the S ephardi u ltra o rth o d o x . But in th e long ru n , desp ite K a h a n e ’s o ccasio n al rem ark s a b o u t his desire to retire to sch o larly life a n d to his yeshiva, K ah an e co u ld never live w ith o u t politics. It w as ju st a q u e stio n o f tim e before a new K ahane idea w as th ro w n into Israel’s p u b lic life, a n o tio n aim ed a t reviving th e K ah an ist sp irit a n d K ach’s hopes. T h e idea th a t a rriv ed w as th e esta b lish m en t o f th e “ In d e p e n ­ dent State o f J u d e a .” T he new state w as “ e sta b lish e d ” in Jerusalem o n Ja n u a ry 1 8 ,1 9 8 9 . A b o u t fifty delegates (rep resen tin g settlem en ts in Ju d e a , S am aria, an d G aza) an d several h u n d re d o bservers g a th e re d in Je ru sa le m ’s Palaza H o tel to d e m o n ­ strate th eir irrev o cab le c o m m itm e n t to th e o ccu p ied territo rie s. R eactin g to the shift in th e p o sitio n o f th e PL O vis-à-vis Israel, w hich resu lted in a new A m erican drive for peace, they ex pressed th eir d e te rm in a tio n to create an in d ep en dent Jew ish state, Ju d e a , in any te rrito ry ev acu ated by Israel in th e co n tex t o f a fu tu re peace treaty. A nd to show th a t the d eclaratio n w as n o t an em pty gesture, they held a w h o le cerem ony in w hich a p o te n tia l state w as created w ith a flag, a n th e m , elected bodies, a n d a p relim in ary c o n stitu tio n . T he fo u n d ers o f th e state o f Ju d e a pledged full allegiance to th e ex istin g state o f Israel, its law s, a n d its agencies, b u t m ade it clear th a t this allegiance w ould te rm in a te if E retz Y israel te rrito rie s w ere h a n d e d to th e A rabs. T hey vow ed to ta k e o v er any such territo ry , to defend it by force, a n d to estab lish there a fully H a la k h ic second Jew ish s ta te .115 R ab b i K ahane, w h o chose to act b eh ind th e scenes, w as elected h o n o ra ry p resid en t o f the new state an d its a m b a ssa d o r-a t-la rg e to Jew ish co m m u n ities a ro u n d th e w o rld . M ichael B en-H orin, a G o la n H eights settler, a v eteran o f the 1982 struggle in Y am it, and a radical fu n d a m e n ta list in his o w n rig h t, w as elected to h ead its sevenperson executive c o m m itte e .116 W h a t w as new a b o u t th e executive co m m ittee w as th a t its co m p o sitio n was n o t d ic ta te d by K ach. In o rd e r to increase th e ap p eal o f the new S tate o f Judea, it w as ad v ertised as an in d e p e n d e n t body. Several m em bers o f th e executive co m m ittee, w h o w ere elected openly by th e en tire rep resen tativ e body, w ere n o t m em bers o f K ach. B en-H orin him self, th o u g h a m em b er o f Kach, acted a lm o st in d ep en d en tly o f K ahan e. H e invested m uch tim e in p rep aratio n s fo r th e c o n v en tio n a n d c o n d u c te d p erso n al m eetings in dozens of settlem ents, in o rd e r to convince people th a t this w as an in d ep en d en t venture. T h o u g h K ah an e o rig in a te d th e idea o f th e new state a n d th e w hole founding ritu a l— classic R ab b i K ah an e p u b lic-relatio n s g im m icks— he w as d isap p o in ted by th e d e v elo p m en t o f th e cerem ony. B en-H orin acted to o

248

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

independently, an d several delegates to th e co n stitu en t assem bly to o k seri­ ously th e pro m ise th a t the in d ep en d en t State o f Ju d ea w o u ld n o t be a Kach o p e ra tio n . D isagreeing w ith m o st o f the leaders o f G ush E m unim , w h o were skeptical a b o u t th e new v enture, these delegates th o u g h t th a t the cerem ony w o u ld send an u n equivocal m essage o f d eterm in a tio n an d resolve to the g o v ern m en t an d th e people o f Israel.117 T he last th in g they w an ted w as to join a n o th e r fro n t o rg a n iz a tio n o f K ach. T h e result w as an u n ex p ected open d eb ate a b o u t the p ru d en ce o f m aking K ahane th e h o n o ra ry p resid en t o f th e new body. A lthough he w as finally elected, several sp eak ers m ade it clear th a t th o u g h they believed K ah an e’s in ten tio n s w ere goo d , his nam e w as a g reat liability. K ahane him self, w ho in ten d ed to pon tificate graciously over the sym bolic event, could n o t rem ain silent. H e delivered a b itte r speech a tta c k in g all those w h o th o u g h t they could use the logistics o f K ach an d its su p p o rt, b u t leave its leader o u t in the c o ld .118 T h e a tte m p t to m ake th e in d ep en d en t State of Ju d ea in d ep en d en t of K ach as well w as d o o m ed to failure. T he refusal of all the “ leg itim ate” m ovem ents o f th e rad ical rig h t to en dorse it, an d its inability to recru it leading n o n-K ach activists, m ade it necessary for B en-H orin to rely heavily on the resources a n d m a n p o w e r o f K ach. T h e only concession he received from K ahane w as th e ra b b i’s co n sen t to avoid p erso n al asso ciatio n w ith the new state, a n d a perm ission for B en-H orin an d o th er activists to speak for it. T his led to th e m o v em en t o f th e center of the In d ep en d en t State o f Ju d ea to K iryat A rb a, the only place in Israel w here K ach m em bers h a d been able to free them selves from th e sh ad o w of R abbi K ahane an d act independently. Since th e beginning of the in tifa d a , an d especially since the estab lish m en t of the In d ep en d en t S tate o f Ju d ea, K ach’s ch a p te r in K iryat A rba has becom e the m o st visible center o f an ti-A rab vigilantism in Israel, as well as o f antig o v ern m ental defiance. T h e high co n cen tratio n o f ex trem ist settlers in clu d ­ ing th o u sa n d s of K ach sym pathizers, and the lack of any m eaningful G ush E m unim o p p o sitio n to th e radicalism o f K ach, have created the critical m ass necessary for th e ta k e o ff o f K iry at-A rb a’s K ach. O f p a rtic u la r im p o rtan ce for this d ev elo p m en t has been th e rise o f a new breed o f K ach activists, young individuals in th eir tw enties o r early thirties, m ost n o tab ly B aruch M arzel, Shm uel B en-Y ishai, N o a m F ederm an, T ira n Poliak, an d Yekutiel Ben-Ya’acov. U nlike th e elderly K ahane, w h o no longer p artic ip a te d in violent actio n , an d w as carefully avoiding c o n fro n ta tio n w ith the law, his y oung follow ers in K iryat A rba w ere m anifestly violent. T hey a ttack ed A rab travellers in the op en , d estroyed A rab p ro p e rty an d advertised it, got repeatedly involved in p ro v o cative scuffles w ith th e leaders o f the P alestinian co m m unity in th e W est B ank, an d used every o p p o rtu n ity to h arass Jew s w h o m ain tain ed a dialogue w ith the P alestinians. Living in a m anifest conflict o f legitim acy w ith the g o v ern m en t o f Israel, w hich refuses to crush th e in tifada, these K ach activists have becom e p ro u d of th eir countless crim inal convictions, an d are ready to

Religious Fundamentalism and Political Quasi-Fascism

249

go to jail. N o t only d o they ap p eal to th e th o u sa n d s o f settlers in th e W est Bank, w h o face A rab violence daily, b u t also to tens o f th o u sa n d s o f Israelis w ho resent th e in tifa d a , seeing only its anti-Jew ish v io len t ch aracter. A n d the young activists o f K ach carry a sym bolic id en tity card , issued by the Indepedent S tate o f Ju d e a , a n d tell th e rest o f th e w o rld th a t th e essential in frastru ctu re o f th e new sta te is alread y in existence. Insisting th a t any te rrito ­ rial concession in th e W est B ank m u st be m et by v io len t resistance, they m ak e it clear th a t they w ill p erso n ally lead th e struggle. In M a rc h 1989 th e Israeli p u b lic w as stu n n e d by several acts o f highprofile sab o tag e. A secret o rg a n iz a tio n , w hich n am ed itself th e S ik a rik in , assum ed resp o n sib ility for settin g ablaze th e c ar o f D an A lm agor, a p o p u la r Israeli w rite r a n d tra n s la to r, w h o publicly cam e o u t ag ain st th e a rm y ’s brutal tre a tm e n t o f th e in tifa d a a n d called fo r d irect talk s w ith th e PLO . Sim ilar o th e r cases o f a rso n to o k place a t th e h o m es o f p ro m in e n t Israelis w ho either w ere involved in d ire ct talk s w ith th e PL O o r a p p e a re d to su p ­ p o rt legitim izing this o rg a n iz a tio n in Israel. S lan d ero u s graffiti ag ain st Prim e M inister S ham ir w ere also fo u n d .119 In an an o n y m o u s p h o n e call, a rep resen ­ tative o f th e new g ro u p to ld a c o rre sp o n d e n t o f E rev S h a b a t (an u l­ tra o rth o d o x w eekly), Y ou s p e a k a b o u t d e m o c r a c y ? T h e re w a s a J ew here, w h o w a n te d to act in a d e m o c r a tic w ay. W h a t h a p p e n e d to h im ? H e w a s sile n c e d , an d th a t’s it. W e are n o t su c k e r s! D o n ’t frig h ten m e w ith d e m o c r a c y .120

T he nam e o f th e new o rg a n iz a tio n is significant. T h e S ik arik in , o r Sicarii, w ere an e x trem e factio n o f Jew ish Z e a lo ts w h o o p e ra te d b efore an d during th e G re a t R evolt ag ain st th e R o m an s. T h a t b itte r struggle led in 70 a . d . to th e d e stru c tio n o f th e Second Tem ple in Jeru salem a n d to th e b eg in ­ ning o f tw o m illennia o f Jew ish exile from Eretz Y israel. T h e S ik arik in (men of sm all daggers) c o n d u c te d a system atic te rro r cam p aig n ag ain st Jew ish m oderates w h o w ere ready to com e to term s w ith th e R o m an s o n q u estio n s of religious purity. A p a rt fro m m u rd e rin g m an y Jew ish m o d erates, th e o rig i­ nal Sikarikin fo u g h t th e R o m a n s to th e b itte r end, w ith th e last o f th e ir group co m m ittin g suicide in M a ssa d a in 73 a . d . 121 A lth ough th e S ikarikin w ere la te r seen by m o st H a la k h ic a u th o ritie s as irresponsible zealots w h o b ro u g h t a b o u t a d estru ctiv e civil w ar, in Jew ish collective m em ory they rem ain th e sym bolic d efenders o f religious an d n a ­ tio n alist purity. T h e sm all ideological u ltra n a tio n a lis t g ro u p , B rit H a b irio nim (the C o v e n a n t o f T hugs), w hich o p e ra te d in Palestine in th e late 1920s and early 1930s a n d a n tic ip a te d th e later em ergence o f Lehi, also referred to itself on o ccasion as S ikarikin. W hile it w as n o t a t all clear th a t K ahane w as b eh in d th e S ik arik in — an d the police assem bled c irc u m sta n tia l evidence ag ain st Yoel A dler, a stran g e Jerusalem rig h t-w in g loner, acc o u n tin g for several activities— th e g ro u p used the language a n d rh e to ric o f K ach. T h e re w ere in fact several reaso n s to believe th a t th e rab b i him self w as involved. In M a rc h 1989, K ah an e w as in

250

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

big tro u b le. H is m ov em en t h a d lost m o st o f its m o m en tu m an d the future lo o k ed bleak. A decision to form tw o K ach lists to the 1992 general elections— o ne official (expected to be disqualified) an d the o th e r m ore m o d e ra te — could n o t relieve th e daily m alaise an d sense o f decline. T here w as a g ro w in g pressu re to d o so m eth in g o f high m edia visibility an d sym bol­ ism, so th a t K ach a n d its ideas rem ained in th e new s. A lthough K ahane said in a press interview th a t he th o u g h t th e acts of the S ikarikin w ere useless (“ Fools, foolishness! W h a t d o you get from th e b u rn in g o f the d o o r of M in a T zem ach o r D a n M arg alit? W h o are they a t all? C h ild ish !” ), th eir usefulness for su stain in g th e m yth o f K ach could n o t be d e n ie d .122 R ab bi M eir K ah an e w as g u n n ed d o w n in N ew York C ity on N o v em b er 5, 1990, w hile m ak in g a speech to a sm all g ro u p of follow ers. H is assassin, an A m erican citizen o f E gyptian descent, El-Sayyid al N o sair, ap p aren tly acted alone, an d w as n o t associated w ith any k n o w n Palestinian te rro rist g ro u p . R esp o n d in g e m o tio n ally to the gro w in g cycle o f Jew ish-A rab vio­ lence in Israel, he ended the sto rm y career o f K ahane, an d m ay have in ad v er­ tently te rm in a te d th e existence o f K ach. C o n stan tly living am id violence an d conflicts, K ah an e seem ed u n co n cern ed a b o u t his ow n fate. H e to o k no special p recau tio n s a b o u t his p erso n al safety, an d m ade no co n tin g en t plans for an o rd erly succession o f leadership in case of his d eath . K ach, w hich w as alw ays a o n e-m an show , w as d ealt a m o rtal blo w an d ap p eared as d iso ri­ ented as ever. K a h a n e ’s huge b u rial cerem ony, atten d ed by as m any as 2 0 ,0 0 0 Israeli m o u rn e rs, w as th e g reatest show o f s u p p o rt the slain leader ever h ad in Israel. A nd it w as full o f an ti-A rab an d anti-leftist violence, well in the sp irit o f th e deceased rab b i. B ut this seem ed to have been a single m o m en t o f em o tio n al o u tp o u rin g , experienced by the entire radical right, n o t just by K ach su p p o rters. A sh o rt tim e after his assassin atio n it w as already clear th a t K ah an e w as m uch m ore successful in instilling “ K ahanism ” in Israeli political cultu re, th a n in securing the fu tu re o f K ach.

8 B eyond Routine Politics: The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Tem ple Mount

Neither the Gush Nor Kahane Unlike G ush E m u n im , th e Tehiya, T z o m e t, M o led e t, a n d K ach — all w ith distinct political iden tities, o rg a n iz a tio n s, salaried p erso n n el, a n d legal resp o n sibilities— th e fo u rth c o m p o n e n t o f th e rad ical rig h t is elusive an d u n o rg anized. It is m ad e u p o f rad icals w h o ideologically a n d politically stan d som ew h ere b etw een G u sh E m unim a n d R ab b i K ah an e, b u t feel u n ­ co m fo rtab le w ith b o th . T hey rarely act as a h o m o g en eo u s g ro u p , b u t sh are the co n viction th a t only a sp iritu al rev o lu tio n could save th e n a tio n ; th u s, we can con sid er th em as a d istin c t g ro u p , th e c u ltu ra l radicals. M an y o f th e c u ltu ra l rad icals com e from th e e x trem ist circles o f the settler co m m u n ity in Ju d e a , S am aria, a n d G aza; o th e rs are fo rm er K ah an e associates, largely in Jeru salem ; som e com e directly fro m th e tra d itio n o f the p re-state u ltra n a tio n a lis t u n d e rg ro u n d s in Palestine. T h e g ro u p also includes several rab b is a n d lay p erso n s w h o have in d ep en d en tly com e to H a la k h ic conclusions sim ilar to K a h a n e ’s. T h e ir rad ical a p p ro a c h is th u s n o t a p ro d u c t o f a single a u th o rita tiv e school, a n d it h as n o t been th eo retic ally w o rk e d o u t in to a co h e re n t system . It is basically an o u tc o m e o f a re a c tio n a ry m o o d created by th e crisis o f C am p D avid, th e struggle in Y am it, a n d the “ fa ilu re ” o f the Israeli g o v ern m en t to p ro te ct th e settlers fro m A rab violence a n d te rro rism ; th e in tifa d a has c o n ­ firm ed th em in th e ir convictio n s. T h e few cu ltu ra l rad icals w h o stu d ied in Yeshivat M e rk a z H a ra v are seen as d issenters, g rad u ates w h o have d ra w n extrem e a n d in c o rre c t co nclusions from th e “ K o o k ist” theology. T he co m m o n d e n o m in a to rs o f th e cu ltu ra l radicals are th eir im p atien ce w ith G ush E m u n im ’s excessive fidelity to th e Israeli g o v ern m en t, th eir disen251

252

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

c h a n tm e n t w ith th e style o f R abbi K ahane, an d th eir rejection of conven­ tio n al politics. T he m ajo rity are m ilitan t fu n d am en talists w h o tru st the Sw ord as m uch as th e B ook. T hey flatly reject unnecessary com prom ises w ith the secular g o v ern m en t o f Israel a n d em phasize those sacred scriptures th a t call w a r ag ain st th e enem ies o f the n a tio n obligatory. T h e m ain gap betw een th e c u ltu ra l radicals an d R abbi K ahane is n o t in th eo ry b u t in practice. M o st share K a h an e’s fu n d am en tal convictions reg ard ­ ing th ree critical issues: th e need to expel th e A rabs from the state o f Israel, the rejection o f Israeli dem ocracy, an d the need to w rest Tem ple M o u n t from M uslim c o n tro l. T hey are, how ever, highly critical of K ah an e’s tactics. They feel he spoke p re m a tu re ly an d to o often on events th a t should tak e place in ten, tw enty, o r th irty years, like th e forced ex p u lsio n o f the A rabs o r the su p p ression o f th e Israeli “ tra ito r s ” ; spelling o u t such objectives n o w does m ore d am ag e th a n good. A lso, they could n o t to lera te K ah an e’s personality. T hey saw him as a vio len t c h a ra c te r a n d a publicity h o u n d w ith no sense of te a m w o rk an d no p atience w ith the obstacles on the ro a d to red em p tio n . N o r did m o st o f th e c u ltu ra l radicals share K ah an e’s id iosyncratic a n ti­ estab lish m en t sen tim en t an d his sense o f alien atio n from the Israeli body politic; com ing from th e confident circles of Israel’s settlers an d u ltra n a tio n ­ alists, they did n o t feel excessively b itte r n o r see th eir public struggle as a p e rm a n e n t uphill b attle. T h e c u ltu ra l radicals are n o t o rg an ized in to a co h eren t fro n t, so it is h a rd to assess th e ir real p o w e r w ith in the radical rig h t o r their im pact. H ow ever, th eir claim o f o rth o d o x p u rity an d th eir learn ed in terp retatio n s o f scriptures do lend th em som e a u th o rity and respectability in the highly ideological radical right. T h e prestige a n d fam e o f several m em bers o f this g ro u p , especially th e rab b is, p rovide legitim acy for the ex trem e ideas an d plans o f m any y o u n g er follow ers. T h ere are in d icatio n s th a t th e cu ltu ral radicals may, in tim es o f crisis, o p t for ex trem e a n tig o v e rn m e n t action. If such action is san ctio n ed n o t just by the successors o f R abbi K ahane b u t also by o th e r prestigious rab b is, th e cu ltu ral radicals could becom e a very im p o rta n t co m p o n en t o f any ex ­ tralegal p ro g ra m . T hey are th u s an essential elem ent of the radical right w hich c a n n o t be d isregarded. A m ong the c u ltu ra l radicals it is possible to identify th ree groups th a t in teract an d overlap: v eterans of th e Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d , m em bers o f Tzfia, an d fo rm er associates o f R abbi M eir K ahane.

The "Redemption Movement": Yehuda Etzion and the Theology of Active Redemption T he m ost concrete expression o f the em ergence of the cu ltu ral radicals has been the discovery o f th e g ro u p nam ed by the press H a m a c h te re t H ay eh u d it (the Jew ish U nd erg ro u n d ). In reality th e g ro u p w as a clandestine conspiracy

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

253

of a few d ed icated leaders a n d several h esistan t follow ers, w h o c o n d u cted tw o m ajo r ad hoc te rro r acts w ith in a p erio d o f six years an d w ere c a u g h t in the m idst o f th e th ird . T h e m o st sp ectacu lar p lan o f the g ro u p , an a tta c k on the D om e o f th e R ock o n th e T em ple M o u n t, never becam e m o re th a n an im practical, th o u g h w ell-p rep ared , plan. T h e m em bers o f th e co n sp iracy never c o m m itted them selves to a n y th in g form al o r co n sid ered them selves m em bers o f a d istin c t o rg a n iz a tio n . T h e ir discovery sh o ck ed th e n a tio n an d stunned G ush E m u n im — a reactio n a ttrib u ta b le less to th e te rro r acts c o m ­ m itted th a n to th e p erso n al q u ality o f th e in d iv id u als involved an d th e novelty o f th e ir id eo -th eo lo g ical m essage. T h eir acts o f te rro rism w ere n o t u n p reced en ted in Z io n ist history. In th e 1930s an d 1940s, tw o Jew ish u n d e rg ro u n d s co n d u cted a very so p h isticated terro r cam p aig n in P alestine ag ain st th e A rabs an d B ritish. A fter 1948, though, these m o v em en ts ceased to exist, a n d terro rism cam e to be c o n sid ­ ered only a b a rb a ric A rab p ractice. In fact, until 1980, very few Israelis believed th a t Israeli Jew s w ere cap ab le eith er m o rally o r politically o f being terrorists. W hen M eir K ah an e p reach ed terro rism in the 1970s, he w as seen as an “ im p o rte d ” a b e rra tio n . T h e few stran g e follow ers he assem bled w ere considered m arg in a l, in co m p eten t, a n d un-Israeli. In fact, up u ntil th a t tim e no credible Israeli, m em bers o f G ush E m unim inclu d ed , claim ed to be o r was associated w ith p la n n e d a n ti-A ra b terro rism . T h u s, the U n d erg ro u n d sh attered th e n o n -te rro ristic self-perception o f th e Israelis. It in tro d u c e d a new dim ension o f b ru ta lity in to th e life o f th e n a tio n , a n d it ch an g ed the w ay m any Israelis th o u g h t o f them selves a n d th eir fellow citizens. W hile th e u n d e rg ro u n d h a d several active leaders, w h o h ad joined for a variety of social a n d theo lo g ical reaso n s, its challenge to the official o rie n ta ­ tion o f G ush E m unim w as p rim arily sh ap ed by th e ideas o f o n e p erso n , Yehuda E tzion. M o st o f th e m em bers have “ re p e n te d ” since th e 1 984 disco v ­ ery an d su b se q u e n t im p riso n m e n t o f th e g ro u p , an d have re tu rn e d to th e bosom o f th e G u sh , b u t E tzion has n o t. H is p riso n years have, on th e co n trary , m ade him highly critical o f th e G u sh ; he has called for its rep lacem en t by a m ore d evoted collectivity, T n u a t H a g eu la (the R ed em p tio n M o v em en t). T h e com m itm ent o f E tzion to religious rev o lu tio n in Israel, his critical essays, an d his intense co rre sp o n d e n c e w ith m any peop le have m ade him a so u rce o f co n sta n t ferm en t a n d a leading force a m o n g the cu ltu ra l ra d ic a ls.1 Y ehuda E tzion w as b o rn in Israel in 1951. H is father, A vraham M in tz, w as a m em ber o f th e Etzel u n d e rg ro u n d , w hich o p e ra te d in th e 1940s u n d e r the co m m an d o f M en ach em Begin. M in tz settled in S am aria as a m em b er o f G ariin Elon M o re h , a tru e believer in his o w n right. E tzion th u s grew up in a very co m m itted rig h t-w in g Z io n ist h om e, a n d from his ch ild h o o d ab so rb e d n atio n alist ideas. H is n ativ e political co nv ictio n s w ere first sh ap ed in Yeshivat K far H a ro e — o n e o f th e m ain schools o f the Z io n ist religious y o u th m ovem ent, Bnei A kiva. F ollow ing his m ilitary service, he joined Y eshivat Allon Shvut in G ush E tzion (no re la tio n to his nam e), stu d y in g u n d e r R abbis

254

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Yoel B en-N un an d Y ehuda A m ital. E tzion belongs to the second generation of G ush E m unim , th e y o ungsters w h o did n o t study in M erk az H arav b ut ab so rb ed its ideas th ro u g h the G ush rab b is w h o h ad studied u n d er R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook. E tzion, w h o joined the yeshiva after the Six-D ay W ar, w as actively involved in the m essianic excitem en t an d developm ents of the tim e.2 H e w as one o f th e fou n d ers o f the G ush an d to o k an active role in the saga o f G ariin Elon M o reh . In 1976 he led a n o th e r G ush E m unim gariin to settle O fra, a S am aria settlem en t th a t w as to becom e the ideological and o p eratio n al center of G ush E m unim . Until 1978 E tzion w as a m em ber o f the extended secretariat of G ush E m unim an d w as highly respected by his peers for his idealism , im aginative activism , an d com p lete m e ssiru t han efesh. W hile u n k n o w n publicly, he o b ­ tain ed the re p u ta tio n o f a deeply m o tiv ated “ d o e r.” H is wife, w h o w as interview ed by a N e k u d a re p o rte r after his arrest, has ch aracterized him in these w ords: H e liv es o n a n o th e r p la n e , h a v in g a c o n sta n t sen se o f su p rem e m issio n and b ro a d th in k in g th a t is s o le ly d irected by th e n a tio n a l in terest. 1 k n o w it is h ard to b e lie v e , b u t th is is th e tru th . T h is is th e m an I live w ith all th e tim e. T h is is a p erso n w h o c o n s ta n tly feels h e h as a role in th e co u rse o f red em p ­ tio n a n d w h o a sk s h im se lf ev ery day, “ W h a t am I d o in g for th e sak e o f r e d e m p tio n ? ” 3

It is n o t entirely clear w hen o r how E tzion u n d erw en t his u ltra n a tio n a list conversion. B ut in th e early 1970s this young an d dynam ic person discov­ ered the w ritings o f tw o individuals w ho changed his life: p o et Uri Zvi G reen b erg an d w rite r S habtai Ben-D ov.4 T hese tw o w riters represented an o lder u ltra n a tio n a lis t tra d itio n , u n related to the theology of M erk az H arav. In the 1930s a n d 1940s, G reenberg w as the in sp iratio n of a g en eratio n of n atio n alists w h o fo u g h t the British in Palestine. Personally n o t a political m an, G reen b erg w as the G abriele d ’A nnun zio of u ltra n a tio n a list Z ionism . H is forceful a n d m agnetic po etry reco n stru cted the an cien t m yths of the k ingdom o f D avid. G re e n b e rg ’s im agery is full of b lo o d an d iron an d calls for a forceful co n q u est of Eretz Y israel, one th a t w o u ld reco n stru ct the an cien t ta k e o v e r o f th e lan d by Jo sh u a and the g reat biblical kings.5 A lready in the 1930s it spelled o u t the d em an d for a Jew ish sovereignty over all the P rom ised L and, the vast territo ry th a t extends from the E u p h rates in Iraq to the N ile in Egypt. It w as Uri Zvi G reenberg, incessantly invoking the n o tio n of the K ingdom o f Israel, w h o prov id ed spiritual in sp iratio n for A b rah am Stern (Yair), th e fo u n d er an d c o m m an d er of Lehi, an d for Dr. Israel Eldad, w h o has been very in stru m en tal in p o p u larizin g the g ran d theory. U nder the long hegem ony o f p ra g m a tic L a b o r Z ionism , G reen b erg ’s u ltran a tio n alism , irrelev ant to the political reality o f the p re-1 9 6 7 Israel, lost prestige and influence, th o u g h G reen b erg him self becam e a n atio n al figure for his poetic achievem ents. E tzio n ’s g reatest discovery w as S habtai Ben-Dov. Ben-D ov w as an ob-

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

255

scure figure k n o w n only to few friends, a fo rm er Lehi m em b er w h o fo u g h t in the 1940s a g a in st th e B ritish until his c a p tu re an d exile to K enya. A fter Israel’s W ar o f In d ep en d en ce, in w hich he fo u g h t as a soldier, B en-D ov studied law a t th e H e b re w U niversity o f Jeru salem an d becam e a legal advisor in th e M in istry o f C o m m erce a n d Industry. M o st o f th e intellectual energy o f this stran g e m an w as d ev o ted , how ever, n o t to his job b u t to a diligent stu d y o f m o d ern history. Ben-D ov, tru e to th e u ltra n a tio n a lis t id eo l­ ogy of G reen b erg a n d S tern, w as never c o n te n t w ith the te rrito ria lly tru n ­ cated State o f Israel a n d w ith its increasingly m aterialistic cu ltu re. Fasci­ nated by the w ritin g s o f m o d ern E u ro p e a n n a tio n a list th in k ers, he search ed incessantly fo r ideas relev an t to th e situ a tio n in Israel. Ben-D ov w as espe­ cially ta k e n by Lenin a n d his ideas on th e rev o lu tio n a ry av an t-g ard e. T his belief, th a t a sm all a n d d eterm in e d g ro u p o f p eo p le could s ta rt a rev o lu tio n and change history, g o v ern ed m uch o f his w ritin g s.6 T he Six-D ay W ar tra n sfo rm e d Ben-Dov. T h e m an saw his d ream s com e tru e.7 A fter th e m ira c u lo u s victory, B en-D ov becam e very religious an d rew o rk ed his g ra n d theory. It w as tim e to deliver a g lo rio u s m essage, o ne th a t spoke a b o u t to ta l n a tio n a l red em p tio n . B en-D ov’s vision w as g reater and m uch m o re a m b itio u s th a n th a t o f Y eshivat M e rk a z H arav : th e re su rre c ­ tion o f th e K ingdom o f Israel, th e reestab lish m e n t o f th e S an h ed rin (the ancient S uprem e C o u rt), an d the eventual re tu rn o f the regal H o u se o f D avid. T h e cen ter o f such a new Israeli polity w as b o u n d to be th e Tem ple M o u n t. A nd its te rrito ry w as to en co m p ass th e en tire H oly L and th a t G o d had p ro m ised A b ra h a m .8 Im m ediately a fte r th e w ar, Ben-Dov, ap p ealed to Israel’s H igh C o u rt o f Justice [Bagatz] q u e stio n in g th e policy o f Israel’s m in ister o f defense, M o sh e D ayan, in p e rm ittin g th e Tem ple M o u n t to rem ain in the h a n d s o f th e M uslim W aq f— th e A rab high religious council o f Jeru salem . B en-D ov a r ­ gued th a t th e Tem ple M o u n t, n o w in th e h an d s o f Israel forever, as th e holiest Jew ish site, sh o u ld be re tu rn e d to Israel to m ain tain an d preserve. It should th erefo re be a d m in iste re d by Israel’s M in istry o f R eligion an d n o t by the M in istry o f D efense. T h e c ru x o f th e m a tte r w as D a y a n ’s ru lin g th a t the M o u n t rem ain ed an A rab shrine ad m in istered by A rabs, w hich acco rd in g to Ben-Dov w as b o th illegitim ate a n d illegal. T h e ap p eal w as rejected by th e co u rt on th e g ro u n d s th a t it could n o t interfere in co n tro v ersial political m atters. N evertheless, M o sh e D ay an him self decided to tu rn one o f the gates leading to th e Tem ple M o u n t in to a Jew ish site, w hich o p en ed the area for every visitor. Jew ish p ray ers o n th e M o u n t w ere, how ever, p ro h ib ite d , in o rd er n o t to anger a n d incite th e A ra b s.9 Y ehuda E tzion first learn ed o f Ben-D ov, w h o h a p p en ed to be a d ista n t relation, in 1 9 7 2 —73 w h en he w as a yeshiva stu d e n t in G ush E tzion. But it w as n o t until th e late 1970s th a t E tzion first cam e to u n d e rsta n d an d a d o p t B en-D ov’s ideology. D eeply d isa p p o in te d by th e C am p D avid A ccords, Etzion began d esp erately to search for a th eo ry th a t w o u ld go b ey o n d the sta n d a rd th eo lo g y o f G u sh E m unim . H e w as also lo o k in g for the act th a t

256

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

could resum e th e process o f red em p tio n th a t w as “ b ro u g h t to a h a lt” at C am p D avid. E tzion fo u n d b o th in B en-D ov’s w ritin g s.10 In 1979 Ben-D ov w as dying, b u t on his d eath b ed he encouraged Yehuda E tzion to destroy th e D om e o n the R ock, thereby bringing a b o u t a new dynam ic o f red em p tio n . “ If you w a n t to act in a w ay th a t w o u ld solve all the p ro b lem s of th e people o f Isra e l,” he said, “ do this th in g !” W hen Etzion answ ered, “ But this o p e ra tio n is very h a rd to acco m p lish ,” Ben-D ov replied, “ H a rd , b u t n o t im p o ssib le” .11 E tzion m ight n o t have follow ed the ideology of Shabtai Ben-D ov h ad C am p D avid n o t tak en place. B ut in 1978 he started to develop a th o ro u g h intellectual critiq u e o f G ush E m unim a n d the teachings of R abbi Zvi Yehuda K ook. E tzio n ’s new theology w as w ritten d o w n an d p ublished only after he w as sent to p riso n in 1984, b u t there is no d o u b t th a t this is the th in k in g th a t inspired his activity in th e u n d e rg ro u n d . T he m ain th ru s t of his new th eo ry is directed ag ain st K o o k ’s subservience to the g o v ern m en t o f Israel. W hy, he asked, did G ush E m unim , w hich h a d identified the m essianic q u ality o f the p resen t tim e, w a it fo r the secular politicians to reach the sam e conclusion? H e refused to g ra n t full legitim acy to “ e rro n e o u s ” rulers w h o are co m m it­ ting d an g ero u s m istakes. A ttack in g the spirit of M erk az H arav, the fo u n ta in ­ head o f E m u n im ’s theology, he w rites th a t th e se n se o f c r itic ism — w h ich is a p rim ary c o n d itio n for an y co r r e c tio n — p erish ed h ere co m p le te ly . T h e S tate o f Israel w a s gran ted in M erk a z H arav an u n lim ite d a n d in d e p e n d e n t cred it. Its o p e r a tio n s — even th o se th a t sta n d in c o n tr a st to th e m o d e l o f Israel’s T o ra h — are c o n c e iv e d o f as “ G —d ’s w ill” o r re v e la tio n o f H is g r a c e .12

Y eshivat M erk az H arav, an d by im plication G ush E m unim , has th u s com e to s u p p o rt secular Z io n ism and all its faults. By co n cen tratin g on settlem ent only, G ush E m unim no longer th in k s in g ran d term s, n o r does it challenge th e ineffectual g o v ern m en t o f Israel, an d acco rd in g to E tzion th ere­ fore fails to do G o d ’s will. W h at, th en , is the alternative? H o w shou ld the State of Israel be directed? W h a t course sh o u ld the m isdirected G ush E m unim have tak en , if its rabbis h ad read the p resen t situ atio n correctly? Follow ing the tra d itio n , w hich m ain ­ tains th a t in the m essianic era all statu tes o f the Torah for the K ingdom o f Israel are b in d in g — as well as the teaching o f B en-D ov an d the u ltra n a tio n a l­ ist school o f th e K ingdom of Israel— E tzion argues em phatically th a t the Teken (p ro p er m odel) of the life o f the n atio n is very clear. This is: th e p ro p er K in g d o m o f Israel th a t w e h a v e to esta b lish here b etw e en th e tw o rivers [the E u p h ra tes a n d th e N ile ]. T h is k in g d o m w ill be d irected by th e S u p rem e C o u r t w h ic h is b o u n d to sit o n th e site ch o sen by G —d to em it H is in sp ir a tio n , a site w h ic h w ill h a v e a T em p le, an altar, and a K ing ch o sen by G —d. A ll th e p e o p le o f Israel w ill in h erit th e land to w o r k an d to k e e p .13

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

257

E tzio n ’s d ev iatio n from th e s ta n d a rd theo lo g y o f G ush E m unim is h ere quite clear. T h e p re se n t secu lar S tate o f Israel is n o t co n sid ered sacred, an d its acts are n o t holy. Its leaders are d iso rien ted by th e ir secu lar d em o cracy and co m m it one d isa stro u s m istak e after an o th er. F u rth er, acco rd in g to Etzion, it is fully legitim ate to p o rtra y n o w th e o u tlin e o f th e final re d e m p ­ tion, w hich includes a th e o c ra tic g o v e r n m e n t centered on th e Tem ple M o u n t and a state th a t c o n tro ls, in a d d itio n to p resen t-d ay Israel, the Sinai, J o rd a n , Syria, an d p a rts o f L e b an o n a n d Iraq. M o reo v er, it is m a n d a to ry to strive n o w for th e fulfillm ent o f this vision, an d G ush E m unim o r any o th e r devoted m o v em en t sh o u ld ta k e th e lead in th e fo rth co m in g struggle. W hy d id E tzion focus o n th e Tem ple M o u n t? H o w did he justify such an incredible o p e ra tio n , m o re d a n g e ro u s th a n any a n ti-A rab p lan ever h a tc h e d in Israel since th e beg in n in g o f Z io n ism in th e n in eteen th century? H o w does the Tem ple M o u n t o p e ra tio n fit in to E tz io n ’s general th eo ry o f red em p tio n ? In a sh o rt m o n o g ra p h , T h e T em p le M o u n t p u b lish ed in jail, E tzion ex p lain ed , D a v id ’s p r o p erty in th e T em p le M o u n t is th erefo re a real a n d etern al p r o p ­ erty in th e n a m e o f all Israel. It w a s n ev er in v a lid a ted an d n ev er w ill it be. N o leg a lity , o r o w n e r s h ip c la im , th a t is n o t m a d e in th e n a m e o f Israel an d for th e n eed o f r e b u ild in g th e T em p le, is v a lid . T h e e x p u r g a tio n o f th e T em p le M o u n t w ill p rep are th e h earts for th e u n d e r s ta n d in g a n d fu rth er a d v a n c in g o f o u r full r e d e m p tio n . T h e p urified M o u n t sh a ll b e — if G —d w is h e s — th e h a m m er an d an vil for th e fu tu re p r o ­ ce ss o f p r o m o tin g th e n e x t h o ly e le v a t io n .14

T he re d e m p tio n o f th e n a tio n has com e to a h a lt, acco rd in g to E tzion, because th e A rabs co n tro l th e Tem ple M o u n t. N o t until it is p u rg e d — w hich the g o v ern m en t sh o u ld have d o n e — can th e g ra n d process be renew ed. A nd since th e “ h o rrib le sta te o f a ffa irs ” is even su p p o rte d by th e g o v ern m en t, the task o f p u rg in g th e T em ple M o u n t has fallen to th o se m o st d ev o ted an d dedicated to Israel’s re d e m p tio n .15 But h o w did E tzion, an intelligent a n d ed u cated m an , believe th a t Israel could survive th e m ilitary a n d political consequences o f the d e stru c tio n o f the D om e o f th e R ock? A nd h o w w as Israel to c o n q u e r J o rd a n , Syria, p a rts of Egypt, Ira q , a n d L e b an o n an d tra n sfo rm itself, regardless o f w o rld o p in ­ ion, in to a K hom eini-like theo cracy ? D oes E tzion co n sid er th e c o n stra in ts o f political reality? In his w ritin g s a n d c o n v e rsa tio n , E tzion reveals b o th an o th e rw o rld ly m essianic sp irit a n d a very logical m in d ; he is a m an w h o talks an d th in k s in the language o f th is w o rld b u t lives in a n o th e r. H is response to the q u estio n of political reality is b ased o n th e only intellectual e x p la n a to ry c o n stru c t possible— a d istin c tio n b etw een th e la w s o f ex isten ce, w hich d o m in a te the life o f o rd in a ry peo p le, a n d th e la w s o f d e stin y , w hich d o m in a te the life o f the Jew ish peo p le once they begin to fulfill th eir fate in th e sp irit o f the

258

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

T orah: “ F or th e G entiles, life is m ainly a life o f ex isten ce w hile o u rs is a life o f d estin y, the life o f a kin g d o m o f priests an d a holy people. W e exist in the w o rld in o rd e r to actualize destiny.” T h u s co n strain ts of p o litical reality are relevant only to tho se w h o live by th e law s o f existence. O n c e it a d o p ts th e la w s o f d e stin y in stea d o f th e la w s o f ex iste n c e , Israel w ill n o lo n g e r b e an o rd in a r y sta te w h ic h m a k es d e c isio n s d ay by day. . . . It w ill b e c o m e th e k in g d o m o f Israel b y its very essen ce. It th er efo re m a k e s n o sen se to g iv e th e p resen t sta te an y “ g o o d a d v ic e ,” reg a rd in g its c o n d u c t in an is o la te d “ lo c a l” situ a tio n , in th e n a m e o f th e law s o f d estin y . T h is c h a n g e w ill ta k e p la c e in ev ita b ly , in th e im m e n se co m p r eh en ­ siv e m o v e o f th e tr a n sfo r m a tio n fro m th e sta te o f Israel to th e k in g d o m o f Isr a e l.16

O p e ra tio n Tem ple M o u n t w as to be the trigger th a t w o u ld tra n sfo rm the State of Israel. It w as m e a n t to elevate the n a tio n to the statu s o f the K ingdom of Israel, a kin g d o m o f priests cap ab le o f actualizing the law s of destiny an d changing the n a tu re o f th e w o rld . T he ideas of Y ehuda E tzion w on respect w ith in th e u n d e rg ro u n d , b u t w ere never fully sh ared by any of his colleagues. O nly one o th e r p erso n , the m ystical Ben S hoshan, su p p o rte d th e Tem ple M o u n t o p e ra tio n to th e end. (In fact, Ben S hoshan h ad a m ysterious and K abbalistic in te rp re ta tio n o f the act th a t w as never shared by E tzion o r any o th e r m em ber o f th e g ro u p .)17 A nd th o u g h E tzion, th en in his late tw enties, w as highly respected for his o th erw o rld ly d ed icatio n an d th e p u rity o f his m otives, he w as never o r­ dained as a rab b i o r carried any h alak h ic au thority. Even before the g roup w as discovered and E tzion w as a tta c k e d by G ush E m unim rab b is for his “ false m essian ism ,” he h ad a very serious “ a u th o rity p ro b le m .” In th e highly hierarchical am b ian ce in w hich these people o p e ra te d , he needed to p ro d u ce an a u th o rity th a t w o u ld s u p p o rt his revolutio n an d his rejection o f the entire rabbinical estab lish m en t of Israel, including G ush E m unim . It w as his failure to do so th a t isolated E tzion w ithin the g ro u p an d in the end p revented the o p eratio n ag ain st the D om e of the R o c k .18 T h e discovery of the u n d e rg ro u n d lifted Y ehuda E tzion from an onym ity to fam e, m aking him the center o f the resulting sto rm o f controversy w ithin G ush E m unim . Besides being recognized as “ th e id eo lo g u e” of the u n d e r­ g ro u n d , E tzion gained n o to riety for ad am an tly refusing to apologize for his acts an d for challenging the entire rabbinical estab lish m en t o f G ush Em unim . N o t only w as this m an responsible for th e m ost d an g ero u s an ti-A rab o p eratio n ever p lan n ed in the history o f Z ion ism , b u t after his a rrest he even publicized it to the n atio n . A fter being in te rro g a te d by th e Shin Bet, Etzion began an intense co rresp o n d en ce w ith dozens o f critics an d adm irers. M an y G ush p eople w ro te to him in fury, d em an d in g an ex p lan atio n for the dis­ grace he b ro u g h t u p o n th e m ovem ent. M o st focused on the “ a u th o rity q u e stio n ,” asking him to explain his source of a u th o rity for risking the

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

259

n atio n a n d d a m a g in g th e en tire settler co m m u n ity .19 N o t a single critic w as left u n a n sw e re d , a n d his long letters w ere c h aracterize d by th eir d e p th an d originality. T h e re w ere ad m ire rs to o , individ u als a n d rab b is w h o c o n g ra tu ­ lated E tzion fo r b re a k in g th e ta b o o re g a rd in g th e disgrace o n th e Tem ple M o u n t, a n d w h o d e v o u re d his letters w ith g re a t ex citem en t. E tzion g ain ed som e legitim acy w h en N e k u d a ag reed to p u b lish several o f his essays. In fact, d esp ite th e a tta c k s o n him by m o st o f th e a u th o ritie s o f the m o v em en t, E tzio n g ain ed access to th e large an d atte n tiv e read ersh ip o f N ek u d a . Even th o se w h o d isag reed w ith him com p letely co u ld n o t ig n o re the p o w e r o f his logic a n d th e o rig in ality o f his ideas. T h ey w ere also im pressed by his u n u su a l style a n d his ex em p lary w ritin g ability. E tz io n ’s ideas a n d p u b lic a tio n s, in clu d in g his a p o lo g ia — th e b o o k le t in w h ich he delivered his T em ple M o u n t “ s e rm o n ,” w h ich th e c o u rt refused to h e a r— have m ad e him an in stitu tio n in his o w n rig h t. Even b efore he w as released from jail he c o u ld claim to have several follow ers a n d m any c o rre sp o n d e n ts.

The Redemption Movement T h o u g h he refused to co ncede to his critics o r ap o lo g ize for his p lan to b lo w up the D om e o f th e R o ck , E tzion did a d m it several m istakes. H e w as e rro n e ­ ous, he said in jail, in believing th a t a single e x p lo sio n o n th e Tem ple M o u n t could lift th e n a tio n in o n e b lo w to w a rd re d e m p tio n . It w as n o t th a t th e p lan w as w ro n g in p rin c ip le; ra th e r it w as p re m a tu re , since th e n a tio n w as n o t ready for it eith er m en tally o r spiritually. A fter 19 8 4 , E tzion cam e to believe th a t th e g ra n d p o litical tra n s fo rm a tio n m u st be p reced ed by a c u ltu ra l rev o ­ lu tion, an inten se p re p a ra tio n o f th e h e a rts o f th e n a tio n .20 T h is is to be begun by th e e sta b lish m e n t o f a sm all a n d selected T n u a t G eu la (R ed em p ­ tion M o v em e n t), w h o se m em bers w o u ld ac t to aro u se th e new sp irit, serving as ex am ples a n d guides fo r th e n e x t stage o f th e n a tio n ’s re d e m p tio n .21 E tzio n ’s latest call fo r th e R ed e m p tio n M o v e m e n t, a n d his e la b o ra tio n on his rejection o f th e en tire o rd e r o f th e S tate o f Israel, w ere p u b lish ed in late 1988, ju st b efo re his release from jail, in an essay called “ O n th e P o tte r’s W h eel” : W e h a v e r e a ch ed a cr isis. A n d o u t o f th e very d ep th o f th e cr isis— o u t o f th e p a n g s o f p ressu re , o f th e sp a sm s o f p a in , b u t a ls o o u t o f h a p p in e ss an d re lie f— th e R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t is em erg in g , w a k in g u p to b e b o rn an d b e g in m o v in g . . . . C o n s e c r a tin g o u r a p p e a l to th e tru th o f th e R o c k o f I s r a e l — o u r re a d i­ n ess to g o o u t in H is m is s io n to th e p e o p le , to d e d ic a te o u r life to th is m is s io n , a n d to c o m p le te ly d e v o te o u r s e lf to i t . . . w e are p la n tin g th e s e e d ­ lin g o f th e rev iv a l o f p r o p h e c y in Isra e l.22

U nlike his fo rm e r colleagues fro m G ush E m u n im , E tzion challenges the fo u n d a tio n s o f th e secu lar S tate o f Israel a n d its arch itects. N e ith e r the

260

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Knesset, th e g o v ern m en t, n o r any o th e r in stitu tio n o f the secular state is sacred. T hey are “ irrelev an t system o f rules an d reg u latio n s w hose p u rp o se is to o rganize o u r daily life w ith no relatio n to the T orah o f Israel an d its heritage, w ith no in terest in th e red em p tio n o f Israel an d w ith no ability of carry in g o r serving it.” T he K nesset, th e very expression o f Israeli sover­ eignty, sh o u ld be replaced by a S anhedrin , th e genuine Jew ish Suprem e C o u rt. W e d en y th e c o m m o n a ssu m p tio n th a t th e K n esset— th e p in n a cle o f the p rese n t r e g im e — d eser v es th is h o n o r . W e are sta rtin g a m ajor tra n sv a lu a tio n , a str u g g le fo r a n e w reg im e a n d fo r th e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e B et D in G a d o l (G ran d C o u rt); it w ill lea d th e n a tio n — an d w e sh all a b id e by all its ru lin g s— b e c a u se it w ill a b id e by th e K in g d o m o f H e a v e n an d by th e y o k e o f freed o m o f th e T orah o f Israel, w h o s e m e s sa g e — th e m e ssa g e o f G —d w r itten o n th e C o v e n a n t— w ill b e th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e s ta te ’s c o n stitu tio n h ere.23

E tzion ad m its th a t th e p resen t rulers o f Israel are n o t illegitim ate u su rp ­ ers w h o exercise c o n tro l in an illegal way, so they sh o u ld be obeyed in daily m atters. But he argues em p h atically th a t w hen the g o v ern m en t acts against the T orah, it sh o u ld be o p p o sed . Until the regim e is tra n sfo rm e d , the rig h ­ teous sh o u ld challenge th e g o v ern m en t a n d disobey “ illegal” o rd ers, even if it m eans spen d in g tim e in p riso n . F urth er, th e rig h teo u s m u st struggle for change to g eth er, in th e R ed e m p tio n M ovem en t. A lthough E tzio n ’s p ictu re of this m ov em en t is vague, he seem s to see it as an a lte rn a tiv e in stitu tio n , a p o ten tial source o f a u th o rity for the n a tio n ; it will slow ly becom e “ a sm all S an h ed rin ,” an d in tim e replace th e p re se n t state in stitu tio n s. T h e R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t h a s em erg ed in ord er to start and lea d th e jo u r n e y — e d u c a tio n a l a n d p r a c tic a l— from th e p resen t sta te o f Israel to th e k in g d o m o f Israel. W e c o m e to sh ift a n d ch a n g e th e h eart o f th e p e o p le to w a r d s r e d e m p tio n a n d k in g d o m — a n d th u s t o c h a n g e th e f a c ts o f r e a lity . W e d eriv e o u r a u th o r ity from th e very m o v e m e n t to ch a n g e an d co rrect— let us reca ll, th ere is a rise h ere o f a h o l y s p ir it. T h e m o re p o p u la r w e b e c o m e , th e m o r e o u r n a tu r e — w h ic h is p art a n d p arcel o f th e n atu re o f th e K in g d o m o f D a v id — b e c o m e s r e c o g n iz e d , lik e d , a n d fa v o r ed , th e m o re v a lid w e sh all be as an a u th o r ita tiv e e le m e n t in th e n a tio n ; th e p resen t regim e, w h ic h is a stra n g er to th e d e stin y w e are a b o u t to fu lfill, w ill, at th e sa m e tim e, er o d e , be rejected , a n d d isa p p e a r .24

A lth ough E tz io n ’s 1988 essay does n o t so u n d very revolutionary, he in fact m akes no c o m m itm en t to legality an d nonviolence. T h e co n cluding p a ra g ra p h seem s vaguely th re aten in g . T he read er can h ard ly avoid reading betw een th e lines th e long d elib eratio n s of the Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d reg ard ­ ing the o p e ra tio n on the Tem ple M o u n t. T h e R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t is m o v in g n o w to w a k e u p , n a v ig a te an d lead th e m arch to w a r d s . . . th e p ro p er fo rm o f n a tio n a l life. D u rin g th is m o v e w e sh a ll h a v e to d isc u ss a n d d e c id e o n ea ch in d iv id u a l step: is it n ecessa ry and o b lig a to r y . . . o r is it p r o h ib ite d a n d to ta lly w ro n g ? O r p erh ap s it is w o r th -

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

261

w h ile b u t m u st b e p o s tp o n e d . . . . W e sh a ll h a v e to ta k e r e sp o n sib ility fo r o u r d e c is io n s , a n d w h e n w e k n o w fo r su re th a t w e are a b le to m o v e in th e righ t d ir e c tio n — a n d a fter w e h a v e c o n s id e r e d , to th e b est o f o u r a b ility, th e c o n d i­ tio n s o f re a lity a n d th e e x p e c te d im p a c t— th en th a t w ill b e th e final test: W ill it a d v a n c e th e d riv e o f Israel to th e d e se r v ed life in th e lig h t o f a k in g liv in g in Z io n ? 25

So far, th e real p ro b le m o f th e R ed e m p tio n M o v e m e n t has n o t been E tz io n ’s inability to fo rm u la te co n crete goals as m uch as th e to ta l lack o f can d id ates to staff th e o rg a n iz a tio n a n d p ro m o te it. E tzion w as released fro m jail in Jan u ary 1989. H e c e leb rated th e event by a highly pu b licized o n e-m an m arch fro m th e Tel M o n d P rison to th e T em ple M o u n t. H e c arried a large b a n n er he h a d m ad e in jail, w hich said: “ F o r th e Sake o f Z io n I Shall N o t R em ain Silent, a n d fo r th e Sake o f Jerusalem I Shall R aise M y V oice.” T h u s he m ad e it clear th a t his struggle has ju st begun. N ev ertheless, th e first tw o m eetings he held to o rg an ize th e R ed e m p tio n M o v em e n t— in Jeru salem a n d th e settlem en t B rach a— have h a d very little effect. O n ly a b o u t tw en ty peo p le sh o w ed up, a n d th e discussion w as very general an d u n fo cu sed . T h u s, w hile Y ehuda E tzio n h as becom e a sym bol for a new fu n d a m e n ta list rad icalism in Israel, th ere have been no in d icatio n s yet th a t he can tra n sla te his ideas in to o rg a n iz a tio n a n d a c tio n .26

The Tzfia Association and the Radicalism of Rabbi Israel Ariel T h o u g h th e A pril 1984 a rre st o f Y ehuda E tzion a n d his u n d e rg ro u n d p a r t­ ners b ro u g h t an end to th e secretive p a rt o f th e ir activity, it also b ro u g h t their ideas in to th e o p en a n d m ad e th e M a c h te re t p a rt o f Israel’s p u b lic life. T he g ro u p th a t assu m ed th e ta sk o f p resen tin g th e full c o n te n t o f this b o d y of th in k in g to th e p u b lic w as a sm all asso ciatio n th a t called itself Tzfia (L ooking A head). Tzfia h a d g ro w n o u t o f a n o th e r o rg a n iz a tio n , L a o r-L em aan A chai Vereai (For th e sak e o f m y b ro th e rs a n d friends), a so lid arity co m m ittee form ed in K iry at A rb a a fte r th e a rre st to raise m oney to defend th e suspects an d s u p p o rt th e ir fam ilies. L a o r’s leaders insisted th a t they d id n o t en d o rse the te rro rism o f th e g ro u p , th o u g h they cou ld n o t d esert its m em bers, w h o w ere n eig h b o rs a n d close friends. Several ra b b is a n d activists in th e new o rg a n iz a tio n felt this k in d o f s u p p o rt w as n o t sufficient. T hey believed th a t th e ideas, actio n s, an d in d i­ viduals involved in th e M a c h te re t w ere rig h t a n d deserved full su p p o rt. E ventually this h a w k ish seg m en t o f L aor decided to leave a n d s ta rt an ideological m agazine o f its o w n .27 T hey felt th a t th e suspects w ere being deserted, a n d th a t n o n e o f th e p u b lic a tio n s o f G ush E m u n im a n d o f the settler co m m unity, in clu d in g N e k u d a , w ere ready to give th eir ideas a fair

262

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

hearing. “ In to d a y ’s N e k u d a ,” said E ph raim C aspi, T zfia ’s first publisher, “ th ere is no ro o m for th eir o p in io n s, o r stra ig h t ta lk a b o u t the fact th a t the u n d erg ro u n d did w h a t th e state sh o u ld have d o n e .” 28

A review o f th e m em b ersh ip o f Tzfia is very telling. T he g ro u p included m ost o f the haw k ish m em bers o f th e religious radical rig h t w ith rep u tatio n s for extrem e po sitio n s. T h e o ld est w as R abbi M o sh e H alevi Segal, th e rab b i w h o first blew the Sh ofar (ra m ’s horn) in 1931 by the W ailing W all on the Tem ple M o u n t, en raging th e B ritish, p ro v o k in g th e A rabs, an d officially beginning the m o d ­ ern struggle o f th e Jew s to regain th eir holiest place. Segal w as also a senior m em ber o f th e Jew ish u n d e rg ro u n d d u rin g the m an d ate p erio d , an d h ead of a p re-1 9 4 8 u ltra n a tio n a lis t m ov em en t B rit H a h a sh m o n a im (the C o v en an t of the H ash m o n aics), w hich en co u rag ed its m em bers to join the anti-B ritish o p e ra tio n s o f Etzel a n d L ehi.29 A fter the 1967 w ar, Segal w as the first Jew to settle old Jerusalem . In 1978 he w as a H e ru t p arty m em ber w h o challenged M eh achem Begin im m ediately after C am p D avid, calling him a tra ito r; he th en tried to revive his m ov em en t to fight the accords. A m uch y o u n g er m em ber o f Tzfia w as R abbi D ov Lior, an im m ig ran t from th e Soviet U nion, long k n o w n for his ex trem e o p in io n s. A talen ted g ra d u a te o f M e rk a z H arav, he w as a m averick, an in d ep en d en t an d u n ­ co n v en tional rab b i, an d a religious a u th o rity in his o w n right. H e and R abbi Eliezer W aldm an are the co-heads o f the K iryat A rba yeshiva, w hich has p ro d u c e d som e very e x trem ist g rad u ates. In 1982 th e tw o rab b is led th eir en tire school to Y am it an d played an im p o rta n t role in the M o v em en t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai. T he testim onies o f the H eb ro n ite section o f the u n d e rg ro u n d , w hich w as responsible for th e m u rd e ro u s a tta c k on the Is­ lam ic C ollege in H e b ro n an d fo r the w irin g o f the five A rab buses in the W est B ank, show ed L ior to be one o f the m o ral au th o rities o f the gro u p . T he o rg an izer a n d guiding spirit o f the Tzfia g ro u p is R abbi Israel Ariel, w h o stu d ied in M e rk a z H a ra v in the 1960s an d w as p a rt of the p a ra tro o p e r u n it th a t co n q u ered the Tem ple M o u n t in 1967. “ I sto o d th e re ,” he recalled m any years later, “ in th e place w here the H igh Priest w o u ld en ter [the Temple] once a year, in Yom K ippur, b a re fo o t, after five plunges in the p urifying pool. B ut I w as shod, arm ed , an d helm eted. A nd I said to myself: ‘This is h o w th e co n q u erin g g en eratio n lo o k s.’ ” 30 U nlike H a n a n P o ra t an d Yoel B en-N un, w h o w ere also p resen t in the co n q u est of th e Tem ple M o u n t, A riel did n o t ta k e p a rt in the em erging G ush E m unim . Instead, he chose to join th e arm y an d create a new im age of a m ilitary rab b i, a sp iritu al guide an d a H alak h ic in stru c to r w h o is also a fighter. Ariel served five years as a rab b i in the a rm y ’s N o rth e rn C o m m an d an d becam e very fond o f th e arm y an d o f m ilitary th inking. In 1975 he left the service an d joined his o ld er b ro th e r, R abbi Jaco b Ariel, w h o h ead ed the

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

263

small yeshiva in Y am it. L ong b efore th e esta b lish m en t o f th e M o v em e n t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai, Ariel w as convin ced th a t an ex em p lary M essiru t H anefesh w as th e o n ly w ay to sto p th e re tre a t. Y am it, he d ecided, w as n o t to be ev acu ated a n d he w as th e re to g u a ra n te e it. B itter to w a rd th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d its peace policies Ariel jo in ed K ach as its no. 2 c a n d id a te for th e 10th K nesset (1981). M a n y o f his friends w ere d u m b fo u n d e d : h o w co u ld A riel, a respected g ra d u a te o f M e rk a z H arav , s u p p o rt th e m o st n o to rio u s o u tc a s t o f Israeli politics? T hey w ere an sw ered d u rin g th e struggle in Y am it: th e y o u n g ra b b i led th e m o st ex trem e factio n of th e M H R S , th e g ro u p th a t w as read y to co n sid e r arm ed resistance. Ariel w as con vinced th a t th e re tre a t w as a crim e ag ain st G o d , th e T o rah , a n d th e n a tio n , a n d th a t it w as th e o b lig a tio n o f every believer to fight it to o th an d n ail.31 In Y am it, A riel sh o w ed h o w far he h ad g one since his days a t M erk az H arav. W hile R ab b i Zvi Y ehuda K ook (w ho died ju st before th e final e v a c u a ­ tion) alw ays insisted th a t th e v a n g u a rd sh o u ld never lose to u ch w ith th e n a tio n , A riel did n o t care. H is read in g o f th e T o rah a n d his rad ical in te rp re ta ­ tion o f K o o k ’s fam ous in ju n c tio n , “ Y ehareg uval y a ’v o r,” m ad e him ready to fight a g a in st th e tre a c h e ro u s g o v ern m en t. A nd u n lik e m an y fo rm er m em ­ bers o f th e M H R S , he h as never recan ted his c o n d u c t in Y am it. N o r w o u ld he a d m it th a t joining K ah an e in 1981 w as a m ista k e .32 A fter th e Israeli re tre a t from Sinai, A riel m oved to th e Jew ish q u a rte r o f Jerusalem a n d b egan stu d y in g w ith R ab b i Shlom o G o ren , Israel’s fo rm er chief rab b i. H e also s ta rte d to teach in a yeshiva in th e M u slim q u a rte r o f Jerusalem , in one o f th e houses req u isitio n ed from th e A rabs. A riel’s recen t b o o k , an im pressive illu stra te d study o f th e biblical b o rd ers o f Eretz Y israel, w as signed: “ Israel A riel, fo rm erly in Y am it, so o n to be reb u ilt o u t o f its ruins, n o w in Jeru salem b etw een th e w alls facing th e T e m p le.” 33 Tzfia also included tw o stran g e T em ple M o u n t devotees, R ab b i D avid Elboim a n d E p h raim C aspi. R abbi E lboim , a Belz H assid w ith no co n n ec­ tion to th e tra d itio n o f M e rk a z H a ra v an d th e m essianic craze o f G ush E m unim , h a d long been in trig u ed by th e idea o f the re tu rn to th e Tem ple M o u n t a n d h a d co n seq u en tly joined all o rg a n iz a tio n s co n cern ed w ith it. Since th e late 1970s he h as been involved in a sm all fam ily p ro je ct o f w eaving th e go w n s fo r th e T em ple’s priests. W hen asked once a b o u t the relevance o f his p ro je c t to th e p re se n t h isto rical reality, E lboim resp o n d ed , “ D id th ey ask H erzl w h en th e state w o u ld be established? I su p p o se it is a m a tte r o f tw en ty o r th irty y e a rs.” 34 E p h raim C aspi, th e m an w h o to o k u p o n him self th e task o f p u b lish in g several o f Y ehuda E tz io n ’s p riso n w ritin g s as well as the p u b licatio n o f Tzfia, has also been fascin ated by th e Tem ple M o u n t. H e b u ilt his house facing th e sacred site so th a t he can w ak e up in th e m o rn in g a n d go to sleep a t n ig h t w ith in view o f th e holy place. F or years he has been involved in th e un p u b licized o p e ra tio n to p u rc h a se a n d re c o n stru c t old Jew ish synagogues

264

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

in the M uslim q u a rte r o f Jerusalem an d to buy houses for fu tu re yeshiva stu d en ts.35 From its beginning, T zfia m agazine has been sh o rt o f m oney, an d its rad ical­ ism has clearly d eterred p o ten tial c o n trib u to rs. It m an ag ed to publish tw o issues in its first year, 1985, an d w as then d isco n tin u ed for nearly three years. N evertheless, it is im possible n o t to recognize its in n o v atio n and explosive p o te n tia l. T zfia ’s w riters have do n e w h a t its ed ito rs vow ed to do: b reak the offical ta b o o on sensitive issues im plied in the co n cep t o f red em p ­ tion. T h e ir radicalism has been especially d e m o n stra te d by th eir o p in io n s on th ree issues: T he statu s o f th e Tem ple M o u n t, the tre a tm e n t o f the A rabs, an d th e te rrito ry o f E retz Israel.

Tzfia and the Temple Mount In its first tw o issues, T zfia surveyed a w hole set of p ro b lem s revealed by the discovery o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d , b u t its p rim ary concern has been the situ atio n on the Tem ple M o u n t. T zfia’s m em bers did n o t need y o u n g Y ehuda Etzion to focus th eir a tte n tio n on th e holy site; clearly they have been d istu rb ed by the p e rm a n e n t d esecratio n o f th e place for a long tim e. T he essays on this to p ic challenged tw o p revailing ap p ro ach es to the subject: the belief th a t the statu s o f th e M o u n t is to o sensitive to deal w ith politically, an d the convic­ tio n th a t any change m u st w a it for fu tu re g en eratio n s because o f its holy n atu re. T h e political c o n stra in ts involved in th e Tem ple M o u n t situ atio n have never posed any serious p ro b le m s for Jew ish fu n d am en talists, so th ere is no th o u g h tfu l discussion o f th e political risks involved in an Israeli tak eo v er of the Tem ple M o u n t. W hen T zfia w riters do discuss th e politics of th e holy place, they m ainly stress the loss to Israeli n atio n al prid e engendered by A rab c o n tro l o f th e M o u n t. T h o u g h Israel could have tak en ju risd ictio n after the Six-D ay W ar, it w as erro n eo u sly decided to respect the religious rights o f th e M uslim s a n d leave th em in full co n tro l o f the area. In retu rn , acco rd ing to Tzfia, th e M uslim W aqf (the highest a u th o rity in charge o f the H arem -esh-S herif, th e holy area in its entirety ), has d one everything possible to d esecrate th e place a n d h u m iliate th e Jew s. This included bu ry in g dead all over th e m o u n ta in in d irect c o n tra d ic tio n to Jew ish law an d tra d itio n . T he W aqf has also co n tin u e d building sm all w o rsh ip areas on th e m o u n t’s slopes, fu rth e r insu ltin g th e Israelis by ded icatin g one to the “ m arty rs o f S abra an d S h a tila .” A nd acco rd in g to alarm in g rep o rts, the M uslim s have been digging in secret u n d e r th eir shrines, in o rd e r to destroy th e fo u n d a ­ tions o f th e old T em ple.36 T he State o f Israel, acco rd in g to this perspective, m ust stop th e M uslim d esecratio n o f the Tem ple M o u n t for reasons o f b o th prid e an d n a tio n a l sovereignty. By far th e m o st serious an d p ro fo u n d Tzfia challenge on the subject has

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

265

been its d e b a te w ith religious o p p o n e n ts o f a Jew ish re tu rn to th e Tem ple M o u n t. T h e idea o f reviving Jew ish w o rsh ip in th e holy place has, since th e Six-D ay W ar, been a p p ro a c h e d by religious a u th o ritie s w ith g re a t c a u tio n and u tm o st reverence. M o u n t M o ria h , th e Tem ple M o u n t, has been th e holiest place o f th e Jew s since tim e im m em o rial. A cco rd in g to o rth o d o x tra d itio n , th e n a tio n w as sp iritu ally c reated by G o d on this m o u n t a n d its in d ep en dence w as lo st th ere. So tra u m a tic w as th e last d e stru c tio n , a d isaster th a t sen t th e Jew s in to tw o m illennia o f exile, th a t th e h isto ric a c t o f th e T em ple’s d e stru c tio n has assum ed a th eo lo g ical m ean in g . T h e d e stru c tio n o f th e Tem ple w as G o d ’s p u n ish m e n t o n his p eo p le w h o w e n t astray. T h e refo re G o d will decide w h en they w ill be forgiven a n d redeem ed. T his w ill be b ro u g h t a b o u t by a messiah, an in d iv id u al red eem er, in a m e ta h isto ric a l a n d su p e rn a tu ra l act o f forgiveness th a t w ill involve th e reb u ild in g o f th e Tem ple o n M o u n t M o ria h . T hus for som e u ltra o rth o d o x Jew s n o t on ly th e n o tio n o f a h u m an facilitated re tu rn to th e T em ple M o u n t, b u t even th e idea o f p a rtic ip a tin g in the secu lar S tate o f Israel, is a n a th e m a . In fact, th e secu lar Z io n ist state is seen by th em to be a h illu l h a sh em , a d esecratio n o f th e n am e o f G o d .37 W hile th e religious Z io n ists, a n d especially th e th eo lo g ian s o f G ush E m unim , have n ever sh a re d th is co n v ictio n , in stead seeing in th e state o f Israel th e beg in n in g o f th e collective arriv al o f th e M essiah , they w ere very confused a n d u n su re a b o u t th e T em ple M o u n t. T h e actu al re tu rn to th e holy m o u n ta in a n d th e b u ild in g o f th e T h ird T em ple, acts th a t g en eratio n s o f Jew s have cried a n d p ra y e d for, did n o t seem possible sim ply as a resu lt o f a m ilitary c o n q u e st o f a secu lar regim e. In stead they felt th a t a special in d ic a ­ tion from H eaven w as needed. T h e re w as an a d d itio n a l p ro b le m , th e issue o f p u rificatio n . Several p a rts of th e holy m o u n t are, a c c o rd in g to th e T orah rules o f th e Tem ple, so holy th a t on ly purified p rie sts are allo w ed to w alk th ere. B ut since th e d e stru c tio n of th e S econd T em ple, th e e x a c t lo c a tio n o f these places h a d been lost, a n d th erefo re n o believer w as allo w ed o n th e T em ple M o u n t for fear o f u n in te n ­ tio n al d esecratio n o f th e place. T hese u n c e rta in tie s have led th e v ast m ajo rity o f rab b is, in clu d in g G u sh E m u n im ’s m e n to rs, to accep t th e sta tu s q u o o n th e Tem ple M o u n t. R ab b i Zvi Y ehuda K o o k , fo r ex am p le, in stru c te d his stu d en ts to be p a tie n t o n th e issue o f th e T em ple M o u n t, sta tin g th a t it co u ld n o t be redeem ed b efore the earlier stage o f “ th e b u ild in g o f th e K in g d o m ” h a d been co m p leted . In 1982 R abbi T au, his successor in Y eshivat M e rk a z H arav , su m m arized the official p o sitio n o f th e sch o o l by th e p h ra se , “ T h e fu rth e r aw ay w e are, th e closer w e g e t.” W h a t T au m e a n t w as th a t o ne does n o t hav e to have physical p o sses­ sion o f th e Tem ple M o u n t in o rd e r to feel close to th e sacred cen ter o f th e n atio n . H u m ility a n d p atien ce, m o re th a n aggressive acts, will b rin g th e people o f Israel w ith th e help o f G o d to its co m p lete red em p tio n on the Tem ple M o u n t.38 T h is is also th e p o sitio n ta k e n by R ab b i S hlom o Aviner, the h ead o f

266

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Y eshivat A teret C o h a n im (The C ro w n o f th e Priests). A viner’s yeshiva, a special an n ex o f M e rk a z H arav, w as estab lish ed in Jerusalem in 1978 to co m m em o ra te th e Tem ple a n d to study th e rules o f the T em ple’s priests. Several Tem ple M o u n t devotees h a d expected th a t Aviner, a respected G ush au th o rity , w o u ld lead th e struggle for th e re tu rn to the M o u n t, b u t he d isap p o in ted them . In a special serm on in 1983, “ Lo N aale B a h a r” (We Shall N o t C lim b U p th e M o u n ta in ), he voiced his o p in io n th a t there are tw o sep arate system s o f re d em p tio n : red em p tio n th a t can be ad v an ced by h u m an efforts a t th e p re se n t tim e a n d red em p tio n th a t is in th e h an d s of G od. Policy arg u m e n ta tio n an d re c o m m en d atio n s are legitim ate, acco rd in g to Aviner, only in th e first case. T h e T em p le is p a rt o f th e c o m in g fu tu re, as w e ll as its lo c a tio n . H e w h o w a n ts to to u c h th e T em p le M o u n t, d im in ish es, red u ces, an d d w a rfs th is en tire m atter, w h ic h is b e y o n d o u r u n d er sta n d in g . O n ly o u t o f th e re co g n i­ tio n o f o u r s h o r tc o m in g s sh a ll w e d eserv e it. . . . T h e m o r e w e fear th is p la c e , th e m o re w e re co g n iz e th a t it is b e y o n d o u r c o n c e p tio n (just as th e n a m e o f G - d is b e y o n d o u r c o n c e p tio n an d w e th ere­ fo re d o n o t e x p r e s s it in w r itin g ), th e m o re sh all w e b e p art o f th e T em p le’s p la c e a n d b e h o n o r e d to c lim b u p th e la d d er th a t is fo u n d e d in th e m u n d a n e stru ctu re o f th e sta te a n d w h o s e to p rea ch es th e sk y o f th e T em p le.39

T zfia's challenge to these p o sitio n s w as o b vious from the cover o f its m agazine, w hich sh o w ed a re c o n stru c tio n o f H e ro d ’s Tem ple full o f p raying Jew s. A nd th e m essage o f its v ario u s essays sto o d in to tal co n tra d ic tio n to T a u ’s a d m o n itio n . T zfia w rite rs reaso n th a t th ere is a fu n d am en tal flaw in the p o sitio n of th e rab b is o f G ush E m unim . If th e p resen t State o f Israel is sacred an d its rise is p a rt o f the u n fo ld in g m essianic age, an d if the Six-D ay W ar w as a clear sign from H eaven th a t th e process o f red em p tio n has reached a very ad v an ced stage, th en w hy sh o u ld the n a tio n n o t tak e co n tro l o f its h oliest site? A nd isn ’t th e o b lig atio n to reco n stru ct the Tem ple a direct ex ten sion o f the o b lig atio n to settle Ju d ea an d S am aria an d re tu rn to the old city of Jerusalem ? In fact, n o t only is G ush E m u n im ’s p o sitio n illogical an d false, b u t leaving the Tem ple M o u n t in A rab h an d s is a p u n ish ab le sin. “ All the disasters o f th e people o f Isra e l,” said R abbi D ov Lior in an interview in 1985, “ to o k place because the Tem ple M o u n t w as n o t red eem ed .” 40 T h e m o st d eterm in e d voice in favor o f p u rg in g the Tem ple M o u n t is R abbi Israel A riel’s. D espite his M e rk a z H a ra v b a c k g ro u n d , Ariel has never been an integral p a rt o f G ush E m unim . Som ew here betw een the tim e he sp en t in the N o rth e rn C o m m a n d o f the A rm y an d Y am it, he carved o u t his o w n rigid fu n d am en talism , a co m b in atio n o f a m echanistic read in g o f the holy scriptures reg ard in g Eretz Y israel an d an excited m essianism . A fter th e fiasco in Y am it he focused all his a tte n tio n on th e Tem ple M o u n t. A ccording to A riel, th e first act o f the Israeli go v ern m en t after tak in g over the holy site in 1967 sh o u ld have been to te a r d o w n the M uslim m osques. But unlike R abbi D an B eeri— an u n d e rg ro u n d m em ber an d a Tzfia w rite r— w h o

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

267

th o u g h t th a t th e m o sq u es sh o u ld have been carefully d isassem bled in Je ru s a ­ lem an d reassem b led elsew here in th e A rab w o rld ,41 A riel is ruthless: it is a sh a m e th a t w e h a v e a lrea d y sa t eig h te e n years by th e m o u n ta in an d d o n e n o th in g . A b o u t o n e -th ir d o f all th e T orah in ju n c tio n s are rela ted to th e sm a ll te rrito r y o f th e T em p le M o u n t. It m e a n s th a t in th e d ay w e en tered th e T em p le M o u n t, w e , th e n e w la n d lo r d s w e r e req u ired to clea n up th e p la c e. T h e m ilita r y s h o u ld h a v e u se d its d e m o litio n s to level th e m o u n t. H a d it b een th a t w a y , th e sp ir itu a l life o f th e p e o p le o f Israel w o u ld h a v e b een re­ v iv e d . . . . W ith th e h elp o f th e b u lld o z e r s o f S o llel B o n eh [Israel’s la rg est c o n s tr u c tio n c o m p a n y ], w h ic h c o u ld ruin th e m o sq u e s in n o tim e , th e c o n ­ str u c tio n o f th e T h ir d T em p le c o u ld h a v e ta k en p la c e q u ick ly .42

Ariel ex am in es th e H a la k h ic asp ect o f th e Tem ple M o u n t d eb a te in a com prehensive essay in th e second issue o f T zfia, w hich review s th e religious objectio ns to th e re c o n stitu tio n o f th e Tem ple a t this tim e. A p a rt from finding s u p p o rt for his p o sitio n in M a im o n id e s’ co n cep tio n o f re d e m p tio n , A riel’s m o st im p o rta n t c o n trib u tio n is his h isto rical analysis o f th e b u ild in g of the second T em ple in th e days o f E zra an d N eh em ia. H e sh o w s th a t th e re c o n stru c tio n o f th e K ingdom o f Israel a n d the Tem ple w ere also highly d e b a ta b le a t th a t tim e. O n ly forty th o u sa n d Jew s lived in Ju d e a , w ith th e v ast m a jo rity rem ain in g in exile in B abylon. T h o se th a t rem ain ed in B abylon refused to believe th a t G o d h a d p e rm itte d his people to re tu rn to Ju d e a a n d begin th e red em p tio n process. T his view w as c o rro b o ra te d by th e fact th a t n o m etah isto rical m essiah existed. N ev ertheless, th e d ev o ted retu rn ees realized th a t as th e Tem ple w as the essence o f th e n a tio n it sh o u ld be reb u ilt, an d th a t this w as in fact G o d ’s w ill. T hus, w ith lim ited resources they s ta rte d to b uild a m o d est T em ple, a n d in tim e revived all th e T em p le’s rites a n d cerem onies, in clu d in g th e an im al sacrifices. T h e new T em ple so o n becam e th e cen ter o f th e n a tio n an d the focus o f its renaissan ce. Jew s from all ov er th e w o rld visited th e Tem ple d u rin g th e high h o lid a y s.43 In e x tra p o la tin g fro m th a t tim e, Ariel saw sim ilar possibilities fo r the reb u ild ing o f th e T em ple a n d a w o rld w id e Jew ish renaissance h a d th e g o v e rn ­ m ent rem o v ed th e A rab s fro m th e holy m o u n ta in in 1967. In a 1985 in te r­ view, he sta te d : “ I can see h u n d re d s o f th o u sa n d s o f Jew s, m ay b e m illions, cam ping all a ro u n d these hills, p ray in g , playing, a n d celeb ratin g th e real in d ependence o f th e n a tio n .” 44 R eferring to M a im o n id e s’ “ n a tu r a l” co n c e p ­ tio n o f re d e m p tio n , w h ich m a in ta in s th a t n o rm a l h u m a n beings, a n d n o t just a m e ta h isto ric a l act, can s ta rt th e process o f re d e m p tio n , Ariel w ro te: A s a g a in s t th e in te r p r e ta tio n th a t th e T em p le is th e p ea k o f th e w o r ld an d th a t it is n e c e ssa r y to b e c o m p e te n t a n d “ w o r th y ” in o rd er to reach th e h e a v e n ly p la n e o f its e x is te n c e — sin c e th e T em p le is lik e “ a n o th e r w o r ld ,” “ s o m e th in g lik e th e a ft e r w o r ld ,” e t c .— M a im o n id e s refers to an e ssa y . . . w h ic h p o r tr a y s fo r th e read er an o p p o s ite s itu a tio n . T h e T em p le an d th e w o r s h ip in it are n o t s o m e th in g lik e th e p ea k o f th e w o r ld , a M o u n t E v erest,

268

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right b u t a fo u n d a tio n , a b a sis . . . o n e o f th e p illars u p o n w h ich th e w o r ld is e s ta b lish e d . Y ou r e m o v e th e p illa r a n d th e w o r ld m ay fall a p a rt.45

W hile defending the ideas o f Y ehuda E tzion on th e need to reclaim the Tem ple M o u n t, n eith er Ariel n o r any o th e r m em ber o f Tzfia expressed in 1985 s u p p o rt for a v o lu n ta ry o p e ra tio n there. In stead they p resen ted p ro ­ gram s for w h a t th e g o v ern m en t o f Israel, as the collective representative of the people o f Israel, sh o u ld be doing. T he actu al suggestions varied a great deal. T h e m o d erates arg u ed for the legitim ation o f Jew ish p ray er on the m o u n t in th e form o f a sm all synagogue (built in a “ safe” corner). R adicals called for im posing com plete Jew ish sovereignty on the m o u n t w ith special h o n o r g u ard , w hich w o u ld ensure th a t th e holy site is fully respected until the n a tio n is ready to build th e T h ird Tem ple. T he extrem e p o sitio n called for active p re p a ra tio n s for bu ild in g the T h ird Tem ple. Ariel, by far the m ost dynam ic cataly st in this ex trem e directio n , k new exactly w h a t w as to be done. T h e T em p le is a co n c e r n o f th is p rese n t tim e. W e are o b lig e d to b u ild th e T em p le ju st as w e are o b lig e d to f o llo w all th e c o m m a n d m e n ts o f th e T orah. It is n o t th a t w e n e g a te th e p h e n o m e n o n o f m ira cle, b u t th a t d o e s n o t rid us o f th e o b lig a tio n to d o w h a te v e r w e h a v e to d o . W e are w o r k in g for th e T e m p le -in -th e -m a k in g ju st as w e d id fo r Z io n ism -in -th e -m a k in g . Ju st as th ey d id n o t esta b lish a J ew ish sta te righ t after th e first Z io n is t co n g re ss [1 8 9 6 ], b u t b u ilt an o r g a n iz a tio n th a t led to its e sta b lish m e n t, so w ith th e b u ild in g o f th e T em p le . . . [w h ich ] is n o less v isio n a r y th an Z io n ism o n c e w a s . . . . Y ou d o n o t b u ild a T em p le easily. T h ere are h a la k h ic co n str a in ts. T here are th in g s th a t h a v e b een fo r g o tte n o v e r th e years . . . for e x a m p le th e e x a c t lo c a tio n o f th e site o f th e altar. In th e T alm u d . . . th ere is a d escr ip tio n o f h o w th e e x ile s fro m B a b y lo n fo u n d th e p la c e. T h ey e x c a v a te d and e x p o s e d th e fo u n d a tio n s . . . . W h a t w ill th e rig h t situ a tio n be? W e d o n o t k n o w . It is e n o u g h th a t so m e th in g w ill b e d o n e o n th e T em p le M o u n t . . . W e k n o w th a t K ing H u sse in m a d e a m ista k e w h e n he jo in ed th e w a r [an act th a t led to th e c o n q u e s t o f th e T em p le M o u n t]. It m a y very w e ll b e th a t th e n e x t m ista k e is a lrea d y in th e m a k in g .46

A sked h o w w o u ld he help the A rabs m ake the n ex t m istake, one th a t w o u ld trigger a m assive Israeli o p e ra tio n to b rin g a b o u t the com plete re­ m oval of the M uslim s from th e Tem ple M o u n t, Ariel responded: B eS iiata D i ’S h m a iy a [in th e h elp o f G o d ]. In ord er to esta b lish th e T em p le w e n eed th e sa m e sy stem as th e L avi p la n e , a b u ild in g o f sev en teen sto r ie s w ith e le v a to r s a n d o ffic e s a n d h u g e b u d g e ts, c o n tr ib u tio n s, researchers by th e d o z ­ en s, th e h u n d r e d s, a n d H a la k h ic so lu tio n s. W h en w e sh a ll b u ild th e b a sic sy ste m , th e fo u n d a tio n s , H e a v e n w ill m a k e sure th e A rabs m a k e th e m ista k e.47

Ariel pushes th e logic o f G ush E m unim to its ultim ate conclusion. If this is indeed an age o f red em p tio n , then th e con d itio n s are ripe n o t only for the settlem ent o f Ju d ea an d S am aria b u t also for the settlem ent o f the Tem ple M o u n t. T he Six-D ay W ar w as a link in a long chain o f renew al th a t began

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

269

w ith m o d ern Z io n ism . T h e process is irreversible an d it leads, necessarily, to the b u ild in g o f th e T h ird Tem ple. If th e peop le o f Israel w o u ld only d o w h a t is possible, G o d w ill p ro v id e fo r th e rest. A nd th o u g h no w m ay n o t be the m ost o p p o rtu n e tim e for rem oving th e A rabs from the Tem ple M o u n t (an excellent o p p o rtu n ity w as m issed follow in g th e 1967 co n q u est), th ere is nevertheless n o re a so n to w orry. O n ce all the o b lig atio n s are m et, G o d w ill again show his m ig h t a n d p ro v id e th e necessary o p p o rtu n ity for ta k in g co n tro l o f J u d a is m ’s ho liest site.

Tzfia and the Arabs The reclaim ing o f th e T em ple M o u n t w as n o t th e only su b ject raised by the Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d a n d s u p p o rte d by Tzfia. M u ch o f th e G ush E m unim criticism o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d w as d irected ag ain st th eir co n cep tio n o f selfdefense, w hich they used to justify th e killing o f v io len t A rabs. T h e b ru ta l 1983 a tta c k o n th e Islam ic college in H e b ro n , in w hich th ree stu d e n ts w ere killed a n d th irty w o u n d e d , a n d th e p lan to b lo w up five buses full o f in n o ­ cent A rab civilians, becam e th e g ro u n d s for intense co n d e m n a tio n by m any m ov em ent a u th o ritie s. Several m em bers o f th e u n d e rg ro u n d itself, especially Y ehuda E tzion, w ere also o u tra g e d by these acts. T hey w ere n o t co n su lted by the g ro u p a b o u t these te rro r acts an d felt b e tra y e d .48 In c o n tra st, T zfia dissen ted radically from th e general c o n d e m n a tio n o f te rro rist acts. T h e first issue o f th e m agazin e w as full o f essays, statem en ts, and a n o n y m o u s letters s u p p o rtin g th e en tire range o f o p e ra tio n s o f the u n d e rg ro u n d . R eaders w ere referred to tra d itio n a l in ju n ctio n s such as ‘H a b a lehorgecha, h ash k em le h o rg o ” (“ If so m eo n e com es to kill you, rise early an d kill him first” ), o r “ Z e c h o r et ash er asa lecha a m e le k ” (R em em ber w h a t w as done u n to you by A m alek). A m alek, let us recall, w as th e m o st h o stile C an a an ite trib e d u rin g th e days o f th e E x o d u s a n d the first settlem en t o f C an aan . It w as m ischievous, tre a c h e ro u s, a n d cruel an d the Israelites w ere in stru cted to e lim in ate all its m en, w o m en , an d children. Elderly R ab b i M o sh e Segal used the fo ru m o f T zfia to a tta c k a critical essay on th e u n d e rg ro u n d by R ab b i Y ehuda Shaviv from Y eshivat A lon Shvut. In his essay, “ W e H av e H a d E nough o f the W o rld ’s B ro th e rh o o d ,” Segal suggested th a t Shaviv ad d ress his m o ral o u tra g e to th e real m u rd e rers, to “ th e m o d e rn successors o f A m alek . . . th e ro b b e rs o f o u r lan d . . . th e people w h o shed o u r b lo o d ,” a n d n o t to th o se d ev o ted in d iv id u als w h o w ere trying to defen d them selves. W e h a v e tried e n o u g h . W e h a d tried to be “ a p erso n o u ts id e ,” to b e an o il o n th e w h e e ls o f th e r e v o lu tio n s o f p r o g r e ssiv e s o c ia lism . W e p rea c h e d h u m a n ­ ism a n d th e b r o th e r h o o d o f m a n . W e h a d m a d e a m a jo r c o n tr ib u tio n to “ th e g re a t id e a ls o f m a n k in d .” W h a t re w a rd h a v e w e reciev ed fro m th e n a tio n s o f th e w o r ld ? T h e d e s tr u c tio n o f s ix m illio n o f o u r p e o p le , th e d estr u c tio n o f

270

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right J ew ish c u ltu re in E astern E u r o p e , w h ich is a lso n o w o n e b ig p riso n for m illio n s o f o u r p e o p le . H ere t o o , in th e ren a issa n ce o f o u r n a tio n , w e so u g h t a n d tried “ b r o th e r h o o d o f p e o p le ,” b i-n a tio n a lity and g ra n tin g p riv ileg es to stra n g ers w ith n o o b lig a tio n s . W h a t rew ard h a v e w e recieved ?— m urders, d e str u c tio n o f p rop erty , a n d a [P a lestin ian ] “ C h a rte r” th a t ca lls for ou r e lim in a tio n in o u r o w n la n d . A rabbi a n d ed u c a to r in Israel sh o u ld p reach a d ep a rtu re fro m th e g o d s o f th e G e n tiles an d th eir fa lla c io u s d o ctr in es, a return to th e T orah o f o u r fo r efa th er s, to th e true m o ra lity o f J u d a ism , w h ich d o e s n o t try to p le a se ev il p e o p le a n d w h ich tea ch es “ H a b a leh o rg ech a h a sh k e m le h o r g o .” 49

In a m o st p ro v o cativ e article, R abbi Israel Ariel challenged a G ush E m unim sta te m e n t th a t blam ed th e u n d erg ro u n d for m u rd er, for violating the co m m an d “T h o u sh alt n o t k ill.” Relying on M aim o n id es an d o th er distin g uished H a la k h ic sources, Ariel m ain tain ed th a t the fam ous co m m an d w as never m ean t to be universal, th a t only the killing o f a Jew qualifies as m u rd e r a n d is p u n ish a b le accordingly. Killing o f a non-Jew is n o t p u n ish ab le by society, in stead being a m a tte r betw een G o d an d the killer.50 T h u s, G ush E m u n im ’s c o n d e m n a tio n o f the u n d e rg ro u n d is w ro n g , and the leaders responsible for it have c o m m itted a sin of the first degree. They have accused “Jew s o f T orah an d p ie ty ” w ith erro n eo u s an d u n fo u n d ed charges, co m m ittin g c h a ra c te r assassin atio n , w hich in Jew ish sources is som etim es co nsidered equal to actual m urder. F u rth erm o re, Ariel says G ush E m unim is w ro n g w hen it claim s th a t the du ty to settle Eretz Israel does n o t allow us to h arm A rabs an d is n o t in ten d ed to evict the stra n g e r w h o lives in the land. T his, acco rd in g to Ariel, is a to ta l m isin te rp re ta tio n o f the H a la k h a . T h e Torah an d au th o rities such as R ashi, M aim o n id es, a n d N ach m a n id e s are absolutely clear th a t a co m ­ plete co n q u est o f th e lan d c a n n o t be achieved unless all stran g ers are ro o te d o u t. N e ith e r a sale o f la n d n o r any o th e r p e rm a n e n t a rran g em en t th a t w o u ld leave the aliens in Eretz Israel is legitim ate. C onsequently, acco rd in g to A riel, “ th e entire lan d an d every piece o f it m ust retu rn to the eternal o w n ersh ip o f the people o f Isra e l.” 51

The Territorial Borders of Eretz Yisrael M o st o f T zfia’s m em bers to o k positio n s sim ilar to M eir K ah an e’s. T h o u g h m any o f them did n o t like to be associated w ith K ahane in public, in priv ate they agreed th a t his H a la k h ic in te rp re ta tio n s w ere for the m ost p a rt correct. Some Tzfia m em bers are in fact even m ore radical an d fu n d am en talist p ri­ m arily on th e issue o f th e b o rd ers o f Israel. T h u s, w hile K ahane refused to consider any te rrito ria l com p ro m ise, he h ad never ad v o cated ex p an d in g beyond th e b o rd e rs o f th e p resen t State o f Israel.52 In c o n tra st, Israel Ariel has w ritte n a biblical study on the legitim ate b o rd ers o f Israel acco rd in g to H a la k h a and tra d itio n , an d believes th a t the

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

2 71

Prom ised L an d th a t reaches from th e E u p h ra te s to th e N ile is a reality th a t can an d o u g h t to be actu alized today. T h e first a n d etern a l o rd er g iv e n to th e p e o p le o f Israel w a s to reach th e b o rd ers o f th e c o v e n a n t, a n d it re m a in s an etern al c o m m a n d m e n t. W e s h o u ld n o t w a it u n til w e are a tta c k e d . W e h a v e to c h o o s e th e righ t m o m e n t a n d start o u r o w n a tta c k . It is cr y sta l c lea r th a t w e h a v e th e a b ility an d th e p o w e r to d o so a n d it is th e r e fo r e an o b lig a t io n . T h e c o m m a n d m e n t is to a tta c k , to k eep th e territo ry a n d to s e ttle ev ery p o s s ib le co r n e r o f it. In th e tim e o f J o sh u a B e n -N u n th e sa m e c o n d it io n s (o f th e Israelites b e in g th e m in o rity ) p r e v a ile d , b u t h e d id n o t h e sita te . H e k n e w G - d w a s b eh in d h im .53

As to th e m ilitary feasibility o f an o p e ra tio n th a t w o u ld p it Israel in a w ar ag ain st E gypt, Syria, J o rd a n , L e b an o n , a n d Iraq w ith th e expressed p u rp o se o f th e ir e lim in a tio n , A riel says, T h e c o m m a n d r e g a rd in g E retz Israel is “ Y e h a r e g a v a l y a a v o r " (“ Be k illed rath er th a n s in ” ). T h e c o n q u e s t o f th e la n d g o e s u n d er th e sa m e a ssu m p tio n as a n y o th e r w a r ; in w a r p e o p le g e t k illed . T h ere is a ru lin g th a t a w a r is p e r m itte d as lo n g as n o m o r e th a n o n e -s ix th o f th e n a tio n w ill b e k illed . A n d th is w a s s ta te d in r e la tio n to an o r d in a r y w a r, a figh t b e tw e e n n e ig h b o r s. A w a r fo r E retz Israel d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n th e n u m b er o f c a su a ltie s. T h e c o m ­ m a n d is “ A s e / ” ( “ D o i t ! ” ), a n d y o u m a y be su re th a t th e n u m b er o f c a s u a l­ ties w ill th u s b e m in im a l. L o o k a t th e S ix -D a y W ar, for e x a m p le . E ven R ab b i G o r e n sta te s in h is b o o k th a t c a s u a ltie s c a n n o t in v a lid a te a c o m m a n d m e n t to fig h t.54

N a tu ra lly A riel w as th rilled w h en Israel in v ad ed L e b an o n in 1982. H e soon p u b lish ed a m o n o g ra p h , T h is G o o d M o u n ta in a n d th e L e b a n o n , th a t w ent to g re a t lengths to p ro v e th a t m o st o f L eb an o n is p a rt o f th e P rom ised Land. It is m e n tio n e d in th e T orah as being given to th re e Israelite trib es, Asher, N a fta li, a n d Z e v u lu n . It w as later co n q u ered by D avid a n d S o lo m o n , and h a d a p e rsiste n t Jew ish presence th ro u g h o u t m o st o f history. T h e refo re , G od w as b eh in d th e Israeli arm y w h en it en tered L eb an o n a n d H e in sp ired its victory.55 T h e c o m m a n d to ev acu ate L eb an o n in 1985 w as acco rd in g to Ariel illegal, since th e T orah in stru c ts th a t o n e does n o t re tre a t if th ere are o th e r o p tio n s .56

Tzfia 3 and the Assault on Democracy and Civil Rights At th e end o f 1988, n early th re e years after th e second issue o f T zfia, T zfia 3 cam e o u t. In th e new issue, tw ice as long as th e o th ers, the p o sitio n s o f th e g ro u p have radicalized a g re a t deal. In fact, T zfia 3 lau n ch ed a fro n tal a tta c k on Israeli d em o cracy a n d “ lib e ra l” Ju d aism . M a n y o f th e learn ed essays m ake th e late R ab b i K ah an e lo o k m o d e ra te by c o m p a riso n , a n d G ush E m unim positively liberal. T zfia 3 is th e m o st ex trem e d o c u m e n t so far p ro d u ced by th e Israeli rad ical right.

272

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

W h a t distinguishes T zfia 3 from th e earlier volum es is th a t it no longer needs an “ erro n e o u s s ta te m e n t” from G ush E m unim o r a n o th e r “ wellin te n tio n e d ” source as an excuse to reexam in e som e topics. This issue is in stead a stra ig h tfo rw a rd an d com prehensive a tte m p t to exam ine subjects such as dem ocracy, civil rights, racism , an d the statu s of the aliens in E retz Y israel acco rd in g to the H a la k h a . T he au th o rs do n o t even try to conceal th e tru e m eaning o f th eir conclusions, w hich a m o u n t to an assau lt o n the entire value system o f th e m o d ern State of Israel. It ap p ears th a t th e a u th o rs have long held such positio n s, b u t only in 1988 w ere they confident en ough to express th em so frankly. T he significance o f T zfia 3 is, therefo re, the readiness o f such a learned g ro u p o f rab b is an d th in k e rs to be so b ru ta lly h o n est a b o u t th eir o p p o sitio n to th e Israeli system , an d especially to several “ lib e ra l” d o cu m en ts th a t have been w ritte n since 1985 to p ro v e th a t Ju d aism does n o t fu n d am en tally stan d in o p p o sitio n to the values o f th e m o d ern dem o cratic w o rld . “ In the last few y ears,” w rites R abbi D avid B ar-H aim , a g ra d u a te o f Yeshivat M erk az H arav, it is p o s s ib le to r e c o g n iz e a te n d a n c y a m o n g several re lig io u s circles— a “ h u m a n is t-u n iv e r s a lis t” ten d en cy . M a n y w rite in fa v o r o f th e lo v e “ for all m en th a t w e r e cr ea te d in th e im a g e o f G - d . ” . . . T h e o b v io u s p u r p o se o f th e se p e o p le is to p r o v e th a t all m en are eq u a l, th a t a p erson sh o u ld n o t be d isc r im in a te d a g a in st o n th e b a sis o f h is race, an d th a t he w h o argu es a g a in st th is is n o th in g b u t a ra cist w h o d isto r ts th e w o r d s o f th e Torah in ord er to m a k e th e m su it h is “ te r r ib le ” o p in io n s .

A fter q u o tin g from such religious a u th o rities as Professor Avner Shaki, one o f the radical leaders o f th e N R P, B ar-H aim w rites: W e h a v e b e fo r e u s a very clea r p r o p o s itio n : A ll h u m a n b ein gs are eq u a l, Jew s a n d G e n tile s. A s w e sh a ll n o w see , this belief stands in total contrast to the

Torah o f Moses, and is derived from a total ignorance and an assimilation o f alien 'Western values. It w o u ld n o t ev e n m erit c o m m e n t h ad n o t so m an y p e o p le b een led astra y b y it.57

Tzfia 3 is the first system atic n o n -K ah an e fro n tal a tta c k on dem ocracy as a d estructive a n d non-Jew ish system o f go vernm ent. M o st o f the radical rig h t is so m e w h a t apo lo g etic a b o u t its negative attitu d e to w a rd d em ocracy; like th e w ritings o f R abbi K ahane, T zfiya 3 is n o t. D em ocracy is sim ply view ed as n o good. It stan d s in direct co n tra d ic tio n to the co rrect system o f g o v ern m en t as p o rtra y e d in th e H a la k h a , an d it is ru in in g the p resen t State o f Israel because it is a foreign system o f values. O n e o f the h arsh est Tzfia 3 judgm ents ap p ears in a rep rin ted 1980 speech m ade by the late R ab b i M o sh e H alevi Segal a t th e circum cision o f M en ach em Livni’s son, four years before Livni w as recognized as th e “ o p erativ e c o m m a n d e r” of the M a ch tere t an d sent to jail: A ll n a tio n s s h o u ld su rren d er to u s, to th e K ing o f Israel, to th e M e ssia h o f th e G —d o f J a co b , a n d s h o u ld be ta u g h t e x c lu siv e ly by us. T h ey m u st d esert th eir

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

273

fa lse b e lie fs a n d c u ltu r e s, a n d th e s o c ia l sy ste m s d a n g e r o u s for u s, to lea v e th is tr e a c h e r o u s d e m o c r a c y , w h ic h c a u se s E retz Y israel to b e “ P a le stin e ” w ith an A rab m a jo rity , G —d fo r b id . W e h a v e to d o th e s e th in g s as a “ le g io n o f th e K in g ,” b u t u n fo r tu n a te ly th is k n o w le d g e h a s n o t y e t p e n e tr a te d all th e ran k s o f th e n a tio n . H ere sits th e first g r o u p th a t h a s to fly th is fla g , fo r th e p e o p le o f Israel, for th e G - d o f Israel, fo r th e T orah o f Israel, fo r E retz Y isra el, a g a in st th e d e m o c r a c y w h ic h c o n fu s e s th e tru th a n d ju stice , a n d a g a in st all th e th in g s im a g in e d b y th e n a tio n s o f th e w o r ld .58

A m o st u n e x p e c te d a tta c k o n d em o cracy is fo u n d in an essay by R ab b i B inyam in Tzvielli, th e fo rm e r d ire c to r o f th e religious d e p a rtm e n t o f Israel R ad io a n d Television. Tzvielli, w h o previou sly h a d n o t been identified as a rig h t w in g rad ical, w a n ts to see in Israel an ideal T o rah state as p o rtra y e d by the late R av K ook. To m ak e his case he cites criticism s o f d em o cracy from secular sources such as Jo h n S tu a rt M ill (“ th e ty ra n n y o f th e m a jo rity ” ), O sw ald Spengler (“ th e decline o f th e W e st” ) a n d José O rte g a y G asset (“ th e revolt o f th e m a sses” ) to sh o w th a t even g re a t non-Jew ish sch o lars have long identified th e m alad ies o f d em o cracy a n d its p o te n tia l fo r decline. T h e refo re , acco rd in g to R ab b i Tzvielli, it is ju st a m a tte r o f tim e b efore th e Israelis discover th e uselessness a n d destru ctiv en ess o f th e ir dem ocracy. R eferrin g to the p o s t- 1984 an x iety a b o u t th e e ro sio n o f d em o cracy in Israel, a resp o n se to th e election o f R ab b i M e ir K ah an e to th e K nesset a n d to th e sp read o f “ K a h a n ism ” a m o n g Israeli y o u th , Tzvielli furiously m ocks th e d e m o c r a tic p s y c h o s is th a t h a s ta k en c o n tr o l o f us for n o su b sta n tia l an d v is ib le r e a so n , p e n e tr a tin g ev e n th e m o s t h id d en co rn ers o f o u r so ciety . T h is p s y c h o s is d istu r b s th e p e a c e o f ev e n th e m o s t d e v o te d an d lo y a l a m o n g u s, w h o h a v e sta r ted to c h e c k th e m se lv e s v ery ca r efu lly as to w h e th e r o r n o t th ey are k o s h e r d e m o c r a ts . . . . D e m o c r a c y is p a rt o f th e c u ltu r e o f th e W est, a n d to g e th e r w ith th is cu ltu r e it g o e s d o w n , a n d d isa p p e a r s rig h t b e fo r e o u r ey e s. . . . T h e sta te o f Israel is u n fo r tu n a te ly far fro m th e id eal J ew ish sta te [as p o r tr a y e d b y R av K o o k ], b u t e v e n th is n o n -id e a l sta te m ay o p e n u p to a n e w a n d o r ig in a l c o u r s e , it m a y free itse lf fro m th e d e m o c r a tic m y th s a n d h o llo w c lic h é s th a t h a v e b r o u g h t th e e n tire w o r ld , an d us to o , to th is sorry p a s s .59

As ex trem e as Segal a n d T zvielli’s h o stility to d em o cracy m ay so u n d , its rad icalism is d w a rfe d by th e essay o f R abbi D avid B en-H aim o n th e m isco n ­ ceived eq u ality b etw een Jew s a n d G entiles. In a th irty -p ag e stu d y th a t e x a m ­ ines all H a la k h ic a u th o ritie s w h o w ro te o n th e subject, B en-H aim p roves th a t acco rd in g to th e v ast m ajority, th e T orah , w hen sp eak in g a b o u t A d a m (a h u m a n being), never includes G entiles in th is category. H e p o in ts o u t th a t ten recognized H a la k h ic a u th o ritie s rep eated ly p ro p o se d th a t G entiles are m ore b east th a n h u m a n a n d th a t they sh o u ld be tre a te d acco rd in g ly ; only tw o a u th o ritie s recognize non-Jew s as full h u m a n beings created in th e im age o f G od.

274

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right W h a t c o m e s o u t o f all th is is th a t a c c o r d in g to th e p ro p h e ts, an d a lso a cco rd ­ in g to o u r sa g e s, th e G e n tile s are see n as b e a sts.60 F or ev ery J ew w h o a c c e p ts th e T orah as G - d ’s e x p r e ssio n o n S in ai, w h ich is v a lid a n d b in d in g all th r o u g h th e g e n e r a tio n s, it is crystal clear th a t this [in ter p r eta tio n ] c a n n o t be c o m p r o m is e d or “ a m e n d ed an d im p r o v e d .” . . . It is p o s s ib le th a t o n e m a y see th ese in ju n ctio n s as an e x p r e ssio n o f racism ; a n o th e r m a y ca ll it a h a tred o f th e G e n tile, w h o e v e r he is; b u t as far as th e Jew w h o a d h e res to th e s ta te m e n ts o f th e T orah o f Israel is co n ce rn ed , th is is a reality a n d a w a y o f life w h ic h w e re set for th e p e o p le o f Israel by G - d . 61

T h e cen tral essay o f T zfia 3 is co n trib u te d by R abbi Israel Ariel, the ed ito r of the volum e, w h o w ro te in T zfia 2 of the in applicability of the co m m an d m en t “ th o u sh alt n o t k ill” to G entiles. T his tim e he focuses on the statu s o f th e g e r to s h a v (alien resident) in Eretz Y israel. N o t surprisingly, this essay is the m o st ex trem e in te rp re ta tio n o f a subject th a t has been discussed intensely by th e religious rig h t since 1967. G ush E m u n im ’s p o si­ tio n has been th a t a lth o u g h th e T orah p ro h ib its g ran tin g p o litic a l rights to the alien re sid e n t— even to th o se loyal to Israel— th ere w ere no H alak h ic objections to g ra n tin g th em full legal an d p e rso n a l rights. Ariel spends ninety pages ex am in in g all th e H a la k h ic sources o n the issue, a n d his co n clu ­ sions are quite ruthless. T h u s, even loyal aliens are n o t allow ed to have p e rm a n e n t o w n ersh ip o f any lan d in Eretz Y israel. Ariel also q u estio n s th e ack n o w led g m en t by m o d ern au th o rities th a t M uslim s are legitim ate w o rsh ip ers o f a single G o d , an d are th u s en titled to the rights o f alien residency. H e bases his in te rp re ta tio n on M aim o n id es w h o fo u n d certain M uslim p ractices to be p agan . A lth o u g h he w rites in a schol­ arly m a n n e r a n d eschew s policy reco m m en d atio n s, any read er fam iliar w ith his very d o g m atic fu n d am en talism is left w ith no d o u b t: n eith er M uslim s n o r C h ristian s qualify as alien residents; b o th sh o u ld be expelled from the H oly L a n d .62

Former Kahane Associates: The Case of Yoel Lerner R abbi M eir K ahane w as n o t k n o w n for his ability to keep m em bers in his p a rty o r associates in his inn er circle. M an y fo rm er K ach activists have nevertheless rem ained active in the radical right, som e even retain in g ties w ith K ah an e— Shim on R ah a m im , a m an ag er o f a sm all Jerusalem b an k a n d a fo rm er directo r-g en eral o f K ach; Yossi D ay an , a K iryat A rba activist an d also a fo rm er K ach d ire cto r-g en eral; an d Eli A dir, an Israeli-born engineer w h o w as d ra fte d by K ahane to replace D ay an an d w as, by far, K ach’s m o st credible c o n ta c t w ith th e o u tsid e w o rld .63 O ne fo rm er K ahane associate still active in the public aren a is A vigdor Eskin, a b o rn -a g a in R ussian Jew w h o h a d been a Kach activist in K iryat

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

275

A rba. E skin, a w ell-ed u cated , ta le n te d y o u n g p ian ist, joined K ach u p o n his arrival fro m R ussia in 1979, p a rtly in g ra titu d e for K a h a n e ’s aggressive struggle fo r Soviet Jew ry, a n d p a rtly because he believed th a t K ah an e w as the m o st h o n e st p o litic ia n in Israel. E sk in ’s a ttitu d e is typical o f m an y Soviet im m ig ran ts w h o cam e to Israel in the 1 970s, a n d w h o are h ostile to th e Israeli left, believing th a t it “ c o n ­ tro ls th e m edia a n d p o iso n s th e m ind o f th e n a tio n .” 64 T hey are very clear in th eir view s o n E retz Israel a n d th e A rabs, a n d ten d to see th e rad ical rig h t as th eir n a tu ra l m ilieu. T h e ir Soviet experience m ak es th em ex trem ely bellicose to w a rd th e R ussians a n d suspicious o f em p ty ta lk o f peace. T hey feel strongly th a t, since Jew s suffered so m uch in th e p a st, they are en titled to all the lan d co n q u e re d in 1967. F u rth er, th e p lig h t o f th e A rab s, w h o are asso ciated in th e ir m inds w ith th e repressive Soviet regim e, does n o t ap p eal to them . N ev ertheless, m an y Soviet em ig ra n ts quickly becam e d isen c h an ted w ith K ah an e’s ru d e style a n d c o u n te rp ro d u c tiv e politics. T h is w as th e case w ith Eskin, w h o left w ith th e h o p e o f estab lish in g a new m o v em en t, th e N ew Israeli R ight. T h e y o u n g R ussian ém igré, w h o visited the U nited States as a sp eak er o n b eh alf o f th e struggle o f Soviet Jew ry, h a d been influenced by th e em erging p restige o f th e new A m erican rig h t a n d especially by th e M o ra l M a jo rity o f R everend Jerry Falw ell. Jo in in g forces w ith L ikud K nesset m em b er M ichael K leiner, he tried to get A m erican m oney to s u p p o rt his an ti-R u ssian a n d a n tileftist m o v em en t an d to in itia te a rig h t-w in g th in k ta n k .65 T h e p ro je ct failed a n d Eskin d ro p p e d o u t o f th e p u b lic eye, b u t he h as rem ain ed co n sta n tly involved in radical struggles. T h e re is som e in d icatio n th a t he agreed to rep resen t certain South A frican in tere sts in Israel a n d to w rite a b o u t Israel fo r S outh A frican n e w sp ap ers.66 T he p erso n w h o has becom e th e leader o f th e activities o f several fo rm er K ahane associates, a n d ep ito m ized th e lo ve-h ate relatio n sh ip o f these peo p le w ith K ach ’s chief, is Yoel L erner. L erner, w h o w as b o rn in A m erica a n d ed u cated th e re a n d in S outh A frica, w as one o f K a h a n e ’s early Israeli recruits. A g ra d u a te o f M IT in m a th e m a tic s, he im m ig rated to Israel in 196 0 a n d stu d ied H e b re w an d linguistics a t th e H eb rew U niversity o f Jeru salem . L erner, a n o th e r b o rn -a g a in Jew a n d a gifted linguist a n d ed u c a to r, ta u g h t m a th e m a t­ ics, English, a n d H e b re w a t v a rio u s religious high schools an d fo rm u la te d his ex trem ist o p in io n s independently. L ong b efo re he m et K ah an e he h a d reach ed the co n clu sio n th a t p resen t-d ay secu lar Israel w as n o t to his liking. H o w ev er, being a p o litical by n a tu re , he w as n o t involved in any co n crete p lan s to change th e s itu a tio n .67 H e fo u n d o u t a b o u t th e JD L in 1972, an d joined K ah an e, alw ays m o re a ttra c te d to his fu n d a m e n ta list o p in io n s th a n to his politics. K ah an e h a d v ow ed in th o se days to dev o te him self to ed u c a tio n . H e said his calling w as to b rin g up y o u n g Jew ish leaders w h o could s ta rt a fu n d a m e n ta l refo rm in

276

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Israel. L erner su p p o rte d such ideas an d did p artic ip a te in the violent early JD L o p p o sitio n ag ain st several C h ristian m issionary gro u p s in Israel. H e w as equally c o m m itted to th e issue o f Soviet Jewry, a n o th e r one of K ah an e’s concerns. B ut L erner becam e disillusioned w hen K ahane decided in 1973 to run for th e K nesset, a ta c it acceptance o f the secular p arlia m e n ta ry system .68 K ah an e’s c o n d u c t in p u b lic d u rin g his cam p aig n , his style, his co n sta n t p u rsu it o f m edia a tte n tio n , an d his inability to delegate a u th o rity caused L erner to fu rth e r d istan ce him self from K ach. L e rn er’s relatio n s w ith K ahane cooled significantly in 1974 w hen the latter lost th e election. T he fiasco verified L e rn er’s conviction th a t K ah an e’s electoral asp ira tio n s w ere d o o m ed an d th a t the only w ay to change Israeli society w as th ro u g h a long process o f ed u catio n , p artly th ro u g h a radical religious y o u th m ovem ent. T h e reafter, w hile he rem ained a m em ber of K ach, he k e p t a d istance from K ahane and in itiated several o p eratio n s on his o w n , m any o f w hich w ere illegal. In 1974 he w as arrested for a tta c k ­ ing several in stitu tio n s associated w ith th e C h ristian m issionary activities. H e w as sent to jail an d w as later released on p ro b a tio n . H is o p eratio n s w ere all carried o u t by his y o u n g high school stu d en ts, w h o m he h ad in d o c trin a te d .69 L erner w as a rrested again in 1978, this tim e charged w ith having e sta b ­ lished a subversive o rg a n iz a tio n nam ed G al (G eula Le-Israel: R ed em p tio n for Israel), w hich h a d p ro c u re d arm s in o rd e r to tra n sfo rm Israel in to a H a la k h a state. G al could never have developed in to a serious o p e ra tio n ; it w as a fantasy o rg a n iz a tio n o f teenagers w h o called them selves “ m o sq u i­ to e s” a n d d ream ed w ith th eir m e n to r a b o u t a cu ltu ral an d political revolu­ tio n th a t w o u ld tra n sfo rm Israel. L erner w as sent to jail for his plan to b low up the M uslim m osques on the Tem ple M o u n t in o rd e r to im pede the Israeli-E gyptian peace process an d p rev en t the ev acu atio n o f Sinai. Lerner, h ard ly a co m p eten t u n d e rg ro u n d o p e ra to r, h ad been u n d e r close surveillance by Israel’s secret services since th e early 1970s. T h u s G al w as exposed before it caused any dam age. L e rn er’s g reatest success in G al w as to recru it a second lieu ten an t in the Israeli arm y, A m n o n A zran, w h o w as one of his fo rm er stu d en ts.70 Yoel L erner h as claim ed a m ysterious relatio n sh ip in the 1970s w ith R abbi Zvi Y ehuda K ook; w hen L erner told the story in 1984, it caused G ush E m unim g re a t e m b a rra ssm e n t. L erner h ad never studied in M erk az H arav, b u t after his 1974 a rre st fo r his assaults on the C h ristian M ission, the H alak h ic legality o f his act w as q u estioned . A cquaintances o f L erner sug­ gested th a t R abbi K ook w o u ld visit L erner in jail, listen to his ex p lan atio n , and th en issue a H a la k h ic verdict. L erner relates th a t he h ad a priv ate session w ith th e old rab b i, w h o gave his full ap p ro v al. K ook also to ld L erner th a t if he ever needed s u p p o rt for fu rth e r an ti-M issio n o p eratio n s, he could c o u n t on th e en tire stu d e n t body of M erk az H arav. T his version o f th e m eeting w as never confirm ed by any o th e r source. T he people w h o in tro d u c e d L erner to K ook w ere stu n n ed by L ern er’s ver-

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

2 77

sion, fo r th e ra b b i to ld th em th a t he w as com pletely ag ain st illegal acts. B ut K ook, acco rd in g to L erner, rejected an offer to m eet the th ree in o rd e r to resolve th e ir differences. H e insisted, instead , on his p rero g ativ e to talk privately w ith each p a rty a n d to say to him w h atev er he h ad in m ind. L erner says th a t he learn ed from th e experience th a t in delicate m a tte rs a rab b i m ay say d ifferen t th in g s to d ifferen t p eo p le, a n d “ it m atters greatly w h o th ey are, ho w p u re a n d d ed icated , a n d also u n d e r w h a t circu m stan ces they d o w h a t they d o o r ask w h a t they a s k .” L erner la te r c o n su lted w ith R abbi Z vi Y ehuda occasionally. H e says he in fo rm ed him a b o u t th e existence o f th e G al u n d e rg ro u n d . L erner insists th a t he received ta c it a p p ro v a l for all o f G a l’s p lan s, in clu d in g th e d e stru c ­ tion o f th e th e M u slim m osq u es o n th e Tem ple M o u n t.71 L erner is th u s convinced th a t h a d Y ehuda E tzion h a d d ire ct access to R ab b i Z vi Y ehuda K ook, he m ig h t have g o tte n th e a p p ro v a l o f th e hig h est a u th o rity o f G ush E m unim for his g ra n d p lan o f elim in atin g th e D o m e o f the R o ck .72 In 1981, ag ain o u t o f p riso n , L erner becam e involved in a n o th e r feeble new rad ical entity, th e H a sh m o n a im m o v em en t o f R ab b i M o sh e Segal. T his p re-1 9 4 8 m o v em en t, it w ill be recalled, w as revived by its lead er in 1978 as a d irect resp o n se to C a m p D avid. Segal’s p ro b le m w as th a t m o st H a s h m o ­ naim m em bers, like him self, w ere elderly, a n d he w as eager to re c ru it y o u n g m em bers. T h e idea a p p ealed to Yoel L erner, w ith his experience in a ttra c tin g yeshiva stu d e n ts to such causes, so he sta rte d to re c ru it new m em bers. Very few joined, usu ally h igh-school yeshiva stu d e n ts, by sw earin g allegiance a t the W ailing W all a n d ta k in g p a rt in sessions th a t co m b in ed a religious a p p ro a c h w ith fervent u ltra n a tio n a lism . M o st new m em bers w ere fam iliar w ith R ab b i K a h a n e ’s ideas, b u t like L erner, w ere extrem ely u n c o m fo rta b le w ith his m eth o d s. T h ey w a n te d m o re su b stan ce a n d less p ro p a g a n d a , a n d w ere highly skeptical a b o u t th e ab ility to act w ith in th e secu lar fram ew o rk o f Israeli politics. A m ong th e recru its to th e H a sh m o n a im w ere a few new o ld er faces. O n e such w as R ab b i D a n Beeri, a F rench p rosely te w h o w as later a rrested as a m em ber o f th e Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d .73 In 1 982 L ern er w as a rre ste d a g a in — this tim e fo r try in g to place a b o m b by A l-A ksa M o sq u e , th e second M u slim sh rin e o n th e Tem ple M o u n t. As usual he h a d tw o o f his stu d e n ts w ith him . H is a tte m p t to convince th e c o u rt th a t he becam e p a rty to th e co n sp iracy only to su b v ert it fro m w ith in w as rejected a n d he w as sentenced to tw o years in p riso n . W ith th eir lead er in jail, m any y o u n g m em bers o f H a sh m o n a im d ro p p e d o u t o f th e m ovem ent. N o t a few o f th em b ecam e involved in th e activities o f th e legal g ro u p called the T em ple M o u n t F a ith fu l.74 W h en L erner w as released fo rm jail a t th e en d o f 19 8 4 , th e clim ate h a d becom e m o re fa v o rab le fo r u ltra n a tio n a lism . T h e Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d an d K ach w ere esta b lish ed facts in Israel’s p ub lic co nsciousness, a n d the a tti­ tudes th a t h a d m ad e L ern er lo o k like a lu n atic a few years earlier w ere no

278

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

longer ex cep tio n al. T his situ a tio n encou rag ed L erner n o t only to retu rn to the H ash m o n aim , b u t also to s ta rt a new gro u p . T he declared p u rp o se o f the new body, H a m o sa d L em a’an Tora BeisraelM ati (the In stitu te for th e T orah in Israel), is to p ro m o te the resto ratio n of the S an h ed rin — th e council o f seventy sages th a t w as the Jew ish Suprem e C o u rt an d the final H a la k h ic a u th o rity before the d estru ctio n of the Second Tem ple. L erner disagrees w ith Y ehuda E tzion an d Israel Ariel, w h o believe th a t the red em p tio n o f th e n a tio n can be advanced o u tsid e the presently recognized H a la k h ic in stitu tio n s eith er by a self-selected R edem ption M o v e­ m ent o r by a m ov em en t to study an d rebuild the T h ird Tem ple. H is a rg u ­ m ent is th a t a cu ltu ra l rev o lu tio n in the n a tio n can only tak e place if the existing H a la k h ic a u th o ritie s can be convinced to reestablish the Sanhedrin. A lthough he is co nfident a b o u t his way, L erner is fully aw are of the difficul­ ties involved: “ th e idea is very rev o lu tio n ary an d I expect g reat difficulties in its im p le m e n ta tio n .” L erner recently sent seventy letters to sy m p ath etic ra b ­ bis on th e q u estio n o f th e revival o f the Sanhedrin, b u t has received only three positive replies, n o n e o f w hich has been fully su p p o rtiv e.75 A p p aren tly disillusioned w ith his unsuccessful sab o tag e conspiracies, Yoel L erner has since 1985 also devoted him self to the idea of applying Jew ish law to Israeli reality. F or over tw o years he w o rk ed on a d ra ft co n stitu tio n for the State o f Israel th a t w o u ld to tally be based on the H alak h a an d th e Jew ish legal system , th o u g h w ritten in the legal term inology of the tw en tieth century. Surprisingly, L erner w as alm o st the first to do so. T his an ti-e stab lish m en t rebel, w h o w as once characterized by a judge as a co m ­ plete a n a rc h ist,76 w as very h ap p y to learn th a t the religious division o f Israel’s M in istry o f E d u c atio n h a d found p o rtio n s of his d o cu m en t w o rth y of being stu d ied in all th e n a tio n ’s religious high schools. L erner also started an academ ic legal m agazine, T akdim (Precedent), an d has been successful in p u b lish ing c o n trib u tio n s by several o f Israel’s to p th eo rists of H eb rew law, including tho se w h o disagreed w ith his political ideas.77 And he has in itiated several sem inars a b o u t the Tem ple M o u n t an d m ade attem p ts, th o u g h n o t very successful, to brin g to g e th e r all the g ro u p s th a t have been involved in the drive to establish a Jew ish presence th e re .78 T he m a tu re L erner has a very discursive an d logical m ind. Unlike his police files an d p ublic im age, w hich p ro je ct him as an u nrealistic an d ad v en tu ro u s fu n d am en talist, L erner is in fact a serious p erso n w hose arg u m en ts som e­ tim es m ake m ore sense th a n the g ran d m essianic theories of Y ehuda Etzion o r R abbi Israel Ariel. W h a t distinguishes Yoel L erner from all th e o th e r cu ltu ral radicals, a n d to som e e x te n t even from G ush E m unim , is th a t he has never been im p a tie n t for the com ing o f the M essiah. “ H o w can I k n o w ,” asks Lerner, “ w h a t th e in ten tio n s o f G od are, o r H is tim etable? All I d o k n o w is w h a t I m yself, a believing Jew, am obliged to do. A nd I shall do it no m a tte r o f w h a t the secular State o f Israel says o r d o e s.” 79 L erner ridicules th e M o v em e n t to H a lt the R etreat in Sinai an d the

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

279

people w h o believed they co u ld p e rsu a d e G o d by th eir pray ers to in terfere an d sto p th e ev a c u a tio n . H e is equally skeptical o f his colleagues w h o are trying to ad v an ce re d e m p tio n th ro u g h th e Israeli p olitical system . H is m ajo r criticism o f M eir K ah an e since 1973 h as focused o n the ra b b i’s incessantly vacillating a tte m p ts to jo in , o r to d e m o n stra te ag ain st, Israel’s p a rlia m e n ­ tary politics. “ In m y en tire life I have p a rtic ip a te d in only tw o d e m o n stra ­ tio n s, for I have alw ays co n sid e red d e m o n stra tio n s futile. W hen I felt I h ad to d o s o m e th in g ” — c o m m it a v iolent a c t— “ I sim ply w e n t a h ead an d did it.” 80 As an “ eld er s ta te s m a n ” o f th e fu n d a m e n ta list rig h t, L ern er w as in ­ vited to join th e executive co m m ittee o f th e In d e p e n d e n t State o f Ju d ea. H e did it w illingly, b u t a fte r several futile m eetings decided to resign. In stead o f really s ta rtin g to p re p a re for th e tim e Israel leaves th e W est B ank, he later said, “ T h ey ju st k e p t ta lk in g .” 81

The Struggle Over the Temple Mount T he c u ltu ra l rad icals have largely steered clear o f the g ro w in g politics o f the radical right, b u t th e re is o n e issue in w hich they have m ad e a p o litic a l difference— th e issue o f th e Tem ple M o u n t. Since this su b ject m ay be the m ost explosive item o n th e ag en d a o f th e rad ical rig h t, it can illu strate the significance o f this g ro u p a n d its in te ra c tio n w ith o th e r co m p o n e n ts o f the radical right. It w o u ld be a m istak e to assum e th a t th e struggle for th e Jew ish re tu rn to the holy place s ta rte d only in 1984, w hen th e Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d w as discovered. In fact th e cam p aig n began in 19 6 7 , rig h t after th e Six-D ay w ar, th o u g h it w as slow g ain in g m o m en tu m an d p u b lic a tte n tio n . T h e first co n tro v e rsia l ac t on th e m o u n t to o k place im m ediately fo llo w ­ ing its co n q u est. R abbi S hlom o G o ren , th e chief rab b i o f Israel’s arm y, tried at th a t tim e to place a sacred A rk — a T orah b o o k a n d a p ra y e r s ta n d — in th e so u th e rn c o rn e r o f th e T em ple M o u n t in o rd e r to estab lish an Israeli p res­ ence. H e also o p en ed a te m p o ra ry office in o n e o f th e A rab buildings there. These acts greatly irrita te d M o sh e D ay an , Israel’s m in ister o f defense, w h o o rd ered th e A rk rem oved a n d th e office closed .82 D ay an decided th a t th e holy place w o u ld be left u n d e r th e co n tro l o f th e M uslim W aqf a n d th a t Jew s w o u ld be allow ed to visit it only as to u rists, n o t w o rsh ip ers. T h e m o st vital s u p p o rt fo r D a y a n ’s decision cam e from Israel’s C hief R a b b in a te . T his in stitu tio n , th e highest official religious a u th o rity in Israel, resolved in July 1 9 6 7 th a t Jew s w ere n o t allo w ed o n the m o u n t fo r fear th a t “ w e shall be fau lted , G o d fo rb id , in b reak in g a m o st severe p ro h ib itio n reg ard in g th e d ese c ra tio n o f this holy p la c e .” 83 M o sh e D ay an , invited in 1977 to becom e B egin’s m in ister o f foreign affairs, m ade th e c o n tin u a tio n o f this a rra n g e m e n t o n th e T em ple M o u n t his c o n d itio n fo r jo in in g th e c a b in e t.84 In a reactio n to D a y a n ’s 1967 decision, a g ro u p calling itself N e ’em anei H a r H a b a it (the T em ple M o u n t F aithful) w as fo rm ed first in Jeru salem an d

280

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

th en later in Tel Aviv. Its m em b ers— never m o re th a n a few h u n d re d , includ­ ing th eir y o u th m o v em en t— w o u ld clim b up the m o u n t on every m ajor Jew ish h o lid ay in an a tte m p t to p ray and d em o n stra te a presence. T h e head an d m o st active m em b er o f th e g ro u p since its estab lish m en t has been G ershon S olom on, a six th -g en eratio n resident o f Jerusalem an d a p ro m in e n t H e ru t m em b er.85 A lthough m any Tem ple M o u n t F aithful are religious, the m o v em en t’s ideology is m ainly n a tio n a list an d secular. T h e ir key p o in t is th a t the Temple M o u n t w as n o t just th e religious focus o f an cien t Israel, b u t also its public an d p o litical center. T h e K ings’ Palace w as on the m o u n t, an d th e S anhedrin held c o u rt there. T he p ro g ra m o f th e F aithful th erefo re calls u p o n the g overn­ m ent to m ove Israel’s S uprem e C o u rt, th e K nesset, the P resid en t’s M an sio n , an d its o w n offices to th e Tem ple M o u n t, an d to co n d u ct all official cerem o­ nies th e re .86 T h e Tem ple M o u n t F aithful have never ab id ed by the religious p ro h ib i­ tio n ag ain st visiting th e site. T hey have been extrem ely u n h ap p y w ith the C hief R a b b in a te ’s glorification o f the W ailing W all— a sm all p a rt o f th e ex tern al w all o f th e ru in ed T em ple— since it sym bolizes th e d estru ctio n o f the n a tio n , n o t its renaissance. It w as given by the M uslem rulers o f Jeru sa­ lem to th e d efeated a n d h u m iliated Jew s, w h o w ere n o t allow ed to clim b up the m o u n t, as a sm all a n d rem o te re m n a n t to cherish. T h u s ad h erin g to the W ailing W all w hile being in full co n tro l o f the entire area is a disgrace, a calam ity of the first degree, an d the resolu tio n of the ra b b in a te is, in th e o p in io n o f th e F aithful o f the Tem ple M o u n t, an an ach ro n istic evasion. T h e ir criticism has slow ly gained su p p o rt. A m eaningful en d o rsm en t to the F a ith fu l’s p o sitio n w as ren d ered in the 1976 by R abbi Shlom o G oren, w ho h ad becom e by th a t tim e th e chief rab b i o f Israel. G o ren h ad secretly visited the m o u n t on several occasions after d raftin g a very stro n g H alak h ic ruling to p e rm it p ra y e r a t certain areas on the m o u n t. H ow ever, since G o ren k ep t his study secret because o f the o p p o sitio n of the rab b in ical council o f the C hief R ab b in a te , it could n o t be used for a long tim e.87 T he Tem ple M o u n t F aithful differ from m o st o f the radical rig h t in th eir o u tsta n d in g legality. Its leaders have alw ays been determ ined to obey th e law an d all th e in stru ctio n s o f th e Jerusalem police. T h e g ro u p ’s m o st ex ­ trem e act o f defiance has been passive resistance, an d they have never clashed w ith th e police. O n e reaso n for th eir n o n v io len t a p p ro a c h has been th eir desire to influ­ ence th e general p ublic on this issue. Also, they firmly believe th a t th eir activities have a so u n d legal basis. A ccording to state law, the H oly Places Bill, full freedom o f access to all holy sites is g u aran teed for every w orshiper, so the F aithful are convinced th a t the defense m in ister’s ruling restrictin g the Jew ish presence on th e m o u n t is illegal. In appeals to Israel’s Suprem e C o u rt, the F aithful have tried to show th a t th e ban on p ray er in the holy place has

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

281

no legal basis, a claim e n h a n c e d by th e g ro u p ’s re p u ta tio n fo r ab id in g by the law. T h e peaceful tactics o f th e F aithful have g ain ed them th e s u p p o rt o f Israel’s Civil R ights A sso ciatio n , an o rg a n iz a tio n o th erw ise asso ciated w ith the Israeli left. A nd in fact o n several o ccasio n s th e C o u rt has ru led in fav o r o f th e m o v e m e n t.88 H o w ev er, fo rg o in g ex traleg al activities h as its d ra w b a c k s, specifically ineffectiveness. F or years n o o n e to o k th e F aith fu l very seriously, a n d m o st still co n sid e r th em a sm all circle o f crazies m ak in g sym bolic gestures w ith no political conseq u en ces, m erely a fo o tn o te to th e real actio n in Ju d e a an d S am aria. T he im p o rta n c e o f th e T em ple M o u n t issue grew slightly in th e early 1970s w hen a h a n d fu l o f religious individuals g o t to g e th e r to reex am in e th e H alakhic sta tu s o f th e holy site. T h e g ro u p n am ed itself E l H a r H a sh em (To­ w ard s th e M o u n ta in o f th e L ord) a n d includ ed R ab b i Yoel B en-N un a n d Uri E litzur o f G ush E m u n im . A cen tral m em b er o f th e circle w as M en ach em B en-Y ashar, a B ar-Illan U niversity sc h o la r a n d k ib b u tz m em b er w h o h a d been stro n g ly a d v o c a tin g Jew ish p ra y e r o n th e Tem ple M o u n t since 1 968. In a critiq u e o f th e R a b b in a te ’s ru lin g p u b lish ed in A m u d im , B en-Y ashar arg u ed th a t up un til th e six teen th century, Jew s p ray ed o n th e m o u n t w h e n ­ ever it w as po litically possible, a n d h a d even estab lish ed a synagogue th ere. It w as only a fte r th e six teen th century, as a resu lt o f g ro w in g M u slim h o stil­ ity, th a t Jew s w ere fo rb id d e n to be o n th e m o u n t a n d given th e W ailing W all as co m p e n sa tio n . T h u s th e R a b b in a te ’s p ro p o sitio n th a t since th e d e stru c ­ tio n o f th e T em ple, Jew s h a d n o t been p e rm itte d to p ray th e re w as, a c c o rd ­ ing to B en-Y ashar, e rro n e o u s a n d baseless.89 T h o u g h T ow ard s th e M o u n ta in o f th e L o rd w as n o t a p olitical o r p ro te st g ro u p , b u t ra th e r a stu d y g ro u p , its esta b lish m en t w as nevertheless im p o r­ ta n t. It signified a p restig io u s rab b in ic al in te re st in the sensitive issue. T h e g ro u p ’s final co n clu sio n s w ere n o t m ade pu b lic, b u t th ere are in d icatio n s th a t th e m em bers o f th e Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d k n ew o f th e g ro u p an d d rew som e in sp ira tio n fro m it.90 Even earlier, th o u g h , th e T em ple M o u n t’s p o te n tia l as a religious b a ttle ­ g ro u n d w as clear. In 19 6 9 , an insane m essianic A u stralian , D enis M ichael R o h a n , w h o w a n te d to h aste n th e second co m in g o f C h rist set fire to AlA ksa M o sq u e. T h e ac t sh o ck ed th e A rab w o rld . M a n y th o u sa n d s o f M u s ­ lims sto rm e d th e place a n d th e n surged in o ld Jeru salem in u n p reced en ted fury a n d o u tra g e . Several M u slim states issued stern w arn in g s to Israel, an d the po ssibility o f a jih a d (holy w ar) w as ra ise d .91 It to o k m o n th s to convince the M u slim a u th o ritie s th a t th e ac t w as n o t co m m itted by a Jew, an d th a t th ere w as n o Jew ish co n sp iracy to ta k e over o f th e holy place. A n o th e r M uslim rio t b ro k e o u t in 1975 w hen a Jeru salem judge ac q u itte d

282

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

several B etar y o u th ch arg ed w ith disorderly co n d u ct on the Tem ple M o u n t an d recom m ended th a t rules an d regu latio n s for Jew ish p ray er be issued by the m inistry o f R eligion. T he rio ts w ere b ro u g h t u n d er co n tro l by the Israeli police only after th ree d e m o n stra to rs w ere killed, dozens w o u n d ed , an d h u n ­ dreds a rre ste d .92 In A pril 1982, an u n stab le y o u n g Jew, Allen G o o d m an , o p en ed fire on the g u ard o f th e D om e o f th e R ock. G o o d m a n , a d istu rb ed to u rist w h o h ad earlier v o lu n teered on a k ib b u tz, did it “ to avenge the b lo o d o f several o f my friends w h o w ere killed by th e A ra b s.” 93 T he e ru p tio n th a t ensued resulted in the d eath o f tw o A rabs a n d the w o u n d in g of nine people, including several Israeli policem en. G o o d m a n , w h o to o k over the D om e o f th e R ock, w as c a p tu re d alive by th e police a n d sentenced to life in prison, despite his plea of insanity. R ab b i K ah an e offered him free legal services.94 R esp o n d in g to g ro w in g p ressure, Israel’s C hief R ab b in ate quietly set up a co m m ittee in 1981 to reexam ine th e Tem ple M o u n t issue. T h e R a b b in a te ’s co m m ittee, m ad e up of Israel’s tw o chief rab b is, an d rab b is D ov L ior o f K iryat A rba an d Sim ha K ook o f R eh o v o t (no relatio n to R abbi Zvi Yehude K ook), w as to study th e possibility o f establishing a synagogue in one co rn er of the holy site. T he im petus for the reex am in atio n w as a re p o rt by R abbi M eir Y ehuda G etz, th e rab b i in charge o f the W ailing W all. G etz, w h o aspires to re tu rn to th e Tem ple M o u n t as its rab b i, did n o t act on his ow n. H e h ad been a p p ro a c h e d by th e M in istry o f R eligion, w hich w as re sp o n d ­ ing, in tu rn , to a new th re a t by a Tel Aviv law yer to lay the case before th e H igh C o u rt o f Ju stice.95 G etz him self created a co m m o tio n in th a t sum m er, w hen a secret e x cav atio n he h a d m ade u n d er th e M uslim m osques, in o rd e r to reach hid d en p a rts o f th e ru in ed Tem ple, w as ex p o sed .96 B oth the M uslim an d Jew ish a u th o ritie s becam e u n d e rsta n d a b ly to u ch y on the subject. T h e late 1970s a n d early 1980s saw several o th e r related developm ents: the esta b lish m en t o f Y eshivat A teret C o h an im , the p ro ject to w eave gow ns for th e fu tu re T em ple’s high priests, and the p u b licatio n o f a study a b o u t the ex act lo catio n o f th e an cien t Tem ple. W hile these developm ents w ere n o t political an d did n o t im ply a conflict w ith the statu s q u o , they did illu strate the increasing p re o c c u p a tio n a b o u t the holy site an d the ex p an sio n o f the circle of people interested. R abbi S hlom o Aviner sta rte d A teret C o h an im as an extension o f M erk az H a ra v to teach stu d en ts th e cen trality of the place for the n a tio n ’s salvation, th o u g h he did n o t push for an im m ediate retu rn to the site. Aviner an d his deputy, R abbi M en ach en F ru m an , w a n te d th eir stu d en ts to be ready for the day w hen th e T h ird Tem ple is rebuilt, teaching all the h alak h ic rules a n d reg u lations o f the O rd e r o f the Sacrifices o f the Tem ple, w hich h ad n o t been p racticed for nearly tw o th o u sa n d y ears.97 R abbi D avid E lboim has already been m en tio n ed . A H assidic Jew w ith no direct relatio n to the Z io n ist reli­ gious cam p, he sta rte d the co m p licated job of w eaving the gow ns for the high p riest acco rd in g to h alak h ic la w — a p ro ject th a t requires a special expertise an d several years o f dedicated h a rd w o rk . H is w o rk has been seen

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

283

by m any Tem ple M o u n t devotees as step in th e d irectio n o f the aw aited re d e m p tio n .98 In 1983, R ab b i Z a lm a n K oren, a te a c h e r in th e K iryat A rb a yeshiva, p u b lish ed a stu d y in th e religious m agazine T ehu m in, in w hich he identified several p o te n tia l p ra y e r areas o n th e Tem ple M o u n t. A lth o u g h in a slight d isag reem en t w ith th e co n clu sio n s o f R ab b i S hlom o G o ren , K oren, the a u th o r o f a b o o k o n th e subject, follow ed G o ren in arg u in g th a t several areas o n th e T em ple M o u n t co u ld safely be used fo r Jew ish p ray er. K o ren ’s con clu sion w as su p p o rte d by an official e n d o rse m e n t p u b lish ed in th e sam e volum e o f T eh u m in by R ab b i M o rd e c h a i E liyahu, Israel C h ief S ep h arad i R a b b i.99 T hese d ev elo p m en ts, th o u g h n o t them selves violent, u n d o u b te d ly played an im p o rta n t role in th e in creasin g n u m b e r o f clan d estin e o p e ra tio n s a t the Tem ple M o u n t in th e early 1980s. A m o n g th em w ere the a tte m p t o f stu d en ts o f R ab bi Israel A riel to p e n e tra te th e area in o rd e r to c o n d u c t a special p ray er service, a n d th e L ifta g ro u p ’s a tte m p t to b lo w up th e M uslim m osques. A t th e end o f M a rc h 1983 d u rin g th e Passover holiday, a g ro u p o f th irty eight yeshiva stu d e n ts, in clu d in g ten soldiers on active duty, m et a t A riel’s h om e for an evening p rayer. T h e g ro u p th en p ro ceed ed to th e so u th e rn side of th e Tem ple M o u n t w ith th e in te n tio n o f digging u n d e r th e m o u n t by w ay of an old tu n n e l lead in g to th e a n c ie n t W estern G ate o f H u ld a . T h e idea w as to reach th e rem ain s o f th e T em ple, situ ated u n d e r A l-A ksa M o sq u e, a n d to co n d u ct a special P assover p ra y e r there. T h e re w ere ru m o rs th a t they p lan n ed to occu p y th e place in th e style o f G ush E m u n im ’s illicit settlem en ts, in o rd e r to n e g o tia te a concession reg ard in g th e presence o f Jew s o n the Tem ple M o u n t. B ut th e p la n failed, since th e g ro u p w as c a u g h t o n its w ay to the m o u n t. N everth eless, th e p ro se c u tio n fo u n d it very h a rd to p ro v e any illegality. T h e “ religious c o n s p ira c y ” d o m in a te d h ead lin es in Israel fo r sev­ eral days, b u t en d ed in a big fia sco .100 T h e Lifta in cid en t w as m uch m o re serious. In Ja n u a ry 1984 a n ig h t g u a rd of the M uslim W aq f o n th e Tem ple M o u n t cam e u p o n a lo ad o f explosives an d g renades in th e a rea, a n d saw tw o u nidentified figures flee. T h e event stirred tre m e n d o u s c o m m o tio n in Israel. T h e large q u a n tity o f th e explosives seem ed to im ply a so p h istic a te d u n d e rg ro u n d a n d a w ell-o rg an ized conspiracy. T h ere w as a stro n g reactio n fro m th e M uslim s, w h o h a d been suspicious o f th e Jew s all a lo n g .101 E veryone w as su rp rise d w h en an intense police in v estig atio n revealed th a t th e p e rp e tra to rs w ere fo u r stran g e c h aracters w h o lived in a cave in the deserted village o f Lifta o n th e n o rth e rn o u tsk irts o f Jeru salem . T hey h a d p lan n ed to b lo w u p th e A l-A ksa M o sq u e fo r n a tio n a list an d religious re a ­ sons, b u t w ere extrem ely confu sed an d u n clear a b o u t th eir in ten tio n s an d beliefs. C o m b in in g religious re p en tan ce w ith crim inality, d rugs, a n d stran g e sym bolism , they h a d created a sm all m essianic sect b ased on sp iritu al p u rifi­ catio n a n d an u n m e d ia te d relatio n w ith G o d . T h e h ead o f the g ro u p w as a

284

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

k n o w n Israeli crim inal, w h o h a d o b ta in e d the explosives; the o th e r three m em bers w ere u n sta b le an d hom eless. N o rab b i o r H alak h ic a u th o rity w as involved. T hey lived in g reat poverty, an d w ere k n o w n only to the o th er lu n atic in dividuals w h o freq u en ted th e u n in h a b ite d village. O nly one m em ­ ber o f th e g ro u p w as finally fo u n d co m p eten t to sta n d trial; tw o o th ers w ere sent to a m ental in stitu tio n . T he fo u rth m em ber o f the stran g e conspiracy w as never cau g h t, hav in g escaped a b ro a d .102 T h e m ain difference betw een these early atte m p ts an d th a t of the Jew ish U n d erg ro u n d w as th e q u ality o f the people involved an d the so p h isticatio n of th eir plans. T h e m em bers o f th e U n d erg ro u n d w ere am o n g the elite of G ush E m unim , in dividuals w ith b ack g ro u n d s in th e m ilitary an d settlem ent pioneering. T h e ir stro n g convictions m ade it im possible to see th em as usual crim inals. A nd th e ir th eo ries d em an d ed serious ex am in atio n , especially on the p ro ­ vocative Tem ple M o u n t issue; n o longer could the rab b is of G ush Em unim bury th e subject u n d e r a cloud o f tra d itio n a l rab b in ical p ro h ib itio n .103 N o one could m a in ta in eq u an im ity vis-à-vis Y ehuda E tzio n ’s b u rn in g essays in N e k u d a , w hich challenged th e entire political ap p ro ach o f the m ovem ent an d p ro m ised a new agen d a o f active red em p tio n . By 1984 G ush E m unim w a sn ’t just a m arg in al g ro u p . It w as a central political an d cu ltu ral p h en o m e­ n o n w hose contro v ersies rev erb erated th ro u g h o u t Israel’s public life. Even m o d erate G ush m em bers, w h o o p p o sed illegal o p eratio n s on the m o u n tain site, w ere highly critical o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’s failure to sto p the d esecration o f the holy place. T he Tehiya, K nesset m em bers o f the L ikud, an d rab b is all over th e co u n try w ere forced to tak e a stan d . T he place o f the Tem ple M o u n t in th e n a tio n ’s life finally becam e a m ost d ram atic an d sensitive public issue. T h ere are m any in d icatio n s th a t the explosive situ atio n on the Tem ple M o u n t w as caused n o t only by the Jew s. P ersistent ru m o rs a b o u t intense A rab activity have existed since the beginning of the 1980s. Besides the b u ilding o f m any new p ra y e r stan d s, there seem to have been secret d estru c­ tive ex cav atio n s o f th e old fo u n d a tio n s of the Tem ple. M an y believe th a t the A rabs are try in g to erase all rem ains o f th e an cien t shrine, w ith the issue reaching the K nesset in M ay 1 9 8 2 .104 T h e intensification of the Israeli-P alestinian conflict after C am p D avid has been reflected on th e Tem ple M o u n t. T he M uslim m osques have alw ays filled a m a jo r political fu n ctio n for th e Palestinian co m m unity u n d er o cc u p a ­ tio n , since they w ere the safest place to voice criticism of the Israelis. T his w as because th e g o v ern m en t o f Israel could n o t, for political reasons, pun ish the M u fti an d his people in Jerusalem ; serm ons th a t in o th e r places could cause rep rim an d s o r arrests w ere delivered openly from the pu lp its o f the Tem ple M o u n t’s m osques. T h e 1980s saw first an undeclared w a r betw een the PLO an d the g overn­ m ent of Israel, an d then a declared one in L ebanon. U nable to face the

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

285

Israelis in th e b attlefield, th e P alestinians tu rn e d to o th e r fields, an d n o n e w as m o re p ro m isin g th a n th e H arm -esh-S h erif. T h e m em o rial for th e “ sa ­ cred v ictim s” o f S abra a n d S hatila, estab lish ed in th e area as a p ra y e r sta n d , w as th e last b u t n o t th e least a ffro n t to th e in terested Israelis.105 A d ra m a tic m o m e n t in th e po litical conflict ov er the Tem ple M o u n t w as triggered a t th e end o f 1985 by K nesset m em b er D ov S hilansky (w ho b e­ cam e S peaker o f th e H o u se in 1988). Shilansky, an em o tio n a l L ikud activ ist an d a su rv iv o r o f th e H o lo c a u st, first gain ed p u b lic n o to rie ty in 1952 w h en he w as a rre ste d inside Israel’s F oreign M in istry carry in g a b o m b . T h e d e a c ti­ vated b o m b w as a sym bolic p ro te st ag ain st th e R e p a ra tio n s A g reem ent signed by Israel w ith th e F ederal R epublic o f G erm a n y .106 In 1 98 5 , Shilansky, th en th e h ead o f th e K nesset’s In te rio r C o m m ittee, u n d e rsto o d th a t th e issue o f th e sta tu s o f th e Tem ple M o u n t w as a political goldm ine. H is K nesset c o m m ittee h a d alread y stu d ied th e alleg atio n s o f A rab d esecratio n s o n th e m o u n t, b u t th e co m m ittee d elib eratio n s h a d evoked little p u b lic interest. Shilansky th erefo re cam e up w ith th e n o tio n o f visiting th e m o u n t to d e m o n stra te an official Jew ish presence. T h e idea w as equally ap p e a lin g to G eu la C o h en , w h o served on th e co m m ittee an d strongly fav o red th e Israelizatio n o f th e Tem ple M o u n t. W h a t follo w ed w as an u n fo rg e tta b ly chilling scene: A few K nesset m em ­ bers, heavily p ro te c te d by police, visited th e Tem ple M o u n t, trig g erin g a violent A rab p ro te st. T h e M K s b arely escaped w ith th eir lives, b u t the political p ay o ff w as e n o rm o u s. F or tw o days th e Tem ple M o u n t d o m in a te d all the h e a d lin e s.107 T h e television sh o w ed u n re stra in e d o u tb u rs ts o f A rab h a tre d th a t left even m o d e ra te Israelis ill a t ease. A nd th e en tire Israeli rig h t, n o t ju st its rad ical w ing, w as o u tra g e d by th e reactio n , feeling th a t th e A rabs “ needed to be ta u g h t a le sso n .” S h ilan sk y ’s c o m m ittee c o n d u c te d several m o re visits, an d th e Tem ple M o u n t K nesset lobby gain ed m o m e n tu m a n d stren g th . G eula C o h en inces­ santly d e m a n d e d p ro b es o f A rab acts o n th e Tem ple M o u n t an d o f the g o v e rn m e n t’s refusal to let Jew s p ray th e re .108 If th e tra n sfo rm a tio n o f th e Tem ple M o u n t from ta b o o to u rg e n t K nesset to p ic w as th e m o st im p o rta n t p o litic a l success o f th e cu ltu ra l rad icals, th e ra b b is’ co nference on th e subject w as th e ir m o st re w a rd in g theological ac­ co m p lish m en t. A p p ro x im a te ly fifty rab b is m et in Jeru salem in A u g u st 1986. T hey ru le d th a t n o t only w ere Jew s allo w ed to e n te r th e a rea, b u t th a t it w as a religious d u ty a n d a sacred o b lig atio n . T h e m o st p ro m in e n t a m o n g th e m em bers o f th e conference w as S hlom o G o ren , Israel’s fo rm er chief rab b i. Finally p resen tin g in p u b lic his 1976 study o f th e g eo g rap h y o f th e Tem ple M o u n t, w hich d eterm in e d th a t an o rd in a ry Jew co u ld go to m o st areas o f th e site, G o ren ex p ressed ex trem e con cern a b o u t th e lack o f a Jew ish presen ce o n th e holy place. It w as m an d ato ry , he a rg u ed , to estab lish a Jew ish synagogue in one o f th e re-

286

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

m ote corners o f th e m o u n t so th a t Jew s could go to the Tem ple M o u n t an d pray. T h e p rese n t s itu a tio n in d ic a te s d e te r io r a tio n . L eftist Jew s a g ita te a g a in st ou r h o ld o f th e T em p le M o u n t. T h e A ra b s w o u ld h a v e d o n e n o th in g h ad th ey n o t b een s u p p o r te d b y J ew s. I care n o th in g 'fo r th e M u fti. W e are ta lk in g a b o u t th e h o lie s t J ew ish p la c e . F or th e m , m o s t o f th e area is a n y h o w n o t sacred . It all d e p e n d s o n th e m in ister o f r e lig io n . T h e p resen t m in ister w ill d o n o th in g ; w e k n o w h im . I h o p e th a t th e n e x t m in ister w o u ld h a v e th e co u ra g e to act p r o p e r ly .109

R abbi G o ren w as n o t alone. R abbi Israel A riel, the indefatigable fighter for the Tem ple M o u n t cause. R abbi D ov Lior, an d m any o th e r Tzfia m em ­ bers w ere also p resen t. T he cause they h ad been struggling for h ad finally received full legitim acy. A nd th ere w ere signs th a t the co n v en tio n did n o t displease Israel’s Prim e M in ister Itzhak Sham ir, an ard en t, th o u g h low keyed, n a tio n a list. A p erso n in S h am ir’s office w h o declined to be identified to ld the press, “ If th e R a b b in a te will allow p rayer, n o b o d y is going to b a r it— certainly n o t Sham ir, w h o hopes to see the Israeli flag a to p the Tem ple M o u n t.” 110’ T he g ro w in g d em an d to place th e Tem ple M o u n t u n d er Israeli jurisdiction has led to the esta b lish m en t o f tw o new ventures: R abbi Israel A riel’s M u ­ seum o f the Tem ple an d the M o v em e n t for the R eestablishm ent of the Tem ple. In keeping w ith is belief th a t the gov ern m en t sh o u ld create a huge re­ search center to stu d y all H a la k h ic q uestion s involved in the building o f the T h ird Tem ple, in 1986 R abbi Israel Ariel o p en ed a sm all ex h ib itio n in the Jew ish q u a rte r o f Jerusalem . T he p u rp o se o f the sm all m useum is to d em o n ­ strate to th e v isitor th a t th e Tem ple can in fact be b uilt to d ay an d will include the reestab lish m e n t o f the religious rites as they w ere held over tw o th o u sa n d years ago. T h e ritual in stru m en ts on display have all been p ro d u ced acco rd in g to the law s o f H a la k h a . T he special guide to the m useum points o u t to visitors the relevant T orah p a ra g ra p h s and carefully explains h o w every item w as m an u factu red . A riel’s ho p e is to tu rn this little o n e-ro o m ex h ib itio n ev en tu ­ ally in to a research center th a t will resolve all the un clear aspects of the reestab lish m en t o f th e shrine “ for the glory of G o d .” 111 T he M o v em e n t for the R eestablishm en t o f the Tem ple w as created in 1987 by several religious devotees o f the Tem ple M o u n t w h o w ere u n ab le to w o rk w ith G ersh o n Solom on an d his Tem ple M o u n t Faithful. T he idea of the new g ro u p w as n o t to show the A rabs an d the w o rld th a t the Jews are a ttach ed to th e holy site, b u t instead to prove to o rth o d o x Jew s th a t there is a religious legitim ation for Israel’s co n tro l o f the Tem ple M o u n t an d for the rein statem en t o f p ra y e r there. T he m ovem ent, w hich w as begun by R abbi Yosef E lboim (D avid’s uncle), has n o t staged show y o p eratio n s, b u t has

The Cultural Radicals and the Struggle for the Temple Mount

287

in stead convinced th e police to allow large Jew ish g ro u p s in to th e area. It leaders have also been try in g to o b ta in p erm issio n to p ray th e re .112 T h e w o rst e ru p tio n o n th e Tem ple M o u n t since its 1967 o c c u p a tio n by Israel to o k place o n O c to b e r 8, 1990, d u rin g th e Jew ish h o lid ay o f Succot. A nd as ex p ected th e c u ltu ra l radicals w ere a t th e eye o f th e sto rm . A sym ­ bolic m arch o f th e Tem ple M o u n t F aithful a n d o th e r devotees to w a rd the holy site, w hich w as b a rre d by th e police a t th e last m in u te, created ex trem e a p p reh en sio n a m o n g th e M u slim a u th o ritie s. A call fo r an A rab rally in defense o f H arem -esh -S h e rif w as resp o n d ed to en th u siastically by th o u sa n d s of M oslem s. S oon th e defensive ac t tu rn e d in to offense, w hen th e excited d e m o n stra to rs sta rte d to th ro w rocks a t th e Jew s p ray in g by th e W ailing W all. S uccot usually b rings a reco rd n u m b e r o f w o rsh ip ers to th e holy site, an d well o v er ten th o u sa n d Jew s h a d to escape th e b arrag e. T h e u n p re p a re d an d u n d e rsta ffe d police u n it o n th e m o u n t lo st co n tro l an d o p en ed fire, using live a m m u n itio n . T h e results w ere c a ta stro p h ic . N in eteen P alestinian A rabs died in stan tly an d nearly o ne h u n d re d a n d fifty w ere w o u n d e d . T h e re w as n o w ay for Israel to av o id w o rld w id e c o n d e m n a tio n , an d an im m ed iate A rab d em an d for severe U .N . sa n ctio n s ag a in st Israel. T he d am ag in g effects o f th re e years o f u n resolved in tifa d a , as w ell as o f th e A m erican need to keep its an ti-Iraq i co alitio n from falling a p a rt, tw o m o n th s a fte r S addam H u sse in ’s invasion o f K uw ait, p u t th e Jew ish sta te in a very a w k w a rd in te rn a tio n a l situ atio n . T h e 1990 T em ple M o u n t e ru p tio n w as n o t a ch an ce tu rn o f events. It w as in stead th e logical cu lm in a tio n o f a d ecad e-lo n g process o f Jew ishM oslem c o n fro n ta tio n o n th e holy site. T he 1987 o u tb re a k o f th e in tifa d a has a p p a re n tly n o t s to p p e d th e m o m en tu m o f th e Jew ish struggle o v er the Tem ple M o u n t, b u t, o n th e co n trary , has intensified it. Faced w ith th e u n e x ­ pected P alestinian d e te rm in a tio n to free them selves from the Israelis, the cu ltu ra l ra d ic a ls— like th e rest o f th e radical rig h t— co u ld n o t avoid the con clu sion th a t th e final b a ttle over Eretz Y israel has begun. T h e re w as o bviously no b e tte r tim e to d e m o n stra te th e Jew ish d e te rm in a tio n to keep the H o liest o f H olies forever, an d to pu sh for its pu rificatio n . T h u s, w hile the g o v e rn m e n t o f Israel h as been try in g d esp erately to p rev en t conflict over th e Tem ple M o u n t, fearful o f its in flam m ato ry im p act on the in tifa d a , the cu ltu ral rad icals intensified th e ir involvem ent. An in d ic a tio n o f th e tru e in te n tio n s o f th e cu ltu ra l radicals w as p ro v id ed in A pril 1989 w h en a highly sym bolic o p e ra tio n on th e Tem ple M o u n t, the c o n d u c t o f th e P assover Sacrifice, an an cien t religious rite, w as barely averted. T h e c o n tro v ersial a c t involved no n e o th e r th a n th e th ree m o st devoted cu ltu ra l rad icals, Y ehuda E tzion, R ab b i Israel A riel, Yoel Lerner, an d a few follow ers. An o p e ra tio n o f even g reater sym bolic m eaning, espe­ cially for th e a n x ie ty -rid d e n M oslem a u th o ritie s o f th e H arem -esh-S herif, w as c o n d u c te d few m o n th s la te r— an a tte m p t to lay the fo u n d a tio n sto n e for the T h ird T em ple. T h e fact th a t th e Tem ple M o u n t F aithful w h o w ere responsible fo r th e ac t did n o t ta k e it seriously m ade little difference fo r the

288

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

A rabs. H a rd h it by the trib u la tio n s of the in tifa d a , an d the bad new s of the huge n u m b e r o f incom ing Jew ish im m igran ts from R ussia, th e com m on Palestinians w ere ready to believe anything. An explosion on the Temple M o u n t th u s becam e alm o st inevitable. It is clear th a t the d e te rm in a tio n of the cu ltu ral radicals to place the Tem ple M o u n t in th e h e a rt of the struggle for Eretz Yisrael has been very successful. T he place is to d a y the m o st volatile sp o t in the M iddle East, p erh ap s on E a rth . B oth Jew ish a n d A rab ex trem ists m u st k n o w th a t a single o p e ra tio n in the site can destroy years o f slow an d careful peace process. A nd it is likely th a t som e o f th em will try w hen the tim e arriv es.113

9 The Radical Right, D em ocracy, and Zionism : Past, Present, and the Future

T he em ergence o f rad ical rig h t m o vem ents such as G ush E m u n im , K ach, an d th e ir p a rlia m e n ta ry colleagues has g en erated a m a jo r intellectual c o n tro ­ versy in Israel. M o st o f th e ideologues o f th e new cam p m ain tain th a t they are th e g enuine rep resen tativ es o f p io n eerin g Z io n ism an d o f “Jew ish d e m o c ­ racy,” b u t m any Israelis see th em as hav in g c o n ta m in a te d th e n a tio n an d stain ed its d e m o c ra tic reco rd . Som e critics have even arg u ed th a t th e rad ical right, a n d especially its religious fu n d a m e n ta list w ing, rep resen t a m ajo r d ev iatio n fro m th e Z io n is t ideological an d h u m a n ist h e rita g e .1 T h e re la tio n sh ip o f th e rad ical rig h t w ith m o d ern d em o cratic th o u g h t an d Z io n ism is n o t ju st an acad em ic issue. It is g erm an e to the fu tu re o f Israel’s civic c u ltu re a n d th e e v o lu tio n o f its system o f g o v ern m en t. Is the Israeli rad ical rig h t an ti-d e m o c ra tic ? D oes it pose a real d a n g er to Israel’s system o f g o v ern m en t? D oes its ideology really c o n tra d ic t the “ classical” Z io n ist th o u g h t a n d tra d itio n ? Is th e radical rig h t likely to rem ain an influen­ tial force in Israeli Z io n ism ?

The Radical Right and Israeli Democracy Even a cu rso ry survey o f th e sta te m e n ts o f th e th in k ers an d ideologues o f the rad ical rig h t suggests th a t m o st o f th em realize m any o f th eir beliefs are in co m p atib le w ith m o d e rn d e m o c ra tic p rin cip les, a n d feel uneasy a b o u t it. T his sense o f la te n t gu ilt ind icates a t least a p a rtia l c o m m itm en t to som e d em o cratic ideas a n d practices. T h e real q u estio n , how ever, is, W h a t d ire c­ tio n is this lim ited c o m m itm e n t h eaded? Is it a relic from the p ast, a d w in d lin g h o m ag e to th e v an ish in g p re -1 9 6 7 Israeli o rd er, o r is it an 289

290

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

in d ication o f a gro w in g s u p p o rt for dem ocracy? O n these q u estio n s, the radical rig h t ap p ears to be divided in to tw o cam ps: the relig io u s-o rth o d o x an d th e secular.

The Religious-Orthodox Camp All o rth o d o x religious Jew s, irrespective o f th eir political convictions, be­ lieve in prin cip le in th e fu tu re estab lish m en t in Israel o f a H alak h ic state, a Jew ish theocracy. T h o u g h this state is expected to respect certain d em o cratic principles, its system o f g o v ern m en t w o u ld n o t be d em o cratic an d w o u ld be fo u n d ed on a to tally differen t set o f supp o sitio n s. Like all theocracies, a h alak h ic state presu p p o ses th e existence o f an ab so lu te tru th an d the ability of co m p eten t in dividuals to discern it and to co n d u ct the affairs o f the n atio n in acco rd an ce w ith it. T he p rim ary p u rp o se o f th e Jew ish th eo cracy is to glorify G o d an d ensure th a t H is co m m a n d m e n ts are obeyed. M o st o rth o d o x Jew s p resu p ­ pose th e T orah to be th e existing c o n stitu tio n of the n a tio n an d recognize the long tra d itio n o f its h a la k h ic in te rp re ta tio n as th e stan d in g law o f th e land. For som e it m eans th e division o f th e fu tu re g o v ern m en t betw een a ruling king, a d escen d an t o f th e H o u se o f D avid, an d a S an h ed rin — the suprem e co u rt an d legislative council com posed o f seventy sages. Such a g o v ern m en t w o u ld a lsd give g reat p ro m in en c e to th e central Tem ple in Jerusalem a n d its high p riests.2 W h a t sets the religious w ing o f the Israeli rad ical rig h t a p a rt from o th e r o rth o d o x Jew s is n o t the belief in th e desirability o f a h alak h ic state b u t the insistence on its relevance to th e c u rre n t h istorical reality. H av in g defined the p resen t era as th e age o f heavenly red em p tio n , th e m ajo r th in k ers an d th eo lo g ians of the religious radical rig h t believe th a t the Israeli polity is likely to be tra n sfo rm e d in to the desired Jew ish th eo cracy in the n ear future. M em b ers of th e radical rig h t differ, how ever, as to the n a tu re an d th e tim ing of this tra n sfo rm a tio n . T hree com p etin g in te rp re ta tio n s of these issues dis­ close b etter th a n any o th e r in d icato r th e religious rig h t’s degree o f su p p o rt for dem ocracy. R abbi K ahane to o k an e x trem ist p o sitio n , a version o f w hich is sh ared by a small m in o rity o f th e cu ltu ra l radicals. K ah an e’s ap p rao ch w as ruthlessly logical. It assum ed th a t all the co n d itio n s for a full red em p tio n o f th e n a tio n an d its tra n sfo rm a tio n in to a “ k ingdom o f priests an d holy p e o p le ” are already present. T h e n a tio n , an d especially its leaders w h o refuse to recog­ nize the g reat historical m o m en t, are sinning ag ain st G od. They are illegiti­ m ate u su rp ers and o u g h t to be revealed an d punished. D em ocracy, acco rd in g to K ahane, is a p ro p e r system for som e G entiles, especially for W estern civilization. M o st o f the n atio n s of this civilization em erged n atu rally over a long perio d of tim e. T hey cam e o u t o f tribes an d

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

291

c o n tra c tu a l societies. T h ey eventually reach ed dem ocracy, a n d fo r th em th ere is n o th in g w ro n g in this system o f g o v e rn m e n t.3 T h e case o f th e Jew s is differen t, how ever. T h e Jew ish n a tio n d id n o t evolve n a tu ra lly o u t o f an o b sc u re trib e. It w as chosen by G o d a t a co n rete h isto rical m o m e n t a n d w as m ad e a n a tio n by a u n iq u e c o n stitu tio n , th e T orah, a divine a n d u n c o n d itio n a l in stru m e n t. To be a Jew, K ah an e arg u ed , is to b elong to an u n d e m o c ra tic holy co m m u n ity w h ich n eith er needs legiti­ m atio n fro m th e free w ill o f its in d iv id u al m em b ers n o r seeks it fro m th e co m m u n ity o f n a tio n s. T h u s, a g enuine a n d believing Jew sh o u ld n o w be d ev o ted to on ly o ne public cause, th e d e leg itim izatio n o f th e Israeli regim e a n d th e esta b lish m e n t o f a real “Je w ish ” state. K a h a n e ’s call for th e ex p u lsio n o f A rab s from the H o ly L an d a n d his p re sc rip tio n s for th e h arsh tre a tm e n t o f “ H ellen ized ” an d “ G e n tiliz e d ” Jew s d erived fro m th is d o ctrin e . As w e hav e seen, R ab b i K ah an e did n o t care a b o u t th e w o rld , th e G entiles, o r a n y b o d y w h o is n o t Jew ish. If th e Jew s re p e n t a n d go b ack to G o d , th en th e ir red em p tio n w ill be co m p leted irrespective o f a n y th in g else th a t h a p p e n s in th e w o rld . T h e m a jo rity o f th e c u ltu ra l radicals, th o u g h they accep t m any ten ets o f tra d itio n a l K o o k ism , are ex trem ely critical o f th e acts an d policies o f th e State o f Israel; n o n eth eless, they d o n o t q u estio n its legality, a n d they reco g ­ nize it as th e K ingdom o f Israel in th e m ak in g . T his school is d istin g u ish ed by its co n v ictio n th a t a Jew ish h a la k h ic state m ay be in tro d u c e d g rad u ally th ro u g h specifiable co n crete actio n s. P urgin g th e Tem ple M o u n t a n d re c o n ­ stitu tin g th e S an h ed rin are th e n e x t steps, a n d m ay by them selves raise th e n a tio n to th e h ig h er level o f consciousness necessary fo r th e d esired political tra n sfo rm a tio n . T hese acts, how ever, can only be a u th o riz e d by th e state. In terested in d iv id u al believers m ay ac t in th a t d ire ctio n , p ro v id ed they d o so in a peaceful w ay. T h e p eo p le w h o ta k e this sta n d are n o t ideologically reb el­ lious. T hey believe in e v o lu tio n a n d tru s t G o d th a t th e rig h t events w ill tak e place a t th e rig h t tim e w ith o u t any decisive an tig o v e rn m e n t actio n . O n th e o th e r h a n d , they insist th a t an active h u m a n p a rtic ip a tio n in th e g rad u al esta b lish m en t o f a h a la k h ic sta te is b o th possible a n d desirable. W h a t m akes th e u n reb ellio u s c u ltu ra l rad icals really u n d e m o c ra tic is th e fact th a t th e ir c o m m itm e n t to th e p re se n t Israeli system is very superficial. U nlike K ah an e, they have n o g ra n d th eo ries ex p lain in g w hy W estern d em o c­ racy is irre le v a n t to th e Israeli existence, o r w hy th e Jew s sh o u ld n o t w o rry a b o u t th e G entiles, th e U nited States, o r an y th in g else in th e o u tsid e w o rld . T hey sim ply assum e th a t th e d e m o c ra tic sta tu s q u o is m eaningless an d th a t they d o n o t have to w a ste tim e th in k in g a b o u t it. As for th e A rab q u estio n an d th e m o re general issue o f th e non-Jew s in Israel, they are very close to K a h an e’s p o sitio n o f civil d isc rim in a tio n a n d ev en tu al eviction. T he m ain b o d y o f G ush E m u n im , on th e o th e r h a n d , a n d especially its m o d erate w ing, is closest to th e tra d itio n a l religious a p p ro a c h th a t H a k o l

292

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

tza fu i v eh a resh u t n etu n a (w hile everything is p red eterm in ed , o n e is free to choose). T his assum es th a t th e g ran d developm ents are in th e h an d s o f G od b u t in daily affairs a n d sm all m a tte rs th e believer has to decide an d be held m orally responsible for his decision. T his school differs from th e tra d itio n a l non -m essianic a p p ro a c h , how ever, in its belief th a t th e p eople o f Israel now live in the final stages o f th e age o f red em p tio n an d th a t progress to w a rd a h alak h ic state is inevitable. T h e only concrete p artic ip a tio n is th e process of red em p tio n th a t is reco m m en d ed n o w is an active political struggle against territo ria l concessions an d a c o n sta n t drive to settle th e G reater Eretz Yisrael. T he m o d e ra te p o sitio n no d o u b t reflects a theological u n certain ty reg ard in g th e redem ptive in ten tio n s o f G od , an d an em o tio n al co m m itm en t to the tra d itio n a l Israeli dem ocracy. T h e rab b is an d th eo lo g ian s o f this school are as o rth o d o x a n d religiously o b serv an t as K ahane a n d th e cu ltu ra l radicals, b u t they are n o t as im p atien t. T hey are still g ratefu l to th e secular g o v ern m en t o f Israel for w in n in g the Six-D ay W ar an d d o n o t push fo r a new m iracle. T hey ap p reciate the success of G ush E m unim as a settlem en t m ov em en t an d feel very attach ed to the existing Israeli society. T hey are co m m itted to the K ookist sanctification of the p resen t Israeli regim e, especially its m ilitary. M an y o f th eir leaders ac­ tively p a rtic ip a te in Israeli p ublic affairs and the estab lish ed system is p a rt of th eir ex istential fram e o f reference. T he result o f this dual lo y alty — a belief on the one h a n d in full red em p ­ tion a t the p resen t tim e, an d on th e o th e r a co m m itm en t to the existing Israeli p o w e r s tru c tu re — is a serious theo retical gap. M o st o f th e th in k ers o f G ush E m unim sincerely do n o t k n o w w h a t to say a b o u t the political tra n s ­ fo rm atio n to a H a la k h ic state. W henever asked they argue th a t it is n o t for them , o r fo r any h u m a n agen t, to try an d expose G o d ’s secret p lan . H e will see to th a t th a t all th e co n tra d ic tio n s are resolved in tim e, an d in the m ean ­ tim e th ere are plenty o f o th e r things to w o rry a b o u t an d to do. T his a p p ro a c h to Israeli dem ocracy is ch aracterized by a lim ited alle­ giance to the p resen t system o f g o v ern m en t cou p led w ith an intense involve­ m en t in n a tio n a l politics and p ublic affairs. T h e “ m o d e ra te ” religious ra d i­ cals are interested in th e non-Jew ish w o rld an d are m ore h u m an e to w a rd the A rabs th a n th eir “ ra d ic a l” colleagues. T hey are critical o f the violence o f K ah an e’s su p p o rte rs an d do n o t en dorse his ex trem ist so lu tio n s for the A rab qu estio n. T he A rabs are n o t “ d o g s” o r anim als, th o u g h o f course they d o n o t deserve full political rights. C areful d istin ctio n s m ust be d ra w n , an d only the terro rists an d th e ir accom plices, (a sm all m inority, acco rd in g to the m o d erates), sh o u ld be chased o u t o f th e country. W h a t m akes the “ b u rd e n ” of the dual loyalty o f th e m o d erates so m ew h at easier is th a t the co m m itm en t of m o st Israelis to d em ocracy has never been com plete. Even u n d er n o n ­ religious an d nonm essian ic Israeli regim es, the A rabs never enjoyed full equality, a n d th e Israelis have never been fully co m m itted to the rule o f law. U nder these co n d itio n s of im perfect dem ocracy, a d u al loyalty to tw o p o liti­ cal courses is n o t necessarily a liability.

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

293

The Secular Camp T he secular cam p o f th e Israeli rad ical rig h t does n o t sh are th e religious c a m p ’s belief in a H a la k h ic state, a n d in fact does n o t even give it serious c o n sid e ratio n . Its n e o fu n d a m e n ta lism a n d n e o tra d itio n a lism , w h ich m ak e the p resen t alliance w ith th e o rth o d o x so am iab le a n d h a rm o n io u s, seem to be lim ited to th e u ltra n a tio n a lis m th e tw o p a rtn e rs sh are a n d to th e ir c o m ­ m on in te re st in k eeping E retz Y israel u n div id ed . T eh iy a’s idea o f h o lch im b e y a h a d (going to g eth er) h as created a b e tte r u n d e rsta n d in g an d w o rk in g relatio n sh ip b etw een its secular an d religious activists, b u t it certain ly has n o t ch an g ed th e fu n d a m e n ta l epistem ologies o f eith er side.4 T h ere are m any in d icatio n s th a t th e m o m e n t th e chances for th e esta b lish m en t o f a Jew ish th eo cracy becom e real, th e religious-secular alliance will end. W ith th e ex ­ cep tio n o f th e sm all n u m b e r o f secular activists w h o have been “ b o rn a g a in ,” only very few sh are th e m ystical belief o f th e ir religious p a rtn e rs th a t, as th e ir p riv a te consciousness is tra n sfo rm e d , in due tim e, they will becom e g o o d o rth o d o x Jew s. A lm ost n o n e o f th e secu lar Israeli radicals can , in g o o d conscience, be called fascist in th e h isto rical sense o f th e term . N o n e o f th em despise the p a rlia m e n ta ry system in prin cip le, feel b ad a b o u t th e d ecad en t Israeli b o u r­ geoisie, o r w ish to d o aw ay w ith the general legal o rd e r in fav o r o f som e F ührer P rin zip o r even a Z io n is t d ic ta to rsh ip . M o st o f the secu lar rad ical rig h t is a p ro d u c t o f m any years o f Z io n ist d em o cracy an d th e lack o f an altern ativ e m odel. T h e real challenge o f th e secular radical rig h t to Israel’s system o f g o v e rn ­ m en t is m o re m u n d a n e a n d p ra g m a tic . T his school refuses to p ay h o m ag e to dem o cracy as a u n ive rsa l p rin c ip le o f g o o d g o v ern m en t. It is equally n o t en th u siastic a b o u t th e asso c ia tio n o f dem o cracy w ith a strict in te rp re ta tio n of the rule o f law. T h e S tate o f Israel w as n o t estab lish ed , acco rd in g to the secular radicals, in o rd e r to have a n o th e r d em o cracy u n d e r th e sun. It w as created as a safe h o m e fo r th e Jew s. N o d em o cracy o r a b s tra c t d e m o cratic principles sh o u ld be allo w ed to interfere w ith th e raison d ’être o f the Jew ish sta te — th e survival a n d th e w ell-being o f a large an d secure Israel. A very specific issue d o m in a te s th e th in k in g o f th e secu lar rad ical rig h t an d d eterm in es its view o f Jew ish d em ocracy : the d e m o g rap h ic d a n g er the hostile A rabs po se to Israel, th e possibility th a t by th e end o f th e century, the P alestinian A rabs w ill becom e th e m ajo rity w ith in Israel. T h e re is th erefo re a general consensus a m o n g m any o f th em th a t th e A rabs o f Ju d ea a n d S am aria— te rrito rie s d estin ed to be a n n e x e d to Israel— sh o u ld vote in the Jo rd a n ia n P a rlia m e n t in A m m an ; th a t is, they sh o u ld live in th e Jew ish state b u t have d e m o c ra tic po litical rights in Jo rd a n . A g ro w in g n u m b e r o f th e activists o f this cam p go a step fu rth er. N o t only sh o u ld th e P alestinian A rabs vote in J o rd a n , b u t they sh o u ld also live there. T hese are th e p ro p o n e n ts o f th e idea o f “ tra n s fe r” — a “ civilized e x p u lsio n ” — o f these A rab s to J o rd a n a n d o th e r A rab co u n tries. T h e de-

294

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

m an d th a t th e Israeli A rabs, w h o already have citizenship, be allow ed to keep th eir rights only if fully loyal an d serving in th e arm y is also heard. These p ro p o sitio n s a n d m any o th ers are m ade in the nam e o f the security of Israel an d are n o t perceived by the new radicals as im m oral o r a n ti­ d em o cratic. A typical cliché o f the sp okesperso n s o f the secular radical right is th a t they are n o t an ti-A rab b u t pro-Jew ish. W hile th e a ttitu d e o f th e secular radical rig h t to w a rd Israeli dem ocracy is m uch sim pler an d m o re cohesive th a n th a t of th eir religious colleagues, it is nevertheless possible to identify tw o d ifferen t secular o rie n ta tio n s. Several fo rm er Lehi m em bers o f th e radical rig h t an d th eir follow ers share a ro m a n tic an d m ystical a p p ro a c h to Israeli governm ent. T h e m ain rep resentatives o f this school are D r. Israel E ldad and K nesset m em ber G eula C ohen. T h e key w o rd s o f th e rom an tic-m y stical a p p ro a c h are “ n a ­ tio n ,” “ b lo o d ,” “ L a n d ,” “ g lorious p a s t,” “ th e K ingdom o f Israel,” “ o u r arm y ,” “ th e tra ito r s ,” a n d “ th e leftists.” O n e can d etect in this a p p rao ch som e flavor o f th e ro m a n tic Italian Fascism o f the 1930s, a longing fo r a close in tegral co m m u n ity th a t sticks togeth er, relies on the p o w er o f the sw o rd , a n d lets n o m u n d a n e interests divert it from its sacred calling. Its p ro p o n e n ts are no longer revolu tio n ary , as they w ere in the 1940s, b u t the elem ents o f integral n atio n alism an d tra d itio n alism are still very strong. T he p rag m atic view o f this school reg ard in g Israeli dem ocracy, to w hich they say they are n o w co m m itted , is th a t it can an d sh o u ld be lim ited w henever there is any real th re a t to its security. T he ultim ate co n stitu tio n of Israel sh o u ld be Z io n ism (i.e., th e raison d ’éta t) an d n o t any a b stra c t legal d o cu m en t th a t d raw s on th e experience o f the G entiles. T h e o th e r secular o rie n ta tio n is a security-m inded view o f Israeli d em o c­ racy, m ostly rep resen ted by fo rm er m em bers of the L ab o r m ovem ent (M ap ai, Rafi, an d A ch d u t H a ’avoda) an d th eir successors. M an y o f the p ro p o n en ts o f this line are fo rm er arm y officers o r individuals w h o have been close to the security a p p a ra tu s o f Israel. O th ers are m em bers of k ib b u tzim an d m oshavim w h o believe th a t the real red em p tio n o f Eretz Israel can be achieved only th ro u g h pion eerin g settlem ent, an d th a t a tru n c a te d land in w hich Jew s can ­ n o t fulfill them selves is a sure recipe for a sp iritu al d estru ctio n . T h e general a p p ro a c h o f all these activists is u n so p h isticated an d d ow nto -e arth . It stresses th e fact th a t the Israelis face a very o m in o u s enemy, the A rabs, w h o have never given up on the idea o f driving the Jew s to the sea. All A rabs, acco rd in g to this school, are the sam e, an d it is a grave m istake to distinguish betw een them acco rd in g to n atio n al affiliation o r degrees o f “ m o d e ra tio n .” N o ideology o r ideological co n sid eratio n s are necessary to assure th e fu tu re o f th e n a tio n — sim ply com m o n sense. A nd co m m on sense dictates th a t th e State o f Israel m u st be stro n g an d th a t its dem ocracy should be susp ended if necessary, o r n o t be fully im plem ented. T he sim ilarity betw een this g ro u p ’s view an d th a t o f th eir ro m an tic

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

295

p a rtn e rs ren d ers th e ir asso ciatio n stro n g e r th a n th eir alliance w ith the reli­ gious p a rt o f th e rad ical right. W h a t th en is th e d a n g e r p osed by th e radical rig h t to Israeli dem ocracy? Is th ere in fact such danger? In th e sh o rt ru n , p ro b a b ly very little. Since m o st o f th e new rad icals have n eith er a clear m odel o f an a n ti-d e m o c ra tic po lity n o r co n crete p lan s fo r an im m ed iate tak eo v er, they d o n o t a p p e a a r to pose a serious th re a t to the Israeli system o f g o v e rn m e n t a n d are in fact p a rt o f th e estab lish ed o rd er. T he sm all rad ical m in o rity th a t seriously q u estio n s th e legitim acy o f the state, a n d does so m eth in g a b o u t it, c o n fro n ts n o t only the security agencies of the S tate o f Israel b u t th e h arsh criticism o f its colleagues. T h e re are stro n g in d ic a tio n s, how ever, th a t th e rad ical rig h t’s n a rro w in te rp re ta tio n o f d em o cracy is c o rro d in g Israel’s p o litical c u ltu re ov er tim e. Even th o se rad icals w h o claim to be d e m o c ra ts d o n o t conceal th eir con v ic­ tion th a t d em o cracy is in fe rio r to hig h er collective n o rm s: th e in teg rity o f the land, th e su p rem acy of m any religious law s, a n d th e a p rio ri su p e rio rity o f the Jew ish citizens o f th e state to all o th ers. T h e Van Leer stu d ies a n d the findings o f m any o th e r sch o la rs reg ard in g th e high p ercen tag e o f u n d e m o ­ cratic a ttitu d e s a m o n g Israeli y o u th d o n o t estab lish a u n icau sal relatio n betw een th e ero sio n o f th e Israel’s d em o cratic cu ltu re a n d th e rad ical rig h t, b u t th e c irc u m sta n tia l evidence is o verw helm in g . F or w h o else, if n o t th e radical rig h t, is th e m o st p ro m in e n t ag e n t in p resen t-d ay Israel o f in to le ra n t religious fu n d a m e n ta lism , ex traleg al o p e ra tio n s, an d x en o p h o b ic b eh av io r? In p resen t-d ay Israel, very m uch u n d e r th e influence o f th e rad ical right, discussions tu rn in to d eb ates, d eb ates tu rn in to physical clashes, a n d a n ti­ terro rism d e m o n stra tio n s becom e vio len t raids on in n o cen t A rabs in the streets. T h e re is n o q u estio n th a t th e g ro w in g ex trem ism in Israeli society has been fueled by A rab rad icals, PLO te rro rists, an d th eir su p p o rte rs, a n d by the A rab o p p o n e n ts o f an in d p e n d e n t an d secure Jew ish state. T h e in tifa d a has also play ed an im p o rta n t role in th e rad icalizatio n o f certain Israelis, for it has successfully been p o rtra y e d by th e rad ical rig h t as a n o th e r full-fledged A rab w a r ag a in st th e Jew s. B ut th e issue u n d e r c o n sid e ra tio n is n o t A rab ex trem ism an d violence b u t th e im p a c t o f th e new Jew ish radicalism . F or th e first tw en ty years o f th eir state, th e Israelis w ere able to cope successfully w ith th e A rab desire to d estro y th e ir c o u n try w ith a lm o st no co st to th e ir d em o c ra tic cu ltu re. T his no lo n g er a p p e a rs to be th e case. T h e g ro w th o f th e radical rig h t a n d its p o p u la rity is a serious in d ic a tio n o f th e decline o f Israeli dem ocracy. H a s th e civic o p p o sitio n to th e radical rig h t been m o re attra c tiv e , h a d the m a jo r Israeli p a rtie s been a source o f d em o cratic in sp iratio n an d im ita ­ tio n , th in g s m ig h t have been d ifferent. B ut Israel’s m ain stream leaders are u n in sp irin g . T h ey a n d th e ir p a rtie s are identified w ith th e o v erp o liticizatio n

296

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

of the n a tio n , w ith its huge g o v ernm ental bureaucracy, an d w ith its faltering econom y. It is th erefo re no w o n d e r th a t th e radical right, w hich evokes old them es of p io n eering Z io n ism , is attra ctiv e an d p o p u lar. A nd it is equally n o t su r­ prising th a t in a cu ltu re full o f c a ta stro p h ic m em ories an d no tra d itio n o f dem ocracy, th e a rg u m e n t th a t p lu ra list dem ocracy is in co n sisten t w ith a state of em ergency an d a c o n sta n t w a r is ap p ealing. T he rise an d p o p u larity of the radical rig h t is p ro b a b ly th e m oral an d cu ltu ral price the n a tio n has started to pay for th e c o n tin u a tio n o f th e everlasting conflict w ith the A rabs.

The Radical Right and Classical Zionism As m uch as th e p resen t ideological d eb ate is Israel betw een the rig h t an d th e left revolves a ro u n d th e q u estio n o f dem ocracy, it also touches on th e issue o f Z io n ism . M o st Israelis lo o k a t “ classical Z io n is m ” w ith g reat n ostalgia. T h e ideology a n d p ractice o f th e fo u n d in g fath ers— the leaders an d th in k ers o f th e p re-state y ish u v — are seen as the sources o f all th a t is goo d in th e life of the n atio n . Israel, acco rd in g to this m ythology, w as at its best w hen it w as a sm all Z io n ist com m unity, before it actually becam e the State o f Israel. It is th erefo re only n a tu ra l th a t all th e p arties to the d eb ate refer to classical Z io n ism as a m a jo r source o f political legitim acy an d fight over its exclusive in h eritan ce. T he intellectual co ntro v ersy reg ard in g the “ Z io n ist a u th e n tic ity ” o f th e radical rig h t hinges on tw o sep arate questions: D o m o st of th e ideas o f th e p o s t- 1967 radical rig h t derive from “ classical” Z ionism ? W ere ideas a n d o rie n ta tio n s sim ilar to th e ones held by the p resen t radical rig h t cen tral to th e histo rical drive th a t created th e State of Israel? T h e tw o issues are qualitatively different; one deals w ith ideological co n tin u ity w hile th e o th e r w ith political centrality o f ideas. W hile the sp o k es­ perso n s for th e rad ical rig h t are co rrect a b o u t the first issue, they are w ro n g a b o u t the second. Since b o th q uestions are highly p e rtin e n t for a p ro p e r assessm ent o f th e role o f th e Israeli radical rig h t in over a h u n d re d years o f Z io n ist history, a s h o rt inquiry is in order. W hile the radical rig h t ap p ears to be less d em o cratic th a n m any o f its sp o k espersons claim , its “ classical” Z io n ist credentials seem so m ew h at stronger. M an y of its p o s t-1967 ideas a n d practices o rig in ated w ith several schools th a t existed in Palestinian Z io n ism from the 1920s th ro u g h the 1940s. As w e have seen, fo u r “ classical” schools w ere especially influential: the u ltra n a tio n a lis t tra d itio n o f Uri Zvi G reenberg, B rit H ab irio n im , an d Lehi; th e radical legacy o f V ladim ir Jab o tin sk y an d B etar; the “ ac tiv ist” tra d itio n o f the L a b o r m o vem ent; an d the m essianic teach in g of Rav Avrah am Itzh ak H aco h en K ook. T h e ideological co n n ectio n betw een th e p a st an d the p resen t o f the radical rig h t is m o st d em o n stra b le in the cases o f the Tehiya an d T zo m et. As w e have seen, th e secular sp okespersons of these p arties have n o t really

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

29 7

com e o u t w ith any “ n ew Z io n is m .” D r. Israel E ldad, G eula C o h en , Yuval N e ’em an , E p h ra im B en-H aim , E lyakim H aetzn i, R afael E itan , an d o th e r less recognized m em bers in th e tw o p a rtie s m ay be ad d ressin g new issues b u t they sp eak an o ld language. T h e experiences o f B rit H a b irio n im , B etar, Etzel, Lehi, a n d th e L a b o r activism o f th e 1930s an d 1940s are n o t cherish ed by these p eo p le as o n ly p recio u s relics o f th e p ast, b u t also as ideological guidelines fo r th e fu tu re. T h e B ritish m ay have left a n d the n a tio n lib era te d , yet m o st o th e r o rig in al goals o f Z io n ism have n o t been fulfilled. T h e struggle for E retz Y israel is going o n m o st ferociously, a n d Jew s are being killed in th eir o w n lan d . T h e g re a te r E retz Y israel is in need o f m o re defense, m o re settlem ent, a n d m o re A liya. U nder these co n d itio n s th ere is no reaso n to fold the o ld flags; o n th e c o n tra ry , ag a in st th e com p lacen cy o f the p re se n t g en era­ tio n th e flying is as relev an t as ever. U nlike th e late Eliezer Livneh w h o realized th a t th e results o f th e Six-D ay W ar called for a re fo rm u la tio n o f classical Z io n ism , th e ideologues o f th e Tehiya a n d T z o m e t are very c o m fo rta b le w ith th e o ld p arad ig m s. T h e ir fo rm ative years have a p p a re n tly left th em w ith such an im p rin t th a t they see no need fo r change. A nd it c a n n o t be denied th a t this o rie n ta tio n is also a source o f g re a t stre n g th . If th e fo rm u la w o rk e d in th e d a rk p a st, th ere is no reaso n in th e w o rld th a t it sh o u ld n o t w o rk now . T h e single ideological difference b etw een th e p a st an d th e p resen t, th a t does ex ist, is th e ab ility o f th e v ario u s schools w ith in th e Tehiya an d T z o m e t to w o rk to g e th e r p ractically a n d intellectually. T h is w as h a rd ly th e case in the 1940s. T h e re la tio n sh ip s b etw een th e u ltra n a tio n a lis t believers o f the K ingdom o f Israel sch o o l, w h o follow ed A b ra h a m Stern in to Lehi, Ja b o tin sky’s devotees w h o joined Etzel, a n d th e L a b o r activists o f th e P alm ach, w ere very stra in e d . M o s t o f th em saw all th e o th e rs as tra ito rs, an d w ere ready to fight th e m to o th a n d nail. In this respect, a m a jo r ideological tra n sfo rm a tio n has indeed ta k e n place, a n d it m ostly involves th e M a lc h u t Y israel u ltra n a tio n a lists an d fo rm er B etar m em bers. B oth a d m it to d a y th a t th ey w ere w ro n g a b o u t L a b o r settlem en t a n d L a b o r activism , a n d th a t w ith o u t L a b o r Z io n ism n o t a single goal o f classical Z io n ism co u ld have been achieved. But this ad m issio n does n o t a m o u n t to a full rejectio n o f p a s t ideas, only to som e re fo rm u la tio n . T h u s, th e o ld rad ical rig h t is m uch less fascist th a n in th e p a st, a n d also m uch less a n ti-L a b o r. B ut it is as u ltra n a tio n a lis t as ever, m o re an ti-A rab , an d lives a lto g e th e r w ell w ith in th e old ideological fram ew o rk s. T h e re is n o q u e stio n th a t R eh a v am Z e ’evi’s call fo r a “ tra n s fe r” h as been triggered by th e g ro w in g ap p eal o f R ab b i K a h a n e ’s th eo ries in th e 1980s. Yet, th e idea o f tra n sfe r h as m uch deep er Z io n ist ro o ts. As w e have seen, the co n cep t o f tra n sfe r w as first used in th e seco n d h a lf o f th e 1930s, in relatio n to th e p la n to p a rtitio n P alestine. In th e 1940s it m ay n o t have been a leading M a p a i co n cep t, b u t it w as p a rt o f th e Z io n ist lexicon o f th e tim e. T h e secret com m ittee th a t w as p u t to g e th e r d u rin g th e W ar o f Ind ep en d en ce, by Joseph W eitz, th e h e a d o f th e Jew ish N a tio n a l F u nd, in o rd e r to m ak e sure th e

298

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

P alestinian refugees did n o t re tu rn , w as k n o w n as the “ tra n sfer co m m it­ te e .” 5 Z vi S hiloah, the rad ical ideologue w h o rein tro d u ced the idea o f tra n s­ fer in his b o o k , A G re a t L a n d fo r a G re a t P eople, an d w h o rem in d ed Z e ’evi of it in the m id -1 9 8 0 s, did n o t need R abbi K ahane to learn from . H e w as a m em ber o f th e old g e n eratio n w h o knew the term firsthand. A retrospective ex a m in a tio n o f Z io n ist p re w a r policy to w a rd the Pales­ tin ian A rabs lends co n sid erab le s u p p o rt for the claim o f the Israeli radical right, especially th e leaders o f M o led e t, th a t they have n o t created a new ideology. T he a rg u m e n t o f th e radicals is th a t th o se L ab o r leaders w h o in the 1930s forcefully o p p o se d th e p o w e r a p p ro a c h o f th e rig h t to w a rd the A rabs, an d in the 1940s rejected th e n o tio n o f tran sfer, w ere n o t fully h o n est, an d in any event failed th eir o w n test in 1948. L a b o r activists, they say w ith som e justification, w ere as b ru ta l to w a rd th e A rabs as the right, an d if they differed w ith Jabo tin sk y , Raziel, Stern, an d Begin reg ard in g the m eth o d s of an it-A rab struggle, th e difference w as tactical. T h e radical rig h t rem inds us th a t alth o u g h th e leaders o f M a p a i w ere very careful n o t to speak in public a b o u t tran sfer, m any o f th em w ere overjoyed w h en it actually to o k place in 1948, an d co n sidered it one o f th e g reatest m iracles o f th a t w a r.6 M o st stu d en ts of G ush E m unim agree to d ay th a t R abbi Z vi Y ehuda K ook, the m e n to r o f th e m o v em en t’s fo u n d in g fath ers, significantly deviated from his fa th e r’s com prehensive religious p h ilo so p h y ; th a t he “ n a tio n a l­ ized ” it, n a rro w e d it d o w n , an d chose to ignore m any o f its universalistic asp ects.7 B ut very few argue th a t G ush E m unim can be sep arated from the legacy of M e rk a z H arav, an d from the p h ilo so p h y o f R av K ook. In fact, n o t a single critic o f G ush E m unim denies th a t the b o o k s o f R abbi K ook, the father, are th e p rim ary m o d ern c an o n o f the m ovem ent, a source o f c o n sta n t in sp iratio n an d in te rp re ta tio n . If R abbi A vraham Itzh ak H aco h en K ook is classical Z io n ism , an d he is, then G ush E m unim is clearly ro o te d in classical Z ionism . Like the political ideas o f the Tehiya, T zo m et, an d M o led et, the ideology o f th e m essianic m o v em en t o f the settlers in Ju d ea an d S am aria is n o t new an d original. M an y o f its concepts an d m uch o f th eir su b stan ce go back to th e days o f th e yishuv. To argue oth erw ise is to confuse ideas w ith social forces an d to m isrep resen t the case. Z io n ism , it is im p o rta n t to rem em ­ ber, never w as a m o nistic ideological m ovem en t n o r did it have an “ official” version. T here w ere alw ays sev e ra l Z io n ist schools, an d som e of th em w ere qu ite radical. T h e only school o f the new radical rig h t th a t has no ro o ts in Z io n ist history, eith er in th o u g h t o r actio n , is R abbi K ah an e’s radicalism . To be sure, even R abbi K ahane tried over th e years to look for ideological legitim ation in classical Z io n ism a n d repeatedly referred to V ladim ir Jab o tin sk y as his g reat source o f in sp iratio n . Som e o f his early w ritings are also full o f glorifi­ catio n of D avid Raziel an d A b rah am Stern, the Jew ish rebels w h o did n o t hesitate to defy the B ritish an d the Z io n ist official leadership an d in tro d u ce an ti-A rab te rro rism in to Palestine.8 B ut a close scrutiny of K ah an e’s th o u g h t clearly show s th a t he is n eith er a follow er of Jab o tin sk y n o r of Raziel, Stern

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

299

o r th e y o u n g Begin, a n d th a t th e ir n am es a n d actio n s have a t m o st been used as b u ild in g blocks in th e R a b b i’s id io sy n cratic theology. K ah an e w as u n ­ d o u b ted ly a p o s t- 196 7 ideologue w h o se ideas a n d p o litical so lu tio n s w ere to tally alien to all schools o f classical Z io n ism . W hile th e claim o f th e rad ical rig h t fo r Z io n ist a u th e n tic ity c a n n o t be dis­ p u ted , its o th e r claim , th a t its ideas w ere cen tral to th e actu al c reatio n o f th e Jew ish state, can. T h e in d iv id u als involved m ay have m ade g reat p erso n al sacrifices to w h a t they believed w as th e struggle fo r in d ep en d en ce, yet th e ir ideas a n d m o v em en ts only m ad e a m arg in al difference. T h e u ltra n a tio n a lis t ad h eren ts o f th e K ingdom o f Israel, fo r ex am p le, w h o are very vocal today, rep resen ted in th e 1930s a very sm all m inority. T hey only fo rm ed a fringe circle w ith in th e R evisionist m o v em en t, a g ro u p V lad im ir Ja b o tin sk y co u ld h ard ly stan d . W h en they follo w ed A b ra h a m Stern to th e Lehi u n d e rg ro u n d , the tru e believers o f th e old rad ical rig h t to o k an u tm o st p erso n al risk, b u t they acted in th e n am e o f h isto rically irrelev an t ideas. L ong after it becam e clear th a t th e critical b a ttle fo r Eretz Y israel w o u ld be fo u g h t betw een th e Jews a n d th e A rab s, Lehi believed th a t th e A rabs co u ld be m ad e friends, an d th a t th e B ritish w ere th e m ain enem y. T h e rig h t w in g o f Lehi, led by D r. E ldad w as very slow o n giving u p its n eo-fascist fascin atio n , an d even a fte r the esta b lish m en t o f th e Jew ish state c o n tin u e d to believe in p olitical te rro rism . But in th e 1940s a n d 1950s J a b o tin s k y ’s B etar stu d en ts w ere also q u ite m arg in al. F ollo w in g th e ir le a d e r’s cessation from m ain stream Z io n ism , they refused to w o rk w ith th e o rg an ized yishuv. C on v in ced th a t co m p lex p olitical p ro b le m s co u ld be solved by m ilitary m eans, they invested all th eir efforts in fighting th e B ritish. A t th e critical d ecad e th a t preceded in d e p e n ­ dence, they did n o t p a rtic ip a te in p io n eerin g settlem en ts, m ad e a m in o r c o n trib u tio n to illegal A liya, w ere n o t involved in the g re a t d ip lo m atic struggle for th e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e state, a n d w ere u n p re p a re d m ilitarily to m eet th e m a jo r challenge o f th e decade, th e A rabs. Etzel fighters m ay have been in stru m e n ta l in d riv in g th e B ritish o u t o f Palestine, yet they to o k no p a rt in forging th e p o litical in stitu tio n s o f the Jew ish state in th e m a k ­ ing, a n d o p p o se d th e 1947 U .N . P a rtitio n R eso lu tio n , w hich m ad e the esta b lish m en t o f th a t sta te possible. T h e only fu tu re rad icals w h o play ed a significant role in the critical 1940s, a n d w h o w ere essential for th e esta b lish m en t o f Israel, w ere M a p a i activists, a n d th e follow ers o f Itz h ak T aben k in . B ut th e ir p o litical an d m ili­ tary activism w as never ideological, a n d in th e 1940s it w as n o t p u t a t the service o f th e u n ru ly ideologues o f Etzel a n d L ehi.9 T h e la b o r activists w ere very carefully c o n tro lle d by th e L a b o r p ra g m a tists, first am o n g w h o m w as D avid B en-G urion. It is n o t a coincidence th a t these activists m ade up the yish u v ’s special o p e ra tio n u n its, w hich acted ag ain st the excesses o f th e old radical rig h t in tim e o f n e e d .10 T h e H o lo c a u st, th e 1948 p a rtitio n o f Palestine, th e esta b lish m en t o f a p a rlia m e n ta ry d em o cracy in Israel, a n d th e need for u n g lo rio u s so lu tio n s for

300

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

the p ro b lem s o f a yo u n g state, m ade the ideas o f the radical rig h t historically obsolete. In the 1950s an d 1960s very few Israelis spoke the language o f the g reater Eretz Y israel. It w as clear th a t the few follow ers o f the K ingdom of Y israel school h ad no chance in n a tio n a l politics. F o rm er activists of Betar, now H e ru t p a rty m em bers, h a d discovered the virtues o f p arlia m e n ta ry dem ocracy an d consistently m oved aw ay from ex trem ist u ltran a tio n alism . P arliam entary dem o cracy w as in, th e radical rig h t w as o u t.

The Radical Right Returns to History T he Six-D ay W ar ch anged Israel’s geopolitical p arad ig m an d cu ltu ral ecol­ ogy. T h e w a r p ro d u c e d a m a jo r te rrito ria l ex p an sio n , an act view ed until 1967 as to tally u nrealistic. A nd it began a n d ended in a w ay th a t m ade m essianic religious th in k in g a n d u ltra n a tio n a list d ay d ream in g seem credi­ ble. T h e w a r w as first an d fo rem o st a glorious event of m ythic p ro p o r­ tio n s, involving b lo o d , valor, solidarity, an d soil. It could be seen as a heavenly m essage from G od. In one stro k e it m ade th e rig h t’s tra d itio n a l g ran d vision histo rically relevant. It w as th erefo re only a m a tte r o f tim e before the positive in gredients o f Israel’s new right-w ing rad icalism — p a trio tism , m ilitarism , u ltra n a tio n a lism , te rrito ria l ex p an sio n ism , an d n eo ­ religiosity— p ro d u c e d political m ovem ents. But at first th ere w as still one elem ent m issing for the co n su m m atio n of a fully a rtic u la te d rad ical right: the negative sy n d ro m e— bitterness, alien ­ atio n , an d rejection o f p lu ra list dem ocracy. T he g reat 1967 victory w as achieved n o t by a Jew ish S p arta b u t by an Israeli A thens. T he regim e th a t w on the w a r an d in stan tly acq u ired g reat fam e an d prestige w as o pen, d em o cratic, p rag m atic , and relatively pluralist. T h ere w as consequently no im m ediate h isto rical urge to challenge the prevailing political system . This is the reason w hy the early vision o f m o st of th e fu tu re radicals, th e new te rrito ria l m ax im alists o f th e L and o f Israel M o v em en t an d th e fu n d a ­ m entalists o f G ush E m unim , w as relatively o p en , d em o cratic, a n d o p tim is­ tic. T his openness an d to le ra tio n n o w seem especially conspicuous in rela­ tio n to the A rabs o f th e o ccupied territo ries. T h e individual Palestinians o f the W est B ank w ere h onestly invited to tak e p a rt in building the new Israeli em pire. M o st o f th e m em bers o f the L and o f Israel M o v em en t agreed w ith Eliezer Livneh th a t th e A rabs sh o u ld get full political rights in th e Jew ish State. A nd the K ookists o f M e rk a z H a ra v offered a very liberal in te rp re ta ­ tion o f th e H a la k h ic co n cep t o f alien residency, including th e possibility th a t the fully loyal Palestinians w o u ld be m ade equal citizens o f the Jew ish polity. Betw een 1967 an d 1973, it w o u ld have m ade n o sense to raise questio n s a b o u t the excessive openness o f Israel’s D eclaratio n o f Independence o r o th e r social an d political n o rm s th a t h ad becom e p a rt o f the ra th e r p lu ra lis­ tic Israeli political culture. T h e m issing ingredients w ere first a p p a re n t after the d isa p p o in tm e n t o f

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

301

the 1973 Yom K ip p u r W ar a n d th e rise o f p o p u la r resen tm en t to w a rd th e Israeli to p echelon. T hey w ere au g m e n te d after th e 1978 “ b e tra y a l” o f M en ach em Begin a t C am p D avid. T h e m ain reaso n th e rad ical rig h t w as n o t fully active before 1978 h a d to do w ith th e belief th a t M en ach em Begin a n d his H e ru t p a rty also com pletely su p p o rte d th e idea o f th e g re a te r E retz Y israel, since th e H e ru t p a rty w as alw ays stro n g in u ltra n a tio n a lis t rh eto ric. M en ach em Begin h a d m ade a career o u t o f e m o tio n a l a n d sym bolic speeches full o f g lo rificatio n o f th e lan d in its entirety, th e m ilitary, a n d Jew ish tra d itio n . A nd he also played o n the M a ssa d a c o m p le x — th e iso la tio n o f Israel an d the w o rld ’s u n en d in g an ti-S em itism .11 B ut th ere w as a n o th e r side to Begin, th a t o f th e legal p o litican an d statesm an , w hich th e fu tu re rad icals refused to see. F u rth e rm o re , n o b o d y expected E g y p t’s p re sid e n t, A n w a r al-S ad at, o r any A rab lead er for th a t m atter, to com e to Jeru salem . T h u s, in th e m id -1 9 7 0 s Begin criticized th e w eak c a b in e t o f Itz h a k R ab in a n d s u p p o rte d th e illicit settlem en t drives o f G ush E m unim . T h e C am p D avid A ccords sh a tte re d th e illusions of th e w o u ld -b e ra d i­ cals. B egin’s “ b e tra y a l” ex p o sed th e o th e r side o f this m an an d his politics, his desire fo r peace a n d his readiness to sacrifice “ u n e sse n tia l” p a rts o f E retz Yisrael to achieve it. It fu rth e r revealed th e g ro w in g p ra g m a tism a n d p a rlia ­ m en tarism o f H e ru t, w h ich since th e m id -1 9 5 0 s h a d been slow ly m ov in g to the c e n te r.12 A nd it sh o w ed th a t som e elem ents o f Ja b o tin s k y ’s fam ed lib era l­ ism an d h u m a n ism , like his w illingness to recognize th e h u m a n ity o f th e A rabs a n d his resp ect for th e law, w ere n o t fo rg o tten by his m o st celeb rated successor. C am p D avid left a po litical v acu u m in Israel th a t w as filled by th e ex trem e right. T h is w as a g ro u p m ade up o f old a n d y o u n g rad icals w h o w ere d istru stfu l o f th e A rab s, u n a b le to believe th a t th e w o rld w as no lo n g er an tiSem itic, a n d u n w illin g to give up th e d ream o f an Israeli em pire. T h e rad ical rig h t b o lstered its im age as a realistic p a rty w ith po litical facts o f life. S ad at w as th e ex cep tio n ra th e r th a n th e rule a m o n g A rab leaders. N o o th e r A rab g o v ern m en t publicly ex pressed its readiness to m ak e peace w ith Israel. F u r­ th erm o re th e w o rld , w ith th e ex cep tio n o f th e U nited S tates, w as lu k ew arm to w a rd th e C am p D avid ag reem en t. A nd w h ereas Israel h a d su rren d ere d te rrito ry w ith v alu ab le m ateria l resources, it w as S ad at, n o t Begin, w h o earn ed th e g reatest k u d o s. T h e c o n trib u tio n o f G u sh E m unim to th e rise o f th e rad ical rig h t a n d to its p u b lic resp ectab ility c a n n o t be ex ag g erated . In a d d itio n to th e m o v e­ m e n t’s g re a t ideological ap p eal for Z io n ist religious Jew s an d n a tio n a list circles, G ush E m u n im in th e 1970s to u c h e d a very sensitive c o rd in the Israeli collective psyche, th e cherished m em o ry o f Z io n ist settlem en t an d pio n eering. V eteran settlem en t activists, an d m any o th ers w h o h ad com e in to p u b lic life th ro u g h th e m odel o f Z io n ist p io n eerin g , saw in G ush

302

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Em unim the reb irth o f th eir glorious youth. T he G ush youngsters w ere the “ g en u in e” Israelis, th e individuals w h o h ad revived the real Z io n ist ideal of pio n eering an d n a tio n a l fulfillm ent in a m aterialistic an d d ecad en t age. S tarting in 1974, they flew th e flag of Z io n ism sky-high, just as the n atio n w as u n d erg o in g a very severe p o s t—Yom Ki-pper tra u m a an d w hen Z ionism w as being eq u ated w ith racism in the U nited N a tio n s an d all over th e w orld. A nd w hile all the o th e r c o m p o n en ts o f th e rad ical rig h t w ere w o rk in g in o rd er to b lo ck new o p p o rtu n itie s an d developm ents (C am p D avid, the extension of the peace process, a m o re com plete in teg ra tio n o f the A rabs in Israeli society, etc.), the G ush em erged in o rd e r to build, to create, an d to e x p an d the b o rd ers of Z io n . G ush E m unim b estow ed Z io n ist legitim acy u p o n the new radical rig h t w hich th e old u ltra n a tio n a lis t school o f Uri Zvi G reen b erg an d Israel E ldad h a d never had. It m ade th e difference betw een m arginality a n d cen tral­ ity. A nd its genuine pion eerin g spirit m ade it possible for the new cam p to claim th a t it w as th e tru e in h e rito r o f th e m ost glorious Z io n ist tra d itio n , th a t o f settlem ent, self defense, an d self-fulfillm ent. It is ra th e r risky to speculate w h a t w o u ld have h ap p en ed to the radical rig h t h ad th e G ush n o t b ro u g h t the settlem en t issue to the center stage of Israel’s collective consciousness. It ap p ears, how ever, th a t alth o u g h som e u ltra n a tio n a lis t resistance to th e C am p D avid accords w o u ld have been solidi­ fied, it w o u ld have been extrem ely w eak, p ro b a b ly lim ited to a few veteran ex trem ists o f the rig h t an d d isa p p o in te d m ilitary officers. T h e appeal o f G ush E m unim , w hich has never p o rtra y e d itself as an an ti-d em o cratic m ovem ent, seems to have m ad e it possible for m any Israelis to reverse th eir grow ing co m m itm en t to p lu ra list d em ocracy an d new ly a d o p te d values such as to le r­ ance, m in o rity rights, an d the rule o f law. T he radical rig h t p eak ed d u rin g th e g reat settlem en t years 1 9 7 9 —1984, w hich w ere also th e years of the L ebanon W ar an d the g ro w th o f A rabJew ish friction th ro u g h o u t th e entire Eretz Yisrael. R eality in th o se years seem ed to be follow ing th e scenarios o f the radical right, an d its analysis ap p eared as convincing as ever. A lthough the C am p D avid A ccords w ere n o t reversed as th e extrem e rig h t w ished, th ere w as tre m en d o u s progress in the fulfillm ent o f th e G re a te r Eretz Yisrael idea. In 1980, on th e initiative o f G eula C oh en , Jerusalem w as officially a n ­ nexed to Israel by a K nesset basic law. A sim ilar a n n ex atio n o f th e G o lan H eights to o k place less th a n a year later. T he W est Bank w as op en ed for m assive Jew ish settlem en t, an d the possibility of its fu tu re an n ex atio n lo o k ed bright. W hile th e L ikud could n o t be fully tru sted , because o f the original sin of C am p D avid an d its d eterm in ed 1982 evacu atio n o f Y am it, there w ere clear signs in its councils o f an im p o rta n t political reco n sid era­ tion. D eterm ined to u n d erm in e th e n eg o tiatio n s on the A u to n o m y Plan in the W est B ank, M enachem Begin inten tio n ally stalled on th e talks w ith Egypt, thereb y causing M oshe D ayan an d Ezer W eizm an, the tw o architects of C am p D avid, to resig n .13

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

303

T h e 1981 c a b in e t h a d tw o stau n c h h aw k s, Ariel S h aro n a n d Itzh ak Sham ir, as Israel’s m inisters o f defense an d foreign affairs respectively. T he assassin atio n o f E g y p t’s p re sid e n t S ad at in N o v e m b e r 1981 an d th e signifi­ ca n t “ c o o lin g ” o f th e peace w ith E gypt w ere perceived by th e rad ical rig h t as very blessed signs. T h e re w as, they believed, a serious ch an ce th a t th e L ikud w as “ re p e n tin g .” In a d d itio n to th e n o -c o n stra in ts policy re g ard in g the settlem ent o f Ju d e a , S am aria, a n d G aza, th e g o v ern m en t p o u re d large am o u n ts o f m oney in to th e occu p ied te rrito rie s. A nd it did so m eth in g even G ush E m unim co u ld n o t acco m p lish , in itiatin g a m assive, heavily sub sid ed h o u sin g a n d se ttle m e n t p ro g ra m , th ereb y m ak in g th e v en tu re a ttra c tiv e to m iddle-class Israelis seeking spacio u s yet a ffo rd ab le h ousing. T he 1982 L e b an o n W ar stren g th en ed th e em erging alliance b etw een th e radical rig h t a n d th e rad icalizin g L ikud. T h e w a r w as th e c u lm in atio n o f the g ro w in g conflict b etw een Israel a n d th e PLO m in istate in L eb an o n . It also becam e th e m eeting g ro u n d betw een th e tw o cam ps. A p a rt from its general su p erh aw k ish p o sitio n on security, th e rad ical rig h t h a d a special vested in terest in th e d e stru c tio n o f th e g ro w in g P alestinian m enace in L eb an o n . As the Jew ish settlem en t o f th e W est B ank intensified, it becam e clear to the leading p ro p o n e n ts o f th e G re a te r Eretz Y israel th a t only th e PL O co u ld stop c o n tin u e d settlem en t. By th e early 1980s the PL O h a d been slow ly tak in g ro o t in th e W est B ank a n d in leading th e an ti-Israeli struggle th e re .14 Yuval N e ’em an , th e m o st strateg ic lead er o f th e radical rig h t, w as a stro n g a d v o cate o f a m assive Israeli o p e ra tio n in L eb an o n long b efo re it actually to o k p la c e .15 It w as th erefo re n o t su rp risin g th a t the Tehiya p a rty joined th e L ikud co alitio n in th e su m m er o f 1982, less th a n th ree m o n th s after its th re e K nesset m em bers w ere forcefully ev acu ated from Y am it. A nd for m any o f th e religious rad icals, th e Israeli co n q u ests in so u th e rn L eb an o n w ere m o re th a n just c a p tu re d enem y territory . T hey w ere old H eb rew lan d s th a t h a d belonged to th e tribes o f A sher a n d N a fta li, p a rt o f th e P rom ised Land. T h e L e b an o n W ar, as is clear now , w as a g re a t failure, an d n o t th e least of its victim s w as M en ach em Begin, th e p rim e m in ister him self. But th e radical rig h t a n d th e settler co m m u n ity benefited from every m o n th o f its p ro lo n g a tio n . F rom 1982 to 1985, a lm o st no o n e p aid a tte n tio n to th e creeping a n n e x a tio n o f Ju d e a a n d S am aria. W orld a tte n tio n w as focused o n L eb an o n, a n d little p ressu re w as placed o n Israel reg ard in g th e settlem en t in the territo rie s. B itter a b o u t its leftist critics a t h o m e an d a b ro a d , th e besieged L ikud m oved closer to its n a tu ra l allies from th e rig h t, rad icalizin g its antiA rab a n d a n ti-left rh e to ric . By 1984 th ere w as h ard ly any difference b e­ tw een th e tw o cam ps. T he ap p eal o f th e rad ical rig h t to m any Israelis w as fu rth e r in v ig o rated betw een 1979 a n d 1984 by th e in tensificatio n o f A rab-Jew ish friction. T he 1978 o p en in g o f th e W est B ank fo r Jew ish settlem en t, regardless o f region

304

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

an d density o f local p o p u la tio n , soon resulted in m any violent exchanges. Since th e late 1970s th e n u m b e r o f anti-Jew ish o p eratio n s increased d ra m a ti­ cally, an d w hile m o st acts o f ro ad -b lo ck in g an d ro ck -th ro w in g w ere hardly rep o rted , several te rro r o p e ra tio n s th a t involved the killing o f Jew s w ere in stru m en tal in d ra m a tiz in g th e “ viciousneSs” o f the Palestinians. T he arg u ­ m en t th a t th e g o v ern m en t w as n o t sufficiently d eterm in ed in its defense of its p io n eerin g em issaries in th e W est B ank w as m uch h eard th ro u g h o u t n a tio n a list circles. A so m e w h a t differen t process, w hich also b o lstered the radical rig h t’s p o p u larity, w as th e g ro w in g anim osity betw een Israeli A rabs an d Jews w ith in the G reen Line. P art o f this process h ad to do w ith the increasing “ P alestin izatio n ” o f th e Israeli A rabs in the 1970s, the g ro w in g identifica­ tio n w ith the PLO , a n d th e intensifying resen tm en t to w a rd th e Israeli order. A n o th er fa c to r involved shifts in the la b o r m a rk e t an d th e increasing p re s­ ence in Israel o f m any w o rk e rs from th e occupied territo ries. T h e in cid en t th a t o pened the new era in Jew ish-A rab relations inside Israel p ro p e r w as th e 1976 L and Day. An A rab d e m o n stra tio n ag ain st offi­ cial lan d confiscations in the low er G alilee tu rn e d violent; six d em o n strato rs w ere killed, a n d dozens o f A rab p ro te sters an d Jew ish police officers w ere w o u n d ed . E x trem ist A rab o rg an izatio n s like the Sons of the Village arose, an d several A rab stu d e n t g ro u p s fully end o rsed the PLO p latfo rm . P erhaps th e g reatest beneficiary o f th e new friction w as R abbi M eir K ahane, w h o h a d arg u ed all alo n g th a t th e Israeli A rabs w ere th e real “ can cer.” B ut th e rad ical rig h t’s arg u m en ts th a t Eretz Y israel w as indivisi­ ble, an d th a t Israeli A rabs an d W est B ank Palestinains w ere all alike, also gained credibility. T h e p ercep tio n o f a g ro w in g A rab m enace w as fu rth er ‘increased by the b rittle econom ic situ a tio n in th e early 1980s. T h e ready availability o f cheap A rab lab o r, m ostly from G aza an d th e W est B ank, begun to play a significant psychological role w hen th e Israeli econom y started to suffer from hyperinfla­ tion. T he readiness o f A rabs to w o rk for dism al w ages created resentful an x iety am o n g th e w eak est stra tu m o f Israel’s w o rk ers, the residents of devel­ o p m e n t to w n s an d u rb a n slum s. T he pro b lem w as n o t so m uch one o f lack o f jobs o r u n em p lo y m en t as a qu estio n o f dignity an d self-respect. W hile w ages an d salaries in all econom ic levels w ere co n sta n tly being raised, low -paying jobs did n o t resp o n d to inflation in the sam e way. W ages th a t w ere never indexed, an d th e av ailability o f cheap, un co m p lain in g , an d u n -unionized A rab lab o r, m ade it unnecessary for em ployers to raise th eir pay for Jew s.16 T his created a g ro w in g fru stra tio n am o n g p o o r Jew ish w o rk ers, w h o h ad never previously h a d any d o u b t regarding th eir su p erio rity to the A rabs. A rab c o m p etitio n in o th e r areas like vegetable an d flea m ark ets ad d ed oil to the fire, an d a n ti-A rab anim osity w as fu rth er fueled by the ideological rh eto ric o f th e tim e. In th e early 1980s Israel’s d ev elopm ent to w n s an d u rb a n slum s h a d n o t only becom e a h o tb e d for an ti-A rab sen tim en t b u t also for a n ti­ left h a tre d . T h e leftists an d o th e r o p p o n e n ts of the L ebanon W ar w ere seen as

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

305

n o t being real Israelis. T hey w ere tra ito rs, “ A ra b -lo v e rs,” even “ P L O e rs.” In 1984, th e Tehiya becam e Israel’s th ird -la rg e st party, R abbi M eir K ah an e w as elected to th e K nesset, a n d “ K a h a n ism ” becam e w id e sp re a d — all in d icatio n s o f th e success o f th e rad ical rig h t a n d its g ro w in g ap p eal. By th e m id -1 9 8 0 s th e rad ical rig h t h a d becom e a legitim ate p a rt o f th e Israeli political landscape. T h e 1984 c re a tio n o f th e first u n ity co alitio n betw een th e L ikud a n d L a b o r forced th e ideologically c o m m itted Yuval N e ’em an , G eula C o h e n , a n d th e ir colleagues to stay in o p p o sitio n , b u t it d id n o t red uce th e ir p o p u la rity o r h isto rical relevancy. T h e re w ere no in d ica­ tions th a t th e Israeli rule o f th e occu p ied te rrito rie s w as n earin g its en d , a n d the E retz Y israel rh e to ric o f th e L ikud w as as intense as ever. Israel’s eco ­ nom ic refo rm s a n d th e L ik u d ’s co alitio n ag reem en t w ith L a b o r h a d been resp o n sible fo r a g re a t re d u c tio n in b u d g ets fo r new settlem en ts, b u t th e existing ones grew u n h in d e re d . It w as th erefo re no su rp rise th a t th e rad ical rig h t did w ell in th e 1988 n a tio n a l elections an d th a t th e n u m b e r o f its d irect rep resen tativ es increased from 5 to 7 p e rc e n t o f K nesset m em bers. H a d R abbi K ah an e n o t been disqualified ju st b efore th e elections, th e u ltra ­ n a tio n a lists m ig h t w ell have c o n tro lle d a t least 10 p ercen t o f th e H o u s e .17

The Radical Right and the From Shock to Recovery

In tifada:

T he in tifa d a has d e a lt th e rad ical rig h t a serious blow . T h e ideologues an d leaders o f this cam p never cred ited th e P alestin ian A rab s w ith th e cap acity to c o n d u c t a successful a n d so p h istic a te d anti-Israeli struggle, a n d to m a in ta in the p ressu re fo r a long tim e. T h e setb a ck to th e rig h t has been as m uch con cep tu al a n d th eo retic al as it h as been p ractical a n d concrete. T h e overall effect o f th e u p risin g o n Israeli society has been a significant increase in the price it w as asked to p ay for keeping th e W est B ank a n d G aza. T h is w as a novel d ev elo p m en t, u n a tte n d e d to earlier. T h e issue o f th e d esirab ility o f ruling a n d k eeping th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s has been on th e n a tio n ’s p u b lic agen d a since th e Six-D ay W ar. B ut m o st o f the tim e it w as discussed in ideological term s p e rta in in g to th e im age o f Israel o n e h a d in m in d .18 T h e in tifa d a a d d e d to this k in d o f ta lk a n o th e r facet, th e very co n crete q u estio n o f im m ed iate costs. M e ro n Benvenisti has convincingly arg u ed th a t p rio r to th e P alestin ian u p risin g , th e overall co st o f keep in g th e W est B ank w as very low , a n d Israel in fact gained eco n o m ically a g re a t deal from th e v e n tu re .19 T h e loyalists o f E retz Y israel in general a n d th e rad ical rig h t in p a rtic u la r have alw ays arg u ed th a t Israel w as benefiting fro m th e o c c u p a tio n , an d th a t given th e u n av ailab ility o f a p a rtn e r w ith w h o m to n eg o tiate a peace, th ere w as n o im m ed iate reaso n to even co n sid er a te rrito ria l co m p ro m ise. T h e first tw o years o f th e in tifa d a elim in ated this line o f a rg u m e n ta tio n . T he eco n o m ic, d ip lo m a tic , m ilitary, a n d m o ral co st to Israel o f keep in g th e occupied te rrito rie s h as increased d ram atically . By th e end of 19 8 9 , for

306

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

exam ple, it w as clear to m o st info rm ed Israelis th a t one of the m ain reasons for th e n a tio n ’s econom ic recession w as th e Palestinian uprising. Israeli p ro d u cers an d m a n u fa c tu re rs lost m ajo r p o rtio n s o f the Palestinian m ark et in 1988 a n d 1989. T h e ir colleagues w h o h ad becom e used to cheap A rab lab o r could n o longer rely o n th e striking p eople from the occupied te rrito ­ ries, w h o sta rte d to w o rk irregularly. In 1989 th e Israeli arm y w as still p reten d in g th a t its m assive presence in the occupied te rrito rie s w as n o t h u rtin g its m ilitary p rep ared n ess for m ore serious m issions a n d fo r an overall w a r w ith the A rabs, b u t this w as very h a rd to su b sta n tia te . T he b u rd e n o f th e uprising w as felt at all levels, from the y o u ng p riv ates w h o w ere very u n h a p p y serving as rio t police in the territo rie s, to th e chief-of-staff an d his generals w h o w ere regularly involved in verbal scuffles w ith politicians o f th e right. T h e relu ctan ce o f th e g o v ern m en t in 1989 to g ra n t the arm y nearly $200 m illion for in tifa d a expenses did n o t help the m o rale o f its senior officers. A nd th e ta rn ish e d Israeli im age a b ro a d p ro d u ced renew ed A m erican p res­ sure to n eg o tiate w ith th e PL O , an d forced Jew ish d ip lo m ats to w o rk d ouble tim e to defend th eir n a tio n ’s d e te rio ra tin g re p u ta tio n . T h e radical right, acutely aw are o f the th re a t the in tifa d a — an d its costs— p osed to its o w n an d E retz Y israel’s fu tu re, issued an u n co n d itio n al d em an d th a t th e up risin g be crushed. T ehiya’s plan w as by far the m o st rad ical; it called fo r th e use o f ex trem e m easures in th e W est B ank, including the d e p o rta tio n o f th o u sa n d s of Palestinian activists, the d issolution o f m o st civil an d pro fessio n al A rab associations, an d th e suspension of all o rd in a ry legal p ro ced u res. Every act o f ro c k -th ro w in g w as to be defined as a te rro r o p e ra tio n justifying a sh o o t-to -k ill o rd e r.20 Som e o f the leaders of th e Tehiya m ust have been aw are o f the d isastro u s im p licatio n s of th eir p lan for Israel’s im age an d political fu tu re; to have p u b lish ed the p lan im plied an adm ission on th eir p a rt th a t if th e in tifa d a co n tin u ed , Israel m ight lose Ju d ea, S am aria, an d G aza. T he Israeli radical rig h t received fu rth er setbacks from the 1988 A lgiers reso lu tions a n d th e P L O ’s decision to recognize U .N. R esolution 2 4 2 , w hich im plied its readiness to live peacefully w ith Israel an d give up terro rism . T his m ove w as also u n ex p ected by th e radical rig h t, an d cast it in to g reat co n fu ­ sion. P alestinian te rro rism in general an d the PLO in p a rtic u la r have long served th e Israeli radical rig h t as its stro n g est case ag ain st com prom ise. Each tim e an A rab g o v ern m en t o r leader either spoke a b o u t peace w ith Israel o r m ade som e gestures in th a t directio n , the radicals h ad a ready answ er: “ But w h a t a b o u t the P L O ?” T he P L O ’s anim osity to w a rd Israel an d th e PLO C h arter, w hich calls for the elim in atio n o f the “ Z io n ist e n tity ” an d its rep lacem ent by a P alestinian republic, have alw ays been a p rim e political justification for p ro p o sa ls to an n ex th e territo rie s to Israel. This w as, o f course, never th e real reason for th e desire to keep Eretz Y israel in its en tirety Jew ish, b u t it w as by far th e m o st effective arg u m en t in secular Israeli politics.

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

307

T h e P L O ’s reco g n itio n o f th e S tate o f Israel a n d its p ro m ise to live peacefully w ith th e Jew s a d d e d to th e agony o f th e in tifa d a . It p ro d u c e d significant A m erican p ressu re o n Israel fo r a new peace process, a n d it left the rad ical rig h t w ith a m uch w e a k e r set o f political arg u m en ts. T h e fact th a t the P L O ’s d e c la ra tio n s have n o t been very successful in ex p u n g in g its te rro r­ istic im age a n d th a t th e L ikud g o v e rn m e n t w ith L a b o r s u p p o rt c o n tin u e d its o p p o sitio n to any n e g o tia tio n s w ith A ra fa t m ay have k e p t th e rad ical rig h t from to ta l p an ic, yet th e m em ories o f th e co m p ro m ise m ad e a t C am p D avid are still fresh. T h e re is n o q u e stio n th a t by th e beg in n in g o f 1 989 th e rad ical rig h t w as in serious tro u b le . A th ird b lo w to th e rad ical rig h t w as th e 1988 n a tio n a l elections a n d th e su rp risin g decision o f Itz h ak S ham ir to o p t fo r a n a tio n a l u n ity g o v ern m en t in stead o f c re a tin g a n a rro w rig h t-w in g co alitio n . A fter intense n eg o tiatio n s in w h ich th e L ikud seem ed to be m oving to th e rig h t, S h am ir sud d en ly chan g ed co u rse a n d esta b lish ed a b ro a d unity co alitio n w ith th e L a b o r p a rty an d all religious p artie s. H a d S ham ir gone w ith th e religious p arties an d the radical rig h t in stead , th ereb y fulfilling th e h o p es o f th e ex trem ists, he w o u ld have been forced to deal h arsh ly w ith th e in tifa d a a n d allo w a ren ew ed settlem en t drive. B ut th e p rim e m in ister a p p a re n tly becam e con v in ced th a t the in tifa d a co u ld n o t be p u t d o w n easily. H e also d id n o t w a n t to d ep en d o n the rad ical rig h t a n d have A riel S h aro n as m in ister o f defense. H e co n se­ qu en tly o p te d for a m o d e ra te co alitio n a n d m ade Itzh ak R ab in th e key m inister in th e new cab in et. T his slap in th e face o f th e leaders o f th e rad ical rig h t, m o st o f w h o m fully tru ste d th e h a w k ish L ikud, w as a c c e n tu a te d by S h am ir’s p erso n al tre a tm e n t o f p ro fe sso r Yuval N e ’em an. C allin g o n th e p rim e m in ister a b o u t th e b ro k e n w ritte n ag reem en t betw een th e L ikud an d th e T ehiya, N e ’em an w as flatly to ld by S ham ir th a t he co u ld do w ith th e signed ag reem ent “ w h a te v e r you p le a se .” All th e p ain fu l m em ories o f B egin’s b etray al in C a m p D avid su rfaced again. T h e L ikud w as an u n p rin c ip led , d u p licito u s po litical p a rty w h o se fervent statem en ts a b o u t th e indivisibility of Eretz Y israel w ere hollow . By m id -1989 it w as clear to th e rad ical rig h t, ju st as it w as clear to everybody else in th e country, th a t th e m a jo r axis in Israeli n a tio n a l politics w as th e alliance b etw een Itz h a k S ham ir a n d Itz h ak R ab in . T h is stran g e co v en an t c o m m u n ic a te d p ra g m a tism , unw illingness to crush th e in tifa d a , an d m o v em en t u n d e r A m erican p ressures. T h e m ain p ro d u c t o f th e n ew axis w as th e R ab in -S h am ir peace p la n , in th e c o n te x t o f w hich th e P alestinians o f the W est B ank w ere to elect th e ir o w n rep resen tativ es to n eg o tiate a p e rm a ­ n en t so lu tio n w ith Israel. T h e rad ical rig h t saw th e S ham ir peace in itiativ e as d isa stro u s, a sure recipe fo r fu tu re Jew ish concessions in th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s an d possibly for a P alestinian State. W hen G eu la C o h en w as asked, “ W h a t h a p p e n e d to M ich a el?” — M ich ael being S h a m ir’s n o m d e gu erre d u rin g his Lehi u n d e r­ g ro u n d d ay s— she replied w ith a b itte r sm ile, “ T h e irony is th a t th e com -

308

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

m an d er o f th e Irgun [Begin] gave Sinai back , an d th e co m m an d er of Lehi [Shamir] is a b o u t to re tu rn Ju d ea an d S a m a ria .” 21 T h e year 1990 b ro u g h t a new ho p e to th e radical right. T h e in tifa d a h ad becom e ro u tin e, an d th e Palestinians o f the W est B ank h ad failed to tra n slate the u p rising in to political gains. T he leaders of th e radical rig h t w ere still hostile to S ham ir an d R ab in , fo r n o t “ cru sh in g ’ the in tifada, b u t they could n o t deny the p a rtia l success o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’s policy. T h e in tifa d a ch anged a g re a t deal. W h a t h ad been a p o p u la r uprising featu ring daily d e m o n stra tio n s by h u n d re d s o f w o m en , children, an d o rd i­ nary residents, all over th e o ccupied te rrito rie s, w as n o w reduced to scat­ tered e ru p tio n s o f a few dozen ro c k -th ro w in g kids an d to occasional sab o ­ tage o p e ra tio n s by a sm all n u m b e r o f m asked individuals, org an ized in sm all u n d erg ro u n d cells. M u ch o f th e killing to o k place w ith in the Palestinian co m m u nity itself— execu tio n s o f A rab “ c o lla b o ra to rs ,” individuals sus­ pected o f helping th e Israelis. T he in tifa d a ceased being new s alm o st com pletely. H u n d red s o f the jo u rn a lists a n d television crew s th a t h ad com e to Israel to cover the uprising n o w left for E astern E uro p e, th e new est scene o f w o rld actio n , an d the in tifa d a 's im p act on w o rld o p in io n declined. T he co n tin u o u s rep o rts a b o u t the b ru ta l ex ecu tio n o f c o lla b o ra to rs by th eir o w n kin d am ag ed the P alestin­ ian cause significantly. It gave som e credibility to th e Israeli a rg u m en t th a t the Palestinians w ere te rro rists all along, an d th a t no fight for freedom w as involved. T h u s, as b ad to Israel as th e P alestinian u prising w as in 1988 an d 1989, it w as h a rd to d isreg ard its lim ited achievem ents in its th ird year. T h ere w as no p arity betw een th e m assive Israeli p o w e r in th e occupied territo rie s an d the Palestinian p o ten tial. As Israel regained co n tro l an d m obilized its m ili­ tary, p o litical, an d econom ic resources ag ain st the uprising, it w as clear th a t the end o f th e o c c u p a tio n w as far away. T he conviction o f A rab radicals th a t a Palestinian state w as just a ro u n d th e co rn e r h ad pro v ed false. A nd th ere w as th e fact th a t th e radical rig h t co n tin u ed p o p u la r am o n g o rd in a ry Israelis. T h o u g h developm ents since the end o f 198 7 w ere a set­ back to this cam p , they did n o t reduce its ap peal. O p in io n polls co n d u cted since th e beginning o f th e in tifa d a have show n a g row ing rad icalizatio n am o n g m any Israelis vis-à-vis the A rabs an d a d isa p p o in tm e n t w ith the “ m o d e ra te ” parties. S treet d e m o n stra tio n s follow ing anti-Jew ish te rro r acts have been w ild a n d u n c o n tro lla b le , an d the radical activists o f the L ikud an d N R P have only intensified th e ir u ltra n a tio n a list rhetoric. In th e long ru n , m ore Israelis th a n ever before w ere ready to consider d irect n eg o tiatio n s w ith the PLO , b u t th ere w as n o im m ediate expression of these attitu d es in the Israeli political a re n a .22 T he g reatest b o o st for th e dam ag ed m o rale o f the Israeli radical rig h t cam e from far afield, from the 1 9 8 9 —1990 b re a k d o w n o f com m unism in E astern E urope. Like th e rest o f the w o rld , Israelis w ere stu n n ed by the sudden

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

309

collapse o f th e Soviet bloc a n d th e d e m o c ra tiz a tio n o f the co u n trie s in ­ volved, b u t they h a d tw o specific reaso n s to be especially overjoyed: m o st o f the n ew ru le r m oved to resum e full d ip lo m a tic relatio n s w ith Israel, a n d the Soviet U nion decided to let its Jew s o u t. R esum ed d ip lo m a tic relatio n s, usually acco m p an ied by an apology, in ­ volved a g re a t victo ry fo r Israelis in general, a n d th e rad ical rig h t in p a rtic u ­ lar. All th e c o m m u n ist c o u n trie s, b u t R u m an ia h a d b ro k e n relatio n s w ith Israel in Ju n e 196 7 , fo llo w in g th e Six-D ay W ar, in p ro te st o f Israel’s ex ­ p an d ed b o rd e rs a n d its “ a n ti-A ra b ag g ressio n .” R esu m p tio n o f d ip lo m atic relatio n s w ith Israel in 1990, in th e m id st o f th e in tifa d a , co u ld n o t b u t be read by th e Israeli rad ical rig h t as a v alid atio n o f its a rg u m e n t th a t a stro n g an d te rrito ria lly large Israel w as no b a rrie r to peace. T h e acts o f th e new leaders in E a stern E u ro p e w ere p resen ted as a conclusive p ro o f fo r th e longheld p ro p o sitio n th a t Isra e l’s iso latio n in th e w o rld w as n o t th e resu lt o f th e “ re tu rn ” o f th e n a tio n to its h o m e la n d , b u t ra th e r an ex p ressio n o f an tiSem itism , co m m u n ism , a n d selfish G entile politics. O f even g re a te r m ean in g w as th e o p en in g o f the gates o f th e Soviet U nion for Jew ish em ig ra tio n . M o st Israelis h ad lo n g given up h o p e fo r a m assive Jew ish A liya from th e Soviet U nion, b u t th e rad ical rig h t never did. W h e n ­ ever c o n fro n te d w ith th e d a n g e r th a t th e A rab s o f th e en larg ed Israel w o u ld soon o u tn u m b e r th e Jew s, th e rad ical rig h t w o u ld m en tio n Soviet Jew ry as a p o ten tial so lu tio n . W h en skeptics said th a t th e age o f m iracles w as p a st, th e rightists p o in te d to th e u n p re d ic ta b ility o f m o d ern Jew ish history, to G o d ’s m ysterious w ays o f h a n d lin g th e w o rld ; th e B alfo u r D e c la ra tio n , th e H o lo ­ caust, th e 1948 e sta b lish m e n t o f Israel, a n d th e Six-D ay W ar. T h u s, th e m assive Soviet A liya th a t s ta rte d in 1989 w as seen as a m iracle o f this category, a p ro o f th a t th e K o o k ist p h ilo so p h y w as rig h t all alo n g . To be sure, th ere w ere w o rriso m e political d e v elo p m en ts— th e A rab o u tcry a b o u t R u s­ sian im m ig ratio n , a n d th e A m erican d e m a n d th a t R ussian Jew s n o t be set­ tled in th e W est B ank. B ut these w ere n o th in g c o m p a re d to G o d ’s greatn ess an d sp len d o r, a n d th e new in d ic a tio n th a t th e process o f red em p tio n w as m oving a h e a d in full speed. T h e com p lete recovery o f th e radical rig h t fro m th e p olitical fa llo u t o f the in tifa d a to o k place in Ju n e 1990, w h en Itzh ak S h am ir w as forced to form a n a rro w rig h t-w in g co alitio n , an ac t he av o id ed in 1988. T h e g reat political c o u p , m a rk e d by th e n o m in a tio n o f Yuval N e ’em an an d R afael E itan to full c a b in e t m in isters, a n d G eula C o h en to d ep u ty m inister, w as n o t m ade by th e rad ical rig h t, b u t by S h a m ir’s in tern a l o p p o sitio n w ith in the Likud. A nd yet th e m a jo r beneficiary seem ed to have been th e rad ical right. T h e re w as n o q u e stio n , in 198 8 , th a t Itz h ak S ham ir w as try in g to to n e d o w n th e e x tre m ist rh e to ric o f th e L ikud, an d to m ove it aw ay from the radical right. N o t only did he o p t for a b ro a d u n ity co alitio n w ith the “ leftist” L abor, b u t he c o n d u c te d a m a jo r reshuffling w ith in his o w n party, p ro m o tin g a w h o le new g e n e ra tio n o f p ra g m a tic y o u n g leaders to full m inis­ terial p o sitio n s. In w h a t seem ed a t th e tim e as a p o litical m aster stro k e,

310

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

Sham ir also succeeded in isolating th e radical w ing of his ow n party, led by Ariel S haron. B ut S ham ir m oved to o fast, an d to o carelessly. In a d d itio n to S haron, he also co rn ered D avid Levy, th e p a rty ’s m ost p o p u la r vote-getter, and Itzhak M o d a i, th e am b itio u s leader of the ju n io r p artn er, the Liberal party. W h a t follow ed w as a classical S h aron m aneuver, a slow galv an izatio n of in tern al p arty o p p o sitio n , an ap p eal to the “ classical p rin cip les” of H eru t, an d a surprise a tta c k a t th e rig h t m om en t. T h e isolated radical rig h t in p arlia m e n t, an d th e lobbyists o f the settlers in Ju d ea, Sam aria, an d G aza w ere m ore th a n glad to join in. F ollow ing a g row ing critique of S h am ir’s readiness to talk to the Palestinians, an d to go along w ith Itzh ak R a b in ’s p lan for local W est B ank election, th e prim e m inister started to back off. Faced w ith a L ikud in tern a l revolt, a n d un ab le to secure a clear m ajo rity for a q uick m ovem ent on a m odified election p lan , S ham ir started to stall. A co alitio n crisis w ith th e L a b o r p a rty becam e inevitable. T h e M a rc h 1990 collapse o f the U nity G o v ern m en t greatly dam ag ed S h am ir’s au th o rity . T h o u g h rem ain in g a t the helm , he lost m uch of his p o w er a n d prestige. T he silent rev o lu tio n he tried m ake in the party, elevat­ ing a w hole new g e n eratio n o f y o u n g p olitician s, failed m iserably. It to o k him a reco rd tim e o f th re e m o n th s to form a new co alitio n , an d the result w as h u m iliatin g . In ad d itio n to the inconven ien t old-new p artn ers from the radical right, S ham ir h ad to m ake huge concessions to the sm all u l­ tra o rth o d o x p artie s, w hich also becam e indispensable for his brittle co ali­ tion. A nd th re e o u t o f his fo u r senior m inisters— Levy in foreign affairs, M o d ai in finance, an d S haron in co n stru ctio n an d im m ig ratio n — w ere forced u p o n him ag ain st his b etter judgm ent. In th e su m m er o f 1990 it w as clear th a t in o rd er to survive, the new cab in et w o u ld have to ta k e excessive u ltra n a tio n a list p o sitions. A nd indeed, the settlers in th e W est Bank could n o t be h ap p ier w hen the new g o v ern m en t au th o riz ed the bu ild in g of a p e rm a n e n t c o n stru ctio n for the co n tro v ersial Tom b o f Yosef yeshiva in N ab lu s. T he cerem ony th a t ensued involved a to tal curfew over nearly o ne m illion Palestinians in the W est Bank, an d a huge Jew ish celeb ratio n in the m iddle o f A rab N ab lu s. Itzhak Sham ir, w h o su rp ris­ ingly h ad no tro u b le re tu rn in g to his fo rm er self, the ex trem ist co m m an d er o f Lehi, m ade clear in a series o f d eclaratio n s th a t his g o v ern m en t w o u ld never n ego tiate w ith th e PLO , w o u ld never give up any lib erated territo ry o f Eretz Y israel, an d w o u ld n o t bow to any A m erican pressure in this m atter. H e succeeded in estran g in g P resident Bush, an d bringing the U.S.-Israel relatio n ship to an all-tim e low. W hen S addam H ussein, Ira q ’s ru le r’s, invaded K u w ait on A ugust 2, 1990, creatin g an in te rn a tio n a l crisis of th e first ord er, he in ad v erten tly did a g reat service to the Israeli radical right. Very m uch like his previous in ad v er­ te n t c o n trib u tio n to this cam p , th e launchin g in 1980 of the Iran -Iraq W ar, he n o w helped d iv ert all w o rld a tte n tio n from the in tifa d a an d the W est B ank to th e Persian G ulf. P resident Bush an d Secretary of State Jam es Baker

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

311

III, w h o w ere ju st a b o u t to ap p ly heavy p ressu re on Israel to m ove the peace process a h e a d , lo st all in te re st in th e area. So did the rest o f the w o rld a n d the m edia. Even th e O c to b e r fiasco on th e Tem ple M o u n t, in w hich n ineteen rio tin g P alestinians w ere killed by th e police, a n d the v io len t e ru p tio n th a t follow ed th e a ssassin atio n o f R abbi M eir K ah an e, a m o n th later, did n o t re tu rn th e in tifa d a a n d th e peace process to the headlines.

The Future of the Radical Right G iven th e c o n tra ry d ire ctio n s o f recent events, th e fu tu re o f th e rad ical rig h t ap p ears u n c e rta in . It seem s th a t as long as th e Jew ish v en tu re in th e W est Bank c o n tin u es, a n d th e cost o f h o ld in g th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s does n o t increase d ram atically , th e rad ical rig h t is likely to co n tin u e as a force in th e n a tio n ’s politics an d p u b lic life. Its ideas w ill co n tin u e to be highly relev an t to n a tio n a l issues. B ut this is n o t likely to be th e case if m o st Israeli leaders conclude th a t Israel has to te rm in a te th e o c c u p a tio n in o rd e r to survive. As in th e p erio d afte r th e 19 4 7 p a rtitio n o f W estern Palestine, th e Israeli radical rig h t is likely to lose its h isto rical relevance, for it will th en be ad d ressin g m o o t q uestio n s. U nlike in 1948, how ever, th e fate o f to d a y ’s rad ical rig h t d ep en d s o n the o p p o sitio n o f th e L ikud, n o t o n th e decision o f the L a b o r party. In 1948 Israel w as to ta lly d o m in a te d by M a p a i, an d b o th th e radical rig h t a n d the m o re m o d e ra te n a tio n a list rig h t w ere politically irrelev an t. T h e c u rre n t s itu a ­ tio n is different. T h e L ikud has been d o m in a n t in n a tio n a l politics for ov er a decade, an d th e rh e to ric o f “ G re a te r Eretz Y israel” w hich it p ro p a g a te s to g eth er w ith th e N a tio n a l R eligious Party a n d the rad ical rig h t is sh ared by m o re th a n 5 0 p e rc e n t o f th e v o tin g public. It is th erefo re clear th a t if L ik u d ’s c o m m itm e n t to th e o ccu p ied te rrito rie s rem ain s in tact, th e rad ical rig h t is likely to c o n tin u e to p ro sp er. T h e critical issue seem s to be th e real p ressu re ap p lied on Israel by the P alestinians a n d th e w o rld com m unity, a n d th e p ercep tio n o f this p ressu re by th e c en tral L ikud cam p w hich c o n c e n tra te s to d a y a ro u n d Itzh ak S ham ir, M o sh e A rens (defense m inister), a n d th e ir political allies. T hese people, w h o are n o t p a rt o f th e rad ical rig h t, are nevertheless ideologically c o m m itted to th e indivisibility o f E retz Y israel, th o u g h they are to o p ra g m a tic to co m m it n a tio n a l suicide o u t o f loyalty to an an a c h ro n istic ideology. As long as they are co n vinced th a t Israel can safely keep th e W est B ank a n d G aza, a n d th a t th ere is a w ide p a rty s u p p o rt for this p o sitio n , they will d o so — th e ir “ peace in itiativ e s” n o tw ith sta n d in g . U nder these c o n d itio n s th e Eretz Y israel p u r­ ists are likely to g ro w in p o p u la rity a n d p olitical influence. T his d ev elo p ­ m en t seem s to have ta k e n place w ith in th e L ikud councils since th e su m m er o f 1989. B ut th e s itu a tio n w o u ld be d ifferen t if L ik u d ’s lead ersh ip reaches th e con clu sion th a t Israel sh o u ld co m p ro m ise on th e W est B ank an d G aza. T his

312

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right

w o u ld n o t be easy, for as w e have seen the L ikud itself is p artially m ade up of rig h t-w ing ex trem ists, a n d S ham ir o r his successors w o u ld have to be sure th a t th eir m o d e ra te p o sitio n w as backed by the vast m ajo rity o f the p a rty ’s activists. H ow ever, if th a t h ap p en s, th e radical rig h t will be L ik u d ’s first victim . U nlike th e case o f th e 1 9 7 9 —1982 ev acu atio n o f Sinai, in w hich the n ascen t radical rig h t w as cau g h t off g u ard , its activists w o u ld be ready for the new situ a tio n an d th e L ikud w o u ld have to m ove fast an d skillfully to isolate th e u ltra n a tio n a lists an d neutralize th eir th re a t. But if such a scenario is realized, th e Israeli radical rig h t stan d s the chance o f retu rn in g to its 1 9 4 8 —1967 historical m arginality. T he specter o f civil w a r h a u n ts Israel. W ill a m ajo r territo ria l c o m p ro ­ mise in th e W est B ank, o ne th a t will either in itiate the estab lish m en t of a Palestinian state o r o p en the w ay to a m eaningful P alestinian a u to n o m y cause Israelis to fight each o ther? G iven th e deep ideological an d political stakes involved, a civil w a r o r m ajo r violen t conflict c a n n o t be ruled o u t. T he existence o f n early 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 settlers in the W est B ank an d G aza, w ith at least 20 p ercen t o f th em highly ideological devotees o f th e G reater Eretz Yisrael idea, does n o t prom ise a h ap p y evacu atio n . It ap p ears, how ever, th a t a civil w a r will becom e possible only if the te rrito ria l co m p ro m ise is im posed by a L abor-led g o v ern m en t rep resen tin g no m o re th a n 55 o r 60 p ercen t o f Israeli voters. U nder such a scenario, Israel w o u ld be divided alo n g m a jo r ideological lines, th e rig h t ag ain st the left w ith all the festering w o u n d s o f seventy years of Z io n ist h isto ry open ed up. If how ever, th e co m p ro m ise is in itiated by a u nity co alitio n m ade up o f the Likud, L abor, an d m o st o th e r Z io n ist p arties, it could m u ster the s u p p o rt o f 80 to 90 p ercen t o f th e p o p u la tio n an d th u s isolate the radical rig h t p o liti­ cally an d m orally. G iven th e intensity o f th eir co m m itm en t to Eretz Y israel, the radical rig h t a n d th e settler co m m u n ity w o u ld p ro b ab ly p u t up a m assive struggle ag ain st th e agreem ent, w hich w o u ld include intense p ro tests, extralegal d em ­ o n stra tio n s, civil disobedience, street violence, an d possibly som e Jew ish fatalities. B ut b o th a civil w a r an d a sophisticated arm ed revolt ag ain st the IDF are highly unlikely. T h e re are m any in d icatio n s th a t even am o n g the m essianic settler com m unity, w hich is d ev o ted to the lan d for religious reasons, very few w o u ld be ready to go ag ain st the arm y an d sh o o t Israeli soldiers p o in t b lan k . O v er an d over, one h ears rem inders of th e b loody Jew ish civil w a r th a t led to the d estru ctio n of the Second Tem ple a n d tw o th o u sa n d years o f Jew ish exile from Eretz Y israel.23 Instead, sm all-scale arm ed resistance an d in su rrectio n ary o p e ra tio n s are p ro b a b le .24 Even if it loses its fight for Eretz Y israel an d becom es historically irrele­ v an t, the Israeli radical rig h t is n o t likely to disappear. It will p ro b ab ly co n tin u e to play a significant role in the n a tio n ’s public life an d political cu ltu re. U nlike th e radical rig h t o f the 1930s an d 1940s, the p o st-1 9 6 7 radical rig h t has h ad a m ajo r im p act on th e th in k in g o f the entire n atio n . It has also succeeded politically. In Jew ish cu ltu re such an influence is very

The Radical Right, Democracy, and Zionism

313

h a rd to erase, especially if b ack ed by leadin g p o litician s, co m m itted id e o ­ logues, a n d ta le n te d activists. It seem s highly p ro b a b le th a t even if th e rad ical rig h t is p u sh ed to th e political m arg in s, it w ill c o n tin u e to h a u n t th e n a tio n ’s collective psyche. Long afte r Ju d e a a n d S am aria are gone, b itte r p eo p le will rem ain w h o will d ream a b o u t a p ossible “ seco n d ro u n d ,” th e “ rig h t o f r e tu rn ,” a n d “ tra n s ­ fer.” T h e m a jo rity o f G ush E m u n im , w hich is likely to u n d erg o a m a jo r theological crisis w ill p ro b a b ly urge p atien ce, b o w to th e m ysteries o f re­ d em p tio n , a n d w a it for th e n e x t Six-D ay W ar— w hich will only p ro v e th a t they w ere rig h t all along.

Glossary

A c h d u t H a a v o d a h S o c ia lis t Z io n is t p a rty th a t s p lit fro m M a p a i p a rty in 1 9 4 4 u n d er th e le a d e r sh ip o f Itz h a k T a b e n k in ; jo in e d th e L a b o r p arty in 1 9 6 8 . A g u d a t Y isra e l A n u lt r a o r t h o d o x p o litic a l p a rty; o p p o s e d to Z io n is m o n th e o lo g i­ cal g r o u n d s y e t v ery a c tiv e in g o v e r n m e n t a n d le g isla tio n . A liy a (A sc e n t) th e c o m in g o f J ew s to th e L an d o f Israel for p e r m a n e n t resid en ce; c o n s id e r e d a m a jo r Z io n is t v irtu e. A m a le k T h e lo c a l tr ib e m o s t fe r o c io u s ly o p p o s e d to th e H e b r e w c o n q u e s t o f b ib lica l C a n a a n ; th e p e o p le o f Israel w e r e o rd ered to d e str o y it c o m p le te ly , m a n , w o m a n , a n d c h ild . A m a n a (C o v e n a n t) th e p r o fe s s io n a l s e ttle m e n t o r g a n iz a tio n o f G u sh E m u n im . A sh k e n a z im J e w s o f n o rth E u r o p e a n a n d w e ste r n o rig in s; u su a lly c o n tr a ste d w ith “ O r ie n ta l” J e w s, o r S e p h a r a d im . B eit H a d a s s a h (H a d a s s a h H o u s e ) a la rg e d eserted Jew ish h o u se in A rab H e b r o n th a t w a s illic itly o c c u p ie d in 1 9 7 9 b y J ew ish settlers, w h o s e sta y w a s later le g a liz e d b y th e g o v e r n m e n t; a c o n tr o v e r tia l p la c e a n d th e site o f m a n y v io le n t a cts. B etar th e y o u th o r g a n iz a tio n o f th e R e v is io n is t m o v e m e n t; e sta b lish e d an d in sp ired by V la d im ir J a b o tin sk y . B n ei A k iv a (S o n s o f A k iv a ) Z io n is t r e lig io u s y o u th m o v e m e n t a ffilia ted w ith th e N a tio n a l R e lig io u s Party. B rit H a b ir io n im (C o v e n a n t o f T h u g s ) a sm a ll id e o lo g ic a l rad ical righ t g ro u p th a t e x is te d in P a le stin e b e tw e e n 1 9 2 8 a n d 1 9 3 3 . B rit H a h a s h m o n a im (T h e H a s h m o n a ic s C o v e n a n t) a sm a ll u ltr a n a tio n a list re lig io u s m o v e m e n t e s ta b lis h e d in J eru sa lem in th e la te 1 9 3 0 s by R ab b i M o s h e S egal; its m e m b e r s w e r e e n c o u r a g e d to join th e u n d er g ro u n d s o f E tzel a n d L ehi. C a n a a n ite s (H e b r e w s) a sm a ll a n ti-Z io n is t in te lle c tu a l circle e sta b lish e d in 1 9 4 0 by p o e t Y o n a th a n R a to s h ; h a s a d v o c a te d a c o m p le te sep a ra tio n b e tw e e n Israelis a n d D ia s p o r a J e w s a n d th e c r e a tio n o f a large C a n a a n ite fe d e ra tio n m a d e o f Israelis a n d o th e r M id d le -E a ste r n m in o r itie s. D u g ri Israeli term fo r s im p lis tic , m a tte r -o f-fa c t, str a ig h tfo rw a rd b eh a v io r ; o r ig i­ n ally, an A r a b ic w o r d .

315

316

Glossary

Ein V ered C irc le n o n r e lig io u s m em b ers o f k ib b u tzim an d m o sh a v im w h o o rg a n ized in 1 9 7 5 to su p p o r t G u sh E m u n im ; first m e etin g to o k p la ce in M o sh a v Ein V ered. E lon M o r e h G u sh E m u n im ’s m o s t fa m o u s illic it G ariin w h ich w a s a llo w e d to settle n ear N a b lu s after sev e n p r e v io u s e v a c u a tio n s by th e arm y. E retz Y isra e l L and o f Israel. E tzel (th e N a tio n a l M ilita r y O r g a n iz a tio n ) a lso k n o w n as Irgun; u n d erg ro u n d m ili­ tary o r g a n iz a tio n d u r in g th e B ritish m a n d a te, c lo se to th e R e v isio n ist m o v e ­ m en t; m o s t fa m o u s co m m a n d e r s: D a v id R aziel an d M e n a c h e m B egin. G a h a l (T h e H e r u t-L ib e r a l B lo c ) a p o litic a l a llia n ce fo rm ed b e tw e e n th e tw o p arties b e fo r e th e 1 9 6 5 n a tio n a l e le c tio n s. G ariin (N u c le u s ) a sm a ll g r o u p o f p e o p le , u su a lly y o u n g , w h o in ten d to esta b lish a n e w s e ttle m e n t. G er T o sh a v (A lien re sid en t) th e T orah term fo r th e n o n -J ew w h o is p erm itted to live in th e L an d o f Israel. G reen L in e Isra el’s p r e - 1 9 6 7 in te r n a tio n a l b ord er w ith E gypt, Jord an , L eb a n o n , an d Syria. G u sh E m u n im T h e B lo c o f th e F a ith fu l, th e m e ssia n ic m o v e m e n t o f th e settlers in th e W est B ank a n d G a za . H a g a n a (D e fe n se ) th e u n d e r g r o u n d m ilita ry o r g a n iz a tio n o f th e Y ish u v d u rin g th e B ritish m a n d a te . H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d a se ttle m e n t k ib b u tz m o v e m e n t c lo se ly affiliated w ith th e A c h d u t H a a v o d a h party. H a la k h a J ew ish re lig io u s law . H a lu tz (p i. H a lu tz im ) p io n e e r . H a rem esh S h erif (N o b le S an ctu a ry ) th e A rab term for th e T em p le M o u n t an d th e site o f th e A l-A k sa M o s q u e , a n d th e D o m e o f th e R o ck . H a red im u ltr a o r th o d o x r e lig io u s J ew s, m o stly a n ti-Z io n ist. H eru t (F reed o m ) a r ig h t-w in g p o litic a l p a rty esta b lish e d in 1 9 4 8 by M e n a c h e m B egin ; w a s th e k ey p arty in G a h a l, an d p resen tly in th e L ikud. H illu l H a s h e m J ew ish term fo r th e d e se c r a tio n o f th e N a m e o f G o d . H ista d r u t th e G en era l F ed er a tio n o f L a b o r in Israel, fo u n d e d in 1 9 2 0 ; th e largest la b o r u n io n , a n d th e la rg est v o lu n ta r y o r g a n iz a tio n in Israel. In tifad a A rab term fo r th e P a lestin ia n u p r isin g in th e W est B ank and G a za , w h ich sta rted in D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 7 . Ju d ea (o r ig in a lly Y eh u d a ) th e so u th ern h a lf o f th e W est B ank; m ain A rab cities: H e b r o n a n d B eth leh em . K a b b a la h J ew ish m y stic a l te x ts; a lso th e p ra ctice an d tra d itio n o f th eir study. K ach (T h u s! o r T h is is th e W ay!) R ab b i K a h a n e’s p o litic a l m o v e m e n t, th e Israeli s u c c e sso r o f th e J ew ish D e fe n s e L eagu e. K ib b u tz (p i. K ib b u tzim ) a s o c ia lis t c o lle c tiv e c o m m u n e . K ib b u tz D a ti (R e lig io u s k ib b u tz) a re lig io u s Z io n is t k ib b u tz m o v e m en t. K id u sh H a s h e m J ew ish term for th e s a n c tific a tio n o f th e N a m e o f G o d . K iryat A rb a J ew ish city a d ja ce n t to A rab H e b r o n , th e largest Jew ish se ttle m e n t in th e W est B ank .

Glossary

31 7

K n esset Isra el’s o n e -c h a m b e r p a r lia m e n t. K o o k ist S c h o o l s tu d e n ts a n d fo llo w e r s o f th e J ew ish m e ssia n ic p h ilo s o p h y o f R ab b i A v ra h a m Itzh a k H a c o h e n K o o k , a n d h is so n R a b b i Z v i Y ehu d a K o o k . L and o f Israel M o v e m e n t (L IM ) an id e o lo g ic a l m o v e m e n t e sta b lish e d in th e su m m er o f 1 9 6 7 to p r o m o te th e a n n e x a tio n o f th e o c c u p ie d territo ries to Israel, a n d to figh t all e ffo r ts fo r a te rrito r ia l c o m p r o m ise . L ehi (Isra el’s F r e e d o m F ig h ters) a ls o k n o w n as th e Stern G a n g ; an a n ti-B ritish terror u n d e r g r o u n d e s ta b lis h e d in 1 9 4 0 b y A b ra h a m (Yair) Stern after a sp lit w ith in E tzel; Itzh a k S h a m ir w a s L e h i’s c h ie f o f o p e r a tio n s . L ikud (U n ity ) r ig h t-w in g p o litic a l b lo c , fo r m ed in 1 9 7 3 , o f G a h a l an d sm a ller g r o u p s; d o m in a te d b y H eru t; in c o n tr o l o f th e Israeli g o v e r n m e n t sin c e 1977. M a c h p e la th e C a v e o f th e P atriarch s in H e b r o n , th e s e c o n d h o lie s t J ew ish site, th e tr a d itio n a l b u ria l p la c e o f th e n a t io n ’s b ib lica l fo refa th ers. M a c h te r e t (U n d e r g r o u n d ) th e J e w ish u n d e r g r o u n d o f G u sh E m u n im , u n c o v e r e d in 1984. M a lc h u t Y isra e l (T h e K in g d o m o f Israel) a n u ltr a n a tio n a list id e o lo g y th a t d ra w s its in s p ir a tio n fro m th e b ib lic a l D a v id ic k in g d o m , a n d ca lls for th e e s ta b lis h ­ m e n t o f th e J e w ish sta te in all th e te rrito ries p r o m ise d by G o d to A b ra h a m . M a p a i a s o c ia lis t Z io n is t p a rty e s ta b lis h e d in 1 9 3 0 , w h ic h d o m in a te d Israeli p o litic s fo r o v e r fo r ty yea rs; c h a n g e d its n a m e to th e L a b o r Party after its u n ific a tio n w ith A c h d u t H a a v o d a h a n d R afi. M e rk a z H a r a v (T h e R a b b i’s C e n te r) a J eru sa lem Z io n is t y esh iv a fo u n d e d by R ab b i A v ra h a m Itzh a k H a c o h e n K o o k , s u b se q u e n tly led by h is so n , R a b b i Z v i Y eh u d a K o o k ; th e s c h o o l a n d s o u r c e o f in sp ira tio n o f all th e fo u n d e r s o f G u sh E m u n im . M e ssir u t H a n e fe s h (U ltim a te d e v o tio n ) a m a jo r G u sh E m u n im virtu e w h ic h im p lie s o n e ’s re a d in ess to m a k e im m e n se p e r so n a l sa crifices. M itz v a a R e lig io u s c o m m a n d m e n t a c c o r d in g to th e H a la k h a . M o e tz e t Y esh a (Y esh a C o u n c il) th e a s s o c ia tio n o f th e lo ca l c o u n c ils o f th e J ew ish settlers in J u d e a , S a m a r ia , a n d G a z a . M o le d e t a ra d ica l rig h t p o litic a l p a rty e s ta b lish e d

in

1987

by G en era l

(res.)

R e h a v a m Z e ’evi (n ic k n a m e d G a n d h i); m a in p r o p o n e n t o f th e id ea o f “ tr a n s­ fe r ,” an a g re ed u p o n e v ic tio n o f all A ra b s o f th e o c c u p ie d territo ries. M o s h a v (p i. M o s h a v im ) a c o o p e r a tiv e a g ricu ltu ra l se ttle m e n t. N a tio n a l R e lig io u s P arty (N R P ) Isra el’s m o s t in flu en tia l Z io n is t re lig io u s party, a n d a c o a litio n p a rtn er in a lm o s t all th e n a tio n ’s g o v e r n m e n ts; k n o w n earlier as M iz r a h i. N e k u d a (P o in t) th e m o n th ly m a g a z in e o f th e settlers o f J u d ea , S a m a ria , an d G a za ; p u b lis h e d b y th e Y esh a c o u n c il a n d la rg ely in flu en ced by G u sh E m u n im . P a lm a ch T h e p e r m a n e n t s tr ik in g fo r c e o f th e H a g a n a , e sta b lish e d in 1 9 4 1 . R afi a sp lin te r p a rty o f M a p a i, e s ta b lis h e d in 1 9 6 5 by D a v id B en -G u rio n after a m a jo r c o n flic t w ith h is su c c e sso r , L evi E sh k o l; reu n ited w ith M a p a i in 1 9 6 8 . R e v isio n ism A Z io n is t r ig h t-w in g p o litic a l s c h o o l, an d m o v e m e n t, e sta b lish e d by V la d im ir J a b o tin s k y in th e 1 9 2 0 s .

318

Glossary

Sam aria (o r ig in a lly S h o m r o n ) th e n o rth ern h a lf o f th e W est B ank; a d en sely p o p u ­ la ted A rab area; m a in city, N a b lu s . S an h ed rin th e a n c ie n t J ew ish S u p rem e C o u rt, m a d e up o f sev en ty sa g es; n o rm a lly lo c a te d o n th e T em p le M o u n t, th e S a n h ed rin cea sed to e x ist th ree g en era ­ tio n s after th e d e str u c tio n o f th e T em p le.. S ep h arad im J ew s w h o s e a n c e sto r s liv ed in S pain and P ortugal; u su a lly a p p lied to the O rien ta l p o p u la tio n in Israel, in c o n tr a d istin c tio n to A sh k e n a z im . Shas an u ltr a o r th o d o x p a rty o f S ep h a ra d i J ew s esta b lish e d in 1 9 8 4 by form er C h ief R a b b i, O v a d iy a Y osef; very in flu e n tia l a n d activ e in n a tio n a l p o litic s. Shin B et Isra el’s in tern a l sec ret serv ice. S ik arik in a sm a ll a n ti-le ftis t c o n sp ir a c y g ro u p th a t sin ce 1 9 8 8 h as co n d u c te d several sa b o ta g e a cts a g a in s t Israelis s u p p o r tiv e o f ta lk s w ith th e PL O ; n am ed after a J ew ish m e ssia n ic terro rist g ro u p th a t o p era ted in th e tim e o f th e d estru ctio n o f th e S e c o n d T em p le. T eh iya (R e n a issa n c e ) T h e first rad ical righ t p o litic a l party, esta b lish e d in 1 9 7 9 ; tries to b rin g to g e th e r sec u la r a n d r e lig io u s Jew s; m o st k n o w n leaders: p ro fe sso r Y uval N e ’e m a n a n d G eu la C o h e n . T orah th e P e n ta te u c h , b r o a d ly referred to as th e Jew ish relig io u s law . T ran sfer a r ig h t-w in g sh o r th a n d fo r an a g reed u p o n e v ic tio n o f all P alestin ian A rabs from th e o c c u p ie d territo ries a n d th eir resettlem en t in the A rab w o r ld . T zfia (L o o k in g A h e a d ) a fu n d a m e n ta list g ro u p esta b lish e d in th e su m m er o f 1 9 8 4 to p r o m o te th e id e a s o f th e J ew ish U n d erg ro u n d ; led by R abbi Israel A riel, it p u b lish e d th ree la rg e c o lle c tio n s o f e x tr em ist essa y s. T z o m e t (C r o ssro a d s) a rad ical rig h t p o litic a l p arty esta b lish e d in 1 9 8 4 by G en eral (res.) R a fa el E itan ; m erg ed w ith th e T eh iya in 1 9 8 4 , b u t sp lit in 1 9 8 7 . Y am it T h e m a in J ew ish city in o c c u p ie d n o rth ern Sinai; esta b lish ed in 1 9 7 5 an d e v a c u a te d in A p ril 1 9 8 2 in c o m p lia n c e w ith th e Israeli-E gyp tian p ea ce treaty. Y esh iv o t H e s d e r a Z io n is t y e sh iv a w h o s e stu d en ts c o m b in e rab b in ical stu d ies an d m ilita ry serv ice. Y ish u v th e o r g a n iz e d J ew ish c o m m u n ity th a t liv ed in P alestin e b efo re th e 1 9 4 8 e sta b lis h m e n t o f th e S tate o f Israel. Z a h a l Israel D e fe n c e F o rces. Z o t H a a r e tz (T h is Is th e L and) th e jou rn al o f th e L and o f Israel M o v e m e n t.

Notes

Introduction 1. O n G u sh E m u n im se e G id e o n A r a n , “ F rom R e lig io u s Z io n is m to Z io n is t R elig io n : T h e R o o ts o f G u sh E m u n im a n d Its C u ltu r e ” (U n p u b lish e d D o c to r a l D is ­

The Impact of Gush Emunim (L o n d o n , C r o o m H e lm , 1 9 8 5 ); Z v i R a a n a n , Gush Emunim (Tel Aviv, S ifriy a t P o a lim , 1 9 8 0 — H e b r e w ); D a n n y R u b in ste in , On the Lord’s Side: Gush Emunim (Tel A viv, H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d , 1 9 8 2 — H e b r e w ); E h u d S p rin za k , “ G u sh E m u nim : T h e Iceb erg M o d e l o f P o litica l E x tr e m is m ,” Medina Mimshal Veyehasim Beinleumiim, N o . 17 (Fall 1 9 8 1 — H e b r e w ); “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e P o litics o f Z io n is t ser ta tio n , H e b r e w U n iv ersity o f J er u sa lem , 1 9 8 7 ); D a v id N e w m a n (e d .),

F u n d a m e n ta lism in Isr a e l” ( N e w Y ork, T h e A m e rica n Jew ish C o m m itte e , 1 9 8 6 ); For a recen t re v ie w o f th e G u sh E m u n im liter a tu re see E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a , “J ew ish M e ssia n is m , R e lig io u s Z io n is m a n d Israeli P o litics: T h e Im p a ct an d O rig in s o f G u sh E m u n im ,”

Middle Eastern Studies, V o l. 2 3 , N o . 2 (A pril 1 9 8 7 ). Heil Kahane ( N e w Y ork, A d a m a B o o k s,

2 . C f. Yair K o tier,

1 9 8 6 ), C h . 16;

E hud S p r in za k , “ K ach a n d K a h a n e: T h e E m er g en ce o f J ew ish Q u a s i-F a sc is m ,” in A sh er A ria n a n d M ic h a l S h a m ir (e d s.),

The Elections in Israel 1984,

(Tel Aviv,

R a m o t, 1 9 8 6 ), p . 1 8 2 ; A ls o A v iezer R a v itz k i, R u th G a b iz o n , G era ld C ro m er, an d E hud S p r in za k ,

The Ideology of Meir Kahane and His Supporters

(J eru sa lem , Van

Leer In stitu te P u b lic a tio n s , 1 9 8 6 — H e b r e w ). 3 . S in ce th e su m m e r o f 1 9 8 4 th e J eru sa lem V an Leer F o u n d a tio n h as c o n ­ d u cted th ree su r v e y s o f th e p o litic a l a ttitu d e s o f Isra el’s h ig h sc h o o l g e n e r a tio n ( 1 5 18 years o ld ). T h e S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 4 stu d y fo u n d th a t 6 0 %

o f th e re sp o n d en ts

th o u g h t A r a b s d id n o t d e se r v e full e q u a lity a n d 4 2 % w e r e in fa v o r o f restrictin g th e p o litic a l rig h ts o f n o n -J e w s. T h e f o llo w in g su rvey, c o n d u c te d in M a y 1 9 8 5 , s h o w e d th a t 4 0 % a g re ed w ith K a h a n e ’s o p in io n s a n d 11 % said th ey w ere ready to v o te for h im . A fu rth er b r e a k d o w n o f th e resu lts in d ic a te d e x c e p tio n a lly str o n g su p p o r t for K a h a n e’s id e a s a m o n g th e r e lig io u s y o u th (5 9 % ) and a m o n g y o u n g p e o p le o f O r ie n ­ tal o rig in s (5 0 % ). T h e A p ril 1 9 8 6 su rvey, w h ic h w a s c o n d u c te d after an in ten se an tiK ah an e c a m p a ig n th r o u g h o u t m o s t o f th e p o litic a l sy stem , s h o w e d a sm a ll d e c lin e in th e su p p o r t fo r th e r a b b i’s p o s it io n s . O n ly o n e -th ir d o f th e re sp o n d en ts th o u g h t K a h a n e’s o p in io n s w e r e righ t a n d 7 .5 % sa id th ey w o u ld v o te for h im . F ifty p ercen t, h o w e v e r , w e r e still fa v o r a b le t o th e id ea o f re strictin g th e righ ts o f A rabs an d 5 6 % o p p o s e d e q u a l rig h ts to n o n -J e w s. F or a fu rth er d escr ip tio n o f th e g r o w th o f Israeli

319

320

Notes

u ltra n a tio n a lism se e C h a rles S. L ieb m a n , “J ew ish U ltra N a tio n a lism in Israel: C o n ­ v erg in g S tr a n d s” in W illia m F ran k el (e d .), S u r v e y o f J e w is h A f f a ir s (L o n d o n , A sso c i­ ated U n iv ersities P ress, 1 9 8 5 ).

Chapter 1

The European Right (L o n d o n , S h avit, Jabotinsky and the Revision­

1. C f. H a n s R o g g e r a n d E u g en e W eb er (e d s.), W eid en feld & N ic h o ls o n , 1 9 6 5 ), p . 10; Y a a co v

ist Movement (L o n d o n ,

Frank C a ss, 1 9 8 8 ), p p . 3 5 2 —5 3 .

2 . C f. Z e ’ev S tern h el, “ F a scist I d e o lo g y ,” in W alter L aqueur,

Reader’s Guide (B erkeley,

Fascism: A

U n iv ersity o f C a lifo rn ia Press, 1 9 7 6 ).

3 . C f. S ta n ley G . P a y n e,

Fascism: Comparison and Definition

(M a d iso n , U n i­

versity o f W isc o n sin Press, 1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 1 5 —1 7. 4 . C f. E ssa y s in D a n ie l B ell (e d .),

The Radical Right (N e w Y ork, D o u b le d a y , Radical Right: Report on the John

1 9 6 3 ); B en jam in E p stein a n d A r n o ld F orster,

Birch Society and Allies ( N e w Y ork, R a n d o m H o u s e , 1 9 6 7 ); R ich ard H o fsta d te r, The Paranoid Style in American Politics (N e w Y ork, K n o p f, 1 9 6 5 ); S ey m o u r M artin L ip set, “T h e R a d ica l R ig h t,” British Journal of Sociology, N o . 1 (June 1 9 5 5 ). S ey­ m o u r M a r tin L ip set a n d Earl R a a b , The Politics of Unreason (N e w Y ork, H a rp er and R o w , 1 9 7 0 ). E d w a rd S h ils, The Torment of Secrecy (G len co e , Free Press, 1 9 5 6 ). 5 . G ilb er t A b ca r ia n an d S h erm a n M . S ta n a g e, “ A lie n a tio n an d th e R ad ical R ig h t,” in Ja m es A . G o u ld a n d W illis H . T ru hit (ed s),

Political Ideologies (N e w

Y ork,

M a c m illa n , 1 9 7 3 ).

6.

Ibid., p.

180.

7. C f. S e y m o u r M a r tin L ip set, “T h e S o u rces o f th e R ad ica l R ig h t,” R ich ard

The Radical Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Tem­

H o fsta d te r , “T h e P s e u d o -C o n s e r v a tiv e R e v o lt” in D a n eiel Bell (ed .),

Right; J o sep h R. G u sfie ld , perance Movement (U rb a n a ,

T h e U n iv ersity o f Illin o is Press, 1 9 6 3 ).

The Politics of Unreason, pp. 1 2 —2 4 . H a n s R o g g e r a n d E u g en e W eb er (e d s.), The European Right, p. 12. W alter L a q u eu r an d Barry R u b in (ed s.), The lsrael-Arab Reader (N e w

8. C f. L ip set a n d R a a b , 9. C f. 10. C f.

Y ork, P en gu in B o o k , 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 1 2 7 .

Democracy in Mapai in Israel:

11. O n M a p a i’s h e g e m o n y a n d m e th o d s see Y on ath an S h a p iro ,

Israel (R a m a t-G a n , M a s s a d a , 1 9 7 7 — H e b r e w ); Peter M e d d in g , Political Organization and Government in a New Society (C a m b rid g e, C a m b rid g e U n iversity Press, 1 9 7 2 ); M y r o n A r o n o ff, Power and Ritual in the Israeli Labor Party (A ssen , Van G o r c u m , 1 9 7 7 ). 12. C f. Ian L u stic k ,

Arabs in the Jewish State (A u stin ,

U n iversity o f T ex a s Press,

1 9 8 0 ). 13. C f. M o s h e N e g b i,

Above the Law: Constitutional Crisis in Israel (Tel

Aviv,

A m O v e d , 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ), C h . 3 . 14. F or a p r e - 1 9 6 7 d e sc r ip tio n o f th e Israeli p o litic a l sy stem see M arver H .

The Politics of Israel: The First Decade of Statehood (P rin ceto n , P rin ceton U n iversity Press, 1 9 5 7 ); L eo n a rd F ein , Israel: Politics and People (B o sto n , L ittle

B ern stein ,

B ro w n , 1 9 6 8 ). 15. O n L eh i’s 1 9 4 9 d is s o lu tio n a n d failu re to in teg ra te in to n a tio n a l p o litic s see P in has G e n o sa r ,

Lehi Revealed (R a m a t

G a n , B ar-Illan U niversity, 1 9 8 5 — H eb rew ),

Notes p p. 7 —3 7 ; J o sep h H e lle r ,

Lehi: Ideology and Politics 1940—1948 (J eru sa lem ,

321 K eter,

1 9 8 9 — H e b r e w ), C h . 1 2 .

Warrior: An Autobiography (N e w Y ork, Si­ B e n z im a n , Sharon: An Israeli Caesar (Tel A viv, A d a m

16. O n S h a r o n se e A riel A h a r o n , m on an d S ch u ster, 1 9 8 9 ); U zi P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ).

17. T h e E retz Y isra el K n e sset F r o n t w a s e s ta b lish e d in D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 8 , im m e d i­ ately after th e fo r m a tio n o f th e n e w u n ity c o a litio n b e tw e e n th e L ik u d a n d th e A lig n m e n t (L a b o r p a r ty ). It w a s in itia te d b y L ik u d K n esset m em b ers M ic h a e l E itan and T z a c h i H a n e g b i w h o w e r e s tr o n g ly o p p o s e d to th is m o v e , w h ic h left th e p a rties o f th e rad ica l rig h t w ith n o p o w e r o r in flu e n c e . T h e E retz Y israel F ron t w a s m a d e up o f all th e m e m b e r s o f th e T eh iy a , T z o m e t, M o le d e t, a n d th o s e fro m th e L ik u d , N a tio n a l R e lig io u s Party, S h a s, a n d A g u d a t Israel w h o are fu lly c o m m itte d to th e territorial in te g r ity o f th e e n tir e E retz Y isra e l, an d w h o w o r ried b efo r e th e 1 9 9 0 crisis o f th e u n ity g o v e r n m e n t th a t th e c o a litio n w ith L a b o r w a s lik ely to je o p a r d ize it. W h ile lo b b y in g fo r s e ttle m e n ts o f th e W est B ank an d th eir o r g a n iz a tio n s , th e F ro n t’s m a in a im w a s an in tr a -L ik u d m o b iliz a tio n , to co u n te r w h a te v e r e r o sio n m ig h t h a v e ta k e n p la c e in th e p o s it io n s o f S h a m ir an d th e “ m o d e r a te s .” In terv iew w ith T z a c h i H a n e g b i, D e c e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 8 8 . A ls o H a g g a i S egal, “ G o in g for W ar,

Hadashot, M a rch 3 , 1 9 8 9 . A Preface to Democratic Theory

E d u ca tio n a l W ar, a n d G u id a n c e ,” 18. C f. R o b e r t A D a h l,

(C h ic a g o , C h ic a g o

U n iversity P ress, 1 9 5 6 ) , C h . 4 . 19. O n th e

intifada se e

The Intifada (N e w Y ork, The Intifada: Causes and Effects (Tel Aviv,

Z e ’ev S c h iff a n d E h u d Y a’ari,

S im on a n d S ch u ster, 1 9 9 0 ); A ry e S h a lev , Papirus P u b lish ers, 1 9 9 0 — H e b r e w ).

2 0 . M y e s tim a te is c o n s e r v a tiv e a n d b a sed o n regular o p in io n p o lls in Israel th a t in d ica te a 8 —1 2 % s u p p o r t fo r th e T eh iy a , T z o m e t, M o le d e t a n d K ach , a 10% su p p o rt fo r th e S h a r o n C a m p a n d o th e r r a d ica ls in th e L ik u d , an d an a d d itio n a l 3 — 5% su p p o r t fo r th e ra d ica l rig h t w ith in su ch p a rties as th e N R P , A g u d a t Israel, S h a s, and th e r ig h t-w in g frin g es o f th e L a b o r party. 2 1 . S everal s c h o la r s h a v e w r itte n a b o u t th e p o s t - 1 9 6 7 ch a n g e in Israeli cu ltu re and th e e m e r g e n c e o f n e w p o w e r fu l n a tio n a lis t a n d n e o -r e lig io u s id e o lo g ic a l an d sy m b o lic fr a m e w o r k s . T h e y h a v e , h o w e v e r , m a in ly c o n c e n tr a te d o n M e n a c h e m B e­ gin an d th e L ik u d . T h e ra d ica l rig h t c e rta in ly b e lo n g s to th e “ N e w Z io n is m ,” o r to the n e w Israeli “ C iv il R e lig io n ,” y e t it h a s a d is tin c t p sy c h o -id e o lo g ic a l territory o f its o w n . O n H e r u t’s “ N e w Z io n is m ” as an id e o lo g y , cu ltu re, civ il re lig io n , an d sy m b o lic s y ste m se e O fira S elik ta r,

Israel

New Zionism and the Foreign Policy System of

(L o n d o n , C r o o m H e lm , 1 9 8 6 ) , C h s. 3 —4 . See a lso C h a rles S. L ieb m a n an d

E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a ,

Civil Religion in Israel

(L os A n g e le s, U n iv ersity o f C a lifo rn ia

Press, 1 9 8 3 ) , p. 2 3 4 ; M y r o n J. A r o n o ff, “ E sta b lish in g A u th o rity : T h e M e m o ria liza tio n o f J a b o tin s k y a n d th e B urial o f th e B a r-K o ch b a B o n es in Israel U n d er th e L ik u d ” in M y r o n J. A r o n o ff (e d .),

The Frailty of Authority

(N e w B ru n sw ic k , P o liti­

cal A n th r o p o lo g y , V o l. V, T r a n sa c tio n B o o k s , 1 9 8 6 ). 2 2 . R a b b i M o s h e L ev in g er, “ O ld F lags S h o u ld N o t Be T h r o w n A w a y ,”

Nekuda

(H eb re w ), N o . 9 7 (M a rch 2 5 , 1 9 8 6 ) , p. 8. 2 3 . A K ach flier d istr ib u te d to p a r tic ip a n ts in th e o fficia l c o m m e m o r a tio n o f th e h u n d red th a n n iv e r sa r y o f D a v id B e n -G u r io n ’s b irth , q u o te d in G erald C rom er, “T h e D e b a te A b o u t K a h a n ism in Israeli S o c ie ty 1 9 8 4 —1 9 8 8 ,”

Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation,

N o . 3, pp. 1 5 - 1 6 .

Occasional Papers of the

322

Notes 2 4 . A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w s w ith G eu la C o h e n , A u g u st 2 3 , 1 9 8 5 , an d w ith G ersh o n

S o lo m o n , F eb ru ary 1 4 , 1 9 8 5 . 2 5 . F or an a n a ly sis o f th e fu n d a m e n ta lism o f th e U ltra O r th o d o x y in Israel in relation to th e n e w Z io n is t fu n d a m e n ta lism o f th e rad ical righ t see A viezer R a v itzk i, “ M e ssia n ism , Z io n is m a n d th e F u tu re o f Israel in th e D iv id e d R e lig io u s S c h o o ls in Isra el,” in A lo u p h H a rev e n (e d .),

Towards The 21st Century

(Jeru salem , V an Leer,

1 9 8 4 — H e b r e w ). See a ls o M e n a c h e m F ried m a n , “ R ad ical R e lig io u s G ro u p s in Is­ rael: C o n se r v a tism a n d I n n o v a t io n ,” in M e n a c h e m F riedm an an d E m m a n u el Sivan (ed s.),

Religious Radicalism and Politics in the Middle East (A lbany,

S tate U n iversity

o f N e w Y ork , 1 9 9 0 ). 2 6 . B en n y K a tzo v er, “T h e G r a v ita tio n P o in t,”

Nekuda

2 7 (A pril 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 ),

P-H2 7 . C f. T h e m a in re p r e se n ta tiv e o f th is a p p r o a ch w a s th e la te E liezer L ivneh in

Israel and the Crisis of Western Civilization (Tel Aviv, S ch o k e n , 1 9 7 2 ). T h e sa m e Zot Haretz, th e m a g a z in e o f th e L and o f Israel M o v e ­ m en t, w h ic h w a s la ter c h a n n e le d in to Nekuda. It can p resen tly b e d ete cte d in th e

a p p ro a ch d o m in a te d fo r y ea rs

sp eec h e s a n d p ress c o lu m n s o f G eu la C o h e n a n d D r. Israel E ldad . 2 8 . C f. E h u d S p rin za k , “ E x tre m e P o litics in Isra el,”

The Jerusalem Quarterly,

N o . 15 (Fall 1 9 7 7 ) a n d E. S p rin za k , “ G u sh E m u nim : T h e Iceberg M o d e l.” 2 9 . C f.

Nekuda 9 3

(N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 1 9 8 5 ).

3 0 . C f. A v in o a m Bar Y o sef a n d Y e h o sh u a B itzur, “ A P rim e M in ister T h a t Surren­ ders Parts o f E retz Israel W ill Be C o n sid e r e d a T ra ito r,”

Yediot Achronot (N o v e m b e r

8, 1 9 8 5 ). 3 1 . M e ir K a h a n e, “T h e S e c o n d R e v o lu tio n ,”

The Jewish Press

(O cto b e r 2 0 ,

1 9 7 8 ). 3 2 . C f. N e k u d a E d ito ria l a n d Y e h o sh u a Z o h a r , “T h e R etrea t F rom L eb an on : S piritual W e a k n e s s ,”

Nekuda 8 3

(F ebruary 1, 1 9 8 5 ), p p. 5 —7; A lso , T zfia rep ort o n

th e e sta b lish m e n t o f a G a riin (a s e ttle m e n t n u c leu s) for a fu tu re settlem e n t in L eb a ­ non,

Tzfia 2

(S p rin g, 1 9 8 5 ) , p p . 9 5 —9 6 .

3 3 . E ly a k im H a e tz n i, “ A S ta te w ith N o P ro tectio n A g a in st Internal E r o s io n ,”

Nekuda 8 4

(M a rch 1, 1 9 8 5 ) , p. 2 2 .

3 4 . C f. E ly a k im H a e tz n i, “T h e ‘F o c u s ’ T h a t W as N o t F o c u s e d ,”

Nekuda

97

(M arch 3 , 1 9 8 6 ) , p. 1 4. 3 5 . A m a jo r e ffo r t in th is d ir e c tio n is Ian S. L u stick , For the Land and the Lord: Y ork, C o u n cil o n F oreign R e la tio n s, 1 9 8 8 ).

Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (N e w

3 6 . F or a g o o d a n a ly tic a l e x a m in a tio n o f th e d ifferen t a sp ects o f th e n e w Israeli u ltra n a tio n a lism see C h a rles S. L ieb m a n , “J ew ish U ltr a -N a tio n a lism in Israel: C o n ­ v erg in g S tr a n d s.”

Chapter 2 1. C f. Y a’a c o v S h a v it, Jahotinsky Frank C a ss, 1 9 8 8 ), C h s. 3 —4 . 2.

Ibid.,

and the Revisionist Movement

(L o n d o n ,

pp. 1 4 9 - 5 0 .

3 . O n th e n e g a tiv e im a g e o f th e a n c ie n t B irio n im in Ju d aism see E phraim E. U rbach,

The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs

pp. 5 9 3 —6 0 3 .

(Jeru salem , M a g n ess Press, 1 9 7 9 ),

Notes

323

Lehi, p p . 2 9 - 3 0 . Ibid., pp. 2 4 - 3 1 . Ibid. 7 . Ibid., p p . 1 9 - 3 5 ; F or a d iffe r e n t v e r sio n see J o sep h S c h e c h tm a n , The Life and Times of Vladimir Jabotinsky: Fighter and Prophet (Silver S p rin gs, E shel B o o k s , 4 . C f. J o se p h H e lle r ,

5. 6.

1 9 8 6 ), p p . 4 3 4 - 4 1 . 8. F or a n im p r e ssiv e , a lth o u g h s o m e w h a t a h isto r ic a l, a tte m p t to p o rtra y

Every Individ­ ual Is a King; The Social and Political Thought of Ze’ev ( Vladimir) Jabotinsky (Tel

J a b o tin sk y as a c la ssic a l w e ste r n lib era l se e R a p h a e lla B ilsk i B en -H u r, Aviv, D v ir, 1 9 8 8 — H e b r e w ). 9 . C f. Y o n a th a n S h a p ir o ,

Chosen to Command

(Tel Aviv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 9 —

H e b r e w ), C h . 1.

Varieties of Zionist Thought

1 0 . C f. S h lo m o A v in eri,

(Tel Aviv, A m O v e d ,

1 9 8 0 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 9 5 —2 0 2 .

Every Individual Is a King, C h . 2 . Chosen to Command, p p . 2 0 —2 8 .

1 1 . C f. R a p h a e lla B ilsk y,

1 2 . C f. Y o n a th a n S h a p ir o , 13.

Ibid.,

C h s. 2 - 3 .

1 4 . C f. C h a rles S. L ieb m a n a n d E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a ,

Civil Religion in Israel

(B erkeley, U n iv e r sity o f C a lifo r n ia P ress, 1 9 8 3 ) , p p . 7 4 —7 6 .

Chosen to Command, pp. 3 8 —4 9 . 1 6 . C f. S h lo m o A v in eri, Varieties of Zionist Thought, p p . 2 1 0 - 1 5 . 1 7 . C f. S a sso n S o fer, Begin: An Anatomy of Leadership (N e w Y ork, B asil B la ck w e ll, 1 9 8 8 ) , p p . 1 9 —2 4 ; S h a p ir o , ibid., p p . 6 6 - 7 1 . 1 8 . O n S tern a n d L ehi se e J o se p h H e lle r , Lehi, C h . 4 . 19. C f. Y a a c o v S h a v it, Jabotinsky, p p . 3 5 0 - 5 7 ; Y o n a th a n S h a p iro , Democracy in Israel (R a m a t-G a n , M a s s a d a , 1 9 7 7 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 3 1 —3 3 . D a n H o r o w itz an d M o s h e L issa k , The Origins of the Israeli Polity (Tel A viv, A m O v e d , 1 9 7 7 — 1 5 . C f. Y o n a th a n S h a p ir o ,

H e b r e w ), p p . 3 2 1 —2 6 . 2 0 . C f. C h a rles S. L ie b m a n a n d E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a ,

Civil Religion in Israel, p p.

3 0 -3 6 . 2 1 . Y o se f G o rn y ,

The Arab Question and the Jewish Problem

(Tel A viv, A m

O v ed , 1 9 8 5 ) , p p . 3 2 3 - 3 2 . 2 2 . F or an e x h a u s tiv e d is c u s s io n o f th e tr a n sfer issu e see S h a b ta i T evet, “ T h e

Ha’aretz, S ep tem b er 2 3 , 2 5 , 1 9 8 8 ; The Guilt of Jerusalem (Tel A viv, K a m i, 1 9 8 9 — H e b r e w ), p p . 2 4 6 —6 6 . 2 3 . C f. S h a b ta i T ev et, ibid., S e p te m b e r 2 5 ; Y o sef G orn y, The Arab Question and the Jewish Problem, p p . 3 3 3 - 3 5 . 2 4 . C f. Y a a c o v S h a v it, Jabotinsky, p p . 3 5 1 —5 7 . 2 5 . C f. A n ita S h a p ir a , Berl Katznelson: A Biography (Tel Aviv, A m O v e d ,

E v o lu tio n o f th e T ra n sfer in Z io n is t T h in k in g ,” Z v i S h ilo a h ,

1 9 8 0 — H e b r e w ), p p . 5 8 3 —8 9 . 2 6 . C f. S h a b ta i T ev et,

David’s Passion: The Life of David Ben-Gurion (Tel

Aviv,

S ch o k e n , 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ), V o l. 3 , p p . 1 6 2 —6 4 . 2 7 . C f. Z v i S h ilo a h , The Guilt of Jerusalem, p p . 2 8 8 - 3 0 0 ; S h im o n G o la n , Allegiance in the Struggle (E fa a l, Y ad T a b e n k in , 1 9 8 8 — H e b r e w ), p. 9. 2 8 . C f. Y eh u d a S lu tzk y , The History of the Haganah, Part II, V ol. 2 (Tel Aviv, T h e M in istr y o f D e fe n s e , 1 9 7 3 — H e b r e w ), p p . 8 4 4 - 5 0 , C h s. 4 6 - 4 8 . See a lso S h ab tai T ev et,

Moshe Dayan

(Tel A viv, S c h o k e n , 1 9 7 1 — H e b r e w ), pp. 1 5 7 —7 4 .

2 9 . T h is w a s m o s tly e x p r e s s e d in th e W ar o f In d e p e n d en ce d u rin g w h ic h m a n y

324

Notes

ca lcu la te d a tta c k s o n c iv ilia n ce n ters w e r e c o n d u c te d . S ee, for e x a m p le , th e b a ttle o n H a ifa in B en n y M o r r is,

The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947—1949

(C a m b rid g e , C a m b r id g e U n iv ersity P ress), p p . 8 5 —9 4 . 3 0 . Q u o te d b y B en n y M o r r is, 31.

Ibid., p p .

ibid., p.

27.

1 3 4 —3 7 .

3 2 . Ibid. 3 3 . O n th e in tern a l r e a ctio n to th e c r ea tio n o f th e A rab refu gee p ro b lem a m o n g Israel’s to p lea d ers see T om S egev,

1949: The First Israelis

(Jeru salem , D o m in o ,

1 9 8 4 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 9 —4 7 . 3 4 . C f. Z v i S h ilo a h ,

The Guilt of Jerusalem, p p .

2 4 9 —5 1 .

3 5 . C f. E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a , “J ew ish M e ssia n ism , R e lig io u s Z io n ism a n d Israeli P olitics: T h e Im p a ct a n d O r ig in s o f G u sh E m u n im ,”

Middle Eastern Studies, V ol. 2 3 ,

N o . 2 (A p ril 1 9 8 7 ) , p p . 2 2 2 - 2 5 . 3 6 . C f. Y o sef G o r n i, 37.

Ibid.,

The Arab Question and the Jewish Problem,

p p. 3 5 0 —5 2 .

p. 3 9 5 .

3 8 . Q u o te d b y G o r n i,

ibid.

3 9 . C f. Y o n a th a n S h a p ir o ,

Chosen to Command,

p p. 4 7 —4 8 .

4 0 . O n R a z ie l, Stern a n d r e lig io n see N a th a n Y elin -M or,

Freedom of Israel (J eru sa lem ,

The Fighters for the

S h ik m o n a , 1 9 7 4 — H e b r e w ), pp. 6 0 —7 0 .

4 1 . C f. M o s h e H a le v i S eg a l,

Generation to Generation

(Tel Aviv, M in istry o f

D e fe n se , 1 9 8 5 ) , p. 1 2 8 . 4 2 . S ee, fo r e x a m p le , Y o n a th a n S h a p iro ,

Democracy in Israel; D a n H o r o w itz The Origins of the Israeli Polity; Peter M e d d in g , Mapai in Israel: Political Organization and Government in a New Society (C a m b rid g e, C a m b rid g e U n iversity Press, 1 9 7 2 ): M y r o n A r o n o ff, Power and Ritual in the Israeli Labor Party an d M o s h e L issa k ,

(A ssen , Van G o r c u m , 1 9 7 7 ). 4 3 . C f. Y a a co v S h a v it,

Jabotinsky,

p p . 3 5 0 - 5 7 ; E hud S prin zak “ A lta len a ,

T h irty Y ears A fter: S o m e P o litica l T h o u g h t s ,”

Leumiim,

Medina Mimshal Veyehasim Bein

N o . 1 4 , S p rin g 1 9 7 9 (R e v ie w e s s a y — H e b r e w ).

4 4 . C f. D a n H o r o w itz a n d M o s h e L issa k ,

The Origins of the Israeli Polity,

pp.

1 1 4 -1 7 . 4 5 . C f. M ic h a e l J. C o h e n ,

Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945—1948 (P rin ce­

to n , P rin ceto n U n iv ersity Press, 1 9 8 2 ), C h . 10.

The Origins of the Israeli Polity, p p . Steering the Polity: Communications and Politics in Israel

4 6 . C f. D a n H o r o w itz a n d M o s h e L issa k , 1 3 7 —4 6 ; Itzh a k G a ln o o r ,

(Tel Aviv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 0 3 —12.

Lehi, p p . 1 1 3 —3 5 . S h a p iro , Chosen to Command,

4 7 . C f. J o sep h H eller, 4 8 . C f. Y o n a th a n

p. 7 7 ; S a sso n Sofer,

Begin,

C h. 5 . 4 9 . O n H e r u t’s m a x im a lis t p ro g ra m a n d radical m y th s see Y o n a th a n S h a p iro ,

ibid., p p .

1 1 5 —2 2 .

5 0 . C f. J o sep h H eller, 5 1 . C f.

Sulam V o l.

Lehi,

C h . 12.

3 , N o . 3 (Ju n e 1 9 5 1 ), p. 3 2 . For a gen eral b a ck g ro u n d o n th e

The First Tenth (Tel Aviv, H ad ar, 1 9 7 5 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 8 5 — The Truth about the Kasztner Murder (Jeru salem , E d a n im , 1 9 8 5 —

g ro u p see Israel E ld a d , 4 0 0 ; Isser H a rel,

H e b r e w ), p p . 4 7 —4 8 . 5 2 . C f.

Isser H a rel,

Security and Democracy

(Tel Aviv, E d an im ,

H e b r e w ), C h . 1 0. 5 3 . P erson al in te r v ie w w ith Dr. E ld ad , F eb ruary 2 8 , 1 9 8 5 .

1989—

Notes

325

Chapter 3 1. M ic h a e l B a r -Z o h a r ,

The Longest Month

(Tel Aviv, L evin E p stein , 1 9 6 8 —

H e b r e w ). 2 . F or a g o o d d e sc r ip tio n o f th e 1 9 6 7 e s c a la tio n th a t led to th e 1 9 6 7 w a r see W alter L a q u eu r,

The Road to War 1967: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

(L o n d o n , W e id e n fe ld & N ic o ls o n , 1 9 6 9 ). 3 . C f. N a d a v S a fra n ,

1967 (N e w

From War to War: The Arab Israeli Confrontation 1948—

Y ork , P e g a su s, 1 9 6 9 ) , p. 2 6 8 .

4 . C f. A b b a E b a n ,

Autobiography (Tel A viv, M a ’ariv, 1 9 7 8 — H e b r e w ), C h . 1 3 . Deterrence Without the Bomb: The Politics of Israeli Strat­

5 . C f. A v n er Y aniv,

egy (L e x in g to n ,

M a s s ., D . C . H e a th , 1 9 8 6 ), p p . 1 1 3 —15.

The Longest Month, p . 9 7 ; E itan H a b er, “ Today War Will Break Out”: The reminiscences of Brig. Gen. Israel Lior, Aid-de Camp to Prime Ministers Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir (Tel Aviv, E d a n im P ress, 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ), p p. 1 7 4 —7 5 ; Itzh a k R a b in , A Soldier’s Notebook (T h e R a b in M e m o ir s) (Tel Aviv, 6 . C f. B a r -Z o h a r ,

M a ’ariv B o o k s , 1 9 7 9 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 5 8 - 6 0 . 7 . M ic h a e l B a r -Z o h a r ,

Ben-Gurion: A Political Biography,

Part III (Tel Aviv,

A m O v e d , 1 9 7 7 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 5 8 8 - 9 3 ; E itan H a b er, “ Today

Out,” p p .

War Will Break

1 7 7 -7 8 .

8 . T h e r u m o r w a s a p p a r e n tly tru e. C f. Bar Z o h a r , T h e L o n g e s t M o n th , p p. 1 5 3 - 5 4 ; fo r a v iv id litera ry d e s c r ip tio n o f th e p rep a ra tio n s see H a im B e’er, T h e T im e o f T r im m in g (Tel A viv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ), p p . 5 4 1 —4 4 . O n th e “ M a s-

sad a C o m p le x ” se e la y Y. G o n e n , P s y c h o h i s t o r y o f Z i o n i s m (N e w Y ork, M a ste r / C h arter, 1 9 7 5 ) , C h . 1 3. 9. T h e Israeli m o o d b e fo r e a n d after th e w a r h a s b een w e ll p reserv ed in R u th

Mission Survival: The People of Israel’s Story in Their Own Words, from the Threat of Annihilation to Miraculous Victory ( N e w Y ork , Sabra B o o k s , 1 9 6 8 ). See a ls o A m o s E lo n , The Israelis: Fathers and Sons (L o n d o n , W e id e n fe ld & N ic o ls o n , 1 9 7 1 ), C h . 1; Jay Y. G o n e n “T h e Israeli Illu sio n o f O m n ip o te n c e F o llo w in g th e S ix D a y W a r,” Journal of Psychohistory, N o . B ond y, O h a d Z m o r a , a n d R a p h a e l B a sh a n (e d s),

6 (1 9 7 8 ) . 1 0 . O n th e e m e r g e n c e o f th e “ n e w Z io n is m ” as an id e o lo g y , cu ltu re, civil reli­ g io n , a n d s y m b o lic sy ste m se e O fira S elik ta r,

New Zionism and the Foreign Policy

System of Israel (L o n d o n , C r o o m H e lm , 1 9 8 6 ) , C h s. 3 —5; E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a , Civil Religion in Israel (L os A n g e le s,

C h a rles S. L ieb m a n an d U n iv ersity o f C a lifo r n ia

Press, 1 9 8 3 ) , C h . 5 . 11. H a’aretz, 2 2 S e p te m b e r 1 9 6 7 . 12. F or a d e ta ile d a c c o u n t o f th e d r a ftin g o f th e m a n ife sto see Z v i S h ilo a h ,

Guilt of Jerusalem (Tel

The

A viv, K a m i, 1 9 8 9 ) , p p . 4 3 —4 5 .

1 3 . S a m u el K a tz, a v etera n R e v is io n is t, to ld Yair S h eleg o f

Nekuda,

w h o d id a

m ajor sto r y o n th e b irth o f th e L IM , th a t a y ear b e fo r e th e S ix -D a y W ar h e p a rticip a ted in a “ p u b lic tr ia l” o n E tzel (th e Irgun u n d e r g r o u n d d u rin g th e B ritish M a n d a te — o f w h ich h e w a s a le a d in g c o m m a n d e r ) h eld in o n e o f H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d ’s k ib ­ b u tzim . B en n y M a r s h a k , a p r o m in e n t K ib b u tz id e o lo g is t w h o w a s later to b e an L IM c o lle a g u e o f K a tz, w a s rea d y t o p a r tic ip a te in th e “ tr ia l” u n d er th e c o n d itio n th a t h e n o t b e p re se n t in th e r o o m w h e n th e R e v is io n ists te stify an d v ice versa. S ee Yair S h eleg ,

Nekuda, N o . 1 1 4 (O c to b e r The Guilt of Jerusalem, pp. 4 8 —5 2 ;

“ O n c e T h e r e W as a M o v e m e n t ,” 1 4 . C f. Z v i S h ilo a h ,

1 9 8 7 ), p. 3 7 . R ael Jean Isaac,

Israel

326

Notes

Divided: Ideological Politics in the Jewish State

(B altim ore, T h e Joh n s H o p k in s

U n iversity Press, 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 5 4 - 5 6 ; Yair S h eleg , “ O n c e T h ere W as a M o v e m e n t,” p. 5 8 .

15. Ibid., p. 5 9 . 16. C f. D a n M ir o n , “ A D o c u m e n t in Israel: À D e ta ile d A n a ly sis o f th e Id e o lo g i­ cal, P o litic a l, L itera ry -C u ltu ra l O r ig in s o f T h e L and o f Israel M o v e m e n t an d its F o u n d in g M a n ife s to : T h e P e o p le , th e T e x t a n d W h a t H a v e H a p p en ed to T h e m ,”

Politica (H e b r e w ),

V o l. 1 1 , N o . 16 (A u g u st, 1 9 8 7 ), pp. 3 —4 .

17. Q u o te d in H o w a r d M . S ach ar,

A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zion­

ism to Our Time (J eru sa lem , S teim a tzk y , 1 9 7 6 ), p. 6 7 3 . 18. M o s h e D a y a n , A New Map, Other Relationships (Tel

Aviv, M a ’ariv B o o k s,

1 9 6 9 — H e b r e w ), p. 1 7 3 .

The Guilt of Jerusalem,

19. C f. Z v i S h ilo a h ,

4 9 -5 0 . 2 0 . C f. Y a a co v S h a v it,

p. 4 8 ; Isaac,

Israel Divided,

pp.

Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement 1925—1948 Lehi: Ideology and Politics

(L o n d o n , Frank K a ss, 1 9 8 8 ), p p . 1 3 9 - 6 1 ; J o sep h H eller,

1940—1949 (J eru sa lem ,

K eter, 1 9 8 9 ), C h . 1.

2 1 . In ter v ie w w ith D r. Israel E ld ad , F eb ru ary 2 8 , 1 9 8 5 . 2 2 . Ibid. 2 3 . C f. J o sep h G o r n i,

The Arab Question and the Jewish Problem (Tel Aviv, A m The Price of Unification

O v ed Press, 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 3 2 —3 8 ; Y ossi B eilin ,

(R a m a t G a n , R e v iv im P u b lish in g H o u s e , 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), pp. 2 0 5 —2 0 7 . 2 4 . C f. Itzh a k T a b e n k in ,

Collected Speeches,

V ol. IV (Tel Aviv, H a k ib b u tz

H a m e u c h a d , 1 9 7 9 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 4 0 - 5 0 . F or T a b e n k in ’s p o s t - 1 9 6 7 e x p r e ssio n s see Itzhak T a b e n k in ,

Land (Tel

The Lesson of the Six Days: The Settlement of an Undivided

Aviv, H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d , 1 9 7 0 — H eb rew ).

2 5 . C f. A m ia L ie b lic h ’s literary d e sc r ip tio n in

Israeli Kibbutz

Kibbutz-Makom: Report from an

(N e w Y ork, P a n th eo n B o o k s , 1 9 8 1 ), p p. 1 3 1 —3 3 .

2 6 . Q u o te d in Y ossi B eilin ,

The Price of Unification,

p. 2 6 .

2 7 . Ibid., p. 2 8 . 2 8 . C f. Yair S h eleg , “ O n c e T h e re W as a M o v e m e n t,” p. 6 0 ; D a n M ir o n , “ A D o c u m e n t in Isr a e l,” p. 6.

From Hebrew to Y eh osh u a P orat, The

2 9 . O n th e C a n a a n ite id e o lo g y an d h isto ry see Y a’a c o v S h avit,

Canaanite (J eru sa lem , T h e D o m in o Press, 1 9 8 4 — H eb rew ); Life of Uriel Shelah (Y o n a th a n R a to sh ) (Tel Aviv, M a c h b a r o t L esafrut, 1 9 8 9 — H e b rew ). O n th e L IM -C a n a a n ite e p is o d e see Isaac, Israel Divided, pp. 5 0 —5 3 .

3 0 . C f. E h u d S p r in za k , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceberg M o d e l o f P olitical E x trem ­

Medina, Mimshal Veyechasim Beinleumiim (H eb re w ), N o . 1 7 (Fall 1 9 8 1 ), pp. 2 8 —2 9 ; G id e o n A r a n , From Religious Zionism to Zionist Religion: The Origins and Culture of Gush Emunim, A Messianic Movement in Modern Israel (U n p u b lish ed

is m ,”

P h .D . D iss e r ta tio n , H e b r e w U n iv ersity o f J eru sa lem , 1 9 8 7 — H e b rew ), C h. 3; D a n n y R u b in ste in ,

On the Lord’s Side: Gush Emunim

(Tel Aviv, H a k ib b u tz H a m eu ch a d ,

1 9 8 2 — H e b r e w ), C h . 2 . F or an a n a ly sis o f th e m ark ed th eo retica l and p o litic a l d ifferen ce b e tw e e n R a b b is K o o k , th e fath er a n d th e so n , see E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a , “Jew ish M e s s ia n is m , R e lig io u s Z io n is m an d Israeli P olitics: T h e Im p act an d O rig in s o f G u sh E m u n im ,” Middle Eastern Studies, V ol. 2 3 , N o . 2 (A pril 1 9 8 7 ). 3 1 . C f. R a b b Z v i Y ehu d a H a c o h e n K o o k , “ T h is Is th e S tate th e P rop h ets H a d E n v is io n e d ,” q u o te d in

Nekuda,

N o . 8 6 (A pril 2 6 , 1 9 8 5 ), p p. 6 —7.

Notes

327

3 2 . Q u o t e d in S. D a n ie l, “ Y ou F irst B u ild o n S and a n d th en P ro ceed to S a n c­ tify ,” Hatzofe, ly a r 2 3 , 1 9 7 3 . 3 3 . C f. R a b b i M e n a c h e m K ash er,

The Great Era

(J eru sa lem , T orah S h lem a

In stitu te, 1 9 6 8 — H e b r e w ); See a ls o U riel T al, “ F o u n d a tio n s o f a P o litica l M e s s ia n ic

The Jerusalem Quarterly, N o . 3 5 (S p ring 1 9 8 5 ). A . 1. H a c o h e n K o o k , The Ha-Raiah Letters, V ol. 11

Trend in I s r a e l,” 34. R abbi

(J eru sa lem , T h e

R av K o o k In stitu te , 1 9 6 2 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 7 6 —7 7 .

Society and Religion: The Non-Zionist Ortho­

3 5 . C f. M e n a c h e m F rie d m a n ,

doxy in Eretz Yisrael,

1 9 1 8 - 1 9 3 6 (J e ru sa le m , Y ad B e n -Z v i, 1 9 7 8 — H e b r e w ), p p.

9 2 —9 8 . F or a c o m p r e h e n s iv e s tu d y o f th e th o u g h t o f R a b b i K o o k , see Z v i Y aron ,

The Teaching of Rav Kook

(J e ru sa le m , T h e J ew ish A g e n c y o f E retz Y israel, 1 9 7 9 —

H e b r e w ). S ee a ls o , R iv k a S h a tz, “ U to p ia a n d M e ssia n ism in th e te a c h in g o f R av K o o k ,”

gion,

Kivunim,

1, 1 9 7 8 ; G id e o n A r a n ,

From Religious Zionism to Zionist Reli­

C h. 3.

3 6 . C f. M e n a c h e m F rie d m a n ,

ibid., p p .

1 0 3 —1 0 9 .

3 7 . It s h o u ld b e n o te d h o w e v e r , th a t R a b b i K o o k tried to esta b lish a p o litic o re lig io u s m o v e m e n t,

Degel Yerushalaim (J e r u sa le m ’s

F la g ), b u t its p u r p o se w a s less

p o litic a l th a n s p ir itu a l. R e c o g n iz in g th e tr e m e n d o u s g a p b e tw e e n sec u la r Z io n is m and o r t h o d o x J u d a ism , K o o k h o p e d th a t th e n e w m o v e m e n t, w h ic h w o u ld b e led by h igh H a la k h ic a u th o r itie s , w o u ld h elp th e o r t h o d o x m a in ta in th eir sp iritu a l in d e p e n ­ d en ce w h ile w o r k in g a t th e sa m e tim e w ith th e Z io n is ts a n d r e c o g n iz in g th eir p o lit i­ cal a u th o rity . H o w e v e r , th e e ffo r t fa ile d m isera b ly. C f. Y ossi A vn eri, “ D e g e l Y eru sh a­

In the Path of Renewal: Studies in Religious Zionism 3 Society and Religion, G id e o n A r a n , From Religious Zionism to Zionist Religion,

la im ,” M o r d e c h a i E lia v (e d .),

(R a m a t G a n , B ar-Ilan U n iv ersity , 1 9 8 5 ); M e n a c h e m F ried m a n , p p. 1 0 2 —1 0 3 ; 1 2 6 - 1 2 8 . p p. 1 2 1 - 1 2 3 .

3 8 . In h is o r ig in a l s tu d y o f M e r c a z H a ra v u n d er R ab b i Z v i Y ehu d a K o o k , G id e o n A ra n s h o w s th a t sev e ra l ty p ic a l h y p e r n o m ia n c o m p o n e n ts o f th e w o u ld -b e G ush E m u n im w e r e a lr e a d y p r e se n t in M e r c a z H a ra v b efo r e th e g rea t m e ssia n ic er u p tio n o f 1 9 6 7 , b u t th a t th e c la im to s p e a r h e a d th e n a tio n an d th e c o n fid e n c e to p u rsu e it th r o u g h p u b lic a c tio n w e r e o n ly p r o d u c e d by th e u n p re ced en te d e x p e r i­ en ce o f th e S ix -D a y W ar. C f. G id e o n A ra n , “ F rom R e lig io u s Z io n is m to Z io n is t R e lig io n — D is s e r ta tio n ,” C h . 3 . 3 9 . C f. U riel T al, “ F o u n d a tio n s o f a P o litica l M e ssia n ic T rend in Isra e l,” p. 4 0 . For an in te r e stin g d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n “ m e ssia n ism as a th eory, a p rin c ip le o f h isto r i­ cal in te r p r e ta tio n , a n d ‘m e s s ia n is m ’ w h ic h is a lso an o p e r a tiv e p ro g ra m for p o litic a l a c t io n ” se e E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a , “J e w ish M e s s ia n ism , R e lig io u s Z io n is m a n d Israeli P o litics: T h e Im p a c t a n d O r ig in s o f G u sh E m u n im ,” p. 2 2 4 . 4 0 . Q u o ted

in

Y o ch a i

R u d ik ,

“ T h e J ew ish

E m u n im ” a n d th e “ R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t ,”

U n d erg ro u n d

Kivunim

B etw een

“ G u sh

(H eb re w ) (S u m m er, A u g u st

1 9 8 7 ), p. 8 8 . 4 1 . C f. R a b b i S h lo m o A vin er, “ A n d W e D id N o t B etray Y our C o v e n a n t” (H e ­ b rew ),

Artzi,

N o . 1 (J e ru sa le m 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 3 8 —3 9 .

4 2 . C f. Yair S h e le g , “ O n c e T h e r e W as a M o v e m e n t ,” p. 5 8 . 4 3 . Q u o te d in D a n n y R u b in s te in ,

On the Lord's Side, p.

30.

4 4 . C f. E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a , “ S ta b ility a n d C h a n g e in a ‘C a m p P arty’: T h e N R P and th e R e v o lu tio n o f th e Y o u n g ,”

Medina Mimshal Veychasim BeinLeumiim, N o . On the Lord’s Side, pp. 3 1 - 3 7 . O n th e

1 4 (1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 2 5 —5 2 ; D a n n y R u b in s te in ,

328

Notes

tra d itio n a l p o litic s o f th e N R P see G ary S ch iff,

Parties of Israel (D e tr o it,

Tradition and Politics: The Religious

W a y n e S ta te P ress, 1 9 7 7 ), C h s. 6 —9.

4 5 . F or a d e sc r ip tio n o f th e re se ttle m e n t o f G u sh E tzion cf. Yair S h eleg, “ G u sh

Nekuda N o . 1 1 4 (O c to b e r 1 9 8 7 ), p p . 2 3 2 7 ; Peter R o b e r t D e m a n t, Ploughshares into Swords: Israeli Settlement Policy in the Occupied Territories, 1967-1977 (U n p u b lish e d P h .D . D isse r ta tio n , S u b m itted to th e

E tzion: T h is M o n th T w en ty y ea rs A g o ” in

U n iversity o f A m ste r d a m , 1 9 8 8 ) , p p . 1 1 6 —1 1 7 .

The Cursed Blessing (L o n d o n , W e id e n fe ld & N ic o ls o n , 1 9 7 0 ) , C h . 2 8 ; H a g g a i S egal, Dear Brothers (Jeru salem , K eter P u b lish in g H o u s e , 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ), C h . 2; Peter D e m a n t, ibid., 4 6 . F or th e H e b r o n se ttle m e n t sto r y se e S h ab tai T eveth ,

p p. 1 5 3 - 6 1 . 4 7 . O n L ev in g er see , fo r e x a m p le , N a h u m B arn ea, “T h e D e r v is h ,”

Rashit (H e b r e w ), Yediot Achronot,

Koteret

M a y 1 6 , 1 9 8 4 ; A m o s N e v o , “ W h o A re Y ou R ab b i L ev in g er,” M a y , 1 8 , 1 9 8 4 ; Y eh u d a L ita n i, “ T h e L evin ger S tin g ,”

Kol Hair,

July 1 5 , 1 9 8 3 . 4 8 . C f. Y air S h e le g , “ O n c e T h e r e W as a M o v e m e n t,” p. 6 0 . 4 9 . C f. D a n n y R u b in ste in ,

On the Lord's Side, p p .

6 5 —6 6 .

5 0 . C f. E h u d S p r in za k , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceberg M o d e l,” p p . 3 7 - 3 8 ; M o s h e S a m et, The Conflict About the Institutionalization of the Values of Judaism in the State of Israel— Studies in Sociology (J eru salem , T h e S o c io lo g y D e p a r tm en t o f th e H e b r e w U n iv ersity , 1 9 7 9 — H e b r e w ), p p . 6 1 —6 4 . 5 1 . C f. C h a rles S. L ieb m a n a n d E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a ,

Civil Religion in Israel

(B erkeley, T h e U n iv ersity o f C a lifo r n ia Press, 1 9 8 3 ), p. 3 6 ; G id e o n A ran , “ F rom R e lig io u s Z io n is m to Z io n is t R e lig io n : T h e R o o ts o f G u sh E m u n im ,” in Peter M e d d in g (e d .), 52.

Ibid.,

Studies in Contemporary Jewry, V ol.

11 (1 9 8 6 ) , p. 1 1 9 .

p. 1 3 0 .

5 3 . O n R a b b i Z v i Y ehu d a K o o k ’s te a c h in g see h is

In the Pathways of Israel

(Jeru salem , M e n o r a h , 1 9 6 8 — H e b r e w ). 5 4 . G id e o n A ra n , “ F rom R e lig io u s Z io n is m to Z io n is t R e lig io n ,” pp. 1 3 4 —3 6 . 5 5 . C f. E h u d S p r in za k , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceberg M o d e l,” p p. 3 7 —3 9 . 5 6 . O n Y e sh iv o t H a h e sd e r se e M o r d e c h a i B ar-Lev, “ T rad ition al an d M o d er n S h ad es in Y esh iva E d u c a tio n a l In stitu tio n s in Isra e l,” in W alter A k erm a n , A rik K arm on , D a v id Z u k e r ,

Education in a Society in the Making (Jeru salem , th e V an-L eer

In stitu te, 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), p p . 4 2 5 —3 5 ; see a lso Yair S h eleg, “ Y esh iv o t H a h e sd e r ,”

Nekuda N o .

8 6 (A pril 2 6 , 1 9 8 5 ), N o . 8 7 (M a y 2 4 , 1 9 8 5 ).

5 7 . C f. E h u d S p r in za k , “ K ach an d R a b b i M eir K ahane: T h e E m ergen ce o f J ew ish Q u a s i-F a s c is m ,”

Patterns of Prejudice, V ol. 1 9 , N o s . 4 —5 (1 9 8 5 ). Jewish Identity and the JDL (P rin ceton , P rin ceto n

5 8 . C f. J a n et L. D o lg in ,

U n i­

versity Press, 1 9 7 7 ), p. 16. 5 9 . M e ir K a h a n e,

Never Again: A Program for Jewish Survival

(N e w Y ork,

P yram id B o o k s , 1 9 7 2 ). 6 0 . C f. R o b e r t I. F rie d m a n ,

The False Prophet: Rabbi Meir Kahane (N e w

Y ork,

L a w ren ce H ill B o o k s , 1 9 9 0 ), p p . 1 0 5 —1 0 8 .

61.

Ibid., p.

115.

6 2 . Q u o te d in E hud S p r in za k , “ K ach a n d M eir K a h a n e ,” p. 2 .

The False Prophet, p p. 1 1 4 —1 1 5 . The Story of the Jewish Defense League (R ad n or, Pa.,

6 3 . C f. R o b e r t I. F ried m a n , 6 4 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

C h ilto n B o o k C o ., 1 9 7 5 ), p p . 7 5 —7 6 . 65.

Ibid.,

p . 1 4 2 . K a h a n e, it s h o u ld p erh a p s b e n o te d , w a s str o n g ly in flu en ced

Notes

329

by th e “ b la c k r e v o lt” o f th e tim e , a n d b y s lo g a n s lik e “ B lack P o w e r ,” “ B lack Is B e a u tifu l,” etc. 6 6 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e ,

Never Again, p p . 1 2 3 - 5 0 . The Story of the Jewish Defense League,

6 7 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e ,

p p. 8 8 -

93. 6 8 . Ibid., p p . 9 9 —1 0 0 . 6 9 . C f. H o w a r d M . S h a ch a r, 7 0 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e , 71. 72.

Ibid., Ibid.,

A History of Israel, pp. Never Again, p p . 7 4 - 1 0 1 .

1 4 -1 5 , 3 8 -4 1 .

“ T h e A n ti-S e m it e s ,” p p . 7 2 —1 0 4 . “ Z io n is m ,” p p . 1 5 1 —7 4 .

Heil Kahane (Tel A viv, M o d a n B o o k s, F rie d m a n , The False Prophet, p p . 1 2 7 —2 8 .

7 3 . C f. Y air K o tier, 9 9 —1 0 2 ; R o b e r t I.

1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), p p .

7 4 . C f. E h u d S p r in z a k , “ K ach a n d M e ir K a h a n e . . . , ” p. 3 . 7 5 . C f. E h u d S p r in z a k ,

The Origins of the Politics of Delegitimation in Israel,

1 9 6 7 — 1 9 7 2 (J e ru sa le m , E sh c o l In stitu te , 1 9 7 3 — H e b r e w ), p. 2 6 .

76.

Ibid.,

p. 2 6 .

Heil Kahane, p p . 1 5 3 —6 0 . 7 8 . C f. R o b e r t I. F rie d m a n , The False Prophet, pp. 1 4 9 —5 3 . 7 9 . C f. S a m u el K a tz, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (Tel Aviv, K a m i, 1 9 7 2 — H e b r e w ); M o s h e S h a m ir, My Life with Ishmael (Tel Aviv, M a ’ariv, 1968— H e b r e w ); Z v i S h ilo a h , A Great Land for a Great People (Tel A viv, O t-P a z 7 7 . C f. Y air K o tier,

p u b lic a tio n s , 1 9 7 0 ) . 8 0 . E liezer L iv n e,

Israel and the Crisis of Western Civilization (Tel

Aviv, S c h o k e n

P u b lish in g H o u s e , 1 9 8 2 — H e b r e w ). T h e o n ly o th e r in te lle c tu a l p r o d u c t o f an LIM m em b er, in w h ic h a se r io u s a tte m p t to r e fo r m u la te tr a d itio n a l Z io n is m h as b een m a d e w a s P r o fe sso r H a r o ld F ish ’s,

The Zionist Revolution: A New Perspective

(L o n d o n , W e id e n fe ld & N ic o ls o n , 1 9 7 8 ) . M o s t o f th e b o o k h ad b een w r itte n , h o w ­ ever, after th e Y o m K ip p u r W ar a n d reflected an a lto g e th e r d iffer en t m o o d th a n L iv n eh ’s essa y . A ls o , it w a s w r itte n b y a r e lig io u s L IM m em b er w h o tried to tr a n sliter­ ate th e m e s sia n ic id e o -th e o lo g y o f G u sh E m u n im in to ra tio n a l Z io n is t a r g u m e n ta ­ tio n . O n H a r o ld F ish ’s c o n tr ib u tio n se e Ian L u stic k ,

For the Land and the Lord,

pp.

7 3 -8 4 . 8 1 . L iv n e, p. 7 .

Ibid., p . 1 2 . 8 3 . Ibid., p . 1 4 . 8 4 . Ibid., p . 7 1 . 8 5 . Ibid., p . 1 6 5 . 8 6 . Ibid., p p . 2 2 0 - 2 2 . 8 7 . Ibid., C h . 1 1 . 8 8 . Ibid., p p . 7 2 - 7 3 . 8 9 . Ibid., p p . 1 1 7 —1 8 ; See a ls o 6 4 ; S a m u el K a tz, Battleground, p p . 82.

M o s h e S h a m ir,

My Life with Ishmael, p p .

161—

2 4 1 —4 3 .

9 0 . E liezer L iv n e h , p. 1 1 8 . 9 1 . C f. R a e l Jean Isa a c, 9 2 . C f. M o s h e D a y a n ,

Israel Divided, C h . 4 . Living with the Bible

(J eru sa lem , E d a n im P u b lish ers

1 9 7 8 — H e b r e w ). 9 3 . O n A llo n ’s ea r ly str a te g ic o r ie n ta tio n cf. A vner Y aniv,

the Bomb: The Politics of Israel’s Strategy pp. 82, 1 8 1 - 8 2 .

Deterrence Without

(L e x in g to n , M a s s ., D . C . H e a th , 1 9 8 6 )

330

Notes 9 4 . C f. M o s h e D a y a n ,

of Jerusalem, p p .

Milestones, p p .

5 5 3 - 5 5 ; a lso in Z vi S h ilo a h ,

The Guilt

5 4 -5 5 .

9 5 . C f. Y eru ch am C o h e n ,

The Allon Plan

(Tel Aviv, H a k ib b u tz H a m eu ch a d ,

1 9 7 3 — H e b r e w ). T h e r e are sev era l in d ic a tio n s th a t A llo n tried to c o n v in c e th e terri­ torial m a x im a lis ts th a t h is p la n w a s an in stru m en t to en list th e su p p o rt o f th e Israeli m o d era tes to retain a t le a st p art o f th e o c c u p ie d territories; see Z v i S h ilo a h ,

Guilt of Jerusalem,

p p . 5 2 —5 4 ; Yael Y ish a i,

The

Land or Peace: Whither Israel? (S tan ­

ford, H o o v e r In stitu tio n Press, 1 9 8 7 ), p. 2 3 6 (n .2 5 ). 9 6 . O n th e g r o w in g in tern a l te n s io n s w ith in th e L IM see Z vi S h ilo a h ,

ibid., pp.

6 1 - 6 3 ; Yair S h e le g , “ O n c e T h e re W as a M o v e m e n t,” p p. 6 0 - 6 1 ; R ael Jean Isaac,

Israel Divided,

p. 5 8 ; Yael Y ish a i,

9 7 . C f. Z v i S h ilo a h ,

ibid.,

ibid.,

p p . 1 0 3 —1 0 5 .

p p . 6 4 —7 1 ; Yair S h eleg,

ibid.;

Yael Y ish a i,

ibid., p.

107. 9 8 . C f. H o w a r d M . S ach ar,

Our Time, p.

A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to

676.

9 9 . C f. S h lo m o A r o n s o n ,

Perspective (B a ltim o re ,

Conflict and Bargaining in the Middle East: An Israeli

T h e J o h n H o p k in s U n iv ersity Press, 1 9 7 8 ), p p. 1 0 5 —10.

The Price of Unification, pp. 2 4 4 —4 7 . B e n v e n isti, The West Bank Data Project: A Survey of Israel’s

1 0 0 . C f. Y ossi B eilin , 1 0 1 . C f. M e r o n

Policies (W a sh in g to n ,

A m e rica n E n terp rise In stitu te, 1 9 8 4 ), C h . 5 .

1 0 2 . It is im p o r ta n t to n o te th a t th e m o v e m e n t to th e right h ad in v o lv e d th e lo ss o f m an y L a b o r p e o p le w h o w e r e u n w illin g to c o m p le te ly break w ith th eir o ld p rin ci­ p les o r id e o lo g ic a l c o m m itm e n ts . C f. Z v i S h ilo a h , 1 0 4 ; Yael Y ish a i,

Land or Peace,

The Guilt of Jerusalem,

pp. 9 4 —

p p . 1 0 3 —1 0 5 .

1 0 3 . C f. Yair S h ele g , “ O n c e T h e re W as A M o v e m e n t,” p. 6 1 .

The Guilt of Jerusalem, p p . 9 2 —9 4 . ibid., p p . 1 0 6 - 1 0 ; R ael Jean Isaac, Israel Divided, p p. 1 3 9 - 4 2 . A lso , Y ah il, Vision and Struggle: Selected Writings (Tel Aviv, K a m i, 1 9 7 7 —

1 0 4 . C f. Z v i S h ilo a h , 1 0 5 . C f. H a im

H e b rew ), p p . 4 2 —4 6 . 1 0 6 . R ab b i Y eh u d a A m ita l,

The Elevations from Depts

(A llo n S h vu t, Y esh ivat

H a -Z io n A s s o c ia tio n , 1 9 7 4 — H e b r e w ), p. 4 1 ; See a lso Uriel Tal, “ F o u n d a tio n s o f a P olitical M e s s ia n ic T rend in Isr a e l,” p. 3 9 . 1 0 7 . C f. E h u d S p rin za k , “ E x tre m e P o litics in Isra e l,”

The Jerusalem Quarterly,

N o . 15 (Fall 1 9 7 7 ), p p . 4 0 - 4 1 . 108.

Ibid.,

p p . 4 0 —4 3 ; H o w a r d M . Sach ar,

A History of Israel,

V ol. 2 (N e w

Y ork, O x fo r d U n iv ersity Press, 1 9 8 7 ), p p . 3 —5 . See a lso G o ld a M e ir ’s a c c o u n t in her

My Life (N e w

Y ork , P u tn a m , 1 9 7 5 ), C h . 14.

1 0 9 . C f. E liezer L iv n e ’s b itter essa y s in h is

ism in the Direction of Emunim

On the Road to Eton Moreh: Zion­

(J eru sa lem , G u sh E m u n im P u b lica tio n s, 1 9 7 6 —

H e b r e w ), p p . 1 0 1 —15; S a m u el K atz,

A Diplomatic Victory or Geopolitical Holo­

caust (Tel

Aviv, L IM P a m p h le t, 1 9 7 4 ). 1 1 0 . S ee, fo r e x a m p le , E p h raim B e n -H a im , “ O n ly S ettlem en t W ill S to p M u ­

Zot Ha’aretz, N o . 1 7 4 (O c to b e r 1 5 , 1 9 7 4 ), p. 2; Z v i S h ilo a h , “ In th e C o l­ Zot Ha’aretz, N o . 1 8 4 (A u g u st 1, 1 9 7 5 ), p. 8. O n th e L IM sp ecia l sen sitiv ity to Sinai see Y ael Y ish a i, Land or Peace, p p . 1 0 8 —10. 1 1 1 . C f. E liezer L iv n e, On the Road to Elon Moreh, p p . 1 3 0 —3 4 , M o s h e S h a­ m ir, Facing the Mighty War (J eru sa lem , S h ik m o n a , 1 9 7 4 — H e b rew ), pp. 2 0 6 —12. n ic h ,”

la p s e ,”

1 1 2 . C f. E h u d S p rin za k , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceberg M o d e l,” p. 2 3 ; D a n n y R u b in ste in ,

On the Lord’s Side,

pp. 3 8 - 4 5 .

Notes

331

Nekuda, N o . 6 9 On the Lord’s Side, p p . 4 6 —5 0 ;

1 1 3 . C f. H a v a P in c h a s-C o h e n , “ G u sh E m u n im : E arly D a y s ,” (F ebruary 3 , 1 9 8 4 ) , p p . 4 —1 1; D a n n y R u b in ste in ,

Ploughshares into Swords, p p . 2 9 3 - 9 5 . H a v a P in c h a s-C o h e n , ibid.; P eter D e m a n t, ibid., p p .

Peter D e m a n t, 1 1 4 . C f.

3 0 4 -1 2 .

1 1 5 . “ G u sh E m u n im : A M o v e m e n t fo r th e R e n e w a l o f Z io n is t P io n e e r in g ” (H eb rew ) (U n d a te d G u sh E m u n im P a m p h le t), p . 1. 1 1 6 . C f. E h u d S p r in za k , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceb erg M o d e l,” p. 3 1 .

Ploushares On the Lord’s Side, p p . 6 5 - 6 9 . Every Man Whatsoever Is Right in His Own Eyes:

1 1 7 . F or a fu ll a c c o u n t o f th e K a d u m A ffa ir see P eter R o b er t D e m a n t,

into Swords,

p p . 3 8 1 - 4 3 5 ; D a n n y R u b in ste in ,

1 1 8 . C f. E h u d S p r in z a k ,

Illegalism in Israeli Society (Tel

A viv, S ifriy a t P o a lim , 1 9 8 6 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 2 4 - 2 6 .

1 1 9 . O n R a b b i K o o k ’s a ttitu d e to w a r d th e arm y see G id e o n A ran ,

gious Zionism to Zionist Religion, p p .

From Reli­

2 3 7 —4 0 .

1 2 0 . In te r v ie w w ith R a b b i Y oel B e n -N u n , F eb ru ary 2 6 , 1 9 7 8 . F or so m e a fter­ th o u g h ts a b o u t th e L IM sc e p tic is m c o n c e r n in g B eg in , see Z v i S h ilo a h ,

Jerusalem, p p .

The Guilt of

1 3 3 -3 8 .

1 2 1 . C f. P eter R o b e r t D e m a n t,

Ploughshares into Swords,

p. 3 4 8 .

1 2 2 . M e ir K a h a n e, “T h e A c tiv is t C o lu m n : R e fle c tio n s o n th e E le c tio n s ,”

Jewish Press (Ju n e

The

3 , 1 9 7 7 ), p. 2 0 .

1 2 3 . C f. B aru ch K im m e r lin g ,

Zionism and Territory: The Socio-Territorial Di­

mension of Zionist Politics (B erk eley,

In stitu te o f In ter n a tio n a l S tu d ies, U n iv ersity o f

C a lifo rn ia , 1 9 8 3 ) , p p . 1 7 0 —7 1 .

Chapter 4 1. G u sh E m u n im d e c la r e d th e C a m p D a v id A c c o r d s a “ n a tio n a l d is a s te r ” (in terv iew w ith G e r sh o n S h a fa t, Ju ly 1, 1 9 7 9 ). G eu la C o h e n s p o k e a b o u t “ n a tio n a l s u ic id e ” a n d s u g g e s te d , fo r th e first tim e , th a t th e K n esset sh o u ld b lo c k B egin by a v o te o f n o -c o n fid e n c e ,

the Lord’s Side, p p .

Ma’ariv, S e p te m b e r

1 4 9 —5 2 ; H a g g a i S eg a l,

1 9 , 1 9 7 8 . See a lso D a n n y R u b in ste in ,

Dear Brothers (J eru sa lem ,

On

K eter P u b lish ­

in g H o u s e , 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 9 —4 3 . 2 . In te r v ie w w ith Y oel B e n -N u n , A p ril 1 4 , 1 9 8 0 . 3 . In te r v ie w w ith R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, Ju n e 1 2 , 1 9 8 8 . 4 . C f. D a n n y R u b in s te in , 5 . C f. A m o s P erlm u ter,

On the Lord’s Side, p. 1 7 4 . The Life and the Times of Menachem Begin

(N e w

Y ork, D o u b le d a y , 1 9 8 7 ) , p p . 3 9 1 —9 5 . F or a critical d e sc r ip tio n o f B eg in ’s g r o w in g m o d er a tio n se e S a m u el K a tz,

Neither Might Nor Glory

(Tel Aviv, D v ir, 1 9 8 1 —

H eb rew ). 6 . C f. E itan H a b e r , E h u d Y a ’ari, a n d Z e ’ev S ch iff,

The Year of the Dove

(Tel

Aviv, Z m o r a -B ita n -M o d a n , 1 9 7 9 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 7 2 —7 3 . See a lso E zer W eizm a n ,

The Battle for Peace

(J e ru sa le m , E d a n im P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 1 — H e b r e w ), p p . 5 7 - 5 9 .

A c co rd in g to Israel E ld a d ’s te stim o n y , in 1 9 7 5 M e n a c h e m B egin to ld a g ro u p o f L IM lead ers th a t “ S in a i is n o t E retz Y isra el a n d w e sh all g iv e th e A rab s a u to n o m y . W h y a u to n o m y ? a sk e d th e la te H a im Y ahil a n d E liezer L ivn eh . B egin a n sw e r e d th a t th is w a s h is m e n to r , V la d im ir J a b o tin s k y ’s p o s it io n in th e fa m o u s 1 9 0 6 H e lsin k i C o n fe r ­ e n c e ,” Israel E ld a d , “J u d e a a n d S a m a ria o n O u r S h o u ld e r or P a lestin e o n O u r H e a d ,”

Ha’aretz,

F eb ru a ry 4 , 1 9 8 8 .

7 . F or a d is c u s s io n o f sev e ra l a sp e c ts o f th e L ik u d ’s g r o w in g m o d e r a tio n an d

332

Notes

th e 1 9 7 7 p la tfo r m , see G io ra G o ld b e r g , “T h e S tru ggle for L egitim acy: H e r u t’s R o a d from O p p o s itio n to P o w e r ” in S tu art A . C o h e n an d E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a ,

Consensus in Jewish Political Life (J eru sa lem , Jean Isaac, Party and Politics in Israel (N e w

Conflict and

B ar-Ilan U n iversity Press, 1 9 8 6 ). Rael Y ork, L o n g m a n , 1 9 8 1 ), pp. 1 4 9 —5 8 .

D a v id N a c h m ia s , “ T h e R ig h t-W in g O p p o s itio n .in Isra e l,”

Political Studies, V ol.

24,

N o . 3 (S ep tem b er 1 9 7 6 ). 8. C f. Ma’ariv, N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 1 9 7 7 . 9 . Q u o te d in 10. Q u o te d in

Ma’ariv, N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 1 9 7 7 . Ma’ariv, D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 1 9 7 7 .

11. C f. M a ’ariv, D e c e m b e r , 2 3 , 1 9 7 7 . 12. In terv iew w ith G e r sh o n S o lo m o n , F eb ruary 1 4 , 1 9 8 5 . 13. C f. M o r d e c h i B a r-O n ,

Peace Now (Tel Aviv, H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d ,

1985—

H e b r e w ), p p . 1 4 —2 1 . 14. C f.

Ma’ariv, A p ril

26, 1978.

Shalom Achshav (P eace N o w ) h ad esta b lish e d a rival o r g a n iz a tio n in 1 9 7 8 w h ic h th ey n a m ed Shalom Achzav (False P eace). 16. C f. “ T h e C a m p D a v id A g r e e m e n ts ” in R o b ert O . F reed m an , Israel in the Begin Era (N e w Y ork, P raeger, 1 9 8 2 ), p. 2 2 7 . 17. C f. Ma’ariv, S ep tem b e r 2 3 , 1 9 7 8 . 18. C f. Ma’ariv, S ep tem b e r 2 7 , 1 9 7 8 . 1 5 . S everal o p p o n e n ts o f

1 9 . In ter v ie w w ith G ersh o n S o lo m o n , F eb ruary 1 4 , 1 9 8 5 . 2 0 . In ter v ie w w ith G eu la C o h e n , A pril 5 , 1 9 7 9 . 2 1 . C f.

Ma’ariv, D e c e m b e r

6, 1978.

2 2 . Y uval N e ’em a n first d e m o n str a te d h is d isa p p o in tm e n t w ith th e p ea ce p ro ­ cess w ith E g y p t in 1 9 7 6 , w h e n Israel m a d e territorial c o n c e ssio n s an d g a v e b ack th e o il w e lls in S in a i, in th e c o n te x t o f th e In terim A greem en ts w ith E gypt. T h e ta len ted scien tist s u b m itte d h is re sig n a tio n as P eres’ se n io r aid and w e n t p u b lic w ith a very critical a rticle in

Ha’aretz;

see Y uval N e ’em a n ,

The Policy of Open Eyes

(R a m a t

G a n , R ev iv im , 1 9 8 4 — H e b r e w ), p p . 2 2 - 5 1 . 2 3 . In ter v ie w w ith G e r sh o n S h a fa t, Ju ly 1, 1 9 7 9 . 2 4 . In terv iew w ith R a b b i E liezer W a ld m a n , A pril 6 , 1 9 7 8 . 2 5 . In terv iew w ith R a b b i M o s h e L evin ger, A pril 2 7 , 1 9 8 0 . See a lso Peter R o b ert D e m a n t,

Swords into Ploughshares

(U n p u b lish ed P h .D . D isser ta tio n su b m itted to

th e U n iversity o f A m ste r d a m , 1 9 8 8 ), p p . 3 3 4 —3 8 . 2 6 . In terv iew w ith G eu la C o h e n , A p ril 5 , 1 9 7 9 . 2 7 . In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i E liezer W a ld m a n . 2 8 . In terv iew w ith G eu la C o h e n . 2 9 . Ibid. F or a n o th e r a c c o u n t see Z v i S h ilo a h , K a m i, 1 9 8 9 ), p. 1 8 4 .

The Guilt of Jerusalem (Tel Aviv,

3 0 . In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i M o s h e L evin ger, A pril 2 7 , 1 9 8 0 . 3 1 . T h e “ E ig h teen T eh iy a P r in c ip le s” w e r e fo r m u la ted by A b ra h a m Stern (Yair) in 1 9 4 1 , for h is n e w ly crea ted L ehi u n d e r g r o u n d . T h e p rin cip les w ere th e k ey id e o ­ lo g ica l te n e ts o f th e m o v e m e n t a n d re m a in e d o n e o f Y air’s m ain leg a cie s to his su cce sso r s. C f. N a th a n Y e lin -M o r ,

The Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (Tel

Aviv,

S h ik m o n a , 1 9 7 4 — H e b r e w ), p p . 6 0 - 6 3 . 3 2 . C f.

Kol Koreh (T eh iya

p a m p h le t, J eru salem , 1 9 7 9 — H eb rew ).

3 3 . C f. G eu la C o h e n , “ T h e Jeru salem L aw : W ith o u t P relim in ary F ea r s,” O cto b e r 3 1 , 1 9 8 0 . 3 4 . C f.

Ma’ariv,

M a r ch 3 , 1 9 8 2 .

Ma’ariv,

Notes

333

3 5 . T h e ea r ly ta r g e t o f th e w a r w a s th e d e str u c tio n o f th e PL O b a ses in L e b a n o n , b ut it w a s la ter e x p a n d e d to in c lu d e th e e s ta b lis h m e n t in L eb a n o n a frien d ly regim e th at w o u ld m a k e p e a c e w ith Israel. 3 6 . C f.

Ma’ariv, Ju ly

31, 1981.

3 7 . S ee D r. Israel E ld a d d is c u s s io n in

Nekuda,

N o . 4 6 (A u g u st 6 , 1 9 8 2 ), p p .

1 1 -1 4 . 3 8 . C f. E h u d S p r in z a k , “ K ach a n d M e ir K ahan e: T h e E m erg en ce o f J ew ish Q u a s i-F a s c is m ,”

Patterns of Prejudice, V o l.

1 9 , N o . 3 , p p . 3 —6 . R e g a rd in g K a h a n e’s

early c o n n e c tio n s w ith th e FBI, se e R o b e r t I. F ried m a n ,

Meir Kahane ( N e w

The False Prophet: Rabbi

Y ork , L a w r e n c e H ill B o o k s , 1 9 9 0 ), pp. 6 2 —6 3 .

3 9 . C f. R o b e r t I. F r ie d m a n ,

The False Prophet,

p p . 2 4 0 - 4 4 . I c o u ld n o t v er­

ify F rie d m a n ’s c la im th a t T .N .T . w a s a c tu a lly a terro rist o r g a n iz a tio n e sta b lish e d by K a h a n e. In m y o p in io n , T .N .T . w a s ju st a slo g a n

reso rted to

by several

K ah an e fo llo w e r s w h e n e v e r th e y c o n d u c te d th eir s p o r a d ic an d u n c o o r d in a te d te r­ ror acts. 4 0 . C f. Yair K o tier,

Heil Kahane, p p . 2 6 - 2 7 ; a lso , R a b b i M e ir Story of the Jewish Defense League (R a d n o r , P a., C h ilto n B o o k C o .,

K a h a n e,

The

1 9 7 5 ), p. 9 1 .

4 1 . I n te r v ie w w ith R a b b i K a h a n e, A p ril 1 8 , 1 9 7 3 . 4 2 . M e ir K a h a n e, “ T h e S e c o n d R e v o lu t io n ,”

The Jewish Press,

O c to b e r 2 0 ,

1 9 7 8 , p. 2 8 . 4 3 . A le x A n sk i a n d Y itz h a k B e n -N e r , “ T h e S tate o f K a c h ,”

Weekly, J a n u a ry

Yediot Achronot

21, 1981.

4 4 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

The Challenge: The Chosen Land

(J eru sa lem , T h e

C en ter fo r J ew ish C o n s c io u s n e s s , 1 9 7 3 — ), C h . 2. 4 5 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e ,

Thorns in Your Eyes

(N e w Y ork, D ru c k e r P u b lish in g

C o ., 1 9 8 0 — H e b r e w ), p. 5 1 . 4 6 . F or an e x c e lle n t e x p o s it io n o f K a h a n e ’s p o litic a l id ea s see h is lo n g in terv ie w in R a p h a el M e r g u i a n d P h ilip p e S im o n n o t,

Israel’s Ayatollahs: Meir Kahane and the

Far Right in Israel (L o n d o n , S aqi B o o k s , 1 9 8 7 ), p p . 2 9 —9 0 . 4 7 . C f. Yair K o tier, Heil Kahane, p. 1 4 4 . 4 8 . C f. P in h a s In b ari, Triangle on the Jordan (J eru sa lem ,

C a n a P u b lish in g

H o u se , 1 9 8 2 — H e b r e w ), p p . 8 0 —8 1 . 4 9 . C f. U zi B e n z im a n ,

Sharon: An Israeli Caesar

(Tel Aviv, A d a m P u b lish ers,

1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), p p . 2 1 9 —3 0 . 5 0 . C f. D a v id P o llo c k , “ L ik u d in P o w er: D iv id e d W e S ta n d ,” in R o b er t O . F riedm an (e d .),

Israel in the Begin Era ( N e w Y ork, Praeger, 1 9 8 2 ), p. 4 2 . Begin—His Regime (J eru sa lem , K eter P u b lish ers,

5 1 . C f. T ed d y P reu ss,

1984—

H e b r e w ), p p . 6 6 —6 8 . 5 2 . A sh er A r ia n , “ E le c tio n s 1 9 8 1 : C o m p e titiv e n e s s an d P o la r iz a tio n ,”

salem Quarterly,

The Jeru­

N o . 2 1 (F all 1 9 8 1 ) . See a ls o M y r o n A r o n o ff, “ P o litica l P o la riza ­

tion : C o n tr a d ic to r y In te r p r e ta tio n s o f Israeli R e a lity ,” in S teven H e y d e m a n n ,

Begin Era (B o u ld er ,

The

W e stv ie w , 1 9 8 4 ) , p p . 6 6 —7 1 . O n th e n e w 1 9 8 1 B egin rh eto ric

see N u r it G retz, “ A F ew A g a in s t th e M a n y : R h eto r ic an d S tru cture in th e E lectio n S peech es o f M e n a c h e m B e g in ,”

Siman Kriah, N o .

1 6 —1 7 , 1 9 8 3 .

5 3 . I n te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e, Ju n e 1 2 , 1 9 8 8 . 5 4 . C f. Y u val A r n o n -O h a n a a n d A rie Y o d fa t,

PLO Strategy and Politics

(L o n ­

d o n , C r o o m H e lm , 1 9 8 2 ) , C h . 6 . 5 5 . C f. N a d im R o u h a n a , “ C o lle c tiv e Id en tity a n d A rab V o tin g P a tte r n s,” in A sh er A ria n a n d M ic h a l S h a m ir,

The Elections in Israel 1984, p p .

1 2 4 -1 2 5 .

334

Notes

The Middle The Arab Village in Israel a Revived Political

5 6 . M a rk A . T essier, “ Isra el’s A ra b s an d th e P alestin ian P r o b le m ,”

East Journal, N o . 3 1 , 1 9 7 7 ; Eli R e c h e s, and National Focus (Tel A viv, S h ilo a h In stitu te

P u b lica tio n s, 1 9 8 5 — H eb rew ).

5 7 . C f. M a jid A l-H a j a n d A vn er Yaniv, “ U n ifo rm ity or D iversity: A R eap p raisal o f th e V o tin g B e h a v io r o f th e A rab M in o r ity in Isra e l,” in A sh er A rian (ed .),

tions in Israel 1981

Elec­

(Tel Aviv, R a m o t P u b lish in g C o ., 1 9 8 3 ), p p. 1 5 0 - 5 3 . It sh o u ld

be n o te d th a t in a d d itio n to th e se c u la r n a tio n a list aro u sa l a stro n g ly an ti-Israeli relig io u s revival a lso t o o k p la c e a t th a t tim e — cf. T h o m a s M a y er,

Reawakening in Israel (G iv a t 5 8 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

The Muslim

H a v iv a , T h e In stitu te for A rab S tu d ies, 1 9 8 8 ).

The Challenge, p p .

3 9 —4 7 .

5 9 . C f. G e r sh o n Shafir a n d Y oav P eled , “ ‘T h o r n s in Y our E y es’: T h e S o c io e c o ­ n o m ic B asis o f th e K a h a n e V o te ,” in A sh er A rian an d M ich a l S ham ir (ed s.),

Elections in Israel 1984,

The

p p . 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 . A ls o , Y oav P eled , “ L abor M a r k e t Seg­

m e n ta tio n a n d E th n ic C o n flict: T h e S o cia l B ases o f R ig h t-W in g P olitics in Israel” (Paper P resen ted at th e A n n u a l M e e tin g o f th e A m erican P olitical S cien ce A s so c ia ­ tio n , A tla n ta , S ep tem b e r 2 , 1 9 8 9 ). 6 0 . T h e b itter d e b a te o v e r th e L eb a n o n w a r m a d e a sig n ifica n t co n tr ib u tio n to th e id e o lo g ic a l c o n flic t o v e r E retz Y isra el. G u sh E m u n im an d T eh iya sp ea k ers cam e c lo se to ch a r g in g th e “ le ftis ts ” w ith tr e a so n . S ee, for e x a m p le , E lyak im H a ’etzn i, “T h e L eft’s B la m e ,”

Nekuda, N o .

5 5 (F ebruary 2 7 , 1 9 8 3 ), pp. 6 - 7 . O n th e g r o w in g

a cc ep ta b ility o f K a h a n e a m o n g th e y o u th a n d th e a verage Israeli see C h arles S. L ieb m an , “J ew ish U ltr a -N a tio n a lis m Frankel (e d .),

in Israel: C o n v er g in g S tra n d s” in W illia m

Survey of Jewish Affairs (L o n d o n ,

A sso c ia te d U n iv ersities Press, 1 9 8 5 ),

pp. 4 2 - 4 6 . 6 1 . Ju d ith K arp, “ In v e stig a tio n o f S u sp ic io n s A g a in st Israelis in Judea an d Sa­ m a r ia ,”

A Report of the Follow Up Committee

(H e b r e w — C o n fid en tia l), M a y 2 3 ,

1982. 6 2 . C f. E hu d S p rin za k , “ K ach a n d R a b b i M eir K a h a n e ,” pp. 11 —12. 6 3 . C f. E h u d S p rin za k , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceberg M o d e l,” pp. 3 1 —3 2 . 6 4 . F or a d is c u s s io n o f th e early secu rity p r o b le m s in th e W est B ank see S h lo m o G a zit,

The Stick and the Carrot (Tel

Aviv, Z m o r a B itan P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 5 — H eb rew ),

p p. 2 8 2 - 3 2 2 . 6 5 . C f. M o s h e D a y a n ,

Milestones, p p . 4 9 7 —5 0 4 . Jewish Kiryat Arha Versus Arab Hebron

6 6 . C f. M ic h a e l R o m a n ,

(Jeru salem ,

T h e Jeru sa lem P o st P ress, 1 9 8 6 ), p p . 5 7 —5 8 .

Swords into Ploughshares, p p. 3 6 9 —7 1 . On the Lord's Side, p p. 9 6 —9 7 . C f H o w a r d M . Sach ar, A History of Israel, p p. 1 7 1 —7 4 . C f. “ A D e b a te o n B eit H a d a s s a h ,” Nekuda, N o . 1 7 (S ep tem b er 3 0 , 1 9 8 0 ),

6 7 . C f. Peter R o b e r t D e m a n t, 68. 69. 70.

Ibid., p p . 5 9 —6 2 .

See a ls o D a n n y R u b in ste in ,

pp. 1 2 - 1 3 . 7 1 . C f. G h a z i F a la h , “ R e c e n t J ew ish C o lo n iz a tio n in H e b r o n ,” in D a v id N e w ­ m an (ed .),

The Impact of Gush Emunim: Politics and Settlement in the West Bank

(L o n d o n , C r o o m H e lm , 1 9 8 5 ), p p . 2 5 2 - 5 5 . 7 2 . C f. M e r o n B e n v e n isti, 7 3 . Ibid.

The West Bank Data Project, p.

42.

7 4 . In h is stu d y o f th e cr e a tio n o f th e Israeli M ilita ry G o v ern m e n t (M G ) o f th e W est B a n k , S h lo m o G a z it m a k e s it very clea r th a t sin ce its b eg in n in g u nd er M o s h e D a y a n , th e M ilita r y G o v e r n m e n t w a s n o t a ttra ctiv e to ta len ted m ilitary officers an d th a t th e in d iv id u a ls w h o c a m e to serv e th ere w ere sec o n d -r a te officers w h o h ad n o

Notes

335

ch a n ce o f “ m a k in g i t ” in th e p rim a ry c o u r se o f th e arm y. See S h lo m o G a z it,

Carrot and the Stick: The Military Government in Judea and Samaria

The

(Tel Aviv,

Z m o r a -B ita n , 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 2 7 - 2 9 . T h ere are, h o w e v e r , so m e in d ic a tio n s

for ideological

th at a ser v ic e in th e M G b e c a m e a ttr a c tiv e to certain in d iv id u a ls

reasons

o f h e lp in g b u ild th e J e w ish in fra str u ctu re o f Ju d ea an d S a m a ria . F or a

su p p o rtiv e e x p r e s s io n o f th is a ttitu d e , m a d e b y G en era l D a n n y M a t, a fo rm er C o ­ o rd in a to r o f th e O p e r a tio n s in th e W est B a n k , see

Nekuda

N o . 3 8 (Jan u ary 1 5 ,

1 9 8 2 ), p. 2 0 . 7 5 . D a v id W eisb u r d w ith V ered V in itzk y , “ V ig ila n tism as R a tio n a l S o cia l C o n ­ trol: T h e C a se o f th e G u sh E m u n im S e ttle r s ” in M . A r o n o ff (e d .),

Israeli Culture and Politics, Political Anthropology, V ol. 4

Cross Currents in

(N e w B ru n sw ic k , T ra n sa c­

tion B o o k s , 1 9 8 4 ) , p p . 8 0 —8 1 . 76.

77. 78.

Ibid., Ibid. Ibid.

p. 8 2 .

A Triangle on the Jordan,

7 9 . C f. P in h a s In b a ri,

p. 1 0 2 .

8 0 . Y eh u d a E tz io n , “ I F elt an O b lig a tio n to E x p u rg a te T em p le M o u n t ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 8 8 (Ju n e 2 4 , 1 9 8 5 ) , p p . 2 4 - 2 5 . 8 1 . C f. R ich a rd M a x w e ll B r o w n , “T h e A m erica n V ig ila n te T r a d itio n ” in H u g h G rah am a n d T ed R. G urr (e d s.),

Violence in America

(N e w Y ork, S ig n et B o o k s ,

1 9 6 9 ), p p . 1 4 4 - 4 6 ; J o h n H . R o z e n b a u m a n d C . S ed erb erg, “ V ig ila n tism : A n A n a ly ­

Comparative Politics,

sis o f E sta b lish e d V io le n c e ,”

N o. 6, 1974.

8 2 . C f. R ich a rd M a x w e ll B r o w n , “ L egal a n d B eh a v io ra l P ersp ectiv es o n A m e r i­ can V ig ila n t is m ,”

Perspectives in American History,

N o . 5 (1 9 7 1 ) , p p . 9 5 - 9 6 .

8 3 . W eisb u r d a n d V in itzk y , “ V ig ila n tis m as a R a tio n a l S o cia l C o n t r o l,” p. 8 2 . 8 4 . C f. H a g g a i S e g a l,

Dear Brothers,

p p . 4 7 —5 4 . T h e w h o le se c tio n o n th e

Jew ish U n d e r g r o u n d is b a se d o n E h u d S p r in za k , “ F u n d a m e n ta lism T errorism an d D e m o cra c y : T h e C a se o f G u sh E m u n im U n d e r g r o u n d ,”

Occasional Paper,

W ood-

ro w W ilso n In te r n a tio n a l C e n te r fo r S c h o la r s, 1 9 8 7 , W a sh in g to n D .C . See a lso Yael Y ish ai, “ T h e J e w ish T error O r g a n iz a tio n : P ast o r F u tu re D a n g er? ,

Conflict,

V ol. 6 ,

N o . 4 (1 9 8 6 ).

Temple Mount

8 5 . C f. Y eh u d a E tz io n ,

(J eru sa lem , E p h raim C a sp i, 1 9 8 5 —

H e b r e w ), p. 2 . 8 6 . In ter v ie w w ith E tzio n (in p r is o n ), S ep tem b er 1 1 , 1 9 8 5 . 8 7 . O n e o f th e r e a so n s fo r th e r e la tiv e m o d e r a te rea ctio n o f th e m a jo rity o f G u sh E m u n im to th e “ b e tr a y a l” o f C a m p D a v id w a s th e p erso n a l a ffe c tio n o f R ab b i Z vi Y ehu d a K o o k fo r M e n a c h e m B eg in . C f. G id e o n A ra n ,

to Zionist Religion, p p .

From Religious Zionism

2 2 8 —2 9 , 2 3 9 —4 0 .

8 8 . M e n a c h e m L iv n i, 8 9 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l,

Interrogation (C o u r t D o c u m e n ts ), Dear Brothers, p. 5 3 .

M a y 18, 1 9 8 4 .

9 0 . E tzio n to ld m e th a t u n til th e la te 1 9 7 0 s h e w a s o n ly p a rtia lly a w a r e o f th e tra d itio n o f M a lc h u t Y isra el a n d it t o o k h im sev era l years to b e c o m e c o n v e r te d to its ideas. 9 1 . C f. S h a b ta i B e n -D o v ,

Prophesy and Tradition in Redemption

(Tel Aviv, Yair

p u b lic a tio n s , 1 9 7 9 — H e b r e w ). S ee a ls o Y eh u d a E tzio n , “ From th e L a w s o f E x iste n c e to th e L a w s o f D e s t in y ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 7 5 (July 6 , 1 9 7 4 ), p p . 2 6 —2 7 .

9 2 . C f. D a v id C . R a p o p o r t, “ M e s s ia n ic S a n c tio n s for T erro r,”

Politics, V o l.

Comparative

2 0 , N o . 2 (Jan u ary, 1 9 8 8 ) , p p . 2 0 0 —2 0 1 .

9 3 . C h a im B e n -D a v id ,

Interrogation (C o u rt

D o c u m e n ts ), A pril 3 0 , 1 9 8 4 .

Notes

336

Interrogation (C o u rt D o c u m e n ts), E tz io n , Temple Mount, p. 2 . in H a g g a i S eg a l, Dear Brothers, p. 5 1 .

9 4 . C f. Uri M e ir , 9 5 . Y ehu d a 9 6 . Q u o te d

A pril 3 0 , 1 9 8 4 .

9 7 . In ter v ie w w ith Y oel B e n -N u n , Ju ne 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 . 9 8 . M e n a c h e m L iv n i,

Interrogation,

M ay 18, 1984.

9 9 . O n th e a c tiv itie s o f th e N a tio n a l G u id a n ce C o m m itte e and th e c o m p le x ity o f

A Triangle on the Jordan, C h. Interrogation, M a y 1 8 , 1 9 8 4 . Dear Brothers, p p . 7 7 —7 8 .

th e intra P a lestin ia n r e la tio n s h ip s see P in h as In bari, 1 0 0 . M e n a c h e m L iv n i, 1 0 1 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l,

Ibid., p p . 9 9 —1 0 0 . Ibid., p . 2 9 1 . L ivn i, Interrogation, Ibid.

102. 103. 104.

4.

M ay 18, 1 9 8 4 .

105. 1 0 6 . C f. E h u d S p rin za k , “ F u n d a m e n ta lism , T errorism and D e m o c r a c y ,” p. 8. 1 0 7 . S hau l N ir ,

Interrogation (C o u rt

D o c u m e n ts), M a y 9 , 1 9 8 4 .

1 0 8 . T h e sto r y w a s to ld in g rea t d eta il by M e n a c h e m L ivni, th e “ c o m m a n d e r ” o f th e u n d e r g r o u n d , cf. L iv n i’s

Interrogation

(C o u rt D o c u m e n ts), M a y 1 8 , 1 9 8 4 . It

sh o u ld be m e n tio n e d th a t b o th R a b b is L evin ger and W a ld m a n d en ied th o se a lle g a ­ tio n s in th eir in v e s tig a tio n s. 1 0 9 . S hau l N ir ,

Interrogation,

M ay 9, 1984.

1 1 0 . N ir ’s a n d L iv n i’s c o n fe s s io n s su g g e st th a t th e g r o w in g p o s t-1 9 8 3 fa ta lism b ro u g h t th em to th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e settlers m ay o c c a sio n a lly h a v e to reso rt to terrorism to p a cify th e A ra b s. F or s o m e g en era l th o u g h ts regard in g th e e v o lu tio n o f sy stem a tic terro rism w ith in n o n -te r r o r istic m o v e m e n ts an d d em o c ra tic so c ie tie s see E hud S p rin za k , “ F u n d a m e n ta lism , T errorism a n d D e m o c r a c y ,” p p. 2 2 —2 6 . 1 1 1 . A c c o r d in g to m y ro u g h e s tim a tio n b e tw e e n 1 0 0 to 2 0 0 settlers k n e w s o m e ­ th in g a b o u t th e u n d e r g r o u n d a n d its o p e r a tio n s. T h e se in c lu d ed rab b is w h o w ere c o n su lte d , c o lle a g u e s w h o refu sed to p a r tic ip a te, as w e ll as w iv e s, relatives, an d friend s.

Ploughshares into Swords, pp. 2 3 6 —3 8 . Ibid., p. 2 4 0 . 1 1 4 . Ibid., p p . 4 7 6 —8 1 ; A liza W e ism a n , The Evacuation: The Story of the Uprooting of the Settlements in the Yamit Region (B eth-E l, B eth-E l Library, 1 9 9 0 ), 1 1 2 . C f. Peter D e m a n t,

113.

p p. 1 7 - 2 2 .

Yamiton (Y a m it’s lo c a l w e e k ly ), The Evacuation, p p . 5 4 —5 5 .

1 1 5 . C f. W eism a n ,

N o . 5 2 (D ecem b er 2 9 , 1 9 7 7 ); A liza

1 1 6 . R a p h a el B a sh a n In ter v ie w s M e n a c h e m B egin , 1978.

Ma’ariv,

S ep tem b er 1 1 ,

ibid., p p . 2 3 8 —4 0 . C f. U zi B e n z im a n , Sharon: An Israeli Caesar, p p . 2 1 0 —13. Yediot Achronot, A p ril 9 , 1 9 7 9 . A liza W e ism a n , The Evacuation, C h . 6. C f. E hu d S p rin za k , Every Man Whatever Is Right in His Own Eyes, See a ls o A liza W e ism a n , The Evacuation, p p . 4 6 —5 3 .

1 1 7 . C f. D e m a n t, 118. 119. 120. 121. 1 3 3 —3 4 ;

pp.

1 2 2 . In ter v ie w w ith G eu la C o h e n , 1 9 8 0 .

Dear Brothers, p . 1 2 4 . Q u o te d in Nekuda, N o . 7 2 (A p ril 1 6 , 1 9 8 4 ), C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, ibid., p p . 1 2 1 —2 4 .

1 2 3 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, 124.

p. 12.

125. 1 2 6 . C f. G a d i W o lfsfe ld , “ Y am it: P ro test a n d th e M e d ia -R esea r ch R e p o r t,”

The

Notes J e r u s a le m

Q u a r te r ly , N o . 31

337

(S p rin g 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 1 3 8 ; G id e o n A ra n , E r e t z Y is r a e l

B e tw e e n R e lig io n a n d P o litic s : T h e M o v e m e n t t o H a l t t h e R e t r e a t in S in a i a n d its L e s s o n s (J e r u sa le m , T h e J er u sa lem In stitu te fo r th e S tu d y o f Israel, 1 9 8 5 — ), p p . 4 6 —

48. 1 2 7 . C f. G id e o n A r a n , i b i d ., p. 2 2 . 1 2 8 . G a d i W o lfs fe ld , “ C o lle c tiv e P o litic a l A c tio n an d M e d ia S trategy: th e C a se o f Y a m it,” J o u r n a l o f C o n f li c t R e s o l u t i o n , V o l. 2 8 , N o . 3 (S ep tem b er 1 9 8 4 ), p. 3 7 5 ; D a n n y R u b in ste in , O n t h e L o r d ’s S id e , p. 1 7 1 . 1 2 9 . I b id . 1 3 0 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, i b i d ., p p . 1 2 9 - 3 1 . 1 3 1 . C f. G id e o n A r a n , E r e t z Y is r a e l, p p . 6 2 —6 7 . 1 3 2 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, i b i d ., p. 1 3 1 . 1 3 3 . C f. G a d i W o lfs fe ld , “ Y am it: P r o te st a n d th e M e d ia -R e se a r c h R e p o r t,” T h e J e r u s a le m Q u a r t e r l y , N o . 31 (S p rin g 1 9 8 4 ), p p . 1 4 0 —4 1 .

1 3 4 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, D e a r B r o th e r s , p. 1 3 5 .

Chapter 5 1. M y r o n J. A r o n o ff, “ T h e I n s titu tio n a liz a tio n a n d C o o p ta tio n o f a C h a ris­ m a tic, M e s s ia n ic , R e lig io u s -P o litic a l R e v ita liz a tio n M o v e m e n t” in D a v id N e w m a n (ed .), T h e I m p a c t o f G u s h E m u n im (L o n d o n , C r o o m H e lm , 1 9 8 5 ). 2 . C f. E h u d S p r in z a k , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceb erg M o d e l o f E x tre m e P o li­ tic s ,” M e d i n a M i m s h a l V e y e h a s im B e in le u m iim (H eb re w ) N o . 1 7 (S p ring 1 9 8 1 ) , p p . 3 7 -3 8 . 3 . C f. D a v id W e isb u r d a n d E lin W a rin g , “ S e ttle m e n t M o tiv a tio n s in th e G u sh E m u n im M o v e m e n t: C o m p a r in g B o n d s o f A ltru ism an d S elf In te r e st” in D a v id N e w m a n (e d .), T h e I m p a c t o f G u s h E m u n im (L o n d o n , C r o o m -H e lm , 1 9 8 5 ) , p p . 1 8 5 - 8 6 . O n A m e r ic a n se ttle r s a n d th eir r e la tio n to G u sh E m u n im a n d its v a lu e s see C h aim I. W a x m a n , “ P o litic a l a n d S o cia l A ttitu d e s o f A m e rica n s A m o n g th e S ettlers in th e T er r ito r ie s” in D a v id N e w m a n , i b id . 4 . C f. G id e o n A r a n , F r o m R e l i g io u s Z i o n i s m t o Z i o n i s t R e lig io n : T h e R o o t s o f G u s h E m u n im a n d I ts C u ltu r e (U n p u b lish e d P h .D . d isse r ta tio n , T h e H e b r e w U n iv er­

sity o f J er u sa lem , 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 1 8 —2 2 . 5 . In te r v ie w w ith R a b b i Y oel B e n -N u n , F eb ru ary 2 6 , 1 9 7 8 . 6 . C f. G id e o n A r a n , F r o m R e l i g io u s Z i o n i s m , C h . 5 . 7 . I b i d ., p p . 3 3 1 —3 4 . 8. I b i d ., C h . 5 . 9. O n th e te n d e n c y in th e d ir e c tio n o f u ltr a o r th o d o x y see A ra n , i b i d ., p p . 3 4 2 — 4 5 . F or an e x c e lle n t g e n e r a l d is c u s s io n o f th e v a r io u s p a ttern s o f e x tr e m iz a tio n w ith in th e r e lig io u s Z io n is t c a m p se e C h a rles S. L ieb m a n an d E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a , R e lig io n a n d P o litic s in I s r a e l (B lo o m in g to n , In d ia n a U n iv ersity P ress, 1 9 8 4 ), p p .

1 2 6 -3 3 . 10.

C f. Z v i Y a ro n , T h e P h i l o s o p h y o f R a b b i K o o k (J eru sa lem , W orld Z io n is t

O r g a n iz a tio n , 1 9 7 9 — H e b r e w ), p p . 2 7 2 —7 8 . T h e re is a h u g e litera tu re o n J ew ish M e ssia n ism . O n th e r e la tio n s h ip o f th e G u sh E m u n im m e ssia n ic idea to J ew ish m e ssia n ism in g en er a l se e E liezer S h w e id , “J ew ish M e ssia n ism : M e ta m o r p h o s e s o f A n Id e a ” T h e J e r u s a le m Q u a r t e r l y , N o . 3 6 (S u m m er 1 9 8 5 ); C h a im I. W a x m a n ,

338

Notes

“ M e ssia n ism , Z io n is m a n d th e S tate o f Isr a e l,” 1 9 8 7 ). 11. C f. E liezer S h v e id ,

Modern Judaism, V ol.

The Lonely Jew and His Judaism

7 , N o . 2 (M ay

(Tel Aviv, A m O v ed ,

1 9 7 5 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 9 0 - 9 1 . 12. C f. G id e o n A r a n ,

From Religious Zionisfn, pp. 1 5 8 - 7 0 . ibid., p. 4 4 4 .

13. R a b b i H a im D r u k m a n q u o te d by A ra n ,

14. C f. R a b b i Y a a co v F ilber, “T h e T h ird R eturn To Z io n ,”

Morasha,

N o. 5

(June 1 9 8 3 ) (H e b r e w ); R a b b i S h lo m o A vin er, “ T h e K illin g o f M e ssia h , th e S on o f J o s e p h ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 11 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 1 0 - 1 1 .

15. R a b b i Z v i Y eh u d a K o o k , “ B etw een th e P eo p le an d H is L a n d ,”

Artzi

(H e ­

b rew ) N o . 2 (M a y 1 9 8 2 ), p. 2 1 . 16. In ter v ie w w ith H a n a n P orat, Ju ly 9 , 1 9 7 6 .

17. C f. G id e o n A r a n ,

From Religious Zionism,

p p. 5 1 5 —16. It sh o u ld p erh ap s

be m e n tio n e d th a t th e “ h o ly tr in ity ” w a s n o t in v e n ted by G u sh E m u n im a n d h ad been u sed b e fo r e b y r e lig io u s Z io n is m , b u t th e referen ce to E retz Y israel d id n o t

whole o f

im p ly n e c e ssa r ily th e

E retz Y isra el. G u sh E m u n im o n ly revived th e slo g a n

and g a v e it a p o s t - 1967 in te r p r e ta tio n . 18. C f. R a b b i M o s h e L evin ger, “ A S p iritu al D ia sp o ra in Eretz Y isr a e l,”

Nekuda,

N o . 53 (Jan u ary 14, 1983), p p . 5 - 6 . 19. C f. R a b b i Z v i Y eh u d a K o o k , “ B etw een th e N a tio n and its L a n d ,”

Artzi, V ol.

2 (1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 1 5 —2 3 ; R a b b i Y a a c o v A r ie l-S h tieg litz, “ T h e H a la k h ic A sp ects o f th e

Morasha,

P rob lem o f a R e trea t fro m E retz Y israel T err ito ries,”

V ol. 9 (1 9 7 5 ) , pp.

4 3 - 4 5 ; G id e o n A ran su g g e sts th a t th e k ey to th e ra b b i’s ru lin g, w h ich w a s m a d e a g a in st th e b a c k g r o u n d o f th e first d ise n g a g e m e n t agreem en ts w ith E gypt in 1 9 7 5 , h ad to d o w ith K o o k ’s tr e m e n d o u s h o s tility to A m erica n p ressu re o n Israel to g iv e up territories. C f. A r a n ,

From Religious Zionism,

p p . 2 2 8 —2 9 .

20. C f. R a b b i Itam ar V a rh a ftig , “N o S u ic id e ,” 1982), pp. 1 0 -1 1 . 2 1 . H a g g a i S eg a l,

Nekuda,

N o. 41 (M arch 19,

Dear Brothers: The Story of The Jewish Underground (Jeru sa­

lem , K eter, 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ), p. 1 3 1 . 2 2 . C f. R a b b i Y eh u d a S h a v iv (e d .),

Yisrael (J eru sa lem ,

A Land of Settlement: Our Right on Eretz

T h e Y o u n g M izr a h i G e n e r a tio n , 1 9 7 7 — H eb rew ).

2 3 . In ter v ie w w ith H a n a n P orat,

Nekuda, N o . 5 0

(N o v e m b e r 1 2 ,1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 6 —7.

2 4 . C f. Y eh o sh u a Z o h a r , “ T h e R etrea t from L eb an on : Spiritual W ea k n ess— In terv iew w ith R a b b i L ev in g e r ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 8 3 (F ebruary 1, 1 9 8 5 ), p p. 6 —7.

2 5 . “ G u sh E m u n im : A M o v e m e n t for th e R eju v en a tio n o f Z io n is t F u lfillm e n t” (a G u sh E m u n im early p a m p h le t, n .d .— H e b r e w ), p. 1. 2 6 . C f. G id e o n A ra n ,

From Religious Zionism, p p. 4 0 2 —4 0 6 . From Herzl to Gush Emunim and Back

2 7 . C f. A m n o n R u b in ste in ,

(Tel Aviv,

S ch o ck en P u b lish in g H o u s e , 1 9 8 0 ) , C h s. 1—2 . 2 8 . G id e o n A r a n ,

From Religious Zionism, p p .

2 2 6 —3 2 .

2 9 . “ G u sh E m u n im : A M o v e m e n t for th e R eju v en a tio n o f Z io n is t F u lfillm e n t,” p. 6 . 3 0 . R a b b i Y ehu d a A m ita l,

The Elevations from Depths

(A llo n S h vu t, Y esh ivat

H a -Z io n A s s o c ia tio n , 1 9 7 4 — H e b r e w ), p p . 4 1 —4 3 . 3 1 . G id e o n A ra n , From Religious Zionism, p. 4 0 2 . 3 2 . T h e p r o c e ss o f “ b la c k e n in g ” h as b e c o m e a reason for grave co n cern a m o n g G ush E m u n im circ les. C f. D a n B e’eri, “ Z io n ism : M o r e T h a n Ever B e fo r e ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 9 5 (Jan u ary 2 1 , 1 9 8 6 ), p p . 8 - 1 0 ; A vrah am N u r ie l, “T h e U ltr a o r th o d o x iz a tio n

Notes o f R e lig io u s Z io n is m ,”

Nekuda,

339

N o . 1 0 5 (D e c e m b e r 9 , 1 9 8 6 ), p p . 1 8 —19; Y o sef Ben

S h lo m o , “ In d e ed , th e F la m e o f R e d e m p tio n B urns D e e p ly in T h eir B o n e s ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 1 0 (M a y 2 7 , 1 9 8 7 ) , p. 3 5 . See a ls o D a n ie l B en -S im o n , “ A n A lien Fire: Y esh ivat M e rca z H a r a v ,”

Ha’aretz,

A p ril 4 , 1 9 8 6 , p p . 4 —6.

3 3 . R a b b i Z v i Y eh u d a K o o k , “ T h is Is th e S tate th e P ro p h ets E n v is io n e d ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 8 6 (A p ril 2 6 , 1 9 8 5 ) , p. 7 .

3 4 . R a b b i M o s h e L ev in g er, “T h e y A re A ll H o ly ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 8 9 (July 7 ,

1 9 8 5 ), p. 7 . 3 5 . R a b b i Y a a k o v A r ie l, “ T h e L an d a n d th e S ta te ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 2 8 (M a y 1 5 ,

1 9 8 1 ), p. 3 . 3 6 . In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i Y oel B e n -N u n , A pril 2 4 , 1 9 7 6 . 3 7 . C f. E h u d S p r in z a k , Every Man Whatsoever Is Right in His Own Eyes: Illegalism in Israeli Society (Tel A viv, S ifriy a t P o a lim , 1 9 8 6 — H e b r e w ), pp. 1 2 4 —2 6 . 3 8 . R a b b i Y oel B e n -N u n , “ Y es, an A u to c r tiq u e ,” Nekuda, N o . 7 3 (M ay, 2 5 , 1 9 8 4 ), p p . 1 3 - 1 4 . 3 9 . R a b b i Israel A r ie l, “ Is It R e a lly a R e v o lt A g a in st th e K in g d o m ”

Nekuda, N o .

7 3 (M ay, 2 5 , 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 1 6 . 4 0 . “ G u sh E m u n im : A M o v e m e n t ,” p. 6 . 4 1 . R a b b i S h lo m o A vin er, “ O n th e C o m p le tio n o f E retz Y isr a e l,”

Artzi,

V ol. 1

(1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 2 8 - 3 4 . 4 2 . Y ed id iy a S e g a l, “ N e it h e r A r a b ic n o r A r a b s ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 9 (M a y 1 6 ,

1 9 8 0 ), p. 1 2 . 4 3 . C f. R a b b i Israel R o s e n , “ Y esha R a b b is: To E n c o u r a g e A rab E m ig r a tio n ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 1 5 (N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 7 ) , p . 3 7 .

4 4 . C f. R a b b i Israel H e s s , “T h e G e n o c id e R u llin g o f T o r a h ,”

Bat Kol

(th e Bar

Nekuda,

N o . 75

Ilan stu d e n ts ’ p a p e r ), F eb ru a ry 2 6 , 1 9 8 0 . 4 5 . C f. D a v id R o s e n tz v e ig , “ A T im e to B reak C o n v e n tio n s ,” (July 6 , 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 3 4 . 4 6 . H a im T z u r ia , “T h e R ig h t to H a t e ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 15 (A u g u st 2 9 , 1 9 8 0 ),

p. 12. 4 7 . In te r v ie w w ith D a n ie la W eiss, M a r ch 4 , 1 9 8 5 . 4 8 . F or an ea r ly a n a ly sis o f th e in v isib le realm o f G u sh E m u n im see E hu d S p rin zak ,

Gush Emunim: The Politics of Zionist fundamentalism in Israel

(N e w

Y ork, T h e A m e rica n J e w ish C o m m itte e , 1 9 8 6 ) , pp. 1 8 —2 2 . 4 9 . C f. G id e o n A r a n ,

From Religious Zionism,

p p . 3 4 8 —6 2 .

5 0 . T h is is b a se d o n n u m e r o u s in te r v ie w s c o n d u c te d w ith m a n y fo rm er Bnei A k iva a ctiv ists a n d a c o n c lu s iv e in te r v ie w w ith N R P vetera n p o litic ia n E liezer S hefer, A pril 9 , 1 9 8 0 . 5 1 . In ter v ie w w ith Y oel B e n -N u n , A p ril 2 9 , 1 9 7 6 . O n th e r e la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e L IM a n d th e G u sh E m u n im se ttle r s se e Z v i S h ilo a h ,

The Guilt of Jerusalem (Tel

Aviv, K a m i, 1 9 8 9 — H e b r e w ), p p . 5 8 - 6 1 , 1 1 4 - 2 3 . 5 2 . I n te r v ie w w ith Y oel B e n -N u n , A p ril 2 9 , 1 9 7 6 . 5 3 . In te r v ie w w ith Y oel B e n -N u n , F eb ru ary 2 6 , 1 9 7 8 . 5 4 . In te r v ie w w ith Y oel B e n -N u n , Ju n e 3 0 , 1 9 7 6 . 5 5 . In te r v ie w w ith G e r sh o n S h a fa t, Ju ly 1, 1 9 7 9 . 5 6 . C f.

A Master Plan for the Settlement of Judea and Samaria

(G u sh E m u n im

P u b lic a tio n , 1 9 7 8 ) . 5 7 . C f. D a n n y

R u b in s te in ,

On the Lord's Side: Gush Emunim

H a k ib u tz H a m e u c h a d , 1 9 8 2 — H e b r e w ), p p . 6 0 —6 2 .

(Tel Aviv,

340

Notes 5 8 . C f. E h u d S p r in za k , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceberg M o d e l,” p. 4 8 . 5 9 . C f. M e r o n B e n v e n isti,

Policies (W a sh in g to n ,

The West Bank Data Project: A Survey of Israel’s

D .C ., A m e rica n E n terp rise In stitu te, 1 9 8 4 ), pp. 5 2 - 6 0 .

6 0 . C f. E h u d S p r in za k , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceberg M o d e l,” p. 3 1 . 6 1 . C f. D a v id N e w m a n , “ S p a tia l S tru ctu res-an d Id eo lo g ica l C h a n g e in th e W est B a n k ” in D a v id N e w m a n ,

The Impact of Gush Emunim,

pp. 1 7 5 —8 1 .

6 2 . In ter v ie w w ith A m a n a a c tiv ist Y oram A d ler, O c to b e r 1 0 , 1 9 7 9 .

The West Bank Data Project, pp. 3 9 —4 9 . 6 4 . C f. M e r o n B e n v e n isti, 1986 Report: Demographic, Economic, Legal, Social and Political Developments in the West Bank (Jeru salem , T h e Jerusalem P ost, 1 9 8 6 ), 6 3 . C f. M e r o n B e n v e n isti,

pp. 5 6 —5 7 .

Ha’aretz,

6 5 . C f. Y eh u d a L ita n i, “T h e M a s s o f Y e sh a ,” Israel H a r e l, “ C h o s e n , N o t S elf S e le c te d ,”

Nekuda,

D e cem b er 2 6 , 1 9 8 0 ;

N o . 11 (June 2 7 , 1 9 8 0 ), p. 7 .

6 6 . In ter v ie w w ith Israel H a rel, Ju n e 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 . 6 7 . C f. M e r o n B e n v e n isti,

1986 Report,

p p . 5 8 —6 2 .

6 8 . “ A n In ter v ie w w ith D r. Y o se f D r e iz in , th e D ire cto r G en eral o f S .B .A .,”

Nekuda,

N o . 6 8 (Jan u ary 1 3 , 1 9 8 4 ) , p p . 6 —7 .

6 9 . M e r o n B e n v e n isti, 1987 Report: Demographic, Economic, Legal, Social, and Political Developments in the West Bank (J eru salem , The Jerusalem Post, 1 9 8 7 ), p. 6 3 . 7 0 . C f. G id e o n A r a n , 71.

Ibid., p p .

From Religious Zionism,

pp. 2 9 9 - 3 0 1 .

3 0 2 -3 0 5 .

7 2 . C f. M e r o n B e n v e n isti,

1986 Report,

pp. 5 4 - 5 5 .

7 3 . In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i Y o h a n a n F ried, M arch 1, 1 9 8 5 .

Midrashat Ofra, June 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 . Nekuda, N o . 9 4 (D ecem b er 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 ), p. 7. M e r o n B e n v e n isti, The West Bank Data Project, p. 4 1 . Z e ’ev S ch iff, “T h e M ilita r y P o te n tia l o f th e S ettle rs,” Ha’aretz, N o v e m b e r

7 4 . In ter v ie w w ith Avi G isser, D ir e c to r o f 7 5 . Yair S h e le g , “ R est a n d P e a c e ,” 76. 77.

15, 1 985. 7 8 . C f. M e r o n B e n v e n isti,

1986 Report,

pp. 7 3 - 7 6 .

7 9 . G len n F ran k el “ Israel a n d th e P a le s tin ia n s,”

The Washington Post, Ju ne

1,

1 9 8 7 , p. A 1 6 . 8 0 . R ab b i Y eh u d a Shaviv, “ To E sta b lish C o m m u n a l C o u r ts ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 25

(M arch 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 ) , p p . 4 , 1 5. 8 1 . C ite d b y Y eh u d a L ita n i, “ D o u b le -e d g e d S w o r d ,”

Ha'aretz,

F ebruary 2 1 ,

1985. 8 2 . C f. G io ra G o ld b e r g an d E p h raim Ben Z a d o k , “ R e g io n a lism and T erritorial C lea v a g e in F o rm a tio n : J ew ish S e ttle m e n t in th e A d m in istra ted T errito ries,”

Mimshal Veyehasim Bein Leumiim,

Medina,

N o . 21 (S p ring 1 9 8 3 ).

8 3 . C f. D a v id N e w m a n , “ G u sh E m u n im B etw een F u n d a m en ta lism and P ragm a­ tis m ,”

Jerusalem Quarterly,

N o . 3 9 (1 9 8 6 ) .

8 4 . O n e o f th e c o n d it io n s fo r G u sh E m u n im su p p o rt for th e N a tio n a l R e lig io u s Party in th e 1 9 7 7 e le c tio n s w a s th e c h o ic e o f R ab b i H a im D ru k m a n as th e p a rty ’s n o . 2 rep resen ta tiv e in th e K n e sset a n d h is p o te n tia l n o m in a tio n as th e p a rty ’s first ca n d id a te fo r th e M in iste r o f E d u c a tio n . T h e G u sh lead ers an d th eir rabbi w ere stu n n e d w h e n th e p a rty fin ally g a v e th e p o s itio n to Z ev u lu n H a m m er an d th e c o n ­ flict w a s v ery b itter. In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i E liezer W a ld m a n , A pril 6 , 1 9 7 8 .

Notes

341

8 5 . In te r v ie w w ith R a b b i M o s h e L ev in g er, A pril 2 7 , 1 9 8 0 ; See a lso N a h u m B arnea, “T h e D e r v is h ,”

Koteret Rashit (H e b r e w ),

M ay, 16, 1 9 8 4 .

8 6 . Q u o te d in N a h u m B a rn ea , “T h e D e r v is h ,” p. 15. 8 7 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l,

Dear Brothers, C h .

2.

8 8 . I h a v e c o n d u c te d in te r v ie w s w ith G u sh m em b ers sin ce 1 9 7 6 an d th ere h a v e a lw a y s b een c o m p la in ts a b o u t L e v in g e r ’s erra tic an d u n p re d icta b le b eh a v io r . B ut n o t a sin g le in te r v ie w e e d o u b te d th e g r e a tn e ss o f th e m an an d h is p o s itio n as G u sh E m u n im se ttle r n o . 1. 8 9 . C f. A m o s N e v o , “ W h o A re Y ou R a b b i L ev in g er,”

Yediot Achronot,

M ay

18 , 1 9 8 4 , p. 3 ; I p e r s o n a lly e x p e r ie n c e d L e v in g er’s m o d e sty w h e n I a sk ed to be gran ted an in te r v ie w . L ev in g er to ld m e n o t to c o m e to h is in c o n v e n ie n t h o u se in H eb ro n b u t o ffe r e d in ste a d to c o m e to m y a p a rtm en t in J eru sa lem , w h ic h h e d id . 9 0 . C f. Y eh u d a L ita n i’s e x c e lle n t p o r tr a it o f L evin ger, “ T h e L evin ger S tin g ,”

Kol Hair, Ju ly

15, 1983. 9 1 . T h is is b a se d o n u n o ffic ia l d is c u s s io n s 1 c o n d u c te d w ith so m e o f th e Shin

Bet in v e stig a to r s o f th e G u sh E m u n im u n d e r g r o u n d . 9 2 . In te r v ie w w ith E p h ra im B e n -H a im , T eh iy a lea d er an d a fo rm er Ein V ered a ctiv ist, M a y 5 , 1 9 8 5 . C f. A h a r o n D o la v , “ If T h e y W ill R e m o v e th e K ad u m S e ttle ­ m en t by F o rc e, W e S h all Be T h e r e T o o ,”

Yediot Achronot,

M a rch 1 9 , 1 9 7 6 . F or a

very e x te n s iv e a c c o u n t o f th e lo b b y in g a c tiv ity o f L a b o r v etera n s w ith th e R ab in g o v e r n m e n t se e P eter R o b e r t D e m a n t,

Ploughshares Into Swords

(U n p u b lish e d

P h .D . d isse r ta tio n s u b m itte d to th e U n iv ersity o f A m ste r d a m , 1 9 8 8 ), p p . 3 4 3 - 4 6 , 3 7 5 -7 7 . 9 3 . C f. H a n a n P o ra t,

In Search of Anat

(B et El, S ifriyat B et El, 1 9 8 8 —

H e b r e w ), p p . 1 4 3 —5 2 . 9 4 . In te r v ie w w ith Uri E litzu r, Ju n e 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 . 9 5 . In te r v ie w w ith G e r sh o n S h a fa t, Ju ly 1, 1 9 7 9 ; C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, “ M a p ain ik ? It Is P a rtia lly T r u e ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 1 4 (O c to b e r 1 9 8 7 ), p p . 2 8 —3 1 .

9 6 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, “ A M a n fo r E very S e a s o n ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 1 0 (M a y 2 7 ,

1 9 8 7 ), p p . 2 6 - 2 9 . 9 7 . C f. Itzh a k R a b in ,

Soldier’s Notebook,

V ol. 2 (Tel Aviv, M a ’ariv Press,

1 9 7 9 — H e b r e w ), p p . 5 4 9 —5 1 . F or an e x c e lle n t d e ta ile d a c c o u n t o f th e K a d u m A f­ fair, in c lu d in g th e b a c k s ta g e o p e r a tio n s a n d p ressu res see Peter R o b er t D e m a n t,

Ploughshares Into Swords,

pp. 3 8 1 -4 8 5 .

9 8 . Uri E litzu r “ T h e S tory o f th e T w e lv e G a r iin im ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 51 (D e c e m ­

ber 3 , 1 9 8 1 ) , p . 6 . H a n a n P o ra t is r e p o r ted to h a v e e ffe c tiv e ly c o n tin u e d h is lo b b y in g w ith B e g in ’s s u c c e sso r , Itzh a k S h am ir. In 1 9 8 8 , P orat w a s e lec ted to th e 1 2 th K n esset as an N R P r e p r e se n ta tiv e , a n d h a s su c c e s sfu lly e sta b lish e d c lo s e p erso n a l re la tio n s

Ha’aretz, Ju n e

w ith th e P rim e M in iste r , C f. O r it G a lili, “T e n ta tiv e M e m b e r s h ip ,”

6,

1990. 9 9 . I n te r v ie w w ith O tn ie l S ch n eler, A u g u st 5 , 1 9 8 5 ; C f. Y ehu d a H a z a n i, “ A ‘L o b b y ’ fo r th e G lo r y o f G o d ,”

Nekuda, N o .

8 4 (M a rch 1 , 1 9 8 5 ) , p p . 2 4 —2 5 ; Y oram

Shnir, “ T h e F o o ts te p s o f th e B u d g e t C u ts L ead to th e A lig n m e n t,”

Nekuda,

N o . 85

(A pril 5 , 1 9 8 5 ) . 100.

In te r v ie w w ith S ch n eler, A u g u st 5 , 1 9 8 5 . O n S ch n e le r’s e x h ib itio n is t sty le

an d o p e r a tio n , se e A v in o a m B ar Y o sef, “ A S ettler in a J a c u si,”

Ma’ariv,

Ju ly 1 9 ,

1 9 8 5 , p p . 6 —7 . S ch n e le r w a s r e m o v e d fro m o ffic e in 1 9 8 8 b e c a u se o f h is e x h ib itio n -

342

Notes

ism , c lo se r e la tio n sh ip w ith L iku d p o litic ia n s , a n d p o litic a l a m b itio n s w h ich d id n o t sq uare w ith th e G u sh E m u n im “ a p o lit ic a l” sty le. 1 0 1 . M e r o n B e n v e n isti, 1 9 8 7

Report,

p p . 4 0 —4 4 .

1 0 2 . B en n y K a tzo v er, “ A R etu rn to th e S tru ggle M e th o d s o f S eb astia Is P o ssi­ b le ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 8 3 (F ebruary 2 , 1 9 8 5 ), p. 1 3.

1 0 3 . In ter v ie w w ith B en n y K a tzo v er, Ju ne 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 .

Nekuda, Nekuda, N o .

1 0 4 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, “ A n A lm o n d Tree Is F lo u rish in g in N a b lu s ,” N o . 5 4 (F ebruary 2 , 1 9 8 3 ) , p p . 7 —9; B am b i E h rlich, “T h is D r ea m er ,” 1 0 6 (Jan u ary 9 , 1 9 8 7 ), p p . 2 2 —2 5 . 1 0 5 . C f. F or a d e sc r ip tio n o f th e B eita in c id e n t see 1988. 1 0 6 . C f. G id e o n A ra n ,

Yediot Achronot, A pril

Eretz Yisrael Between Religion and Politics

7 -1 4 ,

(Jeru salem ,

T h e Jeru sa lem In stitu te fo r th e S tu d y o f Israel, 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), p. 6 8 . 107.

Ibid., p p .

6 8 -7 9 .

1 0 8 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l,

Dear Brothers, p .

1 3 7 ; A lso “ R o u n d T a b le ” in

Nekuda,

N o . 5 9 (Ju n e 1 0 , 1 9 8 3 ), p p . 1 6 —1 7 . 1 0 9 . Q u o te d by G id e o n A ra n , 1 1 0 . C f.

ibid.,

ibid., p.

74.

p. 7 0 ; D a n B e’eri, “ Z io n is m , M o r e th an Ever B e fo r e ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 9 5 (Jan u ary 2 1 , 1 9 8 6 ), p. 10.

A False War (Tel Aviv, S c h o c k e n , 1 9 8 4 — H e b r e w ); A vn er Y aniv, Dilemmas of Security: Politics, Strat­ egy, and the Israeli Experience in Lebanon (N e w Y ork, O x fo r d U n iversity Press, 1 1 1 . O n th e L eb a n o n W ar see Z e ’ev S c h iff an d E hud Y a’ari,

1 9 8 7 ). 1 1 2 . In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i Y o h a n a n F ried, A u g u st 7 , 1 9 8 8 . 1 1 3 . S ee a b o v e p p . 6 4 . 1 1 4 . C f. R a b b i Y eh u d a A m ita l, “ In th e Trap o f P e r fe c tio n ,”

Nekuda,

N o. 52

(D ecem b e r 2 4 , 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 8 - 1 1 . 1 1 5 . C f. H a n a n P o r a t’s r e sp o n se to A m ita l,

Nekuda,

N o . 5 0 (N o v e m b e r 1 2 ,

1 9 8 2 ), p. 6 . F or an ea rly c o m m e n t a b o u t th e p o te n tia l intern al te n sio n s w ith in G u sh E m u nim see J an et K. O ’d e a , “ G u sh E m u n im : R o o ts an d A m b ig u itie s ,”

Forum,

N o.

2, 2 5 , 1976. 1 1 6 . R a b b i A m ita l’s in flu e n c e a m o n g th e m o d er a te w in g o f th e relig io u s Z io n ­ ists led , in 1 9 8 8 , to th e e sta b lish m e n t o f

Meimad

(D im e n sio n ), a n e w party th a t

co m p e te d u n su c c e ssfu lly w ith th e ra d ica lized N R P in th e n a tio n a l e le c tio n s o n th e relig io u s v o te b u t a ttra cte d large p u b lic a tte n tio n . O n A m ita l’s career see G io ra E ilo n , “ A P o liticia n A g a in st H is O w n W ill,”

Kol Yerushalaim, July 2 2 , 1 9 8 8 , pp. Yediot Achronot Weekly,

1 6 —17; A m o s N e v o , “ R a b b i A m ita l: A n o th e r S p e c ie s,” O cto b e r 7 , 1 9 8 8 , p p . 3 4 - 3 5 .

1 1 7 . In ter v ie w w ith Y o h a n a n Ben Y a’aco v , Bnei A k iv a ’s Secretary G en era l, J an u ­ ary 5 , 1 9 8 5 . 1 1 8 . Q u o te d in

Yediot Achronot,

A p ril 3 0 , 1 9 8 4 , p. 3.

119. R a b b i Y oel B e n -N u n , “ A u th o r ity N o w ,” pp. 18—19.

Nekuda, N o .

88 (June 2 4 , 1985),

1 2 0 . C f. R a b b i Israel A riel, “ Is It R ea lly a R e v o lt A g a in st th e K in g d o m ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 7 3 (M a y , 2 5 , 1 9 8 4 ). 1 2 1 . In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i Y o h a n a n F ried, A u g u st 7 , 1 9 8 8 . In Ju ne 1 9 8 9 R ab b i

Tau issu e d a s ta te m e n t su p p o r tin g R a b b i L ev in g er’s e x p la n a tio n o f an in c id e n t in w h ich he k illed a H e b r o n A rab in an a ct o f “ s e lf d e fe n s e ” (see b e lo w ).

Notes 1 2 2 . C f. “ G u sh E m u n im : A P lan fo r R e n e w a l a n d E x p a n s io n ,”

343

Nekuda, N o .

44

(June 1 1 , 1 9 8 2 ) , p. 2 3 . 1 2 3 . C f. “ G u sh E m u n im W a k es U p ,” H a im S h ib i, “ T h e S ecreta ry G e n e r a l,”

Nekuda, N o . 8 4 (M arch 1, 1 9 8 5 ), p. 4 ; Yediot Achronot, M a rch 1 9 8 5 , pp. 8 - 1 0 ;

in terv ie w w ith D a n ie la W e iss, M a r c h 4 , 1 9 8 5 . 1 2 4 . In te r v ie w w ith W e iss, M a r ch 4 , 1 9 8 5 . 1 2 5 . C f. D a n ie la W eiss, “ T h e F r ie n d sh ip ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 0 4 (N o v e m b e r 7 ,

1 9 8 6 ), p p . 1 0 - 1 1 , 3 1 . 1 2 6 . D a n ie la W eiss a ttr a c te d m u ch o f th e fire o f th e G u sh E m u n im m o d er a tes w h en , in a d d itio n to b e in g v ery a sse r tiv e o n th e issu e o f th e u n d er g ro u n d , sh e ca m e o u t p u b lic ly a g a in s t th e L a b o r k ib b u tz im a n d th eir c o n tr ib u tio n to Israel. 1 2 7 . C f. M e n a c h e m F ru m a n , “ I A m S p littin g ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 0 4 (N o v e m b e r 7 ,

1 9 8 6 ), p p . 1 0 —1 1 , 3 1 , a n d a ls o th e e d ito r ia l o f th a t issu e; “ S h a d e s” (letters to th e e d i­ tor), p. 4 , e ss a y s b y A m ie l U n ger, M e ir H a r n o i, Y on a S aiif, D a n B e’eri, all in

Nekuda,

N o . 1 0 5 (D e c e m b e r 9 , 1 9 8 6 ); B en n y K a tzo v e r, “T h e re W ill Be N o H o p e for T h o s e W h o D iv id e ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 0 6 (J a n u a ry 9 , 1 9 8 7 ), p p . 1 0 - 1 2 ; essa y s an d letters by

A h a ro n E iern , Avi W o lfish , a n d Z v i L a n d o , E ster A z o la i, H a n a G o fer , H a im S h a h a m , B am bi E h rlich , Z ip o r a L uria, Z v i M o s e s , M e n a c h e m F ru m an , Itzhak A r m o n i, Ella

Nekuda, N o . 1 0 8 (M arch 1 3 , 1 9 8 7 ). Ha'aretz a n d Yediot Achronot, M a y 8 , 1 9 8 7 . A viva S h a b i, “ R u p tu r es in th e G u s h ,” Yediot Achronot, M a y 1 5 ,

and V itto W e itz m a n a n d D a n ie la W eiss, 1 2 8 . C f. 1 2 9 . C f.

1987,

pp. 4 —5 . O n A m a n a ’s m o d e r a te p o s it io n see Uriel B e n -A m i’s p o rtra y a l o f M u n i B enA ri, th e n e w 1 9 8 8 D ir e c to r G en era l o f A m a n a , “ W ith B oth H a n d s o n th e G r o u n d ,”

Kol Yerushalaim, J u ly

2 9 , 1 9 8 8 , p p . 2 3 —2 4 .

1 3 0 . C f. T h e E d ito r, “ A V ery Im p o r ta n t C o n tr ib u tio n ” ; a lso S h m u el L erm an , “ B u sin ess (A lm o st) A s U s u a l,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 1 7 (Jan u ary 1 5 , 1 9 8 9 ), p p . 6 - 1 1 .

1 3 1 . C f. “ F a cin g th e S to r m ,” e ss a y s o n th e

intifada, Nekuda,

N o . 1 1 9 (M a rch

1 9 8 8 ), p p . 4 2 - 6 6 . 1 3 2 . C f. N a d a v S h ra g a i, “T h e Fear fro m R ig h t an d L e ft,” 1989.

Ha’aretz, F eb ru ary

1 3 3 . C f. Y ard en a (fic titio u s n a m e ), “ W h ere is th e G rea t H o p e ? ,” 1 2 8 (M a rch 1 7 , 1 9 8 9 ) , p. 16. 1 3 4 . M e ir H a r -N o i,

The Grey Time (B n ei-B rak , A vrah am

Nekuda,

3,

N o.

N a v e , 1 9 9 0 — H eb rew ).

1 3 5 . Y oel B e n -N u n , “ L et U s S tart w ith a N a tio n a l C o n fe r e n c e ,”

Nekuda, N o . Yediot

1 1 7 (Jan u ary 1 5 , 1 9 8 8 ) , p . 2 0 . See a ls o “ N a tio n a l C o n fe r e n c e — N o w ,”

Achronot, J a n u a ry

23, 1989.

1 3 6 . Y oel B e n -N u n , “ It Is H ig h T im e fo r A c c o u n tin g an d C o n c lu d in g ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 2 3 (S ep te m b e r 1 9 8 8 ) , p . 2 9 . 1 3 7 . Y oel B e n -N u n , “ R e d e m p tio n : N o t in O n e G en era tio n N o t at O n e S tr ik e ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 1 9 (M a r c h 1 9 8 8 ) , p. 1 3 .

1 3 8 . Y oel B e n -N u n , “ It Is H ig h T im e fo r A c c o u n tin g a n d C o n c lu d in g ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 123 (S ep te m b e r 1 9 8 8 ) , p . 2 9 . 1 3 9 . O n M u n i B en -A ri se e U riel B e n -A m i, “ W ith T w o H a n d s in th e G r o u n d ,”

Yerushalaim, Ju ly

29, 1988.

1 4 0 . C f. C h a v a P in c h a s-C o h e n , “T h e B lack S h eep o f G u sh E m u n im ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 2 6 (Jan u ary 6 , 1 9 8 9 ) , p p . 3 0 —3 7 . 1 4 1 . Ibid., p p . 3 6 —3 7 . See a ls o N a d a v S h ragai, “ L oyal to th e E n d ,” January 2 7 , 1 9 8 9 .

Ha’aretz,

344

Notes 1 4 2 . C f. O r o n M e ir i a n d A le x F ish m a n , “ N o t in th e U n d e r g r o u n d ,”

Hadashot,

February 1 3 , 1 9 8 8 . 1 4 3 . C f. R an K islev, “ A S h o w o f F o rc e, o r D e sp a ir ,”

Ha’aretz,

M ay 2 9 , 1989.

1 4 4 . Q u o te d b y E yal H a lfo n , “ H is H o n o r .the Ju d ge, th e H o n o r a b le R ab b i H a s Just A r r iv e d ,”

Hadashot,

M ay 5, 1989.

1 4 5 . Q u o te d in Uri N ir a n d N a d a v S h ragai, “ Settlers K illed a G irl and W o u n d ed T w o in an A rab V illa g e N e a r A r ie l,”

Ha’aretz,

M ay 30, 1989.

1 4 6 . T h e in a b ility o f th e G u sh E m u n im ’ secreta ria t to fu n ctio n p ro p erly w a s d em o n str a te d a g a in in M a r ch 1 9 9 0 w h e n Itzh ak A r m o n i, w h o w a s m a d e secretary gen eral ju st a y ear ea rlier, r e sig n ed . A r m o n i, a vetera n settler an d a L evin ger co n fi­ d a n t, w a n te d to o p e n up a n d d e m o c r a tiz e th e m o v e m e n t, b u t fo u n d o u t, to h is great d ism ay, th a t h is refo rm id e a s w e r e u n a c c e p ta b le to th e rabbi w h o g o t h im th e job . C f. N a d a v S h ra g a i, “ T h e D e c lin e o f G u sh E m u n im C o n tin u e s ,”

Ha’aretz,

M a rch 3 0 ,

1990. 1 4 7 . C f. R e p o r t by N a d a v S h ragai et a l.,

Ha’aretz, M a y

5, 1990.

1 4 8 . T h e M a y 1 9 9 0 s e n te n c in g o f R ab b i L evin ger to five m o n th s in p riso n , for k illin g an A rab b y sta n d e r in H e b r o n , p r o d u c e d an u n p reced en ted s h o w o f rab b in ical su p p o rt. A sp ecia l c o n v e n tio n o f o v e r o n e h u n d red d istin g u ish e d rab b is ruled th a t L evin ger’s in te r p r e ta tio n o f s e lf-d e fe n se w a s co rrect an d th a t h e d id n o t b reak any Jew ish law . T h e n , h u n d r e d s o f e x c ite d su p p o rters ca m e o u t to esc o r t th e figh tin g rabbi o n h is w a y to jail. C f. N a d a v S h ra g a i, “T acit S a lu t,” 1 4 9 . C f. N a d a v S h ra g a i, “ T h e y C all It T h ic k e n in g ,”

Ha’aretz, M a y 1 7 , Ha’aretz, June 2 2 ,

1990. 1990.

A c c o r d in g to th e settler lea d ers, th e n u m b e r o f th e Jew s in th e o c c u p ie d territories reach ed 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 in N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 0 . C f. E d ito ria l,

Nekuda,

146, N ovem ber 1990.

T h ere w a s , h o w e v e r , n o e x p la n a tio n fo r th e q u a n tu m leap from 8 5 ,0 0 0 , w h ich w a s th e n u m b er o f settlers liv in g in th e area in 1 9 8 9 .

Chapter 6 1. C f. B ina B arzel, “ R a fu l in A C r o s s r o a d ,”

Yediot Achronot,

N ovem ber 29,

1987. 2. It c a n n o t b e d o u b te d th a t th e em e r g e n c e o f M o le d e t an d th e sp lit b etw e en the T eh iya a n d T z o m e t,

reasons,

which came about more out of political than ideological

h a v e p r o d u c e d s o m e p o litic a l fr a g m e n ta tio n w ith in th e p a rlia m en ta ry rad i­

cal right. B ut th e fr a g m e n ta tio n h as p a r a d o x ic a lly stren g th en ed th is ca m p . T h e T eh iya, w h ic h w a s th e first p o litic a l p arty o f th is ca m p , m ay h a v e lo s t its m o n o p o ly o v er th e a n ti-C a m p D a v id v o te , b u t h as m a d e th e radical righ t a v ia b le o p tio n for m an y Israelis. A n d th is su p p o r t is in c rea sin g . In 1 9 8 4 th e radical right, in c lu d in g K ach, receiv ed 5 .2 5 p erc en t o f th e v o te . In th e 1 9 8 8 e le c tio n s th ese p a rties, w ith o u t th e d isq u a lifie d K ach , in c rea se d th eir su p p o r t to 7 p ercen t. T h e rea so n th a t th is p o litic a l fr a g m e n ta tio n d id n o t h urt th e larger cam p o f th e ex trem e right is th a t n o n e o f th e ra d ica l p a rties h as ever a p p ea led to th e en tire co n stitu e n c y o f th is ca m p : th e h ard co r e L abor se ttle m e n t v o te rs, th e relig io u sA sh k e n a z im , th e r e lig io u s-S e p h a r a d im , th e b ord er settlem e n ts, an d th e urban rad i­ cals. C o n se q u e n tly , th ere w e r e a lm o s t n o h ard feelin g s a m o n g th e fo llo w e r s o f th e larger ca m p a b o u t th e d isu n ity o f th eir lea d ers. T h e v o ters sim p ly o p te d for their preferred c a n d id a te s. A q u ick r e v ie w o f th e 1 9 8 8 ele c tio n results su g g ests, for e x a m ­ p le, th a t w h ile th e T eh iya re m a in e d str o n g in Israel’s urban cen ters, it h ad little

Notes

345

ap p eal in th e b o r d e r to w n s a n d se ttle m e n ts in th e n o rth . R a fu l, th e n a tio n ’s c h ie f o f sta ff d u r in g th e L e b a n o n W ar, w a s h ig h ly p o p u la r th ere, ju st as h e w a s in m a n y k ib b u tzim a n d m o s h a v im . M o le d e t m a y h a v e m a d e it to th e K n esset w ith o n e sea t even w ith o u t th e d is q u a lific a tio n o f K a h a n e, b u t th is a ct o f th e S u p rem e C o u r t h a d d efin itely p u t in th e K n e sse t its n o . 2 , P r o fe sso r S p rin za k . T h ere are, fu rth erm o re, m an y in d ic a tio n s th a t th e A s h k e n a z i, o ld E retz Y israel im a g e o f th e th ree p a rties h as d a m a g ed th eir a p p e a l a m o n g th e r e lig io u s-S e p h a r a d i su p p o rters o f th e rad ica l righ t. M a n y o f K a h a n e ’s p o te n tia l v o te s w h o c o m e fr o m th ese e c h e lo n s h a v e m o v e d in th e 1 9 8 8 e le c tio n s to th e u lt r a -o r th o d o x p a rties o f S has an d A g u d a t Israel. M o le d e t a lo n e , w ith its o u tr ig h t “ tr a n s fe r ” m e s sa g e w a s a b le to c a p ita liz e o n th e la te d is q u a li­ fica tio n o f K a h a n e a n d it c o u ld h a v e p r o b a b ly d o n e b etter h ad Z e ’evi p la c ed a re lig io u s-o r ie n ta l J e w as h is n o . 2 . In th e fin al a n a ly sis, th e d istr ib u tio n o f th e rad ical v o te all o v e r th e c o u n tr y d o e s n o t le a v e a d o u b t th a t th e ca m p o f th e rad ical righ t h a d b eco m e in 1 9 8 8 an a ll-Isra eli p h e n o m e n o n . C f. B o a z S h a p ira , “ O n e P a rlia m en t M e m b er in F ifty T h o u s a n d s ,”

Ha’aretz,

D ecem ber 2, 1988.

3 . In te r v ie w w ith G e u la C o h e n , A p ril 5 , 1 9 7 9 . 4. 5.

Kol Koreh (M a n ife s to ), Ibid., p . 2 4 .

(A T eh iy a Party P a m p h le t, 1 9 7 9 ), p. 5 .

6 . In te r v ie w w ith E p h ra im B en H a im , M a y , 5 , 1 9 8 5 . 7 . C f. R a fa e l E itan a n d D o v G o ld s te in ,

A Soldier’s Story

(Tel Aviv, M a ’ariv

P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 2 9 —3 0 . 8. H a g g a i S e g a l, “ W ith H a n a n P o r a t,”

Nekuda,

N o . 71 (M a rch 2 3 , 1 9 8 4 ),

p. 5. 9 . F o llo w in g h is s p lit w ith th e T eh iy a p arty, H a n a n P orat tried to e sta b lish a n ew m o v e m e n t

Orot (lig h ts),

w h ic h n ev er to o k o ff. H e c o n s e q u e n tly jo in ed M a tz a d

o f R ab b i H a im D r u k m a n , w h o h a d left th e N R P sev era l m o n th s earlier. T h e tw o then d ec id e d to c o o p e r a te w ith th e o r t h o d o x P oalei A g u d a t Y israel o f A vrah am V erdiger, an o ld p o litic a l p ro w h o e s ta b lis h e d M o r a h sa (T rad ition ) a n d ran in 1 9 8 4 for th e

1 1 th K n e sset. T h e y s u c c e e d e d in p la c in g tw o m em b ers in th e H o u s e ,

D ru k m a n a n d V erd iger. H o w e v e r , w h e n th e N R P , w h ic h b o th P orat an d D r u k m a n h ad b een tr y in g “ to r e fo r m ” all a lo n g , p r o m ise d to c h a n g e a n d let G u sh E m u n im p e o p le in a t all e c h e lo n s , th e y d e c id e d to rejo in . T h e y d isso lv e d M o r a sh a an d u n ited w ith th eir p a r e n t p arty. H o w e v e r , th is w a s n o t d o n e b efo r e th ey w e r e certa in a b o u t the N R P ’s p r o m is e s a n d th e n o m in a t io n o f Uri E litzu r as th e d irecto r o f th e in flu e n ­ tial in fo r m a tio n d e p a r tm e n t o f th e p arty. T h e m o v e , w h ic h in v o lv e d m a n y G u sh p e o p le , p r o v e d in 1 9 8 8 very r e w a r d in g . A c o a litio n o f vetera n N R P h a rd -lin ers an d G ush E m u n im c h o s e P r o fe sso r A vn er S h a k i, a w e ll-k n o w n Eretz Y israel ra d ica l, as the N R P ’s first c a n d id a te fo r th e K n e sset a n d th e p a r ty ’s m ain sp eak er. It fu rth er p la c ed H a n a n P o ra t th ird o n th e list a n d g a v e th e h a rd -lin ers a d o m in a n t p o s itio n w ith in th e p arty. T h e re su lts o f th e 1 9 8 8 e le c tio n s in th e W est B ank in d ic a te d a str o n g m o v e m e n t o f fo r m er T eh iy a v o te r s to th e N R P . 1 0 . In te r v ie w s w ith B en n y K a tzo v e r, Ju n e 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 ; D a n ie la W eiss, M a rch 4 , 1 9 8 5 . O n th e se c u la r -r e lig io u s n e x u s w ith in th e T eh iya see A sh er C o h e n , “ ‘G o in g T o g eth er’— th e R e lig io u s -S e c u le r R e la tio n s h ip in a M ix e d P arty,” in C h a rles S. L ieb m a n ,

To Live Together: Religious and Secular in Israeli Society

(J eru sa lem ,

K eter, 1 9 8 9 ). 11. In te r v ie w w ith P r o fe sso r Y air S p rin za k (th e a u th o r ’s u n c le ), Ju ne 1 0 , 1 9 8 8 . 1 2 . C f. Z v i S h ilo a c h ,

A Great Land for a Great People (Tel Aviv, O t-P a z

tio n s, 1 9 7 0 — H e b r e w ), p p . 8 5 - 8 6 .

P u b lica ­

346

Notes

Kol Yerushalaim, July, 8, 1 9 8 8 , p. 2 4 . Hadashot, N o v e m b e r , T r ee ,” Al Hamishmar, N o v e m b e r 2 5 ,

1 3 . C f. G io ra E iio n , “ C r o c o d ile G a n d h i,”

14. C f. A le x F ish m a n , “ G a n d h i: L oyal B ut D a n g e r o u s ,” 1 8 , 1 9 8 8 ; A m ir a m C o h e n , “T h e In fertile 1988. 15. C f.

Moledet: The Movement of the Eretz Yisrael Loyalists, N o .

1 (P latform

an d E x p la n a tio n s , 1 9 8 8 ). 16. S p r in za k , w h o ch a ired th e first m e e tin g o f th e K n esset as th e H o u s e ’s eld est m em b er, crea ted a m a jo r sto r m w h e n h e a d d e d to h is o p e n in g rem arks a len g th y p o litic a l sp eec h a b o u t M o le d e t ’s a n d h is o w n d irect h isto rica l rela tio n w ith th e L abor m o v e m e n t. S everal le ftist m em b ers o f th e H o u s e refu sed to sw ea r a lleg ia n c e to th e K n esset w ith o u t e x p r e s s in g th eir b itter d ism a y w ith th e a ctin g sp ea k er (Sprin­ za k ), w h o w a s s u p p o s e d to sw e a r th em in.

Moledet: The Movement of the Eretz Yisrael Loyalists, N o . 1, p. 4 . Q u o te d in G io r a E ilo n , “ C r o c o d ile G a n d h i,” Kol Yerushalaim, July 8 , 1 9 8 8 .

17. C f. 18.

19. C f. R e h a v a m Z e ’ev i, “ A T ran sfer W ill T ake P lace in E retz Y isr a e l,” in

Moledet: The Movement of the Loyalists of Eretz Yisrael, N o . 1, p. 2 0 . C f. Yair S h e le g , “ R e p a tr ia tio n N o t T ra n sfer,” Nekuda, N o .

2. 1 1 5 (N o v e m b e r

1 9 8 7 ), p. 1 6 . A n o th e r p r o m in e n t o ffic e h o ld e r w h o referred in 1 9 8 7 to th e transfer as a r e a so n a b le a n d v ia b le s o lu tio n w a s M in iste r Y o sef (Y oske) Shapira o f M o r a sh a . S ayin g th a t a c o m p e n s a tio n o f $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 fo r an A rab fam ily ready to lea v e Israel w a s a re a so n a b le su m , S h ap ira d r e w th e fire o f m a n y m o d er a te Israelis in c lu d in g several o f his fo rm er c o lle a g u e s fro m th e N R P . 2 1 . C f.

Yediot Achronot, A p ril,

1 4 , 1 9 8 6 ; Y uval N e ’em a n , h o w ev e r, h ad w ritten

a b o u t th is k in d o f so lu tio n sev era l tim e s in th e p a st. C f. Yuval N e ’em a n , “ Sam aria:

Ma’arachot essay reprin ted The Policy of Open Eyes (R a m a t G a n , R ev iv im , 1 9 8 4 — H e b r e w ), L o K a c h ,” Yediot Achronot, A u g u st, 1 3 , 1 9 8 5 . “ D e m o g r a p h y ? T h e re Is an A n s w e r ,” A Tehiya Elections Pamphlet, 1 9 8 8 . “T h e T z o m e t R e s o lu tio n s ,” A Tzomet Elections Pamphlet, 1 9 8 8 . “T h e P la tfo rm P r in c ip le s,” A Tzomet Elections Pamphlet, 1 9 8 8 .

T h e F o u n d a tio n for Isra el’s S ecu rity ,” a M a y —Ju ne 1 9 8 0 in Y uval N e ’e m a n , p. 1 6 9 ; 22. 23. 24.

2 5 . F or an e la b o r a tio n o n th e c o n c e p t o f fu n d a m en ta l id e o lo g y see M a rtin Seliger,

Ideology and Politics (L o n d o n ,

G e o r g e A llen & U n w in , 1 9 7 6 ), C h. 4 .

2 6 . W h en in te r v ie w e d for th is stu d y in 1 9 8 5 , an d ask ed a b o u t his id e o lo g ic a l co n tr ib u tio n to th e T eh iy a , R afu l resp o n d ed : “ N o t h in g ! ” Several T ehiya K n esset m em b ers w h o w e r e p r e se n t h a d to e x p la in to th e form er gen eral th a t th e q u e stio n referred to h is sp ecia l a p p r o a c h to p u b lic life. H e th en a n sw ered in tw o sen te n c es. To th e b est o f m y k n o w le d g e R afu l h as o n ly rarely w ritten n ew sp a p e r essa y s an d his a u to b io g r a p h y w a s g h o s tw r itte n b y M a ’ariv jo u rn a list D o v G o ld ste in . 2 7 . T h is is a c o m m o n M o le d e t th em e. C f.

Moledet: The Movement of the Eretz

Yisrael Loyalists,

N o . 3 (D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 8 ), p. 4 . 2 8 . I am in d e b te d to A a r o n R o se n b a u m w h o d rew m y a tten tio n to th is fact

several years a g o . C f. A a ro n D . R o se n b a u m , “ T h e T eh iya as a P erm an en t N a tio n a list P h e n o m e n o n ,” in B ern ard R eich a n d G ersh o n K ieval (ed s.), Israeli National Security Policy: Political Actors and Perspectives (N e w Y ork, G r e e n w o o d Press, 1 9 8 8 ). 2 9 . Kol Koreh, p. 7. 30. Ibid., p. 5. 3 1 . Ibid. 3 2 . “ F o llo w M e to T z o m e t ,” A Tzomet Elections Pamphlet, 1 9 8 8 .

Notes

347

3 3 . In ter v ie w s w ith G e u la C o h e n , A p ril 5 , 1 9 7 9 ; D r. Israel E ld a d , A p ril 2 8 , 1985. 3 4 . T h e 1 9 8 4 e le c tio n o f R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e to th e K n esset a n d th e h igh rate o f y o u th fu l S u p p o rt fo r h is p o s it io n s , e s p e c ia lly in th e arm y, a larm ed p u b lic a c tiv ists an d ed u c a to r s all o v e r th e co u n try . It resu lted in a m a ssiv e a n ti-ra c ist c a m p a ig n in th e n a tio n ’s s c h o o l sy ste m a n d th e arm y. N u m e r o u s sy m p o sia “ in d e fe n se o f d e m o c ­ ra c y ” w e r e h eld all o v e r th e c o u n tr y a n d th e a n ti-d e m o c r a tic th rea t h a d a ch iev ed grea t v isib ility . C f. G e r a ld C r o m er, “ T h e D e b a te a b o u t K a h a n ism in Israeli S o c ie ty ,”

Occasional Papers of the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, N o . 3 5 . C f. “ Id en tity C a r d ,” A Tehiya Election Pamphlet, 1 9 8 8 .

3, 1988.

3 6 . Israel E ld a d , “ B a g a tz — A S u p re m e C o u rt o f A p p ea l for Z io n is m ,”

Ha’aretz,

Jan uary 2 1 , 1 9 8 8 .

A Tzomet Elections Pamphlet, 1 9 8 8 . Moledet: The Movement of the Loyalists of Eretz Yisrael, N o . “ Id en tity C a r d ,” A Tehiya Elections Pamphlet, 1 9 8 8 . “ P la tfo r m ,” A Tehiya-Tzomet Elections Pamphlet, 1 9 8 4 .

3 7 . “ E d u c a t io n ,” 38. 39. 40.

1, p. 3 .

4 1 . C f. T e h iy a ’s “ Id en tity C a r d .”

A Tehiya-Tzomet Election Pamphlet, 1 9 8 4 . N e ’em a n , “ Z io n is m W h e r e ? ,” Ha’aretz, S ep tem b er

4 2 . “ P la tfo r m ,” 4 3 . Y uval 44.

28, 1981.

Ibid.

4 5 . D o r it G e fe n , “ In te r v ie w w ith G e u la C o h e n ,”

Al Hamishmar, Ju ly

30, 1982.

4 6 . Sarit Y ish a i, “ G e u la C o h e n : In L o v e Ju st as in P o litics I A m G o in g to th e E n d ,”

Monitin,

F eb ru ary 1 9 7 9 .

4 7 . Y u val N e ’em a n , “ ‘S a v in g th e A r e a ’— By Israeli C o n c e s s io n s ,”

Ma’ariv, F eb ­

ruary 1, 1 9 8 0 . 48.

Ibid.

4 9 . Y u val N e ’em a n , “ T o J u m p O f f th e T r a in ,” 5 0 . Y u val N e ’e m a n , 5 1 . Y u val N e ’e m a n ,

Ma’ariv, Ju n e Ma’ariv, Ju n e

Ma’ariv,

N ovem ber 13, 1981.

26, 1981. 19, 1981.

5 2 . E liy a h u A m ik a m , “ F u n n y T h in g s ,”

Yediot Achronot, June

27, 1986.

5 3 . Y o a sh T z id o n , “ W e A re B e in g H e lp e d N o t B eca u se o f E x c e ssiv e H u m a n ­ is m ,”

Ha’aretz,

M arch 3 , 1 9 8 9 .

5 4 . Y u val N e ’em a n ,

Ma’ariv,

O c to b e r 2 6 , 1 9 8 1 .

5 5 . Israel E ld a d , “ A M is p la c e d A n a lo g y ,”

Ha’aretz, M a y ,

26, 1988.

5 6 . Israel E ld a d , “J u d ea a n d S a m a ria o n O u r S h o u ld ers o r P a lestin e o n O u r H e a d s ,”

Ha’aretz,

F eb ru ary 4 , 1 9 8 8 .

A Tehiya Elections Pamphlet, 1 9 8 8 . Ibid.; “ T h e In tifa d a R io ts: C a u se s, S o lu tio n s an d L e s s o n s ,” Tzomet Election Pamphlet No. 13, 1 9 8 8 . 5 9 . Ibid. 6 0 . “T o C ru sh th e I n tifa d a ,” A Tehiya Elections Pamphlet, 1 9 8 8 . 6 1 . Ibid. 6 2 . Israel E ld a d , “ R e b e l a n d P lay a M a k e B e lie v e ,” Ha’aretz, M a y 12 , 1 9 8 8 . 6 3 . Dr. Israel E ld a d , “ A P o iso n fro m D iz e n g o ff C e n te r ,” Yediot Achronot, Ju ne 5 7 . “ Id en tity C a r d ,”

58.

17, 1988. 6 4 . G eu la C o h e n , “ In fec ted C r e a to r s ,”

Yediot Achronot,

F eb ru ary 1 2 , 1 9 8 8 .

6 5 . M . B e n -Y o se f (H a g a r ), “T h is Is th e W e a p o n o f th e L e ft,” 24, 1989.

Hadashot,

M a rch

348

Notes 6 6 . C f. M ic h a e l B a r -Z o h a r ,

H eb rew ) p. 1 2 6 2 ; Y ossi B eilin ,

Ben Gurion, V ol. 3 (Tel Aviv, A m The Price of Unification (R a m a t

O ved , 1 9 7 7 — G a n , R ev iv im ,

1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), p p . 2 5 —2 8 . 6 7 . T h is is b a se d o n a d is c u s s io n h eld w ith a c lo se N e ’em an w a tch er, m ilitary h isto ria n D r. M e ir P ail, O c to b e r 2 0 , 1 9 8 8 . 6 8 . A 1 9 8 5 A l H a m is h m a r in v e s tig a tio n ch a rg ed N e ’em an o f te a ch in g p h y sics in H o u s to n , T e x a s, fo r $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 a se m e ste r w h ile b ein g fo rm a lly a K n esset m em b er. C f. M o tti B a sso k , A l H a n tis h m a r , M a y 1 0 , 1 9 8 5 . N e ’e m a n ’s te a ch in g “e x p e d itio n s ” a b ro a d in v o lv e d h im , in Ju ly 1 9 8 2 , in a ser io u s leg a l p ro b le m . Just b efo re h e w a s to join th e c a b in e t, it w a s d isc o v e r e d th a t h e k ep t for years an illegal b an k a c c o u n t in th e U n ited S ta tes. T h e S ta te ’s A tto r n e y G en eral d ecid ed n o t to p ress ch arges an d in stea d fin ed N e ’e m a n $ 5 0 0 0 . 6 9 . Z v i Z in g e r , “ In ter v ie w w ith Y uval N e ’e m a n ,” A pril 2 2 , 1 9 8 3 . 7 0 . Y uval N e ’e m a n , “ P rivate D o m a in ,”

Ma’ariv, M arch

13, 1988.

7 1 . In ter v ie w w ith G eu la C o h e n , A u g u st 2 3 , 1 9 8 5 . 7 2 . C f. A d ar K eisari, “ I n tr o d u c tio n ,” in Y uval N e ’em a n ,

Eyes, p p .

The Policy of Open

7 -8 .

7 3 . C f. Y u val N e ’e m a n ,

ibid., p p .

2 5 —2 7 .

7 4 . Y uval N e ’e m a n r e n o u n c e d h is jo b w ith S h im o n Peres in F ebruary 1 9 7 6 . H e th en p u b lish e d a le n g th y e ssa y in

Ha’aretz in

w h ich h e ex p re ssed h is b ittern ess a b o u t

th e c o n c e s s io n s m a d e by th e Israeli c a b in e t to th e E g y p tia n s. C f. Y uval N e ’em a n , “ W h y D id I L ea v e th e M in istr y o f D e f e n s e ,”

Ha’aretz,

February 6 , 1 9 7 6 .

7 5 . T h is is b a se d o n sev era l in fo r m a l c o n v e r sa tio n s and a lso o n a m e etin g th e a u th o r h eld w ith E d w a rd T eller, a n o te d n u c le a r p h y sicist, w h e n h e v isited Israel in

Israel’s Ayatollahs:

M a y 1 9 8 3 . See a ls o R a p h a e l M erg u i an d P h ilip p e S im o n n o t,

Meir Kahane and the Far Right in Israel (L o n d o n ,

Saqi B o o k s, 1 9 8 7 ), p. 1 0 5 .

7 6 . C f. A m o s B en -V ered , “ In ter v ie w w ith Y uval N e ’e m a n ,”

Ha’aretz, Ju ne

21,

1982. 7 7 . T h is w a s a k ey th e m e in th e T eh iya 1 9 8 8 te le v isio n ad v ertisem en t. 7 8 . Y uval N e ’e m a n , “ P rivate D o m a in ,”

Ma’ariv, M arch

13, 1 9 8 8 .

7 9 . Y u val N e ’e m a n , “ Z io n is m W h e r e ? ,” Ha’aretz, S ep tem b er 2 8 , 1 9 8 1 . 8 0 . W h en a sk e d , in 1 9 8 5 , a b o u t her w o r k in g r e la tio n sh ip w ith N e ’em an an d a b o u t h is a p p r o a c h to p o litic s , G eu la C o h e n d escrib ed him as “ a real M a p a in ik .” In terview w ith G eu la C o h e n , A u g u st 2 3 , 1 9 8 5 . 8 1 . C o h e n ’s im a g e as Isra el’s

Pasionaria

is su g g ested by R ap h ael M erg u i an d

P h ilip p e S im o n n o t in Israel’s Ayatollahs, p p . 1 0 7 —1 0 8 . 8 2 . P erso n a l in te r v ie w w ith G eu la C o h e n , A pril 5 , 1 9 7 8 . 8 3 . C f. A vrah am T ir o sh , “ In terv iew w ith G eu la C o h e n ,”

Ma’ariv,

M a rch , 1 6 ,

1979.

Kol Yerushalaim. Monitin, F ebruary 1 9 7 9 .

8 4 . T zip i M a lc h o v , “ G eu la : E xtra H o u r s ,” 8 5 . C f. In ter v ie w w ith G eu la C o h e n ,

8 6 . Q u o te d in H a y a B en -Y o sef, “ In terv iew w ith G eu la C o h e n ,”

Al Hamishmar,

July 2 0 , 1 9 7 9 . 8 7 . G eu la C o h e n ,

Underground Memoirs

(Tel Aviv, K am i P u b lish ers, 1 9 7 2 —

H eb rew ). 8 8 . In ter v ie w w ith G eu la C o h e n , A p ril 5 , 1 9 7 9 . 8 9 . C o h e n h as b een at th e fo r e fr o n t o f th e figh t a g a in st th e ex te n d e d p riv ileg es o f m a n y K n e sset m em b ers w h o c o u ld u n til very recen tly serve as law y ers o r p rivate

Notes c o n su lta n ts a n d h o ld m a n y o th e r lu c r a tiv e p o s itio n s . C f. G eu la C o h e n ,

349

Ma’ariv,

M arch 1 9 , 1 9 8 1 . 9 0 . M e n a c h e m G o la n , in te r v ie w w ith G eu la C o h e n , 9 1 . “ A n In te r v ie w w ith G e u la C o h e n ,”

Ma’ariv, A p ril, 2 7 , 1 9 8 4 . Yediot Achronot, A u g u st 1, 1 9 8 0 .

9 2 . P er so n a l in te r v ie w w ith G e u la C o h e n , A u g u st 2 3 , 1 9 8 5 . 9 3 . O n e o f th e o n ly p u b lic figu res w h o c a m e o p e n ly a g a in st th e Jeru sa lem L a w w a s M a y o r T ed d y K o lle k w h o w a s fu r io u s a b o u t th e d a m a g e it ca u se d to th e city. 9 4 . P er so n a l in te r v ie w w ith G e u la C o h e n , A u g u st 2 3 , 1 9 8 5 . 9 5 . G e u la C o h e n , “ T h e N a t io n a n d th e D w a r f s ,” 1988. 9 6 . C f. W a lter R e ic h ,

Yediot Achronot,

A pril 1 5 ,

Stranger in My House: Jews and Arabs in the West Bank

(N e w Y ork , H o lt , R e in h a r t a n d W in s to n , 1 9 8 4 ) , p p . 2 0 —2 1 . 9 7 . O n S h u ra t H a m itn a d v im se e E h u d S p r in za k ,

in His Own Eyes: Illegalism in Israeli Society

Every Man Whatever Is Right

(Tel A viv, S ifriyat P o a lim , 1 9 8 6 —

H e b r e w ), p p . 8 4 —9 2 . 9 8 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l,

Dear Brothers

(J eru sa lem , K eter P u b lish in g H o u s e ,

1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ) p p . 2 0 —2 5 . 9 9 . C f. U riel B e n -A m i, “ H e lp le s s in O fr a ,”

Dvar Hashavua,

N ovem ber 8,

1985. 1 0 0 . S ee, fo r e x a m p le , th e d is c u s s io n o f th e p o s s ib ility o f civ il w a r by p r o m in e n t Israelis in H a im S h ib i, “ A C iv il W a r ,”

Yediot Achronot,

N ovem ber 25, 1985.

1 0 1 . C f. E ssa y s b y R a b b is M o s h e L evin ger, Itzhak S h ila t, M o s h e S h ap ira, an d Yoel B e n -N u n in

Nekuda,

N o . 9 3 (N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 1 9 8 5 ).

1 0 2 . E liy a k im H a ’e tz n i, “ It Is a D u ty a n d C o m m a n d m e n t to Yell an d T errify,”

Nekuda,

N o . 9 4 (D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 ) , p. 2 2 .

1 0 3 . E liy a k im H a ’e tz n i, “ T h e ‘F o c u s ’ T h a t W as N o t F o c u s e d ,”

Nekuda, N o .

96

(M arch 2 5 , 1 9 8 6 ), p . 1 4. 1 0 4 . E liy a k im H a ’e tz n i, “ W h y D o Y ou K eep S ile n t,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 2 9 (A pril

1 9 8 9 ), p. 1 2. 1 0 5 . U riel B e n -A m i, “T h e y A ll W ere H is E n e m ie s ,”

Yerushalaim,

N ovem ber 4,

1 9 8 8 , p p. 2 4 - 2 5 . 1 0 6 . C f. E liy a k im H a ’e tz n i, “ T h e C a tc h o f th e L ik u d ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 1 2 3 (S ep ­

tem b er 1 9 8 8 ). 1 0 7 . C f. R a fa el E itan a n d D o v G o ld s te in ,

A Soldier’s Story, p p .

3 2 9 —3 3 4 .

1 0 8 . S h lo m o G e n o sa r , “ R a fu l fro m th e V alley, G eu la fro m th e M o u n ta in ,”

Davar, N o v e m b e r ,

20, 1987.

1 0 9 . T h is is b a sed o n p e r so n a l r e c o lle c tio n o f th e a u th o r o f m a n y years o f reserve ser v ic e in th e IDF. 1 1 0 . C f. R a fa e l E itan a n d D o v G o ld s te in ,

A Soldier’s Story, p p .

1 2 7 —1 3 7 .

1 1 1 . In te r v ie w w ith R a fu l, Ju n e 1 7 , 1 9 8 5 . 1 1 2 . B ina B a rzel, “ R a fu l in a C r o s s r o a d ,”

Yediot Achronot,

N ovem ber 20,

1987. 1 1 3 . Q u o t e d in A m ik a m R o th m a n , “T h e W orld A c c o r d in g to R afu l: S im p le ,”

Hadashot,

D ecem b er 2 5 , 1 987.

1 1 4 . C f. S h lo m o G e in o sa r , “ R a fu l fro m th e V alley, G eu la from th e M o u n ta in ,”

Davar,

N ovem ber, 2 0 , 1 987.

1 1 5 . C f. “ T h e L o n e ly M a n in th e K n e s s e t,” 1 9 8 6 ), p. 1 0 .

Koteret Rashit,

N o . 1 9 2 (A u g u st 6 ,

350

Notes

1 1 6 . C f. A m o s P erlm u ter, The D o u b le d a y , 1 9 8 7 ), p p . 3 9 1 —9 5 .

Life and Times of Menachem Begin (N e w

1 1 7 . C f. R a b b i Y eh u d a A m ita l, “ In th e C atch o f C o m p le tio n ,”

York,

Nekuda

52

(D ecem b e r 2 4 , 1 9 8 2 ); Y oel B en N u n , “T h e S tate o f Israel A g a in st Eretz Israel?,”

Nekuda

7 2 (A pril 1 6 , 1 9 8 4 ); “ In F a v o r o f Faith an d S ecu rity an d A g a in st th e

P an ick y C r ie s ,”

Nekuda

Nekuda 8 8 (June D e v ia n c e ,” Nekuda 91

8 5 (A p ril 5 , 1 9 8 5 ); “ A u th o r ity — N o w ,”

2 4 , 1 9 8 5 ); “ T h e C o u r se o f ‘T h e L ig h ts’ vs. th e C o u rse o f

(S ep tem b er 1 5 , 1 9 8 5 ); “ M o s t o f O u r M e m b e r s D o N o t T h in k , in T h eir R igh t M in d ,

Nekuda Nekuda 88

o f P a rticip a tin g in D is tu r b a n c e s , C e rta in ly N o t in R e b e llio n or C ivil W ar,” 9 3 (N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 1 9 8 5 ); M e n a c h e m F ru m a n , “ Y esha For O u r P e o p le ,” (June 2 4 , 1 9 8 5 ); “ I A m L e a v in g ,”

Nekuda

1 0 4 (N o v e m b e r 7 , 1 9 8 6 ); “To C o n q u er

Nekuda 1 0 8 (M a rch 1 3 , Nekuda 8 9 (July 2 6 , 1 9 8 5 );

th e D esir e to D is r e g a r d ,”

1 9 8 7 ); Itzhak S h ilat, “ To R eturn

to th e M a in C o u r s e ,”

“ W ith o u t H y s te r ia ,”

Nekuda 93

Nekuda 9 5 (January Nekuda ed ito ria ls,

w ritten by

(N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 1 9 8 5 ); “T h e r e A re N o S h o r tc u ts,”

S o m e o f th ese o p in io n s h a v e a lso b een e x p r e ssed in

2 1 , 1 9 8 6 ).

Israel H a rel, th e jo u r n a l’s ed ito r. 1 1 8 . C f. U zi B en z im a n ,

Sharon: An Israeli Caesar

(H eb rew ) (Tel Aviv, A d am

P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 5 ), C h s. 1 2 , 1 3 , 14; a u th o r ’s In terview w ith S h a ro n , S ep tem b er 3 , 1985. 1 1 9 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, “ G o in g fo r W ar, E d u ca tio n a l W ar, an d G u id a n c e ,”

Hadashot,

M a r ch 3 , 1 9 8 9 . L ik u d K n e sset m em b er T za ch i H a n eg b i (G eu la C o h e n ’s

so n ), a d m its th a t n o t all th e m e m b ers o f th e E retz Y israel F ron t are activ e o n a d a ily b asis and th a t b a sic a lly it is a th re e-m e n o p e r a tio n . H e a rgu es, h o w ev e r, th a t th ere is n o id e o lo g ic a l d iffe r en c e b e tw e e n th e F ron t a n d th e L ikud in gen eral an d th a t o n m an y o c c a s io n s it can g e t th e su p p o r t o f th e m a jo rity o f th e m em b ers o f L iku d . In terview , A u g u st 2 8 , 1 9 8 9 .

Chapter 7 1. A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e, Ju n e 7 , 1 9 8 8 . 2 . C f. G e r sh o n Shafir a n d Y oav P eled , “T h o r n s in Y our Eyes: T h e S o c io e c o ­ n o m ic B asis o f th e K a h a n e V o te ,” in A sh er A rian and M ich a l S ham ir (ed s.),

Elections in Israel 1984 (Tel Aviv, R a m o t P u b lish in g C o .,

The

1 9 8 6 ). T h is ju d g m en t is a lso

b ased o n m y o w n u n sy ste m a tic o b se r v a tio n o f K ach an d n u m ero u s press reports. 3 . C f. Shafir a n d P eled ,

ibid.

4 . T h is is b a sed o n K a h a n e ’s o w n a c c o u n t w h ich I ten d to b elieve; a u th o r ’s in terv ie w w ith K a h a n e, Ju n e 7 , 1 9 8 8 . 5. O n Ju n e 1 2 , 1 9 8 8 , I jo in ed K a h a n e for a p re-electio n sp ea k in g to u r in th e H a ifa reg io n . D u r in g h is th ree sp e e c h e s, I s p o k e to a b o u t tw o d o zen e x c ite d K ah an e fo llo w e r s . N o t a sin g le o n e o f th em h a d read K a h a n e’s b o o k s or reco g n ized th e titles o f m o re th a n tw o o f th em . 6 . O n K a h a n e ’s c o n tin u e d re la tio n sh ip s w ith JD L v etera n s in A m erica and Israel, an d o n h is fu n d -r a isin g a c tiv itie s see R o b ert I. F riedm an ,

The False Messiah:

Rabbi Meir Kahane, From FBI Informant to Knesset Member (N e w

Y ork, L aw ren ce H ill B o o k s , 1 9 9 0 ). D u r in g h is la st five years K ah an e h ad been su ccessfu l in raisin g

e n o u g h m o n e y for th e e s ta b lish m e n t o f T h e J ew ish Idea Y eshiva in th e Jew ish Q u a r ­ ter o f th e O ld C ity o f J eru sa lem , o f w h ich h e b eca m e th e in form al h ead and relig io u s au th ority.

Notes

351

7 . T h is is a ls o b a se d o n R a b b i K a h a n e ’s o w n a c c o u n t. K a h a n e, w h o s e p erso n a l a d m ira tio n fo r M e n a c h e m B egin h a d n e v e r fu lly su b sid ed d esp ite h is c o m p le te d is a p ­ p o in tm e n t w ith h is p o litic a l c o u r s e , a rg u ed th a t th e c o lla p se o f B egin o p e n e d for h im p o litic a l o p p o r tu n itie s th a t w e r e to ta lly b lo c k e d b efo re; a u th o r ’s in terv ie w w ith K ah an e, Ju n e 1 2 , 1 9 8 8 . 8. D u r in g m y trip w ith K a h a n e fro m J eru salem to H a ifa , h e p e r so n a lly re­ v ie w e d ev ery lo g is tic a l d eta il o f th e p r o g r a m fo r th a t e v e n in g an d th e c o m in g w e e k . H e a lso sa t w ith a ro a d m a p a n d c o n s ta n tly in stru cted h is d river reg a rd in g th e b est sh o rt-c u ts. K a h a n e ’s d riv er a n d b o d y g u a r d to ld m e later th a t th e rabbi w a s a lw a y s in full c o n tr o l o f ev ery d e ta il. 9 . C f. N a d a v S h r a g a i, “T h e S eed s o f th e C a sto r -O il P la n t,”

Kol Hair, F ebruary

18, 1 9 8 3 . 10. T h e r e are c o u n tle s s te s tim o n ie s to th is fact; see, for e x a m p le , Lili G a lile e , “T h e G rea t D ic t a t o r ,”

Ha’aretz,

A p ril 2 6 , 1 9 8 5 .

1 1 . T h is ju d g m e n t is b a se d o n a u th o r ’s in te r v ie w s w ith fo rm er K ach a c tiv ists, A vigd or E sk in (F eb ru ary 1 3 , 1 9 8 5 ) , a n d Y oel L erner (D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 8 4 ). 12. F o llo w in g a s u c c e ssfu l s h o w in g in th e m u n ic ip a l e le c tio n s o f July 1 9 8 5 , K ach ’s re p r e se n ta tiv e s in K iriy a t A rb a sig n e d a c o a litio n a g re em e n t w ith th e K iriya lead er S h a lo m V ach a n d w ith h is p o litic a l p a rtn er E ly a k im H a e tz n i. T h e p a r ty ’s m a in rep resen ta tiv e in th e m u n ic ip a l c o u n c il. R a m i Z a it, arg u ed th a t K iriyat A r b a ’s K ach w a s n o t d iffe r e n t in its o r ie n ta tio n fro m m o s t o f th e p o p u la tio n an d th a t w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f a d e m a n d to fire th e A rab w o r k e r s o f th e m u n ic ip a lity , K ach w a s to re co m m en d th e c o n tin u a t io n o f all th e e x is tin g p o lic ie s. C f. Z v i A lu sh , “ In K iriyat A rba T h e y Say: T o Fire th e A ra b s B ut N o t in th e K ach S ty le ,”

Yediot Achronot, July

27, 1985. 13. C f. Yair A vitu v, “ A ll Is W ell in th e K a sh a ,”

Kol Hair,

A u g u st 12, 1 9 8 8 , p.

27. 14. C f. a u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith Y oel L erner, D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 8 4 ; Lili G a lile e , “T h e G rea t D ic t a t o r .” 15. D u r in g m y J u n e 12 trip w ith K a h a n e, I fo u n d h im as en er g etic an d fo rcefu l as h e a p p e a r e d to m e fifteen y ea rs earlier, w h e n I first in te r v ie w e d h im in Jeru salem . H e h ad n o d ifficu lty c o n d u c tin g th ree c o n s e c u tiv e o p e n m e etin g s an d a c tin g v ig o r ­ o u sly o n th e s p e a k e r ’s p la tfo r m . 1 w a s to ld by h is c lo s e a ssista n ts th a t he h a d b een sp e a k in g p u b lic ly fo u r tim e s a w e e k ev er sin c e h is 1 9 8 4 e le c tio n to th e K n esset. K ahan e h im s e lf to ld m e th a t th is in te n se s c h e d u le w a s h is re sp o n se to th e gen eral b o y c o tt im p o s e d u p o n h im b y th e e n tire Israeli m e d ia . “ If th e fo o ls th in k th a t th ey can h a v e K a h a n e fo r g o tte n b y n o t g iv in g h im T V tim e a n d p ress co v e r a g e , th ey are d ea d w r o n g .” 1 6 . C f. R a b b i K a h a n e ’s b o o k ,

Listen World, Listen Jew (T u cso n , T h e

In stitu te o f

th e Jew ish Id ea, 1 9 7 8 ). 17. A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e, Ju n e 7 , 1 9 8 8 . 18. F or an ea r ly c o m p r e h e n s iv e a c c o u n t o f K a h a n e ’s p a st see M ic h a e l T. K a u f­

The New York Heil Kahane, p p . 2 3 —3 2 .

m a n ’s in v e s tig a tiv e re p o r t, “T h e C o m p le x Past o f M eir K a h a n e ,”

Times, Jan u ary

2 4 , 1 9 7 1 , p p . 1 , 5 1 . C f. Yair K otier,

1 9 . K a h a n e, to b e su re, d id n o t refer to h im se lf as a “ fu n d a m e n ta lis t,” a n d d id n o t ta lk a b o u t th e “ d o c tr in e o f in e r r a n c y ,” w h ic h b e lo n g s to th e c o n c e p tu a l w o r ld o f A m erica n fu n d a m e n ta lis m . H is c lo s e re a d in g o f th e B ib le an d o f H a la k h ic a u th o r i­ ties an d h is d e m a n d th a t th e e n tire p o lic y o f Israel be c o n d u c te d in a cc o r d a n c e w ith a literal in te r p r e ta tio n o f th e se so u r c e s in d ic a te d , h o w e v e r , th e e x iste n c e o f a p ure ca se

352

Notes

o f inerran cy. F or th e d o c tr in e o f in erra n cy cf. W illia m S hepard, “ F u n d am en talism : C h ristian a n d I s la m ic ,” Religion, V ol. 1 7 , 1 9 8 7 , pp. 3 5 5 —5 6 . 2 0 . W a lter R e ic h , “T h e K a h a n e C o n tr o v e r sy ,” F ebruary 1 9 8 5 ), p . 2 1 . 2 1 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

Forty Years (M ia m i,

Moment, V ol.

1 0 , N o . 2 (Jan u ary—

In stitu te o f th e J ew ish Idea, 1 9 8 3 ),

p. 6 6 . 2 2 . A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e, Ju n e 7 , 1 9 8 8 . 2 3 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, 2 4 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

Listen World, Listen Jew, p. 1 4 7 . Uncomfortable Questions for Comfortable Jews (S ecau-

cu s, N .J ., L yle S tu art, 1 9 8 7 ) , p. 1 2 . 2 5 . K a h a n e sa id h e d id n o t n eed a rabbi o f h is o w n b eca u se h e w a s a rabbi h im se lf a n d w a s e n title d to h is o w n in terp re ta tio n s. H o w e v e r , h e a d m itted th a t in H a la k h ic m a tters h e w o u ld o fte n g o to R ab b i E liyah u w h o , K ah an e sa id , w a s in full a g re em e n t w ith h im o n a lm o s t e v e ry th in g . H e to ld m e th a t w h en h e p u b lish e d his m o st th e o r e tic a l b o o k ,

On Faith and Redemption,

h e sen t co p ie s to m an y a u th o r i­

ties, in c lu d in g th e ra b b is o f G u sh E m u n im . N o o n e resp o n d ed b u t R ab b i E liyah u , and h e a g re ed w ith every w o r d . W h en K a h a n e ask ed E liyahu to en d o rse h im in p u b lic th e C h ie f R a b b i sa id h e c o u ld n o t. 2 6 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

The Jewish Idea

(Jeru salem , In stitu te o f th e J ew ish

Idea, 1 9 7 4 ), p. 5 . 2 7 . R ab b i M e ir K a h a n e,

The Challenge: The Chosen Land

(Jeru salem , T h e

C en ter fo r J ew ish C o n s c io u s n e s s , 1 9 7 3 — H e b r e w ), p. 1 7 5 . 2 8 . O n th e s tr o n g a n ti-G e n tile m o tiv e in K a h a n e’s th in k in g see A viezer R avitzky, “T h e Id e o lo g ic a l S id e ” in A viezer R a v itzk y , R u th G a b iz o n , E hud S prin zak , an d G er­ ald C rom er,

The Ideology of Meir Kahane and his Supporters

(Jeru salem , T h e Van

Leer In stitu te, 1 9 8 6 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 —1 0. 2 9 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, “ H illu l H a s h e m ” (a K ach m im e o g ra p h e d article, n .d .— H e b r e w ).

Listen World, Listen Jew, p p. 1 2 1 —2 2 . Reflections on Violence (N e w Y ork, C o lliers The Wretched of the Earth (N e w Y ork, G ro v e Press,

3 0 . R ab b i M e ir K a h a n e, 3 1 . C f. G e o r g e S o rel, 1 9 6 1 ); F ranz F a n o n ,

B o o k s, 1 9 6 6 ).

3 2 . C f. G era ld C ro m er, “T h e D e b a te A b o u t K ah an ism In Israeli S o ciety 1 9 8 4 — 1 9 8 8 ,” p. 3 5 . 3 3 . In h is

The Story of the Jewish Defense League (R ad n or,

Pa., C h ilto n B o o k

C o ., 1 9 7 5 ), K a h a n e h a s a sp ecia l ch a p ter titled “ V io len ce: Is T h is A n y W ay for a N ic e Jew ish B oy To B e h a v e ? ” in w h ic h he p ro v id e s th e ra tio n a le for th e v io le n c e o f th e A m erica n J ew ish D e fe n s e L eagu e. T h e reader is to ld th a t a m o n g its o th er p u r­ p o ses, “J ew ish v io le n c e is m e a n t to . . . D e str o y th e Jew ish n eu ro ses an d fears th a t co n tr ib u te so m u ch e n c o u r a g e m e n t to th e a n ti-S em ite as w e ll as Jew ish b e lie f in his o w n w o r th le s sn e s s . W e w a n t to in still self-resp ect and self-p rid e in a Jew w h o is a sh a m ed o f h im s e lf fo r r u n n in g a w a y ,” p. 1 4 2 . 3 4 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

35.

Ibid., pp.

Listen World, Listen Jew, p.

128.

1 3 9 -4 3 .

3 6 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, 3 7 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

The Challenge, p p . 9 —10. On Faith and Redemption (Jeru salem ,

T h e In stitu te o f

th e Jew ish Idea, 1 9 8 0 — H e b r e w ), p. 5 9 . 3 8 . C f. R ab b i M e ir K a h a n e, 1 9 7 2 );

Time to Go Home (L os

A n g eles, N a sh P u b lish in g ,

Never Again, op. cit.

3 9 . C f. R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

Israel’s Eternity and Victory (Jeru salem ,

T h e Insti-

Notes tu te o f J ew ish Id ea , 1 9 7 3 — H e b r e w );

Numbers 23:9

353

(J eru sa lem , T h e In stitu te o f

Jew ish Id ea , 1 9 8 4 — H e b r e w ). 4 0 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e ,

Forty Years, p p .

6 -7 .

4 1 . A c c o r d in g to K a h a n e ’s d e te r m in is tic lo g ic , th e o n ly c o n d itio n for c o m p le te s a lv a tio n is a fu ll r e p e n ta n c e o f th e en tire n a tio n . H is e x p e c te d ta k e o v e r o f p o litic a l p o w e r c o u ld b e a b ig ste p in th e rig h t d ir e c tio n , b u t sin c e h e d id n o t p la n to im p o se a fo rced r e p e n ta n c e o n th e e n tir e p e o p le , it w o u ld p r o b a b ly n o t sa tisfy G o d . C o n s e ­ q u en tly, K a h a n e sa id , h e w o u ld try to tell th e p e o p le a b o u t th e d isa ster th a t a w a its th em b u t if th e y c h o o s e n o t to listen th en ev e n h e w o u ld b e u n a b le to sa v e th em . A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e Ju n e 1 2 , 1 9 8 8 . 4 2 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e , 43. 44.

Ibid., Ibid.,

The Challenge, p p .

2 0 -2 1 .

pp. 2 2 - 2 3 . pp. 2 3 - 2 4 .

On Faith and Redemption, p. 5 1 . 4 6 . C f. R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, The Story of the Jewish Defense League, p p. 2 8 1 — 8 5 ; Yair K otier, Heil Kahane, p p . 9 2 - 9 3 . 4 7 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e , Thorns in Your Eyes (N e w Y ork, D ru k er P u b lish in g , 4 5 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

1 9 8 1 — H e b r e w ), p. 2 3 9 . 48.

Ibid., p. 2 4 2 . ibid., p p . 2 2 4 - 3 7 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e , On Faith and Redemption, R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, The Challenge, p. 2 1 . Ibid., p p . 3 9 - 4 0 .

4 9 . C f. 50. 51. 52.

p. 6 8 .

5 3 . “ S u p p o s e A r a fa t d e c id e s to le a v e th e w a r trail. D o y o u th in k o u r p ro b le m s are so lv ed ? F o r g e t it! A ll h e h a s to d o is to tell th em to m a k e lo v e n o t w a r, an d w e are d o n e for in n o t im e .” T h is w a s o n e o f K a h a n e ’s rh eto rica l g im m ic k s th a t h e u sed rep ea ted ly in h is c a m p a ig n sp e e c h e s . I h ea rd h im rep ea t it th ree tim e s in th ree p la c es in o n e e v e n in g . A u th o r ’s trip w ith K a h a n e, Ju n e 1 2 , 1 9 8 8 . 5 4 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e , 5 5 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e ,

Thorns in Your Eyes, pp. 1 0 7 —1 0 8 . Law and Order in Israel (Jeru salem ,

K ach M o v e m e n t,

1 9 7 7 — H e b r e w ), p. 8. 5 6 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

Uncomfortable Questions for Comfortable Jews,

pp.

1 5 9 -6 0 . 57.

Ibid. Law and Order in Israel,

5 8 . In

K a h a n e a rg u ed th a t th e d e m o c r a tic id ea w a s a

very im p o r ta n t sta g e in th e n a tu ra l e v o lu tio n o f th e m o d ern w e stern so ciety , b u t th a t b eca u se th e J e w ish n a tio n h a d e m erg e d in an u n n a tu ra l w ay, as a resu lt o f G o d 's sp ecial c h o ic e , it w a s in a p p lic a b le to th e J ew s (p p . 3 —5 ). 5 9 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

60. 61.

62.

Ibid., p. Ibid., p . Ibid., p.

Uncomfortable Questions,

p. 2 6 1 .

161. 173.

2 62.

6 3 . F or a n e x c e lle n t d is c u s s io n o f K a h a n e ’s stru g g le a g a in st H ellen ism see G erald C rom er, “ T h e D e b a te A b o u t K a h a n ism in Israeli S o ciety 1 9 8 4 —1 9 8 8 ,” pp. 1 8 —2 2 . 64.

From the Knesset Stand: The Speeches of Rabbi Kahane in the Knesset,

pp.

1 3 6 -3 7 . 6 5 . I p e r so n a lly ra ised th e q u e s tio n o f civil w a r w ith K ahan e an d w a s to ld in an u n e q u iv o c a l te rm s th a t h e w a s a g a in st it a n d u n d er n o c irc u m sta n ces w o u ld a llo w it to h a p p en . In te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e, Ju n e 7 , 1 9 8 8 .

354

Notes 6 6 . In h is A u g u st 3 1 , 1 9 8 4 , c o lu m n in th e

Jewish Press K ahan e

w r o te a b o u t th e

n eed to e lim in a te th e le ftist lea d ers o f Israel (Y ossi Sarid, S h u la m it A lo n i, an d oth ers) w h o d estr o y th e n a tio n fro m w ith in , b u t th is w a s th e o n ly tim e h e ever a d v o c a te d th e k illin g o f Jew s. 6 7 . C f. Yair K otier,

Heil Kahane, p p . 1 5 3 —5 4 . The Challenge, p p . 4 9 - 5 7 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, Thorns in Your Eyes, C h. 11. See K a h a n e ’s d ra ft b ill in Yair K otier, Heil Kahane, p p .

6 8 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, 69. 70.

4 1 2 -2 0 .

7 1 . T h is w a s a n o th e r o f K a h a n e ’s rh eto rica l g im m ick s. H is en to u ra g e a lso lik ed to sp read th e sto r y (u n c h e c k e d ), th a t a Tel A viv w e d d in g ce rem o n y w a s left w ith n o w a iters u p o n th e arrival o f R a b b i K a h a n e. T h e w a ite rs, w h o h a p p en ed to b e A rab s, w ere so sca red o f th e rabbi th a t th ey sim p ly ran aw ay. 7 2 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

Uncomfortable Questions, p.

265.

7 3 . F or a c o n c is e p r e se n ta tio n o f th e esse n tia l elem en ts o f th e cla ssica l fa scist id e o lo g y see Z e ’ev S tern h el, “ F a scist Id e o lo g y ,” in W alter L aqueur,

Reader’s Guide (B erkeley,

Fascism: A

U n iv ersity o f C a lifo rn ia Press, 1 9 7 6 ).

7 4 . In m y first K a h a n e stu d y in 1 9 7 3 , I a d v a n c ed th e h y p o th e sis th a t K ah an e w a s “ a h e a d lin e s p o lit ic ia n ,” fo r h e d esp era tely n eed ed p u b licity in ord er to be reco g n ized . C f. E h u d S p rin za k ,

The Origins of the Politics of Delegitimation 1967—

1 9 7 2 (Jeru sa lem , L evi E sh k o l In stitu te, 1 9 7 3 — H e b r e w ), p. 2 8 . K ah an e h im se lf gave

a s o m e w h a t sim ila r e x p la n a tio n for h is sy m b o lic v io le n c e by sa y in g th a t th e u se o f v io le n c e w a s h elp fu l in fo c u s in g th e a tte n tio n o f th e J ew ish e sta b lish m e n t o n issu es he th o u g h t w e re im p o r ta n t. C f. R a b b i M e ir K a h an e, “ V io le n c e as a P olitica l L o g ic ” in

Writings 5 7 3 2 —5 7 3 3

(J eru sa lem , J ew ish Id en tity C enter, 1 9 7 3 ), p p. 1 9 0 —9 4 .

7 5 . A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e, Ju n e 7 , 1 9 8 8 .

The Story of the Jewish Defense League, p p . 2 7 8 — Jewish Identity and the JDL (P rin ceton , P rin ceton U n iversity

7 6 . C f. R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, 7 9 ; Jan et L. D o lg in ,

Press, 1 9 7 7 ), C h . 3. 7 7 . C f. R o b er t I. F ried m a n ,

The False Messiah,

p p. 1 2 1 - 2 8 ; for K a h a n e’s o w n

a c c o u n t o f th is stra n g e a s s o c ia tio n see R ab b i M eir K ah an e, 7 8 . C f.

Ibid.,

ibid., pp.

1 8 5 —9 1 .

p p . 1 4 2 —4 3 . K a h a n e n ever b o th ered to a p o lo g iz e for th e k illin g o f

the in n o c e n t secretary. In stead h e c o m p la in e d in h is b o o k o n th e JD L a b o u t th e refusal o f th e J ew ish e sta b lis h m e n t to bail o u t th e th ree JD L y o u n g sters a ccu sed o f “Jew ish p o litic a l c r im e .” R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e,

League, p. 1 9 1 . 7 9 . Ibid., p p . 80. Ibid., pp.

The Story of the Jewish Defense

1 4 1 -4 2 .

7 5 -8 0 .

8 1 . C f. R ab b i M e ir K a h a n e, “ H illu l H a s h e m ,” p. 3;

Listen World, Listen Jew,

From the Knesset Stand, p. 11. R ab b i M e ir K a h a n e, The Jewish Idea, p. 14. R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, Hillul Hashem, p . 3.

p p. 8 8 - 8 9 ; 82.

83. 8 4 . S in ce M a y 1 9 7 5 th e in itia ls T .N .T . h ad o c c a sio n a lly su rfaced fo llo w in g m y ste rio u s a tta c k s o n A rab in stitu tio n s in Jeru salem . A sm all grou p th a t ca lled itself T .N .T . w a s a rrested in 1 9 7 5

Achronot,

after se ttin g tw o A rab b u ses on fire. C f.

Yediot

Ju n e 1 8 , 1 9 7 5 . T h r ea t letters se n t to A rab lead ers w ere a lso sig n ed by

T .N .T . In D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 3 th ere w a s a n o th e r series o f sa b o ta g e acts in Jerusalem a sso c ia te d w ith T .N .T . C f. Y akir T zu r, “ M ilita ry B a ck g ro u n d , E xp ertise in S a b o ta g e and E x tre m ist I d e o lo g y ,”

The False Messiah,

Kol Hair, D e c e m b e r

p p . 2 4 1 —4 2 .

1 6, 1 9 8 3 . See a lso R ob ert I. F ried m an ,

Notes 8 5 . Q u o t e d in Y air K o tier,

Heil Kahane, p .

257.

8 6 . Q u o t e d in N a d a v S h r a g a i, “ G o in g fo r th e A c tio n ,” 27, 1984. 8 7 . Q u o ted K a h a n e ,”

in H a im

Yediot Achronot,

355

Ha’aretz,

N ovem ber

S h ib i, “ W h e r e v e r T h e re Is B lo o d S p illed Y ou Find A u g u st 2 , 1 9 8 5 .

Kol Hair, The Jewish Idea, p . 13.

8 8 . Yair A vitu v, “ A ll Is W ell in th e K a s h a ,” 8 9 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e ,

A u g u st 1 2 , 1 9 8 8 .

9 0 . K a c h ’s lea fle t, n .d . 9 1 . C f. Y air K o tier, 92.

Ibid.,

Heil Kahane,

pp. 1 6 - 2 3 .

p p . 2 9 2 —9 6 .

Ha’aretz Magazine,

9 3 . Q u o t e d in O r it S h o h a t, “ D o n ’t A sk M e H o w ,” 31, 1 9 8 5 , p. 5. 9 4 . C f. R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e , C h. 3;

Why Be Jewish (M ia m i

Never Again

M ay

(N e w Y ork, P yram id B o o k s, 1 9 7 1 ),

B ea ch , C o p y S ervice Inc. 1 9 7 7 ), C h s. 6 —7.

9 5 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e ,

Uncomfortable Questions for Comfortable Jews,

C h. 2. 96.

Ibid.,

C h. 15.

9 7 . C f. Karl M a n n h e im ,

Ideology and Utopia (N e w

Y ork, H a r v e st B o o k , n .d .),

p p. 2 6 5 —6 6 . 9 8 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e ,

The Challenge, p.

144.

9 9 . A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e, A p ril 1 8 , 1 9 7 3 . 1 0 0 . A u th o r ’s trip w ith K a h a n e J u n e, 1 2 , 1 9 8 8 . 101.

Ibid.

K a h a n e w a s e s p e c ia lly a w a r e o f h is a u d ie n c e ’s re m a in in g a d m ir a tio n

for M e n a c h e m B eg in . H e c o n s e q u e n tly n ev er cr iticized B egin directly, b u t sa id s o m e ­ th in g like: “ B egin w a s a g r e a t m a n . It is a p ity he g o t in to p o litic s at su ch an a d v a n c ed a g e .” 1 0 2 . A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith Y oel L erner, D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 8 4 . 1 0 3 . A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e, A p ril 1 8 , 1 9 7 3 .

Heil Kahane, p. 1 4 1 . M e ir K a h a n e , Thorns in Your Eyes,

1 0 4 . Yai K o tier, 105. R abbi

pp. 8 8 - 9 1 .

1 0 6 . Q u o t e d in Lili G a lile e , “T h e G rea t D ic ta to r .” 107.

Ibid.

1 0 8 . C f. “ M o s h e N e im a n v s. th e C h a irm a n o f th e C en tral E lectio n s C o m m itte e for th e 1 1 th K n e s s e t,”

Verdicts V o l.

3 9 , Part II, 1 9 8 5 /1 9 8 6 .

1 0 9 . C f. “ A m e n d m e n t to th e F u n d a m e n ta l L aw : th e K n e sse t,”

Law Book,

1 1 5 5 , 1 9 8 5 , p. 1 9 6 .

From the Knesset Stand: The Knesset Speeches of Knesset Member Rabbi Meir Kahane in the 11th Knesset (J e ru sa lem , K ach M o v e m e n t, n .d .). 1 1 0 . C f.

1 1 1 . T h e r e s o lu tio n w a s c h a lle n g e d b y K ah an e in th e S u p rem e C o u rt o n th e g ro u n d o f th e a u th o r ity ’s v io la tio n o f th e fr e e d o m o f sp eech p rin c ip le. K a h a n e w o n his ca se b u t c o n tin u e d to r e c e iv e v ery little c o v e ra g e. 1 1 2 . A u th o r ’s in te r v ie w w ith K a h a n e, Ju n e 7 , 1 9 8 8 . 1 1 3 . T h e s y s te m a tic n a tio n a l p o lls th a t w e re c o n d u c te d p rio r to th e 1 9 8 8 e le c ­ tio n s d id n o t g iv e K ach m o r e th a n 1 .5 to 2% o f th e v o te . B ut

Hadashot,

th e o n ly

Israeli n e w s p a p e r th a t f o llo w e d K ach very c lo se ly th ro u g h sp ecia l street p o lls it co n d u c te d sin c e Ju n e 1 9 8 8 , th o u g h t th a t K ach c o u ld g e t as m a n y as 4 to 5 % . C f. R in o T zro r , “ G o F ig h t th e W in d ,”

Hadashot,

O c to b e r 2 1 , 1 9 8 8 . T h is w a s a lso th e

im p ressio n o f A1 H a m is h m a r c o r r e s p o n d e n t G a b i B a sh a n , w h o sp en t several p re­ ele c tio n m o n th s as a “ v o lu n te e r d r iv e r ” in K a ch . C f. G a b i B a sh a n , “ G iv e H im th e

356

Notes

P o w e r ,”

Hotam

(Al H a m is h m a r W e e k ly ), O c to b e r 2 8 , 1 9 8 8 . T h is w a s a lso m y o w n

a ssessm e n t. 1 1 4 . T h is w a s th e th e m e o f sev era l p u b lic ta lk s K ah an e g a v e im m e d ia te ly after K a ch ’s d isq u a lific a tio n . H e re p e a ted it in an in te rv ie w w ith m e o n Jan uary 1 8 , 1 9 8 9 , a rgu in g th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t’s in a b ility t o h a n d le th e

intifada

w o u ld d estr o y its

a u th o rity a n d b rin g it d o w n . H e fu rth er p red icted th a t in th e n o t so far fu tu re he w o u ld be ca lled u p o n to sa v e th e n a tio n . 1 1 5 . I p e r so n a lly a tte n d e d th e c o n v e n tio n . 1 1 6 . O n th e z e a lo u s p a st o f B e n -H o r in a n d h is c o m p le x rela tio n s w ith G u sh E m u n im a n d K a h a n e see H a g g a i S eg a l, “T h e P ro p h et o f th e S tate o f J u d e a ,”

Hadashot, Ja n u a ry 1 3 , 1 9 8 0 ; U riel Yerushalaim, Jan u ary 1 3 , 1 9 8 9 .

B en -A m i, “W h a t D o e s H e D o for th e N a t io n ,”

1 1 7 . M o s t o f th e lea d ers o f G u sh E m u n im w e re a w a r e o f th e fact th a t th e In d ep en d en t S ta te o f J u d ea w a s la u n c h e d b y K ach. B ein g a lw a y s relu cta n t to c o o p e r ­ ate w ith K a h a n e a n d h is p u b lic re la tio n s g im m ic k s, th ey d ism isse d th e idea as a farce. T h o se w h o a d d r essed th e issu e su b sta n tia lly , lik e R ab b i L evinger, argu ed th a t n o act a im ed at r e d u cin g th e le g itim a c y o f th e S tate o f Israel w a s a cc ep ta b le to th em . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, “T h e P r o p h e t o f th e S ta te o f J u d e a .” 1 1 8 . I in te r v ie w e d K a h a n e im m e d ia te ly fo llo w in g th e te rm in a tio n o f th e cere­ m ony. A lth o u g h h e tried to u n d er p la y th e sig n ific a n c e o f th e d eb a te o v er h is d irect a sso c ia tio n w ith th e n e w sta te , it w a s clea r to m e th a t h e w a s d eterm in ed to d is s o c i­ ate h im se lf fro m it. 1 1 9 . C f. Y ig a ’al S arn a, “ T h e S icarii: A N e w J ew ish U n d erg r o u n d ? ,”

Achronot Magazine,

Yediot

M a r ch 2 4 , 1 9 8 9 .

1 2 0 . A v ig d o r E sk in , “ 1 A m fro m th e S ik arik in: A n E x clu siv e In terv iew ,”

Erev

Hadash,

M a r ch 3 1 , 1 9 8 9 . 1 2 1 . C f. D a v id C . R a p o p o r t, “ T error a n d th e M essia h : A n A n cien t E x p erien ce

and M o d e r n P a r a lle ls,” in D a v id C . R a p o p o r t and Y ona A lex a n d er,

Terrorism ( N e w

The Morality of

Y ork , P er g a m o n Press, 1 9 8 2 ).

1 2 2 . J o u r n a list R o n it V ardi w h o in te r v ie w ed several K ach m em b ers o n th e S ik arik in , a n d th en sp o k e to R a b b i K a h a n e, fo u n d a g ap in th e p o s itio n s o f her in terv ie w e e s. W h ile K a h a n e sa id th e a cts o f th e S ik arik in w ere ch ild ish an d w e re laid at th e w r o n g d o o r (th e righ t o n e b e in g th a t o f th e A ra b s), th ere w a s m u ch e x c ite m e n t a m o n g th e a c tiv ists o f K ach . K a h a n e sp o k e a g rea t d eal a b o u t h is y esh iv a an d th e “ future lea d ers o f Isra el” th a t w e r e b e in g b r o u g h t up th ere, u n d er his d irect su p erv i­ sio n . A n d h e reaffirm ed his c o n fid e n c e th a t th e n a tio n w a s a b o u t to turn to h im . “ I k n o w th a t th e fu tu re is m in e. T h e n a tio n k n o w s alread y th a t th e M a ’arach (L ab or party) is a d ea d h o r se a n d th ey are a b o u t to reach th e sa m e c o n c lu sio n a b o u t th e L ikud. T h e n , th ere w ill o n ly b e K a h a n e. T h e y are b o u n d to g et d esp a ired . T h e S on o f D a v id c a n n o t c o m e u n til p e o p le g et d e s p a ir e d .” C f. R o n it V ardi, “ K ah an e o n th e S ik arik im : F o o ls, S tu p id ity , S tu p id ity ,”

Yediot Achronot,

A pril 2 1 , 1 9 8 9 .

Chapter 8 1.

M o s t o f E tz io n ’s th e o r e tic a l e ssa y s h a v e been d e v e lo p e d o u t o f th e in ten s

co r r e sp o n d e n c e h e c o n d u c te d fro m h is p riso n cell. U p o n his release from jail h e h a d seven large files th a t in c lu d ed a c o r r e sp o n d e n c e w ith a b o u t forty to fifty p e o p le . In terview w ith Y ehu d a E tzio n , F eb ru ary 1 9 , 1 9 8 9 .

Notes

357

2 . In te r v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tz io n , T e l-M o n d P rison , S ep tem b er 9 , 1 9 8 5 . 3 . H a v a P in c h a s-C o h e n , “ T h e W ife o f P riso n er N o . 2 , ”

Nekuda,

N o . 7 4 (June

2 1 , 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 1 2 . F or a g o o d p r o file o f E tzio n see N a d a v S h ra g a i, “ A M o n a r c h is t,”

Ha’aretz Weekly, Ju n e

1984.

4 . I n te r v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tz io n , Tel M o n d P riso n , S ep tem b er 1 1 , 1 9 8 5 . 5 . C f. a ty p ic a l G r e e n b e r g p o e m : Y o u r m a ste r s ta u g h t: a c o u n tr y is b o u g h t for m o n e y . . . . A n d I say: a c o u n tr y is c o n q u e r e d in b lo o d . A n d o n ly th a t w h ic h is c o n q u e r e d in b lo o d , b e c o m e s sa cred for th e n a tio n , th e sa n c tity o f b lo o d . . . . Y o u r m a ste r s ta u g h t: th e M e s s ia h w ill arrive in th e c o m in g g e n e r a tio n s a n d J u d e a w ill rise w ith o u t fire o r b lo o d . S h e w ill rise w ith ev ery tree, w ith ea ch a d d itio n a l h o u se . A n d I say: If y o u r g e n e r a tio n slo w ’s d o w n a n d d o e s n o t p u sh th e en d w ith b o th its h a n d s an d feet a n d d o e s n o t c o m e in fire w ith a sh ie ld o f D a v id a n d its h o r s e s ’ k n e e jo in ts d o n o t s h o w b lo o d — th e n , th e M e s s ia h w o u ld n o t c o m e ev e n in a later g e n e r a tio n , th en J u d e a w ill n o t rise . . . A n d th a t w ill b e th e d a y w h e n fro m th e R iver o f E g y p t to th e E u p h ra­ tes fro m th e sea to T r a n s M o a v m y b o y s w ill em erg e a n d c h a lle n g e m y e n e m ie s to th e la st b a ttle. A n d th e b lo o d w ill d ete rm in e: w h o is th e so le ruler here. (A u th o r ’s tra n sla tio n ) Uri T zi G r e e n b e r g , “ O n e , O n e a n d N o t T w o ,”

the Belief (J e ru sa le m ,

The Book of the Denunciation and

S a d a n P u b lish ers, 1 9 3 7 — H e b r e w ), p p. 1 6 3 - 6 4 .

6. C f. S h a b ta i B en D o v , “ W h a t Is T o Be D o n e ,” in

the Redemption

Prophesy and Tradition in

(Tel A viv, Y air P u b lic a tio n s , 1 9 7 9 — H e b r e w ), p p. 1 9 0 —2 1 1 ; in ter­

v iew w ith E tz io n , S e p te m b e r 9 , 1 9 8 5 ; see a ls o A rie B en der a n d A v in o a m Ben Y osef, “T h e P ro p h e t S h a b ta i,”

The Ma’ariv Weekend, Ju ly 2 6 , 1 9 8 4 . After the Six Day War: From the Six Day Victory On

7 . C f. S h a b ta i B e n -D o v ,

(O fra, H a m id r a s h a B eeretz B in y a m in , 1 9 7 9 — H e b r e w ); B en der an d Ben Y o sef, “T h e P ro p h et S h a b ta i.” 8. C f. S h a b ta i B en D o v ,

The Redemption of Israel in the Crisis of the State

(Jeru salem , H a m a tm id , 1 9 5 6 ) . 9. C f. B en d er a n d B e n -Y o se f, “T h e P ro p h et S h a b ta i.” 10. In te r v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tz io n , S ep tem b er 9 , 1 9 8 5 . 11. Q u o t e d in H a g g a i S e g a l, p. 5 1 .

Dear Brothers (J eru sa lem ,

K eter, 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ),

1 2 . Y eh u d a E tz io n , “ F ro m th e F lag o f J eru salem to th e R e d e m p tio n M o v e ­ m e n t,” 13.

Nekuda, Ibid., p .

9 4 (D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 1 9 8 5 ) , p. 2 8 . 22.

14. Y eh u d a E tz io n , p. 2. 15.

Ibid.,

The Temple Mount

(J eru sa lem , E. C a sp i, 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ),

p . 5 ; se e a ls o E tz io n ’s c o n fe s s io n n o . 2 7 , C o u rt D o c u m e n ts , M a y 13,

358

Notes

1 9 8 4 ; Y ehu d a E tz io n , “ I F elt 1 H a d to P repare an O p e ra tio n to E x p u rg a te th e T em p le M o u n t ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 8 8 (Ju n e 2 2 , 1 9 8 5 ).

16. Y ehu d a E tz io n , “ F rom th e L a w s o f E x isten ce to th e L aw s o f D e stin y ,”

Nekuda,

N o . 7 5 (July 6 , 1 9 8 4 ) , p . 2 6 .

17. C f. H a g g a i S eg a l, Dear Brothers, p p . 5 2 - 5 4 . 18. In ter v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tz io n , S ep tem b er 11, 1 9 8 5 .

Ibid.

19.

2 0 . In ter v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tz io n , S ep tem b er 9 , 1 9 8 5 ; cf. Y ehuda E tzio n , “To Fly, A t L ast, T h e F lag o f J e r u sa le m ,”

Nekuda N o .

9 3 (N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 1 9 8 5 ).

2 1 . In ter v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tz io n , F eb ru ary 19, 1 9 8 9 . 2 2 . Y ehu d a E tz io n , “ O n T h e P o tter’s W h e e l” in Israel A riel, M o s h e A sher, Y oel R a k o v sk y , A m ish a r Segal (e d s.),

Tzfia V ol.

3 (Jeru salem , 1 9 8 8 — H e b rew ), pp.

3 5 3 -5 5 . 23. 24. 25.

Ibid., p p . 3 5 5 - 5 6 . Ibid., p. 3 5 7 . Ibid., p. 3 5 9 . W h en

I tried to verify m y in terp reta tio n o f th e p aragrap h w ith

E tzio n , he sa id th a t th e R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t w o u ld be so v er eig n in all its d e c i­ sio n s and a c tio n s a n d , u n lik e th e J ew ish U n d erg ro u n d , w o u ld seek n o rab b in ical a p p ro v a l fo r ev e n its m o s t e x tr e m e o p e r a tio n s . R e sp o n d in g to m y q u e stio n a b o u t a n o th er p o s s ib le E tzio n o p e r a tio n o n th e T em p le M o u n t, he said th a t he w o u ld n ever again a ct a lo n e : “ A n y o p e r a tio n w o u ld h a v e to be first a p p ro v ed by th e R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t.” In ter v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tz io n , F eb ru ary 19, 1 9 8 9 . 2 6 . E tzio n sa y s h e is d ete rm in ed to e sta b lish th e R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t and d ed ic a te h is life to th is p ro je ct, n o m a tter h o w lo n g it ta k es. T h e crea tio n o f a y o u th m o v e m e n t a n d th e p u b lic a tio n o f a jou rn al are h is im m e d ia te g o a ls. H o w e v e r , b ein g sh o rt o f m o n e y a n d in stitu tio n a l su p p o r t h e h a s b een u n a b le to reach th ese im m e d i­ ate g o a ls an d in ste a d h a s s p e n t all h is tim e m e e tin g p o te n tia l su p p o rters an d g iv in g talk s. W h en I p o in te d o u t to h im h is m e a g er su cce ss su g g ested th a t G o d p erh a p s m ig h t n o t a p p r o v e o f h is a p p r o a c h , E tzio n sa id th a t h e a lo n e w a s re sp o n sib le for th e lack o f su cce ss. T h is m a n , w h o s e im m e n se id e a lism and d e d ic a tio n to th e ca u se has led him to refu se to a p o lo g iz e for h is d eed s a n d be elig ib le for a p a rd o n , an d w h o s e fam ily life h as g re a tly su ffer ed fro m h is u p h ill stru g g les, is th e m o st d e v o te d in d iv id ­ ual to a c a u se I h a v e ev er m et. C h a ra cteristicly , E tzion sa id , “ I feel I am n o t d o in g en o u g h . If th e R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t is n o t ta k in g o f f it is b eca u se o f m e. 1 sim p ly sh o u ld w o r k h a r d e r .” In terv iew w ith E tzio n , F ebruary 19, 1 9 8 9 . 2 7 . F o llo w in g th is s p lit w ith in L aor, th e o r g a n iz a tio n w a s tak en o v er by G u sh E m u n im . 2 8 . In ter v ie w w ith E p h raim C a sp i, July 16, 1 9 8 5 . 2 9 . O n S e g a l’s ea rly a c tiv ism see D a v id N iv , Battle for Freedom:

Leumi,

The Irgun Zvai

Part I (Tel A viv, K la u sn er In stitu te, 1 9 7 5 — H e b r e w ), pp. 1 8 0 —8 2 .

3 0 . R o n it V ardi an d R o n i S h a k ed , “T h e T em p le M o u n t: M e ssia h N o w ,”

Achronot, Ju n e

Yediot

5, 1987.

3 1 . C f. H a g g a i S eg a l,

Dear Brothers, p p .

1 3 1 —3 3 .

3 2 . In terv iew w ith R a b b i Israel A riel, Jan uary 3 1 , 1 9 8 5 . W h en I ask ed A riel, in 1 9 8 9 , to r e c o lle c t h is m e m o r ie s a b o u t th e stru g g le in Y am it he resp o n d ed angrily, sa y in g “ A stru ggle? T h is w a s n o t a str u g g le. P eo p le ta lk ed , p rayed , d em o n stra ted , m a d e a lo t o f n o is e , c o n v in c e d th e m se lv e s th a t th ey w ere stru g g lin g , b ut th ey w ere n o t. A str u g g le ta k es p la c e w h e n a m an is ready to figh t for w h a t he b eliev es in, an d is

Notes

359

p rep ared to d ie fo r it. T h is is a real s tr u g g le .” In terv iew w ith R ab b i A riel, F ebruary 27, 1989. 3 3 . Israel A riel, A t l a s o f th e L a n d o f I s r a e l: I ts B o u n d a r ie s A c c o r d i n g t o th e S o u r c e s , V o l. 1 (J e ru sa le m , C a n a P u b lish in g H o u s e , 1 9 8 8 — H e b r e w ), p. 13.

3 4 . R o n it V ardi a n d R o n i S h a k e d , “ T h e T em p le M o u n t: M e ssia h N o w .” 3 5 . O n e o f th e u n p u b lic iz e d d im e n s io n s o f th e J e w ish —M u slim c o n flic t in Jeru sa­ lem h a s b een th e str u g g le to c o n tr o l th e area n ear th e T em p le M o u n t. T w o J ew ish a s s o c ia tio n s , A t a r a L e y o s h n a a n d A t t e r e t C o h a n im , h a v e b een in v o lv e d in recen t years in th e sec ret p u r c h a se o f p r o p erty in th e M u slim Q u a r ter o f J eru salem in o rd er to crea te a J e w ish p r e se n c e a r o u n d th e h o ly p la c e. T h e o p e r a tio n o f b o th b o d ie s, w h ich h a v e in c lu d e d th e id e n tific a tio n o f o ld J ew ish p ro p erty in th e M u slim Q u a rter and th e p u r c h a se o f A rab b u ild in g s , h a d b een c o n d u c te d in u tm o s t secrecy for fear th at th e A r a b s seller s in v o lv e d w o u ld b e e x e c u te d by th e PL O for tr ea so n . It h as a lso been c o n d u c te d a g a in s t th e o ffic ia l p o lic y o f th e g o v e r n m e n t o f Israel a n d th e C ity o f Jeru salem , w h ic h is to p r e v e n t u n n e c e ssa r y fr ic tio n b e tw e e n Jew s a n d A rab s in th e O ld C ity. S everal s y n a g o g u e s a n d y e sh iv a s h a v e c o n s e q u e n tly b een e sta b lish e d in th e M u slim Q u a r te r o f J er u sa lem . M in is te r A riel S h a ro n a lso m o v e d to th e area in 1 9 8 7 , as a s y m b o lic g e stu r e o f h is s u p p o r t o f th e str u g g le for O ld J eru sa lem . A n ev e n m o re secret a sp e c t o f th is str u g g le h a s b een th e in v o lv e m e n t o f C h ristia n fu n d a m e n ta lists. Several C h r istia n g r o u p s a n d in d iv id u a ls , w h o b e liev e th a t th e S e c o n d C o m in g o f C h rist w ill b e p r e c e d e d by a c o m p le te J ew ish return to th e T em p le M o u n t, h a v e su p p o rted fo r y ea rs th e J e w ish p u r c h a se o f p ro p erty in th e O ld C ity. A stra n g e a llia n ce o f J ew ish a n d C h r istia n fu n d a m e n ta lis ts h as em erg ed o u t o f th ese e ffo r ts. C f. D a v id O r e n , “ L u n a tic s ,” H a ’a r e t z M a g a z in e , N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 1 9 8 5 ; N a d a v S h ra g a i, “J u d a isin g th e M u s lim Q u a r te r ,” H a ' a r e t z , N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 1 9 8 8 ; R o b er t I. F ried ­ m an , “T error O n S a cred G r o u n d : T h e B a ttle fo r th e T em p le M o u n t ,” M o t h e r J o n e s , A u g u st—S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 7 . A ll th e s e re p o r ts h a v e b een v erified for m e by Y oel L erner. In terview , F eb ru ary 1 5 , 1 9 8 9 . 3 6 . C f. M o s h e A sh er, “ T h e T em p le M o u n t Is T urned in to a F o r e s t,” T z f ia I, 1985. 3 7 . O n th e p e r sp e c tiv e o f th e u ltr a o r th o d o x v is-à -v is th e S tate o f Israel a n d th e c o m in g o f th e M e s s ia h se e A v iezer R a v itz k y “T h e E x p e cte d an d th e P ossib le: M e ssia n ism , Z io n is m , a n d th e F u tu re o f Israel as R eflected in th e D iv id e d R e lig io u s O p in io n s in I s r a e l,” in A lo u p h H a r e v e n (e d .), T o w a r d s th e 2 1 s t C e n tu r y : T a r g e ts F o r I s r a e l (J e ru sa le m , V a n -L eer, 1 9 8 4 ).

3 8 . C f. R a b b i S h lo m o A vin er, “T w o T a lk s w ith R ab b i T zv i T a u ,” in R ab b i S h lo m o A vin er (e d .), I tu r e i C o h a n i m (th e jo u rn al o f Y esh iv a t A teret C o h a n im ), N o . 3, 1983. 3 9 . S h lo m o A vin er, “ W e S h all N o t C lim b U p th e M o u n ta in ,” in I tu r e i C o h a n im , N o . 3 , p. 2 9 . 4 0 . In te r v ie w w ith R a b b i D o v L ior, Ja n u a ry 19, 1 9 8 5 . 4 1 . C f. R a b b i D a n B e ’eri, “ A T em p le a n d A S ta te ,” T z f ia I, 1 9 8 5 . 4 2 . In te r v ie w w ith R a b b i Israel A riel, Ja n u a ry 3 1 , 1 9 8 5 . 4 3 . R a b b i Israel A r ie l, “W h e n Shall th e T em p le Be B u ilt? ,” T z f ia II, 1 9 8 5 . 4 4 . In te r v ie w w ith R a b b i Israel A riel, Ja n u a ry 3 1 , 1 9 8 5 . 4 5 . R a b b i Israel A r ie l, “ W h e n Shall th e T em p le Be B u ilt,” p. 6 1 . 4 6 . I b id ., p . 6 2 . 4 7 . R o n it V ardi a n d R o n i S h a k e d , “T h e T em p le M o u n t: M e ssia h N o w . ”

360

Notes 4 8 . In ter v ie w w ith Y ehu d a E tz io n , S ep tem b er 11 , 1 9 8 5 . 4 9 . R ab b i M o s h e S eg a l, “ W e H a v e H a d E n o u g h o f th e B ro th er h o o d o f M a n ­

k in d ,” T z f ia 1, 1 9 8 5 . 5 0 . R ah b i Israel A riel, “T h in g s as T h e y R eally A r e ,” T z fia I, 1 9 8 5 , p. 3 1 . 51.

Ibid.,

pp. 3 4 - 3 6 .

5 2 . In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i K a h a n e, Ju n e 7 , 1 9 8 8 . 5 3 . In terv iew w ith R a b b i Israel A riel, Jan uary 3 1 , 1 9 8 5 . 54.

Ibid.

5 5 . R a b b i Israel A riel,

This Good Mountain and the Lebanon (A

G u sh E m u nim

B o o k le t, 1 9 8 2 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 1 —3 2 . 5 6 . In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i Israel A riel, Jan uary 3 1 , 1 9 8 5 ; C f. A r ie l’s in tro d u c tio n in T z fia II, p p . 6 —8. 5 7 . R ab b i D a v id B a r -H a im , “ Israel Is C a lled ‘A d a m ’, ” in Israel A riel, M o s h e A sh er, Y oel R a k o v sk y , A m ish a r Segal (e d s.), T z f ia V ol. 3 (Jeru salem , 1 9 8 8 — H e b rew ), p . 4 5 . 5 8 . R ab b i M o s h e S eg a l, “T h e L an d , th e P eo p le an d th e T o r a h ,”

ibid., p p .

121—

22 . 5 9 . R ab b i B in y a m in T z v ie lli, “ D e m o c r a c y an d Its C o r ru p tio n v is-à -v is E ternal J u d a ism ,”

ibid.,

pp. 1 0 5 - 1 0 9 .

6 0 . R a b b i D a v id B a r -H a im , “ Israel A re C a lled ‘A d a m ’, ”

61.

Ibid.,

ibid.,

p. 6 1 .

pp. 7 2 —73.

ibid., pp. 2 1 8 - 2 2 . K otier, Heil Kahane (Tel

6 2 . R a b b i Israel A riel, “ Israel: O n e N a tio n in th e L a n d ,” 6 3 . F or a d e ta ile d d e sc r ip tio n o f th e se a c tiv ists see Yair Aviv, M o d a n , 1 9 8 5 — H e b r e w ), C h s. 2 0 , 2 8 , 2 9 . 6 4 . In terv iew w ith A v ig d o r E sk in , F eb ru ary 1 3 , 1 9 8 5 . 6 5 . C f. Yair K otier,

Heil Kahane, p p .

2 6 0 —6 3 .

6 6 . M e e tin g w ith A v ig d o r E sk in , O c to b e r 3 , 1 9 8 8 . G iv en their in se n sitiv ity to th e issu e o f ra cism it is n o t su rp risin g th a t sev eral form er c o lle a g u e s o f K ah an e are h igh ly su p p o r tiv e o f S o u th A frica a n d o f th e S o u th -A frica n —Israeli c o n n e c tio n . A c ­ co r d in g to Y oel L erner, for e x a m p le , Israel sh o u ld try to d isso c ia te itse lf from th e U n ited S ta tes a n d cr ea te w ith S o u th A frica an a llia n ce o f in d ep en d en t sm all sta tes w h ich can h elp th e m se lv e s a n d a v o id th e p ressu re o f th e large p o w e r s. C f. Y oel Lerner, “ Isra e l-R ep u b lic o f S o u th A frica R e la tio n s ” (M im eo g ra p h ). 6 7 . C f. Yair K otier, 68. 69.

Ibid., Ibid.,

Heil Kahane,

Ch. 21.

pp. 1 8 2 - 8 4 . pp. 1 8 4 - 8 6 .

7 0 . L ern er’s a c c o u n t o f th e G al u n d e r g r o u n d , as h e g a v e it to m e in 1 9 8 9 , so u n d e d very str a n g e , a m b itio u s , a n d fa n ta stic . It c o u ld n o t b e co n firm ed by an y o th er so u rce . A c c o r d in g to h im , G al w a s a ser io u s u n d erg ro u n d w ith a real ch a n ce o f o v e r th r o w in g th e Israeli g o v e r n m e n t. It w a s first o rg a n ized in 1 9 7 5 , a g a in st th e R ab in a d m in istr a tio n . T h e w e a k n e s s o f th e n e w g o v er n m en t, w h ich triggered th e idea o f th e u n d e r g r o u n d , w a s e x p r e sse d in th e c o n c e ssio n s Israel m a d e to E gyp t an d Syria in th e In terim A g r e e m e n ts a n d in its in a b ility to b o o s t th e n a tio n ’s lo w m o ra le n early th ree years after th e d e b a c le o f th e Y om K ippur W ar. T h e u n d erg ro u n d e x iste d u n til th e 1 9 7 8 arrest o f Lerner, a n d s u p p o se d ly h ad in its ranks so m e p r o m i­ n en t Israeli o ffic ia ls — w h o m L erner refu sed to identify. A c co rd in g to Lerner, h e w a s m o re a c o o r d in a to r th a n a lead er, a n d h ad h e b een arrested just fou r m o n th s later, his serv ic es w o u ld h a v e n o lo n g e r b een n e e d e d an d o th er in d iv id u a ls c o u ld h a v e ta k en over. T h e o p e r a tio n a l p la n o f G al w a s to c o n d u c t a series o f fo u rteen sa b o ta g e

Notes

361

acts, ea c h g r o w in g in in te n sity , a t th e en d o f w h ic h th e g o v e r n m e n t o f Israel w a s e x p e c te d to c o lla p s e . T h e p la n to b lo w up th e m o sq u e s o n th e T em p le M o u n t, for w h ich L ern er w a s a rr este d , w a s s u p p o s e d to b e th e th irteen th act in th e series. O th er acts, w h ic h h e re fu sed t o sp ecify , w e r e to b rin g a b o u t th e trig g erin g o f m a ssiv e strik es and th e p a r a ly z in g o f th e Israeli e c o n o m y . L erner sa y s th a t p u b lic o p in io n stu d ies c o n d u c te d fo r th e g r o u p , as w e ll as o th e r a s se ssm e n ts, g a v e th em a 7 0 p ercen t p ro b a b ility o f su c c e ss w h ic h in c lu d e d th eir c h a n c e s o f c o n v in c in g th e arm y an d th e secret ser v ic es to f o llo w th e m . A fte r th e e le c tio n o f M e n a c h e m B egin , th e p la n w a s tem p o ra rily s u s p e n d e d to g iv e th e n e w P rim e M in iste r th e o p p o r tu n ity to lea d th e n a tio n in th e rig h t d ir e c tio n . B u t f o llo w in g th e B eg in -S a d a t e n c o u n te r , p rep a ra tio n s w ere re su m e d . T h e p la n , L ern er sa y s, w a s to su sp e n d th e K n esset and esta b lish an em erg en c y r e lig io u s re g im e in Israel. It w a s e x p e c te d to b e tested in th e p o lls w ith in tw o years. In te r v ie w w ith Y oel L erner, F eb ru a ry 1 5 , 1 9 8 9 . 71.

Ibid.; cf. N a d a v S h r a g a i, “ Y oel Ha’aretz, M a y 1 1 , 1 9 8 4 .

L erner, T h e M a n W h o E sta b lish ed G a l, T ells

Its S to ry ,”

7 2 . E tz io n ’s r e a c tio n to L ern er’s p r o p o s itio n , o f w h ic h I in fo rm e d h im in o u r m eetin g , w a s th a t d u r in g th e p r e p a r a to r y sta g e s o f th e T em p le M o u n t p lo t h e se n t Y eshua B en S h o s h a n to g e t th e b le s s in g o f R a b b i T zv i Y ehu d a K o o k , an d th a t w h ile K o o k d id n o t sa y “ n o , ” h is r e s p o n s e w a s v ery v a g u e. In terv iew w ith Y ehu d a E tzio n , F ebruary 1 9 , 1 9 8 9 . F or a d e s c r ip tio n o f th e Ben S h o sh a n -K o o k m e e tin g see H a g g a i Segal,

Dear Brothers, p .

7 3 . C f. Y air K o tier,

56.

Heil Kahane,

p. 1 9 2 .

7 4 . In te r v ie w w ith Y oel L erner, D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 8 4 . 7 5 . In te r v ie w w ith Y oel L erner, F eb ru ary 1 5 , 1 9 8 9 . 7 6 . W h e n I to ld L ern er I th o u g h t th a t d e e p in h is so u l h e h as b een a n a rch ist all a lo n g , h e sa id h e d id n o t th in k s o b u t th a t a ju d g e in o n e o f h is m a n y trials h ad o n c e said th e sa m e th in g a b o u t h im . In ter v ie w w ith Y oel Lerner, F eb ru ary 1, 1 9 8 9 . 7 7 . C f. G id i F rish tic,

Takdim,

V o l. 1, S p rin g 1 9 8 8 .

7 8 . In te r v ie w w ith Y oel L erner, F eb ru ary 1, 1 9 8 9 . 79. 80.

Ibid. Ibid.

8 1 . In te r v ie w w ith Y oel L erner, F eb ru ary 1, 1 9 8 9 . 8 2 . C f. M o s h e D a y a n ,

Milestones (J e ru sa le m ,

Y ed io t A c h r o n o t e d itio n , 1 9 7 6 —

H e b r e w ), p . 4 9 8 . M o s h e D a y a n , it s h o u ld b e m e n tio n e d , fo llo w e d an o ld Z io n is t p o litic a l tr a d itio n o f n o t g e ttin g in v o lv e d in th e h o ly M u slim p la c es. T h e o d o r H erzl su p p o rted th e in te r n a tio n a liz a tio n o f th e h o ly sites. C h a im W eizm a n w a s n o t even in terested in th e O ld C ity o f J er u sa lem . A n d w h e n D a v id B en -G u rio n lea rn ed in 1 9 4 8 a b o u t th e p o s s ib ility o f a J e w ish c o n q u e s t o f th e O ld C ity he ord ered th e co m m a n d e r o f J er u sa lem to a ssig n a sp e c ia l fo r ce to s h o o t an d kill an y Jew w h o tried to rob a h o ly M u s lim o r C h r istia n san ctu a ry . C f. A m o s E lo n , “ T h e B u ild ers o f th e T h ird T e m p le ,” in

A Certain Panic

(Tel A viv, A m O v e d Press, 1 9 8 8 — H e b r e w ), p.

119. 8 3 . Q u o ted

in N a d a v S h r a g a i,

Ha’aretz, F eb ru ary 8 4 . Ibid.

“T h e M o u n t, th e H o u s e an d th e G h o s t ,”

3, 1984.

8 5 . S o lo m o n w a s e d u c a te d in B etar, th e y o u th o r g a n iz a tio n o f th e R e v isio n ist M o v e m e n t, a n d se r v e d as an o ffic e r in th e IDF. H e w a s b a d ly w o u n d e d d u rin g a b ord er cla sh w ith th e S y ria n s a n d h a s b een la m e ever sin c e. F o llo w in g h is release from th e a rm y h e b e c a m e a m e m b e r o f th e H e r u t d ir ecto ra te . In 1 9 7 8 h e left th e

362

Notes

party an d w a s a m o n g th e fo u n d e r s o f th e T eh iya. S o lo m o n cla im s h e h as a large o p e r a tio n o f b e tw e e n 1 5 0 0 to 2 0 0 0 p e o p le , a m a g a z in e, “T ow ard s th e T op o f th e M o u n ta in ,” a n d an a c tiv e y o u th m o v e m e n t. B ut th ere is n o in d ica tio n th a t m ore than several d o z e n p a r tic ip a te in m o s t o f th e T em p le M o u n t a ctiv ities. In terview w ith S o lo m o n , F eb ru ary 2 , 1 9 8 5 . 8 6 . B a m b y E h rlich , “ C o n s tr u c tio n W ork ers: A n In terview w ith G ersh o n S o lo ­ m o n ,” Nekuda, N o . 6 2 (A u g u st 1 3 , 1 9 8 3 ), p p . 1 6 —1 7 , 2 1 . 8 7 . R a b b i G o ren a c tu a lly w r o te h is H a la k h ic ru lin g in 1 9 7 6 b u t refu sed to p u b lish it fo r a lo n g tim e fo r fear h e w o u ld stir up an en d less c o n tr o v ersy an d a lien a te m a n y o f h is su p p o rters. O n ly in th e m id -1 9 8 0 s w a s he ready to p u b licly a n n o u n c e h is su p p o r t fo r th e T em p le M o u n t d e v o te e s. G o r e n ’s o fficia l letter o n th a t m atter w a s se n t to K n e sset m e m b er D o v S h ila n sk y, as a resp o n se to a q u e stio n a b o u t th e T em p le M o u n t he h a d a d d r essed to G o ren a sh o rt tim e earlier. C f. R ab b i S h lo m o G o ren , “T h e O b lig a tio n to E nter th e T em p le M o u n t ,”

Tzfia, V ol.

3 , p p. 5 - 7 .

8 8 . In ter v ie w w ith G e r sh o n S o lo m o n , F eb ruary 1 4 , 1 9 8 5 . 8 9 . C f. M e n a c h e m B en Y ahsar, “T h e T em p le M o u n t ,” Amudim 2 6 3 , January 1968. 9 0 . In ter v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tz io n , S ep tem b er 9 , 1 9 8 5 . 9 1 . F or a d e sc r ip tio n o f th e e v e n t see S o lo m o n H . S tec k o ll,

The Temple Mount

(L o n d o n , T om S tacy, 1 9 7 2 ) , p p . 7 5 —8 0 . 9 2 . C f. N a d a v S h ra g a i, “ T h e M o u n t, th e H o u s e and th e S p irit.” 9 3 . C f. R e p o r t by A sh er K ijner,

Haaretz,

A pril 1 5 , 1 9 8 2 .

9 4 . Ibid. 9 5 . C f. D a v id O r e n , “ L u n a tic s ,”

Ha’aretz Weekly, January

1, 1 9 8 5 .

9 6 . C f. R o n it M a ta lo n , “ It H a p p e n s U n d er T h e W a ilin g W a ll,”

Weekly, Jan u ary

Ha’aretz

13, 1989.

9 7 . In ter v ie w w ith R a b b i M e n a c h e m F ru m an , January 15, 1 9 8 5 . It sh o u ld be n o ted th a t w h ile A te ret K o h a n im h a d b een e sta b lish e d for th e sp ecia l p u r p o se o f in teg ra tin g th e stu d y o f th e T em p le rules w ith th e o rd in ary y esh iv a cu rricu lu m , sim ilar p ro g ra m s, th o u g h o f lesser s c o p e , h a v e b een a d o p te d by o th er n a tio n a list y e sh iv o t. 9 8 . In ter v ie w w ith R ab b i K a h a n e, Ju n e 7 , 1 9 8 8 . 9 9 . C f. D a v id O ren , “ L u n a tic s ” ; A ls o R ab b i D a v id E lb o im , “ A K in g’s Palace: and Its F a te ,”

Tzfia II.

1 0 0 . C f. R e p o r t by A sh er K ijner,

Ha’aretz,

M arch 14, 1 9 8 3 .

1 0 1 . C f. G a d i B a ltia n sk y , “T errorism o n th e T em p le M o u n t ,” F ebruary 3 , 1 9 8 4 . 1 0 2 . C f. N a d a v

Ha’aretz, M a r ch

S h ra g a i,

“T h e R o a d

F rom

Kol Yerushalaim,

L ifta to th e T em p le M o u n t ,”

9, 1984.

1 0 3 . A c c o r d in g to Y eh u d a E tz io n , th ere w a s a lw a y s so m e G u sh E m u n im a w a r e ­ ness o f th e a n o m a ly o f th e T em p le M o u n t. E tzion to ld m e, for e x a m p le , th a t th e situ a tio n o n th e T em p le M o u n t h a d a ttra cted h is a tten tio n alread y in th e early 1 9 7 0 s , w h e n h e w a s a stu d e n t at Y esh iv a t H a r -E tz io n , in A llo n S hvu t. B oth h e an d his rab b i, Y oel B e n -N u n , w e r e r e sp o n sib le a t th a t tim e for th e p r o d u c tio n o f a fa m o u s T em p le M o u n t p o ster. W h a t w a s sp ecia l a b o u t th e large p ictu re w a s th a t th e M u slim m o sq u e s w e r e era sed a n d th eir p la c e w a s tak en by a large p ictu re o f th e S eco n d T em p le. T h is p o ste r w a s to be fo u n d in m an y G u sh E m u n im h o m e s in th e 1 9 7 0 s . N e v e r th e le s s, th is s y m b o lic a ct carried very little su b sta n ce in th e c o lle c tiv e c o n sc io u s n e s s o f G u sh E m u n im , a n d th e issu e o f th e T em p le M o u n t w a s o n ly d is-

Notes

363

cu ssed o n c e in th e se c r e ta r ia t o f th e G u sh , o f w h ic h E tzio n w a s a m em b er u n til 1 9 7 8 . T h e T em p le M o u n t o n ly r e em e rg ed in th e G u sh th in k in g , a cc o r d in g to E tzio n , in Y am it in 1 9 8 2 w h e n th e fa ilu re o f th e M o v e m e n t to H a lt th e R etrea t in Sinai w a s ap p aren t. A t th a t tim e sev e ra l G u sh m e m b ers d isc u sse d th e p o ssib ility o f a v io le n t o p e r a tio n a t th e h o ly p la c e . H o w e v e r , th is w a s , a cc o r d in g to E tzio n , “ an in str u m e n ­ tal a p p r o a c h . T h e e x p u r g a tio n o f th e T e m p le M o u n t w a s n o t seen as a g o a l in itself, an e sse n tia l p a rt o f th e d esired sp ir itu a l tr a n s fo r m a tio n o f th e n a tio n , b u t a m e a n s to h a lt th e p e a c e p r o c e s s .” I n te r v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tzio n , F eb ru ary 1 9 , 1 9 8 9 . F o llo w in g th e 1 9 8 3 d is c o v e r y o f R a b b i Israel A r ie l’s g ro u p an d its a ttem p t to p en etra te th e T e m p le M o u n t area , R a b b i Y igal A riel o f M o s h a v N o v in th e G o la n H e ig h ts, a n d Isra e l’s b ro th er , p u b lis h e d an a rticle a b o u t th e T em p le M o u n t in

Nekuda.

W h ile n o t c h a lle n g in g th e m a in G u sh E m u n im lin e o f lea v in g th e r e so lu tio n

o f th e T em p le M o u n t a n o m a ly fo r th e fu tu re, h e str o n g ly a tta ck ed th e g o v e r n m e n t o f Israel. H e fo u n d n o ju stific a tio n fo r th e o u tr a g e o u s situ a tio n o n th e m o u n ta in an d for th e g o v e r n m e n t’s re sp e c t fo r th e M u s lim W a q f. A riel fu rther su g g ested a series o f step s th a t c o u ld b e ta k e n a t th e p r e se n t tim e: an in ten se stu d y o f th e T e m p le ’s ru les to be c o n d u c te d in a n d o u t o f Y e sh iv a t A te ret C o h a n im , an in tr o d u c tio n o f th e su b ject to s c h o o ls a n d y e s h iv o t, th e p u b lic a tio n o f R ab b i G o r e n ’s stu d y o f th e T em p le M o u n t area , a sea r ch fo r a p r o p e r p la c e to esta b lish a s y n a g o g u e o n th e m o u n t a n d to p ressu re th e M in is te r o f R e lig io n to m a k e r e g u la tio n s e n a b lin g J ew s to p ray in certain p a rts o f th e h o ly area. C f. R a b b i Y igal A riel, “ T h e T em p le M o u n t as th e P rop erty o f th e W a q f,”

Nekuda

N o . 5 8 (M a y 1 7 , 1 9 8 3 ), pp. 1 8 - 1 9 .

1 0 4 . C f. M o s h e A sh er, “ T h e T em p le M o u n t Is T urned in to a F o r e s t,”

Tzfia

I,

pp. 1 7 —2 0 . 105.

Ibid.

1 0 6 . C f. D o v S h ila n sk y ,

In A Hebrew Prison

(Tel Aviv, A rm o n i Press, 3rd .

ed itio n 1 9 8 0 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 1 —3 1 . 1 0 7 . C f.

Ha'aretz, Ja n u a ry

17, 1986.

1 0 8 . T h e T eh iy a p a rty first in c lu d e d th e d em a n d to p la c e th e T em p le M o u n t under Israeli ju r isd ic tio n in its 1 9 8 8 p la tfo r m . It v o w e d , if e lec ted to th e g o v e r n m e n t, to sto p ille g a l M u s lim b u ild in g in th e area , to cu t o f f th e p o litic a l in v o lv e m e n t o f th e PLO in th e r e lig io u s a c tiv itie s th er e, a n d to p u sh for th e e sta b lish m e n t o f a J ew ish sy n a g o g u e in a p la c e p e r m itte d b y H a la k h a . H o w e v e r , it sta te d its c o m m itm e n t to leave th e M u s lim s free a c c e ss to th eir m o s q u e s . C f.

Identity Card

(A T eh iya 1 9 8 8

E lection P a m p h le t). 1 0 9 . Q u o te d in G a d i B a ltia n sk i “ Is th e T em p le M o u n t in O u r H a n d s ? ,”

Achronot, A u g u st 1 1 0 . Ibid.

Yediot

1 5 , 1 9 8 6 , p. 3 2 .

1 1 1 . W h e n I v is ite d th e M u s e u m in Ju ly 1 9 8 9 , A riel a lrea d y h ad g e n u in e s a m ­ ples o f th e ro b es o f th e T e m p le ’s p riests a n d 1 7 o u t o f th e 9 3 u ten sils req u ired for th e h o ly serv ic e. H e h a s re c e n tly sta r ted to raise a fu n d o f 1.5 m illio n d o lla r s to create th e T em p le’s G o ld e n

Yerushalaim,

Menora

(c a n d le lig h t). A ls o see Itzhak Y a’ari, “ A T em p le S o o n ,”

A p ril 7 , 1 9 8 8 .

1 1 2 . In te r v ie w w ith Y oel L erner, F eb ru ary 15, 1 9 8 9 . C f. N a d a v S h ragai, “ A Study T our o f th e T e m p le M o u n t ,”

Ha’aretz,

A u g u st 3 , 1 9 8 8 .

1 1 3 . W h en I a sk e d Y oel L erner, a h ig h ly e x p e r ie n c e d T em p le M o u n t a ctiv ist, a b o u t a p o s s ib le s a b o ta g e p r o v o c a t io n o n th e T em p le M o u n t as an a ct o f la st resort in ord er to h a lt an in e v ita b le te rrito r ia l c o m p r o m is e in th e W est B an k , h e said w ith a b ig sm ile, “ a t th e a d v ic e o f m y la w y e r I h a v e n o t h eard y o u r q u e s tio n .” H e later

364

Notes

a d m itted h e c o u ld n o t rule su ch an a ct o u t, a lth o u g h h e h ad n o co n cr ete p lan s. In terview w ith Y oel L erner, F eb ru ary 1 5 , 1 9 8 9 . Y ehuda E tz io n ’s resp o n se w a s even m ilder. H e h as ru led o u t su ch an o p e r a tio n a lm o st co m p letely , sa y in g h e n o lo n g er b eliev es th a t a sin g le a ct c o u ld b rin g th e p e o p le o f Israel clo ser to re d e m p tio n . In fact, he sa id , h e w a s o p p o s e d to an in stru m en ta l u se o f th e T em p le M o u n t in th e service o f p o litic s, sa y in g , “T h e q u e s tio n o f re d e m p tio n is sp iritu a l, n o t p o litic a l. O u r n eed is n o t sim p ly to b lo w up th e M u slim M o s q u e s , b u t to m a k e th e p e o p le o f Israel sp iritu a lly w o r th y o f su ch a d e v e lo p m e n t. I w a s w r o n g in 1 9 7 8 w h en I b eliev ed in su ch a sh o r t c u t .” B ut ev e n if su ch a v io le n t a ct w o u ld b e c o m e m an d atory, E tzio n co n fid ed it w o u ld o n ly be a p p r o v e d by th e R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t. S in ce th is m o v e ­ m en t h as n o t y et c o m e in to b e in g , h e sa id , h e w ill d o n o th in g o n his o w n ev en at a tim e o f crisis. In ter v ie w w ith Y eh u d a E tz io n , F ebruary 19 , 1 9 8 9 .

Chapter 9 1. T h is a r g u m e n t h as b een e sp e c ia lly m a d e in rela tio n to G u sh E m u n im ; cf.

Front Herzl to Gush Emunim (Jeru salem , S h o k en , H e b r e w ), p p . 1 1 7 —2 0 ; Z v i R a ’a n a n , Gush Emunim (Tel Aviv, Sifriyat 1 9 8 0 — H e b r e w ), C h . 4 ; Y. H a r k a b i, Fateful Decisions (Tel Aviv, A m O v ed ,

A m n o n R u b in ste in ,

1980— P o a lim , 1986—

H e b r e w ), p p . 2 0 5 —1 0 . 2 . O n th e d ile m m a s p r ese n ted to o r t h o d o x Jew s by th e S tate o f Israel see

Perpetual Dilemma: Jewish Religion in the Jewish State (R u th er­ ford, N .J ., F airleigh D ic k in s o n Press, 1 9 7 6 ); M e n a c h e m F ried m an , The State of Israel as a Theological Dilemma, in B aru ch K im m erlin g (ed .), The Israeli State and Society: Boundaries and Frontiers (B u ffa lo , S U N Y Press, 1 9 8 9 ). 3 . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, Thorns in Your Eyes (N e w Y ork, D ru k er P u b lish in g Z a lm a n A b ra m o v ,

C o . 1 9 8 1 — H e b r e w ), p p . 1 2 6 —2 7 . 4 . C f. A sh er C o h e n , “ ‘G o in g T o g e th e r ’— th e R e lig io u s-S e cu ler R e la tio n sh ip in a M ix e d P arty,” in C h a rles S. L ieb m a n ,

Israeli Society (J eru sa lem ,

To Live Together: Religious and Secular in

K eter, 1 9 9 0 ).

5 . C f. B en n y M o r r is,

The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947—

1949 (C a m b r id g e ,

C a m b r id g e U n iv ersity P ress), pp. 1 3 4 —3 7 . 6. O n th e in tern a l r e a ctio n to th e c r ea tio n o f th e A rab refu gee p ro b lem a m o n g

Israel’s to p lea d ers see T om Segev,

1949: The First Israelis

(Jeru salem , D o m in o ,

1 9 8 4 — H e b r e w ), p p . 3 9 —4 7 . 7. O n th e p e r so n a lity o f R ab b i Z v i Y ehu d a K o o k , h is rela tio n to h is father, an d his in terp re ta tio n o f th e g ra n d p h ilo s o p h y see G id e o n A ran , From Religious Zionism to Zionist Religion: The Roots of Gush Emunim and Its Culture (U n p u b lish ed P h .D . d isse rta tio n , T h e H e b r e w U n iv ersity o f J eru sa lem , 1 9 8 7 — H e b r e w ), C h. 3. 8. C f., fo r e x a m p le . R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e, Never Again: A Program for Jewish Y ork, P yram id B o o k s , 1 9 7 2 ), C h . 8; Listen World Listen Jew (Jeru sa­

Survival (N e w

lem , T h e In stitu te o f th e J ew ish Id ea, 1 9 8 3 ), C h . 8. 9. C f. J o sep h H eller,

Lehi: Ideology and Politics, 1940—1949

(Jeru salem ,

K eter, 1 9 8 9 ), V ol. II. 10 . D a v id B en -G u r io n u sed P a lm a ch u n its in th e tw o m ajor m ilitary co n flicts th at to o k p la c e in th e 1 9 4 0 s b e tw e e n E tzel a n d th e o rg a n ized yishu v, th e Saison, ( 1 9 4 4 - 1 9 4 5 ) , a n d th e Aviv, E d a n im , 1 9 7 8 ).

Altalena Affair ( 1 9 4 8 ) .

C f. S h lo m o N a k d im o n ,

Altalena (Tel

Notes 11 . C f. Y o n a th a n S h a p ir o ,

Chosen to Command

365

(Tel Aviv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 9 )

1 2 2 -2 8 . 12 . C f. G io r a G o ld b e r g , “T h e S tru g g le fo r L eg itim a cy : H e r u t’s R o a d fro m O p ­ p o sitio n to P o w e r ” in S tu a rt A . C o h e n a n d E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a ,

sus in Jewish Political Life

Conflict and Consen­

(J e ru sa le m , B ar-Ilan U n iv ersity Press, 1 9 8 6 — H eb r e w );

D a v id N a c h m ia s , “ T h e R ig h t-W in g O p p o s itio n in Isra e l,”

Political Studies,

V ol. 2 4 ,

N o . 3 (S ep te m b e r 1 9 7 6 ). 1 3 . C f. M o s h e D a y a n ,

Shall the Sword Devour Forever? (J eru sa lem , The Battle for Peace (Jeru salem ,

1 9 8 1 — H e b r e w ), C h . 1 7 ; E zer W e iz m a n ,

E d a n im , E d a n im ,

1 9 8 1 — H e b r e w ), C h . 2 9 . 14. C f. P in ch a s In b ari,

Triangle on the Jordan

(J eru sa lem , C a n a ,

1982—

H eb rew ). 15. C f. Y u val N e ’e m a n , “ To C o n q u e r S o u th ern L e b a n o n ,”

Yediot Achronot,

July 3 1 , 1 9 8 1 . 16. C f. Y oav P ele d , “ L a b o r M a r k e t S e g m e n ta tio n an d E th n ic C o n flicts: T h e S o cial B ases o f R ig h t W in g P o litic s in Isr a e l” (p a p er p rese n ted at th e A n n u a l M e e tin g o f th e A m e r ic a n P o litic a l S c ie n c e A s s o c ia tio n , A tla n ta , S ep tem b er 2 , 1 9 8 9 ). T h is is also b a se d o n m y ta lk s w ith m a n y o f K a h a n e ’s su p p o rters. 17. T h is is b a se d o n m y e s tim a tio n th a t K ach w a s lik ely to g et b e tw e e n th ree to five sea ts in th e 1 9 8 8 K n e sset. T h e T eh iy a , M o le d e t, an d T z o m e t cu rren tly h a v e seven se a ts, a n d t w o o f th e N .R .P r e p r e se n ta tiv e s, H a n a n P orat an d A vner S h a k i, are radical rig h t b y a n y sta n d a r d s. A n a d d itio n o f th e L iku d an d S has ra d ica ls w o u ld h a v e m a d e th is n u m b e r m u ch h ig h er. 18. C f. Ian L u stic k , “ T h e W est B a n k a n d G a za in Israeli P o litic s ,” in S teven H ey d e m a n n (e d .),

The Begin Era (B o u ld er,

W estv ie w , 1 9 8 4 ).

19. C f. M e r o n B e v e n isti, p r iv a te c o m m u n ic a tio n w ith th e au th or. 2 0 . C f. “ T o C ru sh th e I n tifa d a ,”

A Tehiya Elections Pamphlet 1988.

2 1 . In ter v ie w w ith G e u la C o h e n , M a r ch 2 7 , 1 9 8 9 . 2 2 . C f. A sh e r A ria n a n d R a p h a el V en tu ra , “ P u b lic O p in io n in Israel an d th e Intifada: C h a n g e s in A ttitu d e s A b o u t S ecu rity, 1 9 8 7 - 1 9 8 8 , ” M e m o . N o . 2 3 , A u g u st 1 9 8 9 (Jaffe C e n te r o f S tra teg ic S tu d ie s, Tel A viv U n iv ersity ). 2 3 . T h is a s s e s s m e n t is b a se d o n d o z e n s o f in te r v ie w s w ith m em b ers o f th e radical righ t I c o n d u c te d in th e la st five years. 2 4 . I h a v e n o k n o w le d g e o f a n y c o n sp ir a to r ia l p la n s to v io le n tly su b v ert a p o ssib le te rrito r ia l c o m p r o m is e in th e o c c u p ie d territo ries. T h is is th erefo re a “ p r o b a ­ b ilistic ” s ta te m e n t b a se d o n m y “ s o c io lo g ic a l” e x p e c ta tio n th a t an in ten se e x ­ tra p a rlia m e n ta ry str u g g le a g a in s t a territo ria l c o m p r o m is e an d Israeli e v a c u a tio n o f th e W est B a n k , w h ic h is

promised e v e n

b y th e m o d ra te ra d ica ls, w o u ld n ece ssa rily

lead to th e e x tr e m iz a tio n o f a sm a ll n u m b e r o f a ctiv ists an d th e in tr o d u c tio n o f v io len ce. G iv en th e n a r r o w a n d p a rtia l le g itim a c y a c c o r d e d by m a n y o f th e settlers to Israeli d e m o c r a c y , th eir r e lig io u s c o m m itm e n t to th e g reater E retz Y israel an d th e large q u a n titie s o f firearm s th e y p o s s e s , th e e v o lu tio n o f at lea st lo c a l v io le n t c o n fr o n ­ ta tio n s se e m s a lm o s t in e v ita b le .

Bibliography

English G ilb er t A b ca r ia n a n d S h erm a n M . S ta n a g e, “ A lie n a tio n and th e R ad ical R ig h t,” in Jam es A . G o u ld a n d W illis H . T ru itt, 1 9 7 3 ). Z a lm a n A b ra m o v ,

Political Ideologies

(N e w Y ork, M a c m illa n ,

Perpetual Dilemma: Jewish Religion in the Jewish State (R u th ­

erford , N .J ., F airleigh D ic k in s o n P ress, 1 9 7 6 ). M a jid A l-H a j a n d A vn er Y aniv, “ U n ifo rm ity or D iversity: A R eap p raisal o f th e V o tin g B e h a v io r o f th e A rab M in o r ity in Isr a e l,” in A sh er A rian (ed .),

Israel 1981

Elections in

(Tel Aviv, R a m o t P u b lish in g C o ., 1 9 8 3 ).

G id e o n A r a n , “ F rom R e lig io u s Z io n is m to Z io n is t R elig io n : T h e R o o ts o f G u sh E m u n im ,” in P eter M e d d in g (e d .),

Studies in Contemporary Jewry (N e w

Y ork, O x ­

ford U n iv ersity P ress, 1 9 8 6 ) V ol. II.

Politics in Israel: The Second Generation,

A sh er A ria n ,

(C h a ta m , C h a ta m

H o u se , 1 9 8 5 ). ----------- , “ E le c tio n s 1 9 8 1 : C o m p e titiv e n e s s an d P o la r iz a tio n ,”

Quarterly,

The Jerusalem

N o . 2 1 , Fall 1 9 8 1 .

----------- (e d .),

Elections in Israel 1981

(Tel Aviv, R a m o t P u b lish in g C o ., 1 9 8 3 ).

A sh er A rian a n d M ic h a l S h am ir (e d s.),

The Elections in Israel 1984

(Tel Aviv,

PLO Strategy and Politics

(L o n d o n ,

R a m o t, 1 9 8 6 ). Yuval A r n o n -O h a n a a n d A rie Y o d fa t, C r o o m H e lm , 1 9 8 2 ). M y r o n A r o n o ff,

Power and Ritual in the Israeli Labor Party

(A ssen , Van

G o rcu m , 1 9 7 7 ). ----------- (e d .),

Religion and Politics: Political Anthropology

V ol. 3 (N e w B ru ns­

w ic k , T ra n sa ctio n B o o k s , 1 9 8 4 ). ----------- (e d .),

Cross-Currents in Israeli Culture and Politics

(N e w B ru n sw ick ,

T ra n sa ctio n B o o k s , 1 9 8 4 ). ----------- (e d .),

The Frailty of Authority

(N e w B ru n sw ick , P olitical A n th ro p o lo g y ,

V ol. V, T ra n sa ctio n B o o k s , 1 9 8 6 ). ----------- , “T h e In s titu tio n a liz a tio n a n d C o o p ta tio n o f a C h a rism a tic, M e ssia n ic , R e lig io u s-P o litic a l R e v ita liz a tio n M o v e m e n t ,” in D a v id N e w m a n (ed .), The Impact

of Gush Emunim

(L o n d o n , C r o o m H e lm , 1 9 8 5 ).

366

Bibliography

36 7

----------- , “ P o litic a l P o la r iz a tio n : C o n tr a d ic to r y In ter p r eta tio n s o f Israeli R e a lity ,”

The Begin Era (B o u ld er , W estv ie w , 1 9 8 4 ). Conflict and Bargaining in the Middle East: An Israeli Perspec­

in S teven H e y d e m a n n , S h lo m o A r o n s o n ,

tive (B a ltim o r e ,

T h e J o h n H o p k in s U n iv ersity Press, 1 9 7 8 ).

E d w a rd E. A z a r a n d C h u n g -in M o o n , “ Isla m ic R e v iv a list M o v e m e n ts: P attern s, C a u ses a n d P r o s p e c t,”

Journal of East and West Studies,

V ol. X II, N o . 1, S p r in g -

S um m er 1 9 8 3 . R o b er t B ella h a n d P h ilip H a m m o n d ,

Varieties of Civil Religion

(N e w Y ork,

H arp er a n d R o w , 1 9 8 0 ). M a rv er H . B e r n ste in ,

The Politics of Israel: The First Decade of Statehood

(P rin ceto n , P rin ce to n U n iv e r sity P ress, 1 9 5 7 ). J. B o w y e r B ell,

The Secret Army: The IRA 1916-1974 (C a m b rid g e,

M IT U n iv er­

sity P ress, 1 9 7 4 ).

---------- ,

Terror Out of Zion: The Irgun, Lehi, Stern and the Palestine Under­

ground (N e w

Y ork , St. M a r tin ’s P ress, 1 9 7 7 ).

The Radical Right ( N e w Y ork, D o u b le d a y , 1 9 6 3 ). B e n v e n isti, The West Bank Data Project (W a sh in g to n , D .C ,

D a n ie l B ell (e d .), M eron

A m erica n

E nterp rise In stitu te , 1 9 8 4 ).

---------- , 1986 Report: Demographic, Economic, Legal, Social and Political De­ velopments in the West Bank (J e ru sa le m , T h e J eru sa lem P o st P ress, 1 9 8 6 ). ---------- , 1987 Report: Demographic, Economic, Legal, Social and Political De­ velopments in the West Bank (J e ru sa le m , T h e J eru sa lem P ost Press, 1 9 8 7 ). Peter B erger, Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (N e w Y ork, D o u b le d a y , 1 9 6 7 ) . ----------- ,

The Heretical Imperative ( N e w Y ork, D o u b le d a y , 1 9 8 0 ). Fascists: A Social Psychological View of the National Front (L o n d o n ,

M . B illig ,

H a rco u rt B race J o v a n o v ic h , 1 9 7 8 ). R u th B o n d y , O h a d Z m o r a , a n d R a p h a el B ash an (ed s). Mission Survival: The People of Israel’s Story in Their Own Words, from the Threat of Annihilation to Miraculous Victory ( N e w Y ork , Sabra B o o k s , 1 9 6 8 ). S.G .F. B r a n d o n , Jesus and the Zealots (M a n c h e ster, M a n c h e ste r U n iv ersity Press, 1 9 6 7 ). R ich a rd M a x w e ll B r o w n , “ T h e A m e rica n V ig ila n te T r a d itio n ,” in H u g h G ra h a m and T ed R . G urr (e d s.),

Violence in America ( N e w

Y ork, S ig n et B o o k s, 1 9 6 9 ).

----------- , “ L egal a n d B e h a v io r a l P er sp e ctiv es o n A m erica n V ig ila n tis m ,”

tives in American History,

Perspec­

N o. 5, 1971.

D a n C a sp i, A . D is k in , a n d E. G u ttm a n (e d s.),

The Roots of Begin’s Success

(L o n d o n , C r o o m -H e lm , 1 9 8 4 ). M ic h a e l J. C o h e n ,

Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948

(P rin ceto n ,

P rin ceton U n iv e r sity P ress, 1 9 8 2 ). N orm an C ohn,

The Pursuit of the Millenium, rev. ed .

(N e w Y ork, O x fo r d U n iver­

sity P ress, 1 9 7 0 ). G erald C r o m er, “ T h e D e b a te A b o u t K a h a n ism In Israeli S o ciety 1 9 8 4 - 1 9 8 8 , ”

Occasional Papers ( N e w Y ork, T h e H a rry Frank G u g g e n h eim F o u n d a tio n , 1 9 8 8 ). Jan et D o lg in , Jewish Identity and the JDL (P rin ceto n , P rin ceto n U n iversity Press, 1 9 7 7 ). Peter R o b e r t D e m a n t, Ploughshares into Swords: Israeli Settlement Policy in the Occupied Territories, 1967-1977 (U n p u b lish e d P h .D D isse r ta tio n , su b m itted to th e U n iversity o f A m ste r d a m , 1 9 8 8 ).

368

Bibliography E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a , “J ew ish M e s s ia n is m , R e lig io u s Z io n ism an d Israeli P olitics:

T h e Im p a ct a n d O r ig in s o f G u sh E m u n im ,” M i d d l e E a s te r n S tu d ie s , V ol. 2 3 , N o .2 , April 1 9 8 7 . M ary D o u g la s , “T h e E ffects o f M o d e r n iz a tio n o n R e lig io u s C h a n g e ,” D a e d a lu s , V ol. Ill, N o . 1, W in te r 1 9 8 2 . H arry E ck stein (e d .), I n te r n a l W a r (N e w Y ork, T h e Free Press o f G le n c o e , 1 9 6 4 ). D a n ie l E lazar a n d J a n et A v ia d , “ R e lig io n an d P o litics in Isra el,” in M ich a el C u rtis (e d .), R e lig io n a n d P o litic s in th e M i d d l e E a s t (W estv iew Press, 1 9 8 1 ). A m o s E lo n , T h e I s r a e lis : F a th e r s a n d S o n s (L o n d o n , W eid en feld & N ic o ls o n , 1 9 7 1 ). Itzhak E n g e lh a r d , “ L a w a n d R e lig io n in Isr a e l,” A m e r ic a n J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a ­ t iv e L a w , V ol. 3 5 , N o . l , W in te r 1 9 8 7 .

B en jam in E p stein a n d A r n o ld F orster, R a d i c a l R ig h t: R e p o r t o n th e J o h n B irc h S o c ie ty a n d A llie s ( N e w Y ork , R a n d o m H o u s e , 1 9 6 7 ).

Eva E tz io n i-H a le v y w ith R in a S h a p iro , P o litic a l C u ltu r e in I s r a e l (N e w Y ork, Praeger, 1 9 7 7 ). G h azi F alah , “ R e c e n t J ew ish C o lo n iz a tio n in H e b r o n ,” in D a v id N e w m a n (ed .), T h e I m p a c t o f G u s h E m u n im : P o litic s a n d S e t t le m e n t in th e W e s t B a n k (L o n d o n ,

C ro o m H e lm , 1 9 8 5 ). Franz F a n o n , T h e W r e tc h e d o f th e E a r th (N e w Y ork, G ro v e Press, 1 9 6 6 ). W. R. F arm er, M a c a b e e s , Z e a l o t s a n d J o s e p h u s (N e w Y ork, C o lu m b ia U n iversity Press, 1 9 5 6 ). L eon a rd F ein , I s r a e l: P o litic s a n d P e o p le (B o sto n , L ittle B ro w n , 1 9 6 8 ). H a ro ld F ish , T h e Z i o n i s t R e v o l u t io n : A N e w P e r s p e c tiv e (L o n d o n , W eid en feld & N ic o ls o n , 1 9 7 8 ). R o b er t O . F re ed m a n , I s r a e l in th e B e g in E r a (N e w Y ork, Praeger, 1 9 8 2 ). G . P. F reem a n , I m m ig r a n t L a b o r a n d R a c ia l C o n f lic t in I n d u s tr ia l S o c ie tie s : T h e F re n c h a n d th e B r itis h E x p e r ie n c e ,

1 9 4 5 -1 9 7 5

(P rin ceton , P rin ceton U n iversity

Press, 1 9 7 9 ). M e n a c h e m F ried m a n , “ R e lig io u s Z e a lo tr y in Israeli S o c ie ty ,” in S. Poll an d E. K rauz (e d s.), O n E th n ic a n d R e lig io u s D i v e r s i t y in I s r a e l (Tel Aviv, B ar-Ilan U n iver­ sity Press, 1 9 7 5 ). ----------- , T h e S ta t e o f I s r a e l a s a T h e o lo g ic a l D i l e m m a , in B aruch K im m erlin g (ed )., T h e I s r a e li S ta te a n d S o c ie ty : B o u n d a r ie s a n d F r o n tie r s (B u ffa lo , S U N Y Press, 1 9 8 9 ). R o b er t I. F ried m a n , T h e F a lse P r o p h e t: R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e , F r o m F B I I n f o r ­ m a n t to K n e s s e t M e m b e r (N e w Y ork, L a w ren ce H ill B o o k s, 1 9 9 0 ).

----------- , “ T error o n S acred G ro u n d : T h e B attle for th e T em p le M o u n t,” M o t h e r J o n e s , A u g u st—S ep tem b e r 1 9 8 7 .

R o b er t E. F ry k en b erg , “ R e v iv a lism a n d F u n d a m en ta lism : S o m e C ritical O b se r v a ­ tio n s w ith S p ecia l R efere n c e to P o litics in S o u th A s ia ,” in Jam es W . B jork m an (ed .), F u n d a m e n ta lis m , R e v i v a li s m a n d V io le n c e in S o u th A s ia (R iverd ale, T h e R iverd ale

C o ., 1 9 8 6 ). ----------- , “ O n th e C o m p a r a tiv e S tu d y o f F u n d a m e n ta list M o v e m en ts: A n A p ­ p ro a ch to C o n c e p tu a l C la rity a n d D e fin itio n ” (U n p u b lish ed W o rk in g Paper, Pre­ sen ted at th e W o o d r o w W ilso n C e n ter S em in ar, “ R elig io n an d P o litic s,” Spring 1 9 8 6 ). C liffo r d G eer tz, T h e I n te r p r e t a t io n o f C u ltu r e s (N e w Y ork, B asic B o o k s, 1 9 7 3 ). R en e G irard , V io le n c e a n d th e S a c r e d (B a ltim o re, T h e Joh n H o p k in s U n iversity Press, 1 9 7 7 ).

Bibliography

369

G io ra G o ld b e r g , “ T h e S tru g g le fo r L eg itim a cy : H e r u t’s R o a d from O p p o s itio n to P o w e r ,” in S tu a rt A . C o h e n a n d E liezer D o n -Y e h iy a , Conflict and Consensus in Jewish Political Life (J e ru sa le m , B ar-Ilan U n iv ersity P ress, 1 9 8 6 ). Jay Y. G o n e n , A Psychohistory of Zionism (N e w Y ork, M a so n /C h a r te r , 1 9 7 5 ). ----------- , “ T h e Israeli Illu sio n o f O m n ip o te n c e F o llo w in g th e Six D a y W a r,”

Journal of Psychohistory, N o . 6 , 1 9 7 8 . Erik H o ffe r , The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (N e w Y ork , H a r p e r a n d R o w , 1 9 5 1 ). R ich a rd H o fs ta d te r ,

The Paranoid Style in American Politics (N e w

Y ork, K n o p f,

1 9 6 5 ). C. T. H u s b a n d s , “ C o n te m p o r a r y , R ig h t-W in g E x trem ism in W estern E u ro p ea n

European Journal of Political Research 9 , ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Israel Divided (B a ltim o r e , T h e Joh n H o p k in s U n iv ersity P ress,

D e m o c r a c ie s: A R e v ie w A r tic le ,” R ael Jean Isa a c, 1 9 7 6 ). ----------- ,

Party and Politics in Israel ( N e w

Y ork, L o n g m a n , 1 9 8 1 ).

M a r k J u rg en sm e y er, “ T h e L o g ic o f R e lig io u s V io le n c e ,” in D a v id R a p o p o r t (ed .).

Inside Terrorist Organizations (L o n d o n , F rank K ass, 1 9 8 8 ). Never Again: A Program for Jewish Survival

R a b b i M e ir K a h a n e ,

(N e w Y ork,

P yram id B o o k s , 1 9 7 2 ) . ----------- , ----------- , ----------- , ----------- ,

Time to Go Home (L o s A n g e le s, N a s h P u b lish in g , 1 9 7 2 ). Writings 5732—5733 (J e ru sa le m , J ew ish Id en tity C en ter, 1 9 7 3 ). The Jewish Idea (J e ru sa le m , In stitu te o f th e J ew ish Idea, 1 9 7 4 ). The Story of the Jewish Defense League (R a d n o r, P a., C h ilto n

B ook

C o m p a n y 1 9 7 5 ). ----------- ,

Listen World, Listen Jew

(T u cso n , T h e In stitu te o f th e Jew ish Idea,

1 9 7 8 ). ----------- , ----------- ,

Forty Years (M ia m i, In stitu te o f th e Jew ish Id ea, 1 9 8 3 ). Uncomfortable Questions for Comfortable Jews (S eca u cu s

N .J ., L yle

S tuart, 1 9 8 7 ).

Out of the Ghetto (C a m b r id g e , H a rv a rd U n iv ersity Press, 1 9 7 3 ). Tradition and Crisis (N e w Y ork , T h e Free P ress, 1 9 6 1 ). B aru ch K im m er lin g , Zionism and Territory: The Socio-Territorial Dimension of Zionist Politics (B erk eley, In stitu te o f In te r n a tio n a l S tu d ies, U n iversity o f C a lifo r n ia , J a co b K a tz, ----------- ,

1 9 8 3 ). H a n s K o h n , “ M e s s ia n is m ,”

Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences

(N e w Y ork,

M a c m illa n , 1 9 3 5 ) . Yair K o tier,

Heil Kahane ( N e w

Y ork , A d a m a B o o k s, 1 9 8 6 ).

N . L a m m , “ T h e Id e o lo g y o f N e tu r e i-K a r ta : A c c o r d in g to th e S atm ar V e r s io n ,”

Tradition, V o l.

X II, N o . l , F all 1 9 7 1 .

W alter L a q u eu r,

The Road to War 1967: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

(L o n d o n , W e id e n fe ld ÔC N ic o ls o n , 1 9 6 9 ). Sam L e h e m a n -W ilz ig , “ P u b lic P r o te st A g a in st C en tral an d L ocal G o v e r n m e n t in Israel 1 9 5 0 —1 9 7 9 , ” Jewish Journal of Sociology, V ol. X X I X , N o . 2 , D ecem b er , 1 9 8 2 . ----------- , “ T h e Israeli P r o te ste r ,”

The Jerusalem Quarterly, N o .

2 6 , W in ter 1 9 8 3 .

C h a rles S. L ie b m a n , “J ew ish U ltr a -N a tio n a lis m in Israel: C o n v e r g in g S tr a n d s,” in W illia m F ra n k el (e d .),

Survey of Jewish Affairs

Press, 1 9 8 5 ) . C h a rles L ie b m a n a n d E lieza r D o n Y eh iy a , T h e U n iv ersity o f C a lifo r n ia P ress, 1 9 8 3 ).

(L o n d o n , A sso c ia te d U n iv ersities

Civil Religion in Israel (L os

A n g eles,

370

Bibliography

----------- ,

Politics and Religion in Israel (B lo o m in g to n ,

Press, 1 9 8 4 ). Juan J. L in z,

Reequilibrium

T h e U n iversity o f In dian a

The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown and

(B a ltim o re , T h e Joh n H o p k in s U n iversity Press, 1 9 7 8 ).

Arabs in the Jewish State (A u stin , U n iversity o f T exas Press, 1 9 8 0 ). For the Lord and the Land: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (N e w

Ian L u stic k , ----------- ,

Y ork, C o u n c il o n F o reig n R e la tio n s , 1 9 8 8 ). ----------- , “T h e W est B an k a n d G a za in Israeli P o litic s ,” in S teven H ey d em a n n (ed .),

The Begin Era (B o u ld er, W estv ie w , 1 9 8 4 ). The Radical Right: A World Directory (L o n d o n ,

C iara n O . M a o la in ,

Longm an,

1 9 8 7 ). S ey m o u r M a r tin L ip set, “T h e R a d ica l R ig h t,” N o . l , Ju n e 1 9 5 5 . S ey m o u r M a r tin L ip set a n d Earl R a a b ,

British Journal of Sociology,

The Politics of Unreason

(N e w Y ork,

H arp er a n d R o w , 1 9 7 0 ). Peter M e d d in g , Mapai in Israel: Political Organization and Government in a New Society (C a m b r id g e , C a m b r id g e U n iv ersity Press, 1 9 7 2 ). G o ld a M e ir , My Life (N e w Y ork, P u tn a m , 1 9 7 5 ). R a p h a el M e rg u i a n d P h ilip p e S im o n n o t, Israel’s Ayatollahs: Meir Kahane and the Far Right in Israel (L o n d o n , Saqi B o o k s , 1 9 8 7 ). B en n y M o r r is, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947—1949 (C a m ­ b rid ge, C a m b rid g e U n iv ersity Press). D a v id N a c h m ia s , “ T h e R ig h t-W in g O p p o s itio n in Isra el,” V o .2 4 , N o . 3 (S ep te m b e r 1 9 7 6 ). D a v id N e w m a n (e d .), The

Impact of Gush Emunim

Political Studies,

(L o n d o n , C r o o m -H e lm ,

1 9 8 5 ). ----------- , “ G u sh E m u n im B etw een F u n d a m e n ta lism and P ra g m a tism ,”

Quarterly, N o . 3 9 ,

Jerusalem

1986.

Jan et K. O ’d ea , “ G u sh E m u n im : R o o ts a n d A m b ig u itie s ,”

Forum,

N o. 2, 25,

1976. S tan ley G . P a y n e,

Fascism: Comparison and Definition (M a d iso n ,

U n iversity o f

W isc o n sin Press, 1 9 8 0 ). Y oav P eled , “ L a b o r M a r k e t S e g m e n ta tio n and E th nic C o n flicts: T h e S ocial B ases o f R igh t W in g P o litics in Isra el” (p ap er p rese n ted at th e A n n u a l M e e tin g o f th e A m erican P o litica l S cien ce A s s o c ia tio n , A tla n ta , S ep tem b er 2 , 1 9 8 9 ). A m o s P erlm u ter,

The Life and Times of Menachem Begin (N e w

Y ork, D o u b le ­

day, 1 9 8 7 ). D a v id P o llo c k , “ L ik u d in P ow er: D iv id e d W e S ta n d ,” in R o b ert O . F riedm an

Israel in the Begin Era ( N e w Y ork, Praeger, 1 9 8 2 ). M a rcel P ro u st, A la Rechearche du Temps Perdu (Paris, G a llin a rd , 1 9 6 6 ). D a v id R a p o p o r t a n d Y on ah A le x a n d e r , The Morality of Terrorism (N e w

(ed .),

Y ork,

P ergam on P ress, 1 9 8 2 ). D a v id R a p o p o r t, “ Fear a n d T rem b lin g: T errorism in T h ree R e lig io u s T radi­

American Political Science Review, V o l.7 8 , N o .3 , 1 9 8 4 . ----------- , “ M e s s ia n ic S a n c tio n s for T erro r,” Comparative Politics, V ol.

t io n s ,”

2 0 , N o . 2,

Jan uary 1 9 8 8 . W alter R e ic h , “T h e K a h a n e C o n tr o v e r sy ,” F ebruary 1 9 8 5 .

Moment,

V ol. 10, N o . 2 , Jan u ary—

Bibliography

----------,

Stranger in My House: Jews and Arabs in the West Bank

371

(N e w Y ork,

H o lt, R e in h a r t a n d W in s t o n , 1 9 8 4 ) . H a n s R o g g e r a n d E u g e n e W eb er (e d s.),

The European Right

(L o n d o n , W e id e n ­

feld ôc N ic h o ls o n , 1 9 6 5 ). M ic h a e l R o m a n ,

Jewish Kiryat Arba vs. Arab Hebron (J eru sa lem , T h e J eru salem

P ost P ress, 1 9 8 6 ) . A a r o n D . R o s e n b a u m , “ T h e T eh iy a a s a P erm a n en t N a tio n a lis t P h e n o m e n o n ,” in B ern ard R e ic h a n d G e r s h o n K iev a l (e d s.),

cal Actors and Perspectives ( N e w N a d im A rian

and

Israeli National Security Policy: Politi­

Y ork , G r e e n w o o d P ress, 1 9 8 8 ).

R o u h a n a , “ C o lle c tiv e Id en tity a n d A rab V o tin g P a ttern s,” in A sh er M ic h a l

S h a m ir,

The Elections in Israel 1984

(Tel Aviv,

R a m o t,

1 9 8 6 ). J oh n H . R o z e n b a u m a n d C . S ed erb erg , “ V ig ila n tism : A n A n a ly sis o f E sta b lish ed

Comparative Politics, N o . 6 , 1 9 7 4 . H o w a r d M . S ach a r, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time

V io le n c e ,”

(Jeru salem , S teim a tzk y , 1 9 7 6 ) .

From War to War: The Arab Israeli Confrontation 1948—1967

N a d a v S a fra n ,

(N e w Y ork , P e g a su s, 1 9 6 9 ) .

Warrior: An Autobiography

A riel S h a r o n ,

(N e w Y ork, S im o n an d S ch uster,

1 9 8 9 ). Y a’a c o v S h a v it,

Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement (L o n d o n ,

Frank C a ss,

1 9 8 8 ). G ary S. S ch iff,

Tradition and Politics: The Religious Parties of Israel

(D e tr o it,

W ayn e S ta te U n iv ersity P ress, 1 9 7 7 ).

The Torment of Secrecy (G le n c o e , Free P ress, 1 9 5 6 ). S c h e c h tm a n , The Life and Times of Vladimir Jabotinsky: Fighter and

E d w a rd S h ills, J o sep h

Prophet (S ilver

S p r in g s, E sh el B o o k s , 1 9 8 6 ).

G e r sh o n S c h o le m ,

The Messianic Idea in Judaism

(N e w Y ork, S ch o k e n B o o k s,

1 9 7 1 ). M a r tin S elig er, O ffira S elik ta r,

Ideology and Politics (L o n d o n , G e o r g e A llen & U n w in , 1 9 7 6 ). New Zionism and the Foreign Policy System of Israel (C a r b o n -

d a le, S o u th e rn Illin o is U n iv ersity P ress, 1 9 8 6 ). G ersh o n S hafir a n d Y o a v P ele d , “ ‘T h o r n s in Y our E y e s’: T h e S o c io e c o n o m ic B asis o f th e K a h a n e V o t e ,” in A sh e r A r ia n a n d M ic h a l S ham ir,

Israel 1984 (Tel

The Elections in

A viv, R a m o t, 1 9 8 6 ) .

M ic h a l S h a m ir a n d J o h n S u lliv a n , “ T h e P o litica l C o n te x t o f T oleran ce: T h e U n ited S ta te s a n d I s r a e l,”

American Political Science Review,

V ol. 7 7 , N o .4 , D e c e m ­

ber 1 9 8 3 . W illia m S h e p a r d , “ F u n d a m e n ta lism : C h ristia n an d I s la m ic ,” 1987. E m m a n u el S iv a n ,

Religion,

V o l.1 7 ,

Radical Islam: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics (N e w

H a v en , Y ale U n iv e r sity P ress, 1 9 8 5 ) .

---------- ,

Religion and Politics in the Middle East (fo r th c o m in g ). Continuity and Change: A Study of Two Ethnic Communities in

R ita J. S im o n ,

Israel (N e w

Y ork , C a m b r id g e U n iv e r sity P ress, 1 9 7 8 ).

G e o r g e S o rel,

Reflections on Violence ( N e w

Y ork, C o lliers B o o k s, 1 9 6 1 ).

E hu d S p r in za k . “ E x tr e m e P o litic s in Isr a e l,”

Fall 1977.

The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15,

372

Bibliography ----------- , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e T ip o f th e Ic e b e rg ,”

The Jerusalem Quarterly, N o .

2 1 , Fall 1 9 8 1 . ----------- , “ K ach a n d R a b b i M e ir K ah an e: T h e E m ergen ce o f Jew ish Q u a si-

The Elections in Israel Patterns of Prejudice V ol. 1 9 , N o s .

F ascism in Isr a e l,” in A sh er A rian a n d M ic h a l S h am ir (ed s.),

1984 (Tel

A viv, R a m o t, 1 9 8 6 ) . P u b lish ed a lso iri

4 - 5 (1 9 8 5 ) .

---------- ,

Gush Emunim: The Politics of Zionist Fundamentalism in Israel (N e w

Y ork, T h e A m e rica n J ew ish C o m m itte e , 1 9 8 6 ). ----------- , “ F u n d a m e n ta lism , T errorism a n d D e m o cra c y : T h e C ase o f G u sh E m u ­ nim U n d e r g r o u n d ,”

Occasional Paper,

W o o d r o w W ilso n In tern a tio n a l C en ter for

S ch o la rs, 1 9 8 7 , W a sh in g to n D .C . ----------- , “ F rom M e s s ia n ic P io n eer in g to V ig ila n te T errorism : T h e C ase o f G ush E m u n im U n d e r g r o u n d ,”

The Journal of Strategic Studies, V ol.

1 0 , N o . 4 , D ecem b er

1987. S o lo m o n H . S te c k o ll, Z eev S ter n h ell,

The Temple Mount (L o n d o n , T om Stacy, 1 9 7 2 ). Neither Left Nor Right: The Fascist Ideology in France

(L os

A n g eles, T h e U n iv ersity o f C a lifo r n ia P ress, 1 9 8 6 ). ----------- , “ F a scist I d e o lo g y ,” in W alter L aqueur,

Fascism: A Reader’s Guide

(B erkeley, U n iv ersity o f C a lifo r n ia P ress, 1 9 7 6 ). E liezer S h w e id , “J ew ish M e ssia n ism : M e ta m o r p h o se s o f an Id ea ,”

Quarterly, N o . 3 6 ,

The Jerusalem

S u m m er 1 9 8 5 .

Uriel T al, “ T h e F o u n d a tio n s o f a P o litica l M e ssia n ic T rend in Isra e l,”

lem Quarterly,

N o . 3 5 , S p rin g 1 9 8 5 .

Y on in a T a lm o n , “ M ille n n a r is m ”

ences (N e w

The Jerusa­

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sci­

Y ork, M a c m illa n , 1 9 6 8 ).

M ark A. T essier, “ Isra el’s A ra b s an d th e P a lestin ian P r o b le m ,”

Journal, N o .

The Middle Fast

31, 1977.

S h ab ta i T ev eth ,

The Cursed Blessing (L o n d o n , W eid en feld &c N ic o ls o n , 1 9 7 0 ). The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jeru salem , M a g n ess

E ph raim E. U rb a ch , Press, 1 9 7 9 ). M ich a e l W alzer,

Just and Unjust Wars (N e w

Y ork, B asic B o o k s, 1 9 7 7 ).

C h a im I. W a x m a n , “ P o litica l a n d S o cia l A ttitu d es o f A m erica n s A m o n g th e Settlers in th e T e r r ito r ie s,” in D a v id N e w m a n (ed .),

The Impact of Gush Emunim,

(L o n d o n , C r o o m -H e lm , 1 9 8 5 ). ----------- , “ M e s s ia n is m , Z io n is m a n d th e S tate o f Isra e l,”

Modern Judaism, V ol.

7,

N o . 2, M ay 1987. D a v id W eisb u rd a n d V ered V in itzk y , “ V ig ila n tism as R a tio n a l S ocial C o n tro l: T h e C a se o f th e G u sh E m u n im S e ttle r s,” in M . A r o n o ff (ed .),

Israeli Culture and Politics, Political Anthropology, V ol. 4

Cross Currents in

(N e w B ru n sw ick , T ran sac­

tio n B o o k s , 1 9 8 4 ). ----------- a n d E lin W a rin g , “ S e ttle m e n t M o tiv a tio n s in th e G u sh E m u n im M o v e ­ m ent: C o m p a r in g B o n d s o f A ltr u ism a n d S elf In ter est,” in D a v id N e w m a n (ed .),

Impact of Gush Emunim

R. J. Z v i W er b lo v sk y , “ M e ssia h a n d M e s s ia n ic M o v e m e n ts ,” The New pedia Britanica, V ol. 11 ( N e w Y ork, E n c y c lo p a ed ia B ritan nica Inc., 1 9 8 1 ). G afi W o lfsfe ld , “ Y am it: P ro test a n d th e M e d ia -R esea r ch R e p o r t,”

Quarterly,

The

(L o n d o n , C r o o m -H e lm , 1 9 8 5 ).

Encyclo­

The Jerusalem

N o . 3 1 , S p rin g 1 9 8 4 .

----------- , “ C o lle c tiv e P o litica l A c tio n a n d M e d ia Strategy: T h e C ase o f Y a m it,”

Journal of Conflict Resolution,

V ol. 2 8 , N o . 3 , S ep tem b er 1 9 8 4 .

Bibliography

---------- ,

373

The Politics of Provocation: Participation and Protest in Israel (A lb an y,

T h e S tate U n iv e r sity o f N e w Y ork P ress, 1 9 8 8 ).

Contemporary Transformations of Religion

B rian W ils o n ,

(N e w Y ork, O x fo r d

U n iversity P ress, 1 9 7 6 ) . R o b in W rig h t,

Sacred Rage: The Wrath of Militant Islam

(N e w Y ork, L ind en

P ress/ S im o n a n d S ch u ster, 1 9 8 5 ) . A vn er Y aniv,

Deterrence Without the Bomb: The Politics of Israeli Strategy

(L e x in g to n , M a s s ., D .C . H e a th , 1 9 8 6 ) .

---------- ,

Lebanon

Dilemmas of Security: Politics, Strategy, and the Israeli Experience in

( N e w Y o rk , O x fo r d U n iv e r sity P ress, 1 9 8 7 ).

Y ael Y ish a i,

Land or Peace: Whither Israel (S ta n fo rd ,

H o o v e r In stitu tio n P ress,

1 9 8 7 ). ----------- , “T h e J e w ish T error O r g a n iz a tio n : P ast o r F u tu re D a n g e r ? ,”

Conflict,

V o l.6 , N o . 4 , 1 9 8 6 . S h im sh o n Z e ln ik e r a n d M ic h a e l K a h a n , “ R e lig io n an d N a s c e n t C lea v a g e: T h e C ase o f Isra e l’s N a t io n a l R e lig io u s P arty,”

Comparative Politics,

9 , O c to b e r 1 9 7 6 .

Hebrew Y o sef A c h im e ir a n d S h m u e l S h a tz k i,

nies about Brit Habirionim

We Are Sikarikin—Documents and Testimo­

(Tel A viv, N iz a n im , 1 9 7 8 ).

W alter A k e r m a n , A rik K a r m o n , a n d D a v id Z u k er ,

Making (J e ru sa le m ,

Education in a Society in the

th e V a n -L eer In stitu te , 1 9 8 5 ).

R ab b i Y eh u d a A m ita l,

The Elevations from Depts

(A llo n S h v u t, Y esh iv a t H a -

Z io n A s s o c ia tio n , 1 9 7 4 ). G id e o n A r a n ,

Eretz Yisrael: Between Politics and Religion (J eru sa lem ,

T h e Jeru­

salem In stitu te fo r th e S tu d y o f Israel, 1 9 8 5 ) .

From Religious Zionism to Zionist Religion: The Origins and Culture of Gush Emunim (U n p u b lish e d P h .D D is s e r ta tio n , H e b r e w U n iv ersity o f Jeru sa lem , ---------- ,

1987)

.

Israel A r ie l,

This Good Mountain and the Lebanon

(A G u sh E m u n im B o o k le t,

1 9 8 2 ).

---------- ,

Atlas of the Land of Israel: Its Boundaries According to the Sources,

V ol. 1 (J e ru sa le m , C a n a P u b lish in g H o u s e , 1 9 8 8 ).

Tzfia I, 1 9 8 5 . B u ilt? ,” Tzfia II,

----------- , “T h in g s as T h e y R e a lly A r e ,” ----------- , “ W h e n S h a ll th e T e m p le Be

1985.

----------- , “ In tr o d u c in g T z fia ” ; “ Israel: O n e N a tio n in th e L a n d ,” in Israel A riel, M o sh e A sh er, Y oel R a k o v sk y , a n d A m ish a r S egal (e d s.), 1988)

Tzfia

V o l.3 (Jeru salem ,

.

R ab b i Y a a c o v A r ie l-S h tie g litz , “ T h e H a la k h ic A sp e c ts o f th e P rob lem o f a R e­ treat fro m E retz Y isra e l T e r r ito r ie s ,”

Morasha, V 61.9,

1975.

M o s h e A sh er, “ T h e T e m p le M o u n t Is T u rn ed in to a F o r e s t,”

Tzfia I,

R ab b i S h lo m o A vin er, “ A n d W e D id N o t B etray Y our C o v e n a n t,”

1985.

Artzi,

(Jeru salem , 1 9 8 2 ) . ----------- , “ T w o T a lk s w ith R a b b i T zv i T a u ,” in R a b b i S h lo m o A vin er (ed .),

Cohanim (th e

N o .l

Iturei

jo u rn a l o f Y e sh iv a t A te ret C o h a n im ), N o . 3 , 1 9 8 3 . ----------- , “ O n th e C o m p le tio n o f E retz Y is r a e l,” Artzi, V o l .l, J eru salem , 1 9 8 2 . S h lo m o A v in eri,

Varieties of Zionist Thought (Tel

Aviv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 0 ).

374

Bibliography R ab b i D a v id B a r -H a im , “ Israel Is C a lled ‘A d a m ’, ” in Israel A riel, M o s h e A sher,

Yoel R a k o v sk y , a n d A m ish a r S egal (e d s.), Tzfia V o l.3 (Jeru salem , 1 9 8 8 ). M o r d e c h a i B ar-L ev, The Graduates of the Yeshiva High School in Eretz

Israel

(U n p u b lish e d P h .D D is s e r ta tio n , B ar-Ilan U n iv ersity, 1 9 7 7 ).

Koteret Rashit (M ay, 16 , 1 9 8 4 ). Peace Now (Tel Aviv, H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d , 1 9 8 5 ). M ich a e l B a r-Z o h a r, The Longest Month (Tel Aviv, L evin E p stein , 1 9 6 8 ). ----------- , Ben-Gurion: A Political Biography (Tel Aviv, A m O v ed , 1 9 7 6 ). H a im B e’er, The Time of Trimming (Tel Aviv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 7 ). Uzi B e n z im a n , Sharon: An Israeli Caesar (Tel Aviv, A d a m P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 5 ). R a p h a ella B ilsk i B en -H u r , Every Individual Is a King: The Social and Political Thought of Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky (Tel Aviv, D vir, 1 9 8 8 ). R ab b i D a n B e’eri, “ A T em p le a n d a S ta te ,” Tzfia I, 1 9 8 5 . Yossi B eilin , The Price of Unification (R a m a t G a n , R ev iv im P u b lish in g H o u se , N a h u m B a rn ea , “ T h e D e r v is h ,”

M o r d e c h i B a r-O n ,

1 9 8 5 ). S h ab ta i B e n -D o v ,

Prophesy and Tradition in Redemption (Tel

Aviv, Yair P u b lica ­

tio n s, 1 9 7 9 ). ----------- ,

After the Six Day War: From the Six Day Victory On

(O fra, H a m id -

rasha B eeretz B in y a m in , 1 9 7 9 ). ----------- ,

The Redemption of Israel in the Crisis of the State (S afad ,

H a m a tm id ,

1 9 6 0 ). M e n a c h e m B en Y ahsar, “T h e T em p le M o u n t ,”

Amudim 2 6 3 , January,

1968.

Ju dith C a rp , “ In v e stig a tio n o f S u sp ic io n s A g a in st Israelis in Judea an d Sam aria: A R ep o rt o f th e F o llo w U p C o m m itte e (M im e o g r a p h ), 1 9 8 2 . A sh er C o h e n , “ G o in g T o g eth er— th e R e lig io u s-S e cu ler R e la tio n sh ip in a M ix e d P arty,” in C h a rles S. L ieb m a n ,

Society (K eter,

To Live Together: Religious and Secular in Israeli

fo r th c o m in g ).

G eu la C o h e n , Underground Memoirs (Tel Aviv, K a m i P u b lish ers, 1 9 7 2 ). Y eru ch am C o h e n , The Alton Plan (Tel Aviv, H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d , 1 9 7 3 ).

New Map, Other Relationships (Tel-A viv, M a ’ariv B o o k s, 1 9 6 9 ). ---------- , Milestones (J e ru sa le m , Y e d io t A c h r o n o t e d itio n , 1 9 7 6 ). ----------- , Living with the Bible (J eru sa lem , E d an im , 1 9 7 8 ). ----------, Shall the Sword Devour Forever? (J eru salem , E d an im , 1 9 8 1 ). A b b a E b a n , Autobiography (Tel Aviv, M a ’ariv, 1 9 7 8 ). R afael E itan a n d D o v G o ld s te in , A Soldier's Story (Tel Aviv, M a ’ariv P u b lish ers, M osh e D ayan , A

1 9 8 5 ). R ab b i D a v id E lb o im , “ A K in g ’s Palace: a n d Its F a te ,” Israel E ld a d ,

The First Tenth (Tel

1985.

Aviv, H a d a r, 1 9 7 5 ).

A m o s E lo n , “T h e B u ild ers o f th e T h ird T e m p le ,” in A m O v ed Press, 1 9 8 8 ). Y ehu d a E tzio n , The

Tzfia II,

Temple Mount (J eru sa lem ,

A Certain Panic

(Tel Aviv,

E. C asp i P ublisher, 1 9 8 5 ).

----------- , “ O n th e P o tter's W h e e l,” in Israel A riel, M o s h e A sh er, Yoel R a k o v k sy , an d A m ish a r Segal (e d s.),

Tzfia V o l.3

(J eru sa lem , 1 9 8 8 ).

R ab b i Y a a co v F ilber, “T h e T h ird R eturn to Z io n ,” M e n a c h e m F rie d m a n ,

Morasha,

Society and Religion (Jeru salem ,

N o .5 , Ju ne 1 9 8 3 .

Yad B en -Z v i, 1 9 7 7 ).

----------- , “ T h e S e c u la r -R e lig io u s R e la tio n sh ip s T o w a rd s th e E sta b lish m en t o f th e

Issues in the History of the Yishuv and Zionism No.2: The Religious School in Zionism (Tel Aviv, A m O v e d a n d Tel Aviv U n iversity Press, 1 9 8 3 ). G idi F rish tic, Takdim, V ol. 1, S p rin g 1 9 8 8 .

S ta te ,” in

Bibliography R u th G a b iz o n , G era ld C ru m er, A v iezer R a v itsk y , an d E hud S p rin za k ,

ogy of Meir Kahane and His Supporters (J e ru sa lem ,

375

The Ideol­

Van Leer In stitu te P u b lic a tio n s,

1 9 8 6 ). Itzh ak G a ln o o r ,

Steering the Polity: Communications and Politics in Israel (Tel

Aviv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 5 ) .

The Stick and the Carrot (Tel Aviv, Z m o r a B itan P u b lish ers, Lehi Revealed (R a m a t G a n , B ar-Illan U n iversity, 1 9 8 5 ). G o la n , Allegiance in the Struggle (E faal, Yad T a b e n k in , 1 9 8 8 ).

S h lo m o G a z it,

1 9 8 5 ).

P in h a s G e n o sa r , S h im o n

G io ra G o ld b e r g a n d E p h ra im B en Z a d o k , “ R e g io n a lism and T erritorial C le a v ­ age in F o r m a tio n : J ew ish S e ttle m e n t in th e A d m in istra te d T err ito ries,” Mimsal Veyahasim Bein Leumiim, N o . 2 1 , S p rin g 1 9 8 3 . R a b b i S h lo m o G o r e n , “ T h e O b lig a tio n to E nter th e T em p le M o u n t ,”

Medina,

Tzfia, V ol.

3, 1988. J o sep h G o r n i,

The Arab Question and the Jewish Problem

(Tel Aviv, A m O v e d

Press, 1 9 8 5 ). N u r it G retz, “ A F ew A g a in s t th e M a n y : R h eto r ic an d S tru cture in th e E lectio n

Siman Kriah, N o . 1 6 - 1 7 , A pril 1 9 8 3 . The Book of the Denunciation and the Belief

S p eech es o f M e n a c h e m B e g in ,” Uri T zi G r e e n b e r g ,

(Jeru salem ,

Sadan P u b lish e r s, 1 9 3 7 ). E m m a n u el G u ttm a n , “ R e lig io n in Israeli P olitics: A U n itin g o r a D iv id in g F ac­ to r ? ,” in E m m a n u el G u ttm a n a n d M o s h e L issak (e d s.),

The Israeli Political System

(Tel Aviv, A m O v e d P ress, 1 9 7 7 ). E itan H a b e r, “ Today

War Will Break Out": The Reminiscences of Brig. Gen. Israel Lior, Aid-de Camp to Prime Ministers Levi Eskhol and Golda Meir (Tel Aviv, E dan im P ress, 1 9 8 7 ).

The Truth about the Kasztner Murder (Jeru salem , E d a n im , 1 9 8 5 ). Security and Democracy (Tel A viv, E d a n im , 1 9 8 9 ). Y. H a r k a b i, Fateful Decisions (Tel A viv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 6 ). M e ir H a r n o i, The Gray Time (B n ei-B ra k A v rah am N a v e , 1 9 9 0 ). J o sep h H e lle r , Lehi: Ideology and Politics, 1940—1949 (J eru sa lem , K eter, 1 9 8 9 ). R ab b i Israel H e s s , “ T h e G e n o c id e R u llin g o f T o r a h ,” Bat Kol (the Bar Ilan Isser H a r e l,

----------- ,

stu d en t p a p e r), F eb ru ary, 2 6 , 1 9 8 0 . D a n H o r o w it z a n d M o s h e L issa k ,

The Origins of the Israeli Polity (Tel

Aviv, A m

O v ed , 1 9 7 7 ).

Triangle on,the Jordan (J e ru sa lem , C a n a , 1 9 8 2 ). Thorns in Your Eyes ( N e w Y ork, D ru k er P u b lish in g C o ., The Challenge: The Chosen Land (J eru sa lem , T h e C en ter for

P in ch a s In b ari, M eir K a h a n e,

1 9 8 1 ).

----------- ,

J ew ish

C o n s c io u s n e s s , 1 9 7 3 ) . ----------- ,

Israel’s Eternity and Victory

(J e ru sa lem , T h e In stitu te o f J ew ish Idea,

1 9 7 3 ). ----------- , ----------- , ----------- ,

Numbers 23:9 (J e ru sa le m , T h e In stitu te o f J ew ish Idea, 1 9 7 4 ). Law and Order in Israel (J e ru sa le m , K ach M o v e m e n t, 1 9 7 7 ). On Faith and Redemption (J e ru sa lem , T h e In stitu te o f th e Jew ish

Idea,

1 9 8 0 ). ----------- , “ H illu l H a s h e m ” (A K ach m im e o g r a p h e d a rticle, n .d ).

---------- ,

From the Knesset Stand: The Speeches of Rabbi Kahane in the Knesset

(Jeru salem , K ach M o v e m e n t, n .d ). Y eh o sh u a K a n ie l, “ R e lig io n a n d C o m m u n ity in th e W orld V ie w o f th e P eo p le o f th e First a n d S e c o n d A liy a ,”

Shalem, V o l.

5, 1987.

376

Bibliography R ab b i M e n a c h e m K asher,

The Great Era

(Jeru salem , T orah S h lem a In stitu te,

1 9 6 8 ). Jacob K a tz,

Halakha and Kabalah (J eru sa lem , T h e M a g n e s Press, 1 9 8 6 ). S am u el K a tz, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy-in Palestine (Tel Aviv, K a m i, 1 9 7 2 ). ----------- , A Diplomatic Victory or Geopolitical Holocaust (Tel Aviv, L IM P am ­

p h let, 1 9 7 4 ). ----------- , Neither

Might Nor Glory (Tel Aviv, D vir, 1 9 8 1 ). Rav Kook’s Letters (Jeru salem ,

R ab b i A . I. H a c o h e n K o o k ,

T h e R av K o o k

In stitu te, 1 9 6 2 ). R ab b i Z v i Y ehu d a K o o k ,

In the Pathways of Israel (Jeru salem ,

M e n o r a h , 1 9 6 8 ).

----------- , “ B e tw e e n th e P e o p le a n d H is L a n d ,” Artzi, N o . 2 , M a y 1 9 8 2 . Y oel L erner, “ Isra e l-R ep u b lic o f S o u th A frica R e la tio n s ” (Jeru salem , M im e o ­ grap h , n .d ). A m ia L ieb lich ,

Kibbutz-Makom: Report from an Israeli Kibbutz

(N e w Y ork,

P a n th eo n B o o k s , 1 9 8 1 ). E liezer L iv n eh ,

Israel and the Crisis of Western Civilization

(Tel Aviv, S ch o k e n ,

1 9 7 2 ).

----------,

On the Road to Elon Moreh: Zionism in the Direction of Emunim

(Jeru salem , G u sh E m u n im P u b lic a tio n s, 1 9 7 6 ). D a n M ir o n , “ A D o c u m e n t in Israel: A D e ta ile d A n a ly sis o f th e Id e o lo g ic a l, P o litica l, L itera ry -C u ltu ra l O r ig in s o f T h e L an d o f Israel M o v e m e n t and its F o u n d ­ in g M a n ife sto : T h e P e o p le , th e T ex t a n d W h a t H a v e H a p p e n e d to T h e m ,”

Politica,

V ol.II, N o . 1 6 , A u g u st 1 9 8 7 . T h o m a s M a y e r,

The Muslim Reawakening in Israel (G iv a t H a v iv a , T h e

In stitu te

for A rab S tu d ies, 1 9 8 8 ).

The Policy of Open Eyes (R a m a t G a n , R e v iv im , 1 9 8 4 ). Battle for Freedom: The Irgun Zvai Leumi, Parts I—V (Tel

Y uval N e ’e m a n , D a v id N iv ,

Aviv,

K lausner In stitu te, 1 9 7 5 ).

In Search of Anat (B et El, S ifrtiyat B et El, 1 9 8 8 ). P o ra t, The Life of Uriel Shelah (Y on ath an R a to sh ) (Tel

H a n a n P orat, Y eh o sh u a

Aviv, M a c h -

b a ro t L esafru t, 1 9 8 9 ).

Begin—His Regime (J eru sa lem , K eter P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 4 ). Gush Emunim (Tel Aviv, S ifriy at P o a lim , 1 9 8 0 ). R a b in , A Soldier’s Notebook (Tel Aviv, M a ’ariv B o o k s, 1 9 7 9 ).

T ed d y P reu ss, Z vi R aanan, Itzhak

A viezer R a v itz k y “T h e E x p e c te d a n d th e P o ssib le: M e ssia n ism , Z io n is m , a n d th e F uture o f Israel as R e flected in th e D iv id e d R e lig io u s O p in io n s in Isra e l,” in A lo u p h H a rev en (e d .),

Towards the 21st Century: Targets For Israel (Jeru salem ,

V an-L eer),

1 9 8 4 ). Eli R e c h e s,

The Arab Village in Israel: A Revived Political and National Focus

(Tel Aviv, S h ilo a h In stitu te P u b lic a tio n s, 1 9 8 5 ). A m n o n R u b in ste in ,

From Herzl to Gush Emunim and Back

(Tel Aviv, S ch o ck en

P u b lish in g H o u s e , 1 9 8 0 ). D a n n y R u b in ste in ,

On the Lord’s Side: Gush Emunim

(Tel Aviv, H a k ib b u tz

H a m e u c h a d , 1 9 8 2 ). Y ochai R u d ik , “T h e J ew ish U n d erg r o u n d B etw een “ G u sh E m u n im ” an d th e

Kivunim (S u m m er, A u g u st 1 9 8 7 ). (e d .), A Land of Settlement: Our Right on Eretz Yisrael

“ R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t ,” R ab b i Y ehu d a S h a v iv

(Jeru salem , T h e Y o u n g M iz r a h i G e n e r a tio n , 1 9 7 7 ). H a g g a i S eg a l,

Dear Brothers

(J eru sa lem , K eter, 1 9 8 7 ).

Bibliography M o s h e H a le v i S eg a l,

Generation to Generation

3 77

(Tel Aviv, M in istry o f D e fe n se ,

1 9 8 5 ). ----------- , “ W e H a v e H a d E n o u g h o f th e B r o th e r h o o d o f M a n k in d ,”

Tzfia I,

1985.

----------- , “T h e L a n d , th e P e o p le a n d th e T o r a h ” in Israel A riel, M o s h e A sh er, Y oel

Tzfia V61.3 (J eru sa lem , 1 9 8 8 ). T om S egev, 1949: The First Israelis (J e ru sa lem , D o m in o , 1 9 8 4 ). Z e ’ev S c h iff a n d E h u d Y a ’ari, A False War (Tel Aviv, S c h o c k e n , 1 9 8 4 ). M o s h e S h a m ir, My Life with Ishmael (Tel A viv, M a ’ariv, 1 9 6 8 ). ----------- , Facing the Mighty War (J e ru sa le m , S h ik m o n a , 1 9 7 4 ). A n ita S h a p ir o , Berl Katznelson: A Biography (Tel Aviv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 0 ). Y o n a th a n S h a p ir o , Democracy in Israel (R a m a t-G a n , M a ssa d a , 1 9 7 7 ). ---------- , Chosen to Command: The Road to Power of the Herut Party: A SocioPolitical Interpretation (Tel A viv, A m O v e d , 1 9 8 9 ). D o v S h ila n sk y , In A Hebrew Prison (Tel Aviv, A r m o n i P ress, 3 rd . e d ., 1 9 8 0 ). Z v i S h ilo a h , A Great Land for a Great People (Tel Aviv, O t-P a z p u b lic a tio n s, R a k o v sk y , a n d A m ish a r S eg a l (e d s.),

1 9 7 0 ). ----------- ,

The Guilt of Jerusalem (Tel A viv, K a m i, 1 9 8 9 ). The Lonely Jew and His Judaism (Tel Aviv, A m S lu tzk y , The History of the Haganah, Part II, V ol.

E liezer S h v e id ,

O v e d , 1 9 7 5 ).

Y ehu d a

2 (Tel Aviv, T h e

M in istry o f D e fe n s e , 1 9 7 3 ) . S a sso n S o fer, B egin :

An Anatomy of Leadership

(N e w Y ork, B asil B la c k w e ll,

1 9 8 8 ). E hud S p r in z a k ,

1972

The Emergence of Politics of Delegitimation in Israel 1967—

(J eru sa le m , E sh k o l In stitu te P u b lic a tio n s , 1 9 7 4 ).

----------- , “ A lta le n a , T h ir ty

Y ears A fter:

Mimshal Veyehasim Bein Leumiim,

Som e

P olitica l T h o u g h ts ,”

Medina

N o . 1 4 , S p rin g 1 9 7 9 (R e v ie w essa y ).

----------- , “ G u sh E m u n im : T h e Iceb erg M o d e l o f P o litica l E x tr e m ism ,”

Medina

Mimshal Veyehasim Bein Leumiim, N o . 1 7 , Fall 1 9 8 1 . ---------- , Every Man Whatsoever Is Right in His Own Eyes: Illegalism in Israeli Society (Tel A viv, S ifriy a t P o a lim , 1 9 8 6 ). Itzh ak T a b e n k in , The Lesson of the Six Day War: The Settlement of an Undi­ vided Land (Tel A viv, H a k ib u tz H a m e u c h a d , 1 9 7 1 ). ----------- , Collected Speeches, V o l. IV (Tel A viv, H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d , 1 9 7 9 ). S h a b ta i T e v e t, Moshe Dayan (Tel A viv, S c h o k e n , 1 9 7 1 ). ----------- , David’s Passion: The Life of David Ben-Gurion (Tel Aviv, S ch o k e n , 1 9 8 7 ). R ab b i B in y a m in T z v ie lli, “ D e m o c r a c y a n d Its C o r r u p tio n v is-à -v is E ternal J u d a ­ is m ,” in Israel A r ie l, M o s h e A sh er, Y oel R a k o v sk y , an d A m ish a r S egal (e d s.),

Tzfia

V o l.3 (J e ru sa le m , 1 9 8 8 ) . A liza W e ism a n ,

in the Yamit Region

The Evacuation: The Story of the Uprooting of the Settlements (B eth -E l, B eth -E l L ibrary, 1 9 9 0 ).

The Battle for Peace (J e ru sa lem , E d an im P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 1 ). Vision and Struggle: Selected Writings (Tel Aviv, K a m i, 1 9 7 7 ). The Teaching of Rav Kook, 3 rd ed . (Jeru salem , T h e Jew ish A g en cy

E zer W e iz m a n n , H a im Y a h il, Z v i Y a ro n ,

Press, 1 9 7 9 ). N a th a n Y e lin -M o r ,

The Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (Tel

Aviv, S h ik m o n a ,

1 9 7 4 ). Sarit Y ish a i, “ G e u la C o h e n : In L o v e J u st as in P o litics I A m G o in g to th e E n d ,”

Monitin,

F eb ru ary 1 9 7 9 .

378

Bibliography

Hebrew Periodicals A l H a m is h m a r D avar H a ’a r e t z H adash ot H a ir H a tz o fe K o l H a ir K o l Y e r u s h a la im M a ’a r iv N ekuda Y e d io t A c h r o n o t Y e r u s h a la im Z o t H a ’a r e t z

Index

A c h d u t H a ’a v o d a p a rty , 2 9 , 4 1 - 4 3 A ch im eir, A b b a , 2 4 , 25 A ctivists, effectiv en ess o f, 14. S ee a ls o L e a d e rsh ip A dir, Eli, 2 4 4 , 2 7 4 A dler, Yoel, 2 4 9 A g n o n , S. Y., 3 9 A g ra n a t R e p o rt, 65 A g u d a t Israel, 13, 118 A h a v a t Y isro e l (L ove o f Je w ry ), 5 2 A l-A ksa M o s q u e , 2 7 7 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 3 A ld u b i, R o m a m , 1 4 9 - 5 0 A l-H u ssein i, H a j A m in , 2 2 4 A lien re sid e n t ( G e r T o sh a v ) c o n c e p t, 1 2 2 , 189, 2 2 5 ,2 3 1 ,2 3 2 , 2 7 4 ,3 0 0 A llon, Y igal, 6 1 , 6 2 , 1 0 0 , 1 4 5 , 1 9 3 , 3 3 0 * 9 5 A llon P lan , 6 2 , 6 7 , 9 0 , 1 4 5 , 162, 170 A lm ag o r, D a n , 2 4 9 A lte rm a n , N a th a n , 3 9 , 4 0 , 6 2 A m alek ites, 1 2 3 , 2 6 9 A m an a (C o v e n a n t), 1 0 9 , 1 2 7 - 2 9 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 1 , 144, 150, 157, 161, 1 6 2 -6 4 A m ik a m , E liy a h u , 1 8 6 - 8 7 A m ir, A h a ro n , 139 A m ital, R a b b i Y eh u d a, 1 1 6 , 1 5 3 - 5 5 , 342*116 “ O n th e S ignificance o f th e Y om K ip p u r W a r,” 6 4 A nsky, A lex, 82 A n ti-A ra b se n tim e n t, in ea rly 1 9 8 0 s, 8 5 - 8 6 , 304 A n ti-A ra b v io len ce. S ee a ls o Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d ; V ig ila n tism JD L a n d , 5 1 , 5 2 - 5 3 , 5 6 R a b b i K a h a n e a n d , 7, 8 8 , 2 3 4 - 3 7 , 2 5 3 A n ti-Jew ish v io len ce, 2 8 - 2 9 . See a lso I n tifa d a

d o c trin e o f alien re s id e n t a n d , 123 G u sh e x tra le g a l a c tio n a n d , 148 Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d a n d , 159 R abbi K ahane an d , 2 2 4

379

re ta lia tio n a g a in st, 9 8 - 9 9 , 159 v ig ila n tism a n d , 9 2 - 9 3 , 136 Z io n is t a n sw e r to , 190 A n ti-S em itism , 5 1 , 5 4 , 1 1 5 , 2 2 0 A ra b -Isra eli re la tio n s A llo n P lan a n d , 9 0 a p p e a l o f ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 3 0 3 - 4 A ra b rig h ts a n d , 1 2 2 - 2 4 R abbi K ahane and, 8 1 -8 3 , 236, 244 se c u la r ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 1 8 7 - 9 0 v ig ila n tism a n d , 9 1 - 9 3 A ra b R eb ellio n in 1 9 3 6 , 28 A ra b refu g ee p ro b le m , 1 7 3 , 3 2 4 * 3 3 A ra b rig h ts. S ee a ls o A lien re sid e n t c o n c e p t; P a le stin ia n q u e stio n ; T ra n sfe r c o n c e p t A ra b -Isra eli c o n flict a n d , 1 2 2 - 2 4 Begin a n d , 2 0 7 G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 2 1 - 2 4 L a n d o f Israel M o v e m e n t a n d , 3 0 0 p re -1 9 4 8 L a b o r m o v e m e n t a n d , 2 7 - 3 0 R abbi K ahane and, 2 2 4 -2 7 ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 72 se c u la r ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 1 8 8 - 8 9 , 2 9 3 tra n s fe r c o n c e p t a n d , 1 7 2 —76 A ra b s. S ee a ls o A n ti-Jew ish vio len ce; G e n tile s; P a le stin ia n L ib e ra tio n O rg a n iz a tio n (PL O ) K a h a n e ’s ta c tic s a g a in st, 5 5 - 5 6 , 2 3 8 - 3 9 L iv n e h ’s view s o n , 6 0 —61 se c u la r ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 2 9 4 - 9 5 T em p le M o u n t issue a n d , 2 8 4 - 8 5 , 2 8 7 - 8 8 A ra n , G id e o n , 3 2 7 * 3 8 , 3 3 8 * 1 9 A ren s, M o sh e , 8 0 , 311 A riel, R a b b i Israel (S htieglitz), 7, 4 4 , 138 alien re sid e n ts a n d , 2 7 4 M u se u m o f th e T em ple a n d , 2 8 6 re d e m p tio n a n d , 15 6 , 2 7 8 r e tre a t fro m Sinai a n d , 102, 104 S tate o f Israel a n d , 1 2 0 - 2 1 T em p le M o u n t p lo t a n d , 2 6 6 —6 9 , 2 8 3 , 286, 287

380

Index

A riel, R a b b i Israel (Shtieglitz) (c o n tin u e d ) te rrito ria l e x p a n s io n a n d , 2 7 0 - 7 1 te rro ris t acts a n d , 2 7 0 T zfia A sso c ia tio n a n d , 2 6 1 - 7 4 A riel, R a b b i Ja c o b , 1 02, 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 1 3 8 , 2 6 2 A riel, R a b b i Y igal, 3 6 3 « 1 0 3 A riel, U ri, 1 2 8 , 1 3 8 , 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 1 6 3 , 164 A r ie l (y o u th m o v e m e n t), 133 A rlo z o ro ff, H a im , 3 2 A ro n o ff, M y ro n , 107 A sh k en azim , a m o n g ra d ic a l rig h t, 15 A tz m o n a se ttle m e n t, 102 A viner, R a b b i S h lo m o , 2 6 , 1 3 8 , 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 282 A w ad, M u b a r a k , 190 A zran , A m n o n , 2 7 6 B aker, Ja m e s, 3 1 0 B anai (“ B rit N e ’e m a n e i E retz Y isra e l” ), 7 3 , 74, 7 5 - 7 6 , 7 7 - 7 8 B a r-H a im , R a b b i D a v id , 2 7 2 —73 B ar-K o ch b a, S h im o n , 2 6 B a r-O n , U ri, 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 146 B a r ze l (slogan: “ ir o n ” ), 5 3 , 8 1 , 2 3 4 —35 B a r-Z o h a r, M ic h a e l, 36 Beeri, R a b b i D a n , 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 1 1 1 Begin, B en jam in , 2 0 7 Begin, M e n a c h e m , 5 , 1 4 1 , 1 7 0 , 2 0 7 - 8 , 2 5 3 A rab s a n d , 2 9 8 B anai a n d , 75 C a m p D a v id A cco rd s a n d , 7 1 —7 5 , 7 7 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 1 0 5 ,2 0 0 , 2 6 2 C o h e n a n d , 1 96, 1 97, 198 D ayan and, 279 electio n as p rim e m in iste r, 6 8 - 6 9 E retz Y israel id ea a n d , 3 0 1 , 3 0 2 e x tra le g a l a c tio n a n d , 18, 2 3 5 G u sh E m u n im a n d , 18, 1 4 5 - 4 6 H e ru t p a rty a n d , 3 3 , 3 9 , 4 1 , 2 0 6 - 7 , 301 K ahane an d , 8 1 -8 3 L a n d o f Israel M o v e m e n t a n d , 6 2 , 6 4 L e b a n o n W ar a n d , 3 0 3 L ik u d a n d , 127 N o b e l Peace Prize a n d , 76 re sig n a tio n o f, 8 0 , 84 se ttle m e n ts a n d , 9 1 , 1 0 1 - 2 , 148 T ehiya a n d , 178 Beita in c id e n t, 1 5 0 - 5 1 , 161 Beit H a d a s s a h , 9 0 - 9 1 , 9 7 , 2 3 7 Bell, D a n ie l, 10 B en-A ri, M o n i, 1 2 8 , 1 6 3 - 6 4 B en -D av id, C h a im , 96 B en-D ov, S h a b ta i, 9 4 , 9 5 , 9 6 , 2 5 4 - 5 6 B en -G u rio n , A m o s, 2 0 0 B e n -G u rio n , D a v id , 16, 1 7 7 , 193, 2 0 6 B iltm o re P lan , 31 C o h e n a n d , 19 7 E sh k o l a n d , 3 7 fate o f A ra b s a n d , 2 8 - 2 9

la b o r activ ists a n d , 2 8 - 2 9 , 2 9 9 L a n d o f Israel M o v e m e n t a n d , 3 9 p a rtitio n o f P alestin e a n d , 4 1 , 4 2 B e n -G u rio n C ircle, 73 B en -H aim , E p h ra im , 2 9 7 B e n -H o rin , M ich ael, 2 4 7 B en -H u r, E liy ah u , 3 9 B en-M eir, Y ehuda, 4 7 , 6 6 , 7 7 B en-N er, Itz h a k , 82 B e n -N u n , Jo sh u a , 2 2 5 B e n -N u n , R a b b i Yoel, 1 3 8 , 1 5 4 , 15 6 , 2 0 1 , 254, 262 B en -S h o sh an a n d , 9 5 , 96 G u sh id eo lo g y a n d , 109, 1 1 9 - 2 0 sp lit in G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 55, 1 58, 1 5 9 - 6 0 , 1 6 2 - 6 4 , 165 T em ple M o u n t p lo t a n d , 281 B en -S h o sh an , Y eshua, 9 4 , 9 5 , 9 6 , 9 8 , 1 35, 258 B envenisti, M e ro n , 1 30, 1 32, 1 34, 3 0 5 B en-Y a’acov, Y ekutiel, 2 4 8 B en-Y ashar, M e n a c h e m , 281 B en-Y ishai, S h m u el, 2 3 7 , 2 4 8 B en-Y osef, M o sh e (H a g a r), 1 77, 191 B en-Z v i, Itz h a k , 39 B en-Z v i, R ach el Y an ait, 39 B e rn a d o tte , C o u n t, 33 B etar y o u th m o v e m e n t, 2 6 , 5 3 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 , 300 Bevin, E rn est, 81 B irio n im , 2 4 —25 B ita c h o n (slogan: “ fa ith in in d e stru c tib ility o f Jew ish p e o p le ” ), 53 Bnei A kiva y o u th m o v e m e n t, 4 8 - 4 9 , 5 0 - 5 1 , 1 2 5 ,1 5 3 , 1 55, 25 3 B rit H a b irio n im (C o v e n a n t o f T h u g s), 2 3 , 2 4 -2 5 , 26, 32, 39, 249, 296 B rit H a h a s h m o n a im (H a sm o n e a n C o v e n a n t) m o v e m e n t, 3 1 - 3 2 , 2 6 2 , 2 7 7 B rit H a k a n a im (C o v e n a n t o f Z e a lo ts), 3 4 “ B rit N e ’em an ei E retz Y isra e l” (B anai). S ee B anai B ush, G eo rg e, 3 1 0 C a m p D av id A cco rd s, 7 1 —73 Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d a n d , 9 4 —95 p o litical im p a c t o f, 301 se c u la r rad ical rig h t a n d , 186 te rrito ria l m a x im a lism a n d , 5 —6 C a n a a n ite sch o o l, 2 5 , 43 C a rte r, Jim m y, 7 1 , 7 3 , 7 4 , 148 C a sp i, E p h ra im , 2 6 2 , 2 6 3 —6 4 C a ta s tro p h ic m essian ism , 2 2 0 - 2 3 C a ta s tro p h ic Z io n ism , 5 3 - 5 4 C av e o f th e P a tria rc h s (M a c h p e la ), 8 9 - 9 0 , 140, 2 3 6 C e n te r o f th e Jew ish Idea, 2 1 6 C h a m b e rla in , N eville, 7 5 , 76 C h a v u r o t , 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 , 191

Index C h a y a s q u a d s, 2 3 4 - 3 5 C h ristia n m issio n a ry activity, 5 5 , 8 8 , 2 7 6 C h u g S u lam (L a d d e r C ircle), 3 3 - 3 4 , 1 9 7 C ircle fo r D a rin g P o litical A c tio n , 7 4 C ivic d iso b e d ie n c e , 18. S ee a ls o E x tra le g a l a c tio n Civil rig h ts. S ee A ra b rig h ts; H u m a n rig h ts Civil w a r, p o ssib ility o f, 3 1 2 , 3 5 3 « 6 5 C lassical vs. A m e ric a n ra d ic a l rig h t, 9 - 1 1 C o h e n , G e u la , 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 7 , 3 0 5 B an ai a n d , 7 7 - 7 8 , 79 B egin a n d , 7 3 , 7 4 B eita in c id e n t a n d , 1 5 0 d e m o c ra c y a n d , 2 9 4 E itan a n d , 1 6 8 , 2 0 3 G re a te r E retz Y israel id ea a n d , 3 0 2 G u sh se ttle m e n t e ffo rts a n d , 68 in te llig e n tsia a n d , 191 Israeli c a b in e t a n d , 2 0 9 , 3 0 9 n a tio n a lis t stru g g le a n d , 184 1988 e le c tio n s a n d , 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 p o litics o f, 1 9 6 - 9 9 R a b b i K a h a n e a n d , 51 re tre a t fro m S inai a n d , 102 S h a m ir a n d , 3 0 7 , 3 0 8 S tate o f Israel a n d , 179 S u la m a n d , 3 4 T ehiya a n d , 177 T em p le M o u n t a n d , 2 8 5 C o h e n , Igal, 147 C o lo m b o , Jo se p h , Sr., 2 3 4 C o m m itte e fo r th e P re se rv a tio n o f S ecurity, 237 C o n sp ira c y m e n ta lity , 1 9 - 2 0 C o u n cils, a n d G u sh E m u n im , 1 2 9 - 3 2 C o v e n a n t o f T h u g s. S ee B rit H a b irio n im C o v e n a n t o f Z e a lo ts . S ee B rit H a k a n a im C u ltu ra l ra d ic a ls, 7. S ee a ls o A riel, R a b b i Israel; E tz io n , Y e h u d a ; L ern er, Y oel; T zfia a sso c ia tio n d e m o c ra c y a n d , 2 9 0 , 291 d istin g u ish e d fro m G u sh a n d K ach , 251 — 52 T em p le M o u n t as p o litic a l issue a n d , 2 7 9 —

88 te rro ris t ac ts o f, 2 5 2 - 5 3 C u ltu re . See a ls o E d u c a tio n a l system G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 3 2 - 3 5 T ehiya m o v e m e n t a n d , 171 D a y a n , M o sh e , 8 0 , 1 4 1 , 2 0 7 - 8 , 3 6 1 « 8 2 Begin a n d , 7 2 H e b ro n p o licy a n d , 4 7 , 89 re sig n a tio n o f, 3 0 2 Sinai se ttle m e n ts a n d , 1 0 0 , 101 S ix -D ay W a r a n d , 4 0 , 2 5 5 T em p le M o u n t a n d , 2 5 5 , 2 7 9 te rrito ria l m a x im a lism a n d , 6 1 - 6 2 , 6 3 - 6 4 Yom K ip p u r W a r a n d , 65

381

D a y a n , Yossi, 2 3 6 , 2 3 7 , 2 4 3 , 2 4 4 , 2 7 4 D e h eish e refu g ee c a m p , 148 D ek el, M ic h a e l, 175 D em o cracy , classical vs. A m erican ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 11 D e v e lo p m e n t c o rp o ra tio n s , 131 D ia s p o ra K a h a n e ’s view of, 2 2 0 , 22 1 L iv n e h ’s view o f, 58 n e g a tio n o f (S h e lila t H a g a lu t ), 4 8 , 5 4 se c u la r ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 1 8 2 - 8 3 D im o n a , b la c k Jew s o f, 5 5 , 2 4 3 D iz e n g o ff C e n te r, 191 D o m e o f th e R o ck . S ee T em p le M o u n t p lo t D o n -Y eh iy a, Eliezer, 3 0 - 3 1 D o ri, Y aacov, 3 9 D o rm a n , M e n a c h e m , 4 2 D re iz in , Yosef, 131 D ro b le s-S h a ro n se ttle m e n t p la n , 128 D ro ri, T z fa n ia , 132 D ru k m a n , R a b b i H a im , 9 7 , 1 0 9 , 1 11, 132, 138, 172, 3 4 0 « 8 4 electio n to K nesset, 7 7 , 7 8 , 146 D u g r i p o litic s, 2 0 3 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 5 E a ste rn E u ro p e , c o llap se o f c o m m u n ism in, 3 0 8 -9 E b a n , A b b a , 6 1 , 65 E d o m im , M a ’ale, 164 E d u c a tio n a l sy stem , 5 0 - 5 1 , 1 3 3 - 3 4 , 181, 2 7 5 , 2 7 6 . S ee a ls o C u ltu re ; Y eshivot H e sd e r E gyp t, 7 3 . S ee a lso C a m p D a v id A cco rd s; S a d a t, A n w a r alEin V ered C ircle (L a b o r se ttle m e n t v e te ra n s), 7 3 , 14 2 , 170 E ita n , M ic h a e l, 2 0 9 , 2 3 9 , 3 2 1 w l7 E ita n , R afael (R afu l), 134, 1 7 0 , 1 9 2 , 194, 19 6 , 2 9 7 in tifa d a a n d , 189 Israeli c a b in e t a n d , 1 6 6 , 2 0 9 , 3 0 9 p o litics o f, 2 0 3 —6 reg io n al d efen se sy stem a n d , 9 1 , 135 T eh iy a a n d , 1 68, 3 4 6 « 2 6 T z o m e t p a rty a n d , 5 , 1 68, 1 76, 181 El B ireh, m a y o r o f, 9 7 E lb o im , R a b b i D a v id , 2 6 3 , 2 8 2 - 8 3 E lb o im , R a b b i Y osef, 2 8 6 E ld a d , Israel, 7 8 , 2 9 7 , 3 0 2 C h u g S u lam a n d , 3 3 , 3 4 C o h e n a n d , 197 Israeli d e m o c ra c y a n d , 2 9 4 K ahane and, 215 K in g d o m o f Israel a n d , 3 3 , 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 , 2 5 4 Lehi a n d , 2 9 9 L IM a n d , 3 9 , 4 1 , 6 2 S tate o f Israel a n d , 179, 180 su sp ic io n o f A ra b s a n d , 188 T eh iy a a n d , 177

382

Index

E lecto ral re fo rm , 2 0 6 , 2 3 2 - 3 3

F ish m a n , R a b b i, 31

E l H a r H a s h e m (T o w ard s th e M o u n ta in o f

F a it A c c o m p li , c re a tio n o f, 1 3 9 —41

th e L ord) g ro u p , 281 E lish a (C itizens fo r Ju d e a , S a m a ria , a n d

G a z a ), 2 0 2 E litzur, U n , 1 0 3 , 128, 1 3 8 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 4 , 281 E litzur, Y ehuda, 144 E liy ah u , R a b b i M o rd e c h a i, 1 0 4 , 2 1 7 , 2 8 3 , 352«25 E l-N a k a m (A venging G o d ) se ttle m e n t, 2 1 1 -

12 E lon M o re h (N a b lu s), 4 8 , 6 9 , 1 4 9 - 5 0 , 3 1 0 . See a lso G a riin E lon M o re h E retz Y israel, d o c trin e o f in d iv isib ility o f fu n d a m e n ta lism a n d , 4 6 in G u sh th eo lo g y , 1 1 2 —14 K a h a n e ’s view of, 2 2 3 —2 4 L ik u d a n d , 311 L1M a n d , 3 8 - 3 9 , 4 1 - 4 3 R av Z vi Y ehuda a n d , 4 4 T ehiya a n d , 7 8 , 7 9 , 7 9 - 8 0 th e o re tic a l fra m e w o rk for, 5 6 —61 T zfia a n d , 2 7 0 - 7 1 E retz Y israel, p a rtitio n in g of, 2 7 , 33 E retz Y israel K nesset F ro n t, 1 3 - 1 4 , 2 0 9 , 3 2 1 w l7 , 3 5 0 « 1 19 E sh k o l, Levi, 3 7 , 6 1 , 141 E skin, A vigdor, 2 7 4 - 7 5 Etzel u n d e rg ro u n d , 2 6 - 2 7 , 2 8 - 2 9 , 3 2 - 3 3 , 2 3 5 , 2 9 9 . S ee a ls o Irg u n E tzio n , Y ehuda, 1 44, 2 6 3 , 2 6 4 activ e re d e m p tio n a n d , 7, 9 8 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 7 , 278 G u sh E m u n im a n d , 2 5 4 le a d e rsh ip o f u n d e rg ro u n d a n d , 2 5 2 —61 R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t a n d , 2 5 9 - 6 1 T em ple M o u n t a n d , 9 4 - 9 8 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 7 - 5 9 , 268, 287, 358«25, 362«103, 363«113 v iolence a n d , 9 2 - 9 3 , 2 6 9 w ritin g s of, 2 5 9 , 2 8 4 E x traleg al a c tio n . S ee a lso A n ti-A ra b vio lence; Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d ; T em ple M o u n t p lo t; V ig ilan tism G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 8 - 1 9 , 1 1 8 - 2 0 , 1 4 8 51 L IM a n d , 62 T em ple M o u n t F aith fu l a n d , 2 8 0 - 8 1 F a lk la n d s W ar, 1 8 6 - 8 7 False Peace (stu d e n t o rg a n iz a tio n ), 73 F alw ell, Jerry, 2 7 5 F a n o n , F ra n tz , 2 2 0 F ascism , 16, 3 3 , 2 3 3 - 3 4 . S ee a ls o Q u a s i­ fascism F e d e rm a n , N o a m , 2 4 8 F e in e rm a n , U zi, 39 Felix, M e n a c h e m , 4 8 , 138 F ig h te r’s Party, 33 Fish, H a ro ld , 3 2 9 « 8 0

F o rced e m ig ra tio n , 1 7 4 , 2 3 1 - 3 2 , 2 3 7 , 2 5 2 . S ee a ls o T ra n sfe r co n c e p t F ried , R a b b i Y o h a n a n , 109, 1 34, 154 F rie d m a n , R o b e rt, 51 F ru m a n , R a b b i M e n a c h e m , 1 3 8 ,1 5 8 ,1 6 0 , 282 F u n d a m e n ta lism o f A riel, 2 6 6 - 6 9 c u ltu ra l ra d ic a ls a n d , 2 5 2 o f G u sh E m u n im , 1 7 - 1 8 , 2 0 , 21 Isra e l’s m ilita ry p o w e r a n d , 19 m essian ism a n d , 4 5 —46 of R abbi K ahane, 2 1 5 -3 3 role in rad ical rig h t, 2 0 —21 G a h a l p arty , 62 . S ee a lso L ik u d p a rty G a b e le t (em bers) g ro u p , 4 9 G al (G eu la L e-Israel: R e d e m p tio n fo r Israel) u n d e rg ro u n d , 2 7 6 , 2 7 7 , 3 6 0 « 7 0 G alili, Israel, 1 00, 142 G alili D o c u m e n t, 6 3 , 65 “ G a n d h i.” S ee Z e ’evi, R eh av am G a riin E lon M o re h , 4 7 - 4 8 , 6 6 , 6 7 , 1 2 5 , 1 4 4 , 1 4 5 ,2 5 3 ,2 5 4 . S ee a lso E lon M o re h G a riin O fra , 145 G a riin S hechem , 150 G a z a . S ee I n tif a d a ; R afiah S alien t; W est B ank settlem en ts G a z it, S h lo m o , 3 3 4 « 7 4 G e ll-M a n n , M u rra y , 193 G e n o c id e o f A rab s, 123 G e n o sa r, S h lo m o , 2 0 3 G en tiles. S ee a lso A rab s; P alestin ian L ib e ra tio n O rg a n iz a tio n ; P a lestin ian q u e stio n H a la k h ic view o f, 2 7 3 - 7 4 K a h a n e ’s h o stility to , 2 1 8 - 2 0 , 2 2 4 R a b b i Z vi Y ehuda a n d , 115 G e r T o sh a v. S ee A lien re sid e n t c o n c e p t G etz, R ab b i M e ir Y ehuda, 2 8 2 G in z b u rg , R a b b i, 165 G o la n H e ig h ts Law , 198 G o ld b e rg , G io ra , 137 G o o d m a n , A llen, 2 8 2 G o rb ach ev , M ik h a il, 195 G o re n , R a b b i S h lo m o , 4 5 , 2 6 3 , 2 7 9 - 8 0 , 2 8 3 , 2 8 5 - 8 6 , 362w 87 G ozo v sk y , M ik e , 2 3 6 G re a t B ritain , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 . S ee a lso F a lk la n d s W ar; M a n d a to ry Palestine G re e n b e rg , Uri Z vi C h u g S u lam a n d , 33 L IM a n d , 3 9 , 41 p o e try of, 3 5 7 n5 u ltra n a tio n a lis t tra d itio n a n d , 2 4 - 2 5 , 9 5 , 254, 296, 302 G reen L ine, 1 28, 1 2 9 , 161, 3 0 0

Index

383

G u r, M o rd e c h a i, 174 G u sh E m u n im (“ th e B loc o f th e F a ith fu l” ), 5 , 6, 1 0 7 - 6 6 . S ee a ls o A m a n a ; Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d ; M o v e m e n t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai B anai a n d , 73 b irth o f, 6 5 - 6 7 C a m p D a v id A c c o rd s a n d , 7 1 , 72 c o n d u c t o f p o litic s a n d , 1 3 7 - 5 1 c u ltu ra l in fra s tru c tu re of, 1 3 2 —35 d e m o c ra c y a n d , 108, 1 2 8 , 2 9 1 - 9 2 d isco v ery o f Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d a n d , 1 5 5 -5 8 early n o n v io le n c e o f, 88 E tz io n ’s th e o lo g y a n d , 2 5 6 - 5 7 e x tra le g a l a c tio n a n d , 1 8 - 1 9 , 1 1 8 - 2 0 , 1 4 8 -5 1 fa c to rs in im p o rta n c e o f, 1 0 7 —9 fo rm a tiv e y ears o f, 125 fo u n d e rs o f, 4 9 fu n d a m e n ta lism o f, 1 7 - 1 8 , 2 0 , 21 fu tu re o f ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 3 1 3 G eu la C o h e n a n d , 196 in flu en ce o f, 1 0 9 , 1 2 4 - 3 7 in s titu tio n a liz a tio n of, 109 k illin g o f n o n -Je w s a n d , 2 7 0 legal vs. le g itim a te ac ts a n d , 6 7 L ivneh a n d , 59 m a n ife sto , 6 6 , 114, 121 M a s te r P lan fo r S e ttle m e n t in J u d e a a n d S a m a ria , 127 m e m b e rsh ip in, 108 N a tio n a l R elig io u s P arty a n d , 6 6 , 7 7 , 7 8 , 3 4 0w 84 p o litic a l leg itim acy a n d , 124 p o litical th e o lo g y o f, 1 0 9 - 2 4 p o w e r b a se o f, 1 3 0 - 3 2 p u b lic co u n cil ( M o e tz a ), 126 rise o f ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 3 0 1 - 2 s e c re ta ria t (M a z k i r u t ), 126, 1 5 6 - 5 8 , 2 5 4 se ttle m e n t d e p a r tm e n t, 127 stag es in d e v e lo p m e n t o f, 1 2 4 - 2 7 T ehiya a n d , 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 1 7 1 - 7 2 v ig ilan te p h ilo so p h y , 9 2 —93 Y eshivot H e sd e r a n d , 1 0 8 , 1 53, 155 Yom K ip p u r W a r a n d , 6 6 - 6 7 G u sh E tz io n , se ttle m e n t o f, 6 2

H a n e g b i, T z a c h i, 198, 2 0 9 , 3 2 1 w l7 , 3 5 0 « 1 19 H a p o e l H a m iz ra h i s u b c u ltu re , 16, 4 8 , 5 0 H a re d im , d efin ed , 17. S ee a lso U ltra o rth o d o x Jew s H a re l, Israel, 13 0 , 1 47, 158 H a re l, Isser, 3 9 , 62 H a re m -e sh -S h e rif, 2 8 5 , 2 8 7 . S ee a ls o T em ple M o u n t p lo t H a rn o i, M eir, T h e G r a y T im e , 162 H a s m o n e a n C o v e n a n t. S ee B rit H a h a s h m o n a im m o v e m e n t H a te n u a L e a tz ira t H a n e sig a B esinai. S ee M o v e m e n t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai H a v la g a (Self R e stra in t) d e b a te , 28 H a z e ’ev, Eli, 2 3 7 H e b ro n . S ee a lso C av e o f th e P a tria rc h s a n ti-Je w ish v io len ce in, 9 7 K ahane and, 5 5 - 5 6 local A ra b s in, 91 M u slim college a tta c k in, 9 8 , 99 1 9 7 0 s s e ttle m e n t po licy in, 8 9 - 9 1 s e ttle m e n t o f, 4 7 , 8 9 , 9 0 , 9 1 , 1 3 9 - 4 0 H e c h t, R eu v en , 39 H e r u t (F reed o m ) p a rty , 3 3 , 3 9 , 2 0 6 - 7 . S ee a ls o L ik u d p a rty H e rz l, T h e o d o r, 5 3 , 115 H ess, R a b b i Israel, 123 H ig h p rie sts, w e a v in g o f g o w n s for, 2 8 2 - 8 3 H is h ta m tu t (d e se rtio n ), 2 0 6 H is ta d r u t (G en eral F e d e ra tio n o f L a b o r), 13, 29 H itle r, A d o lf, 76 H o fs ta d te r, R ic h a rd , 10 H o lc h im b e y a h a d (slo g an : “ g o in g to g e th e r ” ), 1 7 1 ,2 9 3 H o ro w itz , Igal, 6 2 H u g e i B a it , 126 H u m a n rig h ts, u n iv e rsa l, 1 2 2 , 1 8 1 , 2 7 1 - 7 4 . S ee a ls o A ra b rig h ts H u r o k , Sol, 2 3 5 H u sse in , S a d d a m , 2 8 7 , 3 1 0 H u sse in , K ing, o f J o rd a n , 175, 201

H a d a iy a , Ju d g e , 164 H a d a r (slo g an : “ g lo r y ” ), 53 H a e tz n i, E ly a k im , 19, 1 3 9 , 1 9 5 , 1 9 9 - 2 0 3 , 237, 297 H a g a r. S ee B en-Y osef, M o sh e H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d (U nited K ib b u tz) m o v e m e n t, 4 1 - 4 3 , 61 H a m a c h te re t H a y e h u d it. S ee Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d H a m m e r, Z e v u lu n , 4 7 , 6 6 , 7 7 , 1 3 3 - 3 4 , 1 3 8 , 154, 3 4 0 « 8 4

q u a si-fa sc ist vs. fascist m o v e m e n ts a n d , 2 3 3 -3 4 o f se c u la r ra d ic a l rig h t, 1 7 9 - 8 3 u ltra n a tio n a lis t, 2 3 - 2 5 Illicit o p e ra tio n s . S ee A n ti-A ra b violen ce; E x tra le g a l a c tio n ; Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d ; T em p le M o u n t p lo t; V ig ilan tism Illicit se ttle m e n t. S ee a ls o H e b ro n ; Sinai se ttle m e n ts; W est B ank se ttle m e n ts classic stra te g y for, 4 7 - 4 8 , 140 as rig h t-w in g to o l, 18

Ib n a -a l-B a la d (Sons o f th e V illage), 8 6 , 3 0 4 Ideology, 16. S ee a ls o u n d e r sp e c ific m o v e m e n ts

384

Index

“ In d e p e n d e n t S tate o f J u d e a ,” 2 4 7 - 4 8 , 2 4 9 , 356*117 In stitu te fo r th e T o ra h in Israel (H a m o s a d L e m a ’a n T o ra B e isra e l-M a ti), 2 7 8 In tellectu als, a n d se c u la r ra d ic a l rig h t, 1 9 0 91 In te rn a tio n a l re la tio n s, 1 8 5 - 8 7 , 2 1 8 I n tifa d a

G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 48, 1 5 1 , 1 6 0 - 6 6 I ra q ’s in v a sio n o f K u w a it a n d , 2 8 7 , 3 1 0 -

11 Israeli ra d ic a lism a n d , 7, 2 9 5 K ach P a rty a n d , 2 4 6 , 2 4 8 - 4 9 1 9 8 9 o p e ra tio n s of, 164 in 1 9 9 0 s, 3 0 8 rad ical rig h t a n d , 3 0 5 - 1 1 R afu l a n d , 2 0 5 secu lar ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 1 88, 1 8 9 - 9 0 se ttle m e n t a n d , 15 T em ple M o u n t issue a n d , 2 8 7 Ira q , in v asio n o f K u w a it by, 2 8 7 , 3 1 0 —11 Irg u n , 7 5 , 170 Iro n Israel. See B a r z e l Israel. See S tate o f Israel Isra e l a n d th e C risis o f W e ste rn C iv iliz a tio n

(L ivneh), 5 7 - 6 1 Israel D efense F orces (ID F), 2 3 5 . S ee a lso Israeli m ilita ry Israeli A rab s. S ee a ls o A ra b rig h ts; A ra b s; T ra n sfe r c o n c e p t fate o f, a n d G u sh E m u n im , 1 2 1 —2 4 in tifa d a a n d , 160 “ P a le stin iz a tio n ” of, 3 0 4 PL O a n d , 85 R ab b i K a h a n e a n d , 2 2 6 - 2 7 , 3 0 4 se c u la r ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 1 8 7 - 9 0 , 2 9 4 Israeli d em o cracy , 5, 7. S ee a lso S tate o f Israel d a n g e r o f ra d ic a l rig h t for, 2 9 5 —96 1 9 7 0 s se c u la r m a x im a lism a n d , 6 0 —61 in p o s t- 1948 Israel, 1 1 - 1 3 R abbi K ahane an d , 2 2 7 -2 9 , 2 3 2 -3 3 , 2 9 0 -9 1 rad ical rig h t id eo lo g y a n d , 16, 1 7 9 - 8 3 re lig io u s-o rth o d o x c a m p a n d , 2 9 0 —92 ro m a n tic vs. se c u rity -o rie n te d view of, 294 secu lar ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 1 7 9 - 8 3 , 2 9 3 - 9 6 T z f ia 3 a n d , 2 7 1 - 7 4 Z io n is t u ltra n a tio n a lis m a n d , 2 4 Israeli e c o n o m y A rab -Jew ish jo b c o m p e titio n a n d , 8 7 , 2 3 9 , 3 0 4 -5 P a lestin ian u p risin g a n d , 3 0 6 T ehiya p la tfo rm a n d , 182 Israeli g o v e rn m e n t. S ee a ls o K nesset (Isra e l’s p a rlia m e n t); S tate o f Israel A rab influence in, 2 2 6 - 2 7 early G u sh E m u n im a n d , 66

local a n d reg io n al co u n cils a n d , 1 2 9 - 3 0 p e a k o f ra d ic a l rig h t influence in, 3 0 2 - 3 p re fe re n tia l tre a tm e n t fo r se ttle m e n ts a n d , 130, 1 3 1 -3 2 , 1 3 3 -3 4 Yom K ip p u r W ar a n d , 6 4 - 6 5 Israeli m ilitary in tifa d a a n d , 3 0 6 K a h a n e a n d , 81 N e ’e m a n ’s c o n n e c tio n w ith , 1 9 3 - 9 4 R afu l a n d , 2 0 4 reg io n al d efen se system a n d , 9 1 , 1 3 5 - 3 6 u ltra n a tio n a lis ts a n d , 2 4 view s o f rad ical rig h t to w a rd , 19 yesh iv a stu d e n ts a n d , 2 0 6 Israeli n a tio n a lis t rig h t, 4 - 5 , 14, 16. S ee a lso B egin, M e n a c h e m J a ’a b a ri, M u h a m m a d Ali, 55 Ja b o tin sk y , E ri, 3 9 , 4 0 Ja b o tin sk y , V lad im ir, 2 0 6 - 7 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 A rab s a n d , 7 2 , 2 9 8 K a h a n e a n d , 5 3 - 5 4 , 81 , 8 2 , 2 1 5 , 2 3 4 , 298 m ilita ry a n d , 23 5 p a ra d o x of, 2 6 —2 7 rad ical legacy of, 2 5 - 2 6 R e v isio n ist m o v e m e n t a n d , 2 3 , 3 2 , 39 T ehiya a n d , 177 U p h o ld e rs o f H e r u t’s P rin cip les a n d , 7 4 Z io n ism of, 2 9 9 JD L . S ee Jew ish D efense L eague Je ru sa le m Jew ish p u rc h a se o f M u slim Q u a rte r p ro p e rty in, 3 5 9 * 3 5 G u sh in stitu tio n s in, 133 Je ru sa le m Law , 198, 3 0 2 J e ru sa le m ’s Flag (D e g e l Y eru sh a la im ) m o v e m e n t, 3 2 7 * 3 7 Jew ish “ A sh a fists,” 19 Jew ish D efense L eague (JD L ), 5 1 - 5 6 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 5 ,2 2 4 , 24 3 in U n ited S tates, 5 1 - 5 3 , 2 3 4 - 3 5 Jew ish N a tio n a l F u n d , 29 Jew ish p eo p le. S ee a lso D ia sp o ra u n iq u e n e ss of, 2 1 7 - 1 8 w o rld w id e , a n d Six-D ay W ar, 36 Jew ish th eo cracy , 9 5 - 9 6 , 2 9 0 - 9 2 Jew ish T ra n sfe r C o m m itte e , 3 0 Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d (M a c h te re t Y ehudit), 118. S ee a lso Etzel u n d e rg ro u n d ; G al u n d e rg ro u n d ; K in g d o m o f Israel U n d e rg ro u n d ; Lehi u n d e rg ro u n d ; T zfia asso c ia tio n d isco v ery o f, 9 4 , 1 5 5 - 5 8 , 2 5 2 e v o lu tio n of, 9 4 —99 G u sh legal p h ilo so p h y a n d , 1 2 0 - 2 1 L evinger a n d , 141 ra b b in ic a l a u th o rity a n d , 9 8 - 9 9 , 1 56, 158 se ttle m e n t defense a n d , 9 3 , 13 5 , 164

Index T o w a rd s th e M o u n ta in o f th e L o rd g ro u p a n d , 281 T zfia a n d , 2 61 Jib ril, A h m e d , 136 Jo b c o m p e titio n , A ra b -Je w ish , 8 7 , 2 3 9 , 3 0 4 -5 Ju d a ism vs. d e m o c ra c y , 2 2 7 —2 9 Ju d e a . S ee “ In d e p e n d e n t S ta te o f J u d e a ” ; W est B an k se ttle m e n ts Ju d e a a n d S a m a ria C o lleg e (M id ra s h a t K e d u m im ), 1 3 4 - 3 5 “Ju d e o -Isra e li c iv iliz a tio n ” c o n s tru c t, 58 K ach (“ T h u s ” ) P arty. S ee a ls o K a h a n e , R a b b i M e ir C a m p D a v id A c c o rd s a n d , 71 c h a ra c te r of, 2 1 1 - 1 4 d e a th o f K a h a n e a n d , 2 5 0 d isq u a lific a tio n o f, 5 , 2 1 1 , 2 4 5 - 4 7 , 3 0 5 early 1 9 8 0 s p o p u la rity o f, 8 4 —85 ev ictio n o f A ra b s a n d , 1 7 3 , 174 K ahane and, 6 - 7 ,8 4 - 8 7 ,2 1 2 - 1 4 ,2 4 3 - 4 5 vs. K a h a n e ’s in n e r circle, 2 1 2 - 1 3 local c h a p te rs o f, 2 1 3 - 1 4 p o litic a l style o f, 2 3 3 - 4 5 as q u a si-fa sc ist m o v e m e n t, 2 3 3 - 4 5 rise o f, 8 4 - 8 7 S ik a rik in a n d , 2 4 9 - 5 0 K ad u m c o m p ro m ise , 145 K a h a n e , R a b b i C h a rle s, 81 K a h a n e , R a b b i M e ir, 2 8 2 . S ee a ls o K ach p a rty A ra b -Isra eli fric tio n a n d , 3 0 4 - 5 A ra b s a n d , 123, 2 1 8 - 2 0 , 2 2 4 - 2 7 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 7 -4 0 A riel a n d , 2 6 3 a ssa ssin a tio n o f, 4 , 7, 2 1 1 , 2 1 4 , 2 5 0 , 311 Begin a n d , 6 8 - 6 9 , 7 1 , 351w 7 c a ta s tro p h ic m e ssia n ism a n d , 2 2 0 - 2 3 T h e C h a lle n g e — T h e C h o s e n L a n d , 8 3, 8 6 , 231 c u ltu ra l ra d ic a ls a n d , 2 5 2 d e m o c ra c y a n d , 2 2 7 - 2 9 , 2 9 0 , 353w 58 electio n to K n esset, 4 , 105, 2 1 3 , 2 7 3 e m ig ra tio n to Israel, 5 4 - 5 6 fo rm e r a sso c ia te s o f, 2 7 4 - 7 9 fu n d a m e n ta lism o f, 17, 2 0 - 2 1 , 3 5 1 « 19 H illu l H a s h e m (essay), 2 1 8 - 2 0 id e o -th e o lo g y o f, 2 1 5 - 3 3 in n e r circle o f, 2 1 2 - 1 3 , 2 7 4 Israeli Je w ish D efen se L eag u e a n d , 5 1 - 5 6 T h e J e w ish I d e a , 2 3 5 - 3 6 K ach P a rty a n d , 6 - 7 , 8 4 - 8 7 , 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 2 4 3 -4 5 L a w a n d O r d e r in Is r a e l , 2 2 7 legacy o f, 6 - 7 L e rn e r a n d , 2 7 5 - 7 6 , 2 7 9 p o litic a l p r o g ra m o f, 2 3 1 - 3 3 p o litic a l style o f, 2 3 3 - 4 5

385

p o p u la rity a m o n g y o u th , 3 1 9 « 3 , 347w 34 p o s t-C a m p D av id ra d ic a lism o f, 8 0 - 8 4 p ro p a g a n d a a n d , 2 4 0 - 4 3 p ro p o s e d a n ti-a ssim ila tio n law a n d , 2 3 9 40 sa n c tity o f E retz Y israel a n d , 2 2 3 - 2 4 , 2 7 0 S tate o f Israel a n d , 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 2 3 0 - 3 1 s u p p o r t a m o n g y o u th , 3 1 9 «3 T h o r n s in Y o u r E y e s , 2 3 1 —3 2 , 2 4 4 “ tr a n s f e r ” a n d , 1 7 3 , 1 7 4 , 2 9 7 , 2 9 8 U n c o m f o r ta b le Q u e s tio n s to C o m fo r ta b le J e w s, 2 1 6 , 2 2 7 - 2 9 , 2 3 2

u n iq u e n e ss o f th e Jew ish p e o p le a n d , 2 1 7 18 v io len ce a n d , 8 8 , 2 3 4 - 3 7 , 2 5 3 , 3 5 2 w 3 3 , 354«74 Y am it p ro te s t a n d , 1 0 4 - 5 Z io n ism a n d , 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 9 8 - 9 9 K a h a n ism , 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 5 0 , 2 7 3 , 3 0 5 K alk iliy a in c id e n t, 1 48, 159 K a rp , J u d ith , 8 7 K arp R e p o rt, 8 7 - 8 8 K atz, S am u el, 4 0 , 5 7 , 3 2 5 w l3 K a tz n e lso n , Berl, 2 7 , 1 77 K atzo v er, Benny, 4 8 , 1 2 8 , 138, 167, 172 e x tra le g a l activ ity a n d , 1 4 9 , 1 5 8 , 16 0 , 161 K halef, K arim , 9 7 K ib b u tz D a ti m o v e m e n t, 155 K ib b u tz m o v e m e n t, 13, 15, 2 7 . S ee a lso T a b e n k in , Itz h a k K in g d o m o f Israel U n d e rg ro u n d (M a c h te re t M a lc h u t Y israel), 3 3 - 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 , 1 97, 254, 299, 300 K in g d o m o f Israel vs. S tate o f Israel, 4 6 K iry a t A rb a , 4 7 , 4 8 , 66 H a e tz n i a n d , 2 0 0 In d e p e n d e n t S tate o f J u d e a a n d , 2 4 8 , 2 4 9 K ach c h a p te r in, 2 1 3 , 2 4 8 - 4 9 , 3 5 1 w l2 K a h a n e a n d , 81 se ttle m e n t o f, 6 2 , 140 K iry a t M o sh e , 133 K issinger, H en ry , 6 5 , 76 K leiner, M ic h a e l, 2 7 5 K nesset (Isra e l’s p a rlia m e n t). S ee a ls o Israeli g o v e rn m e n t; Politics B anai in, 7 5 - 7 6 E ita n in, 2 0 4 - 5 G e u la C o h e n in, 1 97, 198 G u sh p o litics a n d , 1 4 4 - 4 8 K ach P arty d isq u a lific a tio n a n d , 5, 2 1 1 , 245, 2 4 6 -4 7 , 305 K ahane and, 4, 81, 87, 2 3 9 -4 0 , 2 4 5 -4 6 K a h a n e ’s a n ti-a ssim ila tio n bill in, 2 3 9 - 4 0 L IM re p re s e n ta tio n in, 62 th e L o b b y a n d , 1 4 7 - 4 8 M o le d e t p a rty a n d , 1 7 3 - 7 4 N e ’e m a n ’s re sig n a tio n fro m , 195 p o litic a l p a rtie s re p re se n tin g ra d ic a l rig h t in, 6, 13

386

Index

K nesset (c o n tin u e d ) T ehiya p a rty a n d , 7 9 - 8 0 , 1 0 2 , 1 6 7 - 7 2 , 2 0 2 -3 “ K n itted s k u llc a p s ,” 4 8 , 51 K ollek, Teddy, 75 K o o k , R a b b i A v ra h a m Itz h a k H a c o h e n , 18, 4 4 ,2 9 6 d e a th of, 4 9 id e o -th e o lo g y of, 4 5 - 4 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 09, 1 1 0 11, 1 1 2 , 2 9 8 J e ru sa le m ’s F lag (D e g e l Y e ru sh a la im ) m o v e m e n t, 3 2 7 * 3 7 K ahane an d , 21 5 , 2 1 6 , 2 1 7 L ivneh a n d , 5 9 m a x im a list m essian ism of, 31 secu lar Z io n ism a n d , 115 T ehiya a n d , 1 77 K o o k , R a b b i Z v i Y ehud a H a c o h e n A riel a n d , 2 6 3 arm y a n d , 68 B anai a n d , 7 7 , 78 C a m p D a v id A cco rd s a n d , 95 d e a th of, 155, 157 E tzio n a n d , 2 5 4 , 2 5 6 e x tra le g a l o p e ra tio n s a n d , 1 19, 1 2 0 —21 G en tiles a n d , 115 G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 0 8 - 9 , 151 id e o -th e o lo g y of, 18, 1 1 2 , 1 13, 2 9 8 L ern er a n d , 2 7 6 —7 7 m essian ism a n d , 4 4 —4 6 p o litical influence o f, 138 ru lin g by, 113, 1 19, 3 3 8 * 1 9 se ttle m e n ts a n d , 125 Six-D ay W ar a n d , 4 4 - 4 5 S tate o f Israel a n d , 1 1 7 - 1 8 sta te vs. g o v e rn m e n t a n d , 1 2 0 - 2 1 T em ple M o u n t a n d , 9 8 , 2 6 5 Y eshivat M e rk a z H a ra v a n d , 4 9 - 5 0 , 132 K o o k , S im h a, 2 8 2 K o o k ist p a ra d o x , 117 K o ren , R a b b i Z a lm a n , 2 83 K otier, Yair, 2 4 3 - 4 4 L a ’am p a rty , 73 L a b o r a d m in is tra tio n , 6 1 - 6 2 , 6 4 , 6 6 , 89, 9 0 , 149. S ee a ls o U nity c o a litio n L a b o r fo r th e W h o le o f E retz Y israel, 64 L a b o r m o v e m e n t, 12, 13, 2 7 - 3 0 , 3 2 - 3 3 , 3 9 , 177, 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 . S ee a ls o L a b o r a d m in is tra tio n ; M a p a i p a rty L a b o r S e ttle m e n t M o v e m e n t, 170 L a d d e r C ircle (C h u g S ulam ), 3 3 - 3 4 , 197 L a n d a u , U zi, 1 47, 2 0 7 L an d D ay, 8 5 , 3 0 4 L an d o f Israel, a n d G u sh E m u n im , 1 1 3 - 1 4 , 1 5 4 -5 5 L an d o f Israel M o v e m e n t (L IM ), 3 8 - 4 3 . See also Z o t H a 'a r e tz (m agazine) A rab rig h ts a n d , 3 0 0

B an ai a n d , 73 C a m p D av id A cco rd s a n d , 7 1 , 74 L ivneh a n d , 5 7 —61 m a n ife sto of, 3 8 - 4 0 m e m b e rs of, 4 0 - 4 1 R av Z v i Y ehuda a n d , 4 6 s u p p o rt fo r settlers fro m , 125 T a b e n k in ’s secession fro m , 6 2 - 6 3 T ehiya m o v e m e n t a n d , 176, 178 L a o r-L e m a a n A chai V ereai (o rg a n iz a tio n ), 2 6 1 . S ee a lso T zfia a sso c ia tio n L e a d e rsh ip . S ee a lso sp e c ific p e r s o n s effectiveness of, 14 fu n d a m e n ta lism a n d , 2 0 G u sh p o litical style a n d , 1 3 8 - 4 1 o f Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d , a n d re d e m p tio n , 9 4 -9 6 o f T ehiya, 1 9 2 - 2 0 6 L e b a n o n W ar, 1 13, 1 5 3 - 5 5 , 18 4 , 271 L eftists, 19, 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 2 0 7 , 3 0 4 - 5 , 3 3 4 * 6 0 Legal system . S ee a lso S an h ed rin G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 3 6 —3 7 R abbi K ahane and, 233 T em ple M o u n t F a ith fu l a n d , 2 8 0 - 8 1 Lehi u n d e rg ro u n d , 2 3 , 3 2 - 3 3 , 3 9 , 4 1 , 7 5 , 17 0 , 18 4 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 . S ee a lso F ig h te r’s P arty ; K in g d o m o f Israel U n d e rg ro u n d L eitn er, C raig , 2 3 6 L erner, Yoel, 7, 2 4 3 , 2 4 4 , 2 7 5 - 7 9 , 2 8 7 , 3 6 0 * 7 0 ,3 6 3 * 1 1 3 L evinger, M iria m , 9 0 , 9 1 , 1 39, 141 L evinger, R ab b i M o sh e , 1 0 9 , 128, 138, 2 3 7 , 341*89 B en -N u n a n d , 163, 165 fo rm a tio n o f G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 25, 128 in te rp re ta tio n o f “ self-d efen se,” 3 4 4 * 1 4 8 le a d e rsh ip of, 1 3 9 - 4 1 “ m a y o rs a ffa ir” a n d , 99 p o litical ro le of, 143 P o ra t a n d , 171 sa n c tity o f E retz Y israel a n d , 113, 118 se ttle m e n t o f H e b ro n a n d , 4 7 , 89 , 9 0 , 91 , 1 3 9 -4 0 se ttle m e n t vs. p o litics a n d , 16, 6 6 , 7 7 stru g g le a g a in st re tre a t fro m Y am it a n d , 104 te rro ris t acts a n d , 156, 158, 160, 1 6 4 —65 Levy, D av id , 147, 2 0 9 , 3 1 0 L ifta in c id e n t, 2 8 3 - 8 4 L ik u d p arty . S ee a lso U nity co a litio n fate o f rad ical rig h t a n d , 3 1 1 - 1 2 H a e tz n i’s view of, 2 0 0 K a h a n e ’s sm e a r cam p a ig n a n d , 2 4 2 - 4 3 “ K a h a n ism ” in, 175 rad ical lead ers of, 13 ra d ic a l rig h t in 1988 a n d , 3 0 7 - 8 rad ical rig h t view of, 19 secu lar rad ical rig h t a n d , 2 0 6 - 1 0 L IM . S ee L an d o f Israel M o v e m e n t

Index L ior, R a b b i D ov, 1 3 3 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 6 , 2 8 2 , 2 8 6 L ipset, S e y m o u r M a r tin , 10 L iv n eh , E liezer, 6 2 , 1 2 5 , 1 7 6 , 2 9 7 , 3 0 0 Isra e l a n d th e C r isis o f W e ste rn C iv iliz a tio n , 5 7 —61

L ivni, M e n a c h e m , 9 5 , 9 6 —9 9 , 1 5 6 , 2 7 2 Lobby, th e , 147 L o b b y in g a t a d m in is tra tiv e level, 1 4 1 —4 4 o f to p p o litic a l e c h e lo n , 1 4 4 - 4 8 “ L o n g est m o n th ,” 3 5 - 3 8 , 5 7 M a c C a rth y , Jo se p h , 10 M a c h o n M e ir, 133 M a c h p e la . S ee C av e o f th e P a tria rc h s M a im o n id e s, 4 6 , 2 6 7 M a n d a to ry P ale stin e , 2 3 - 3 4 , 172, 2 2 4 M a n n h e im , K arl, 241 M a p a i p a rty , 12, 2 9 , 5 7 , 2 9 8 , 2 9 9 . S ee a lso L a b o r a d m in is tr a tio n ; L a b o r m o v e m e n t M a rg a lit, D a n , 2 5 0 M a rs h a k , B enni, 4 2 , 3 2 5 « 13 M a rz e l, B a ru c h , 2 3 7 , 2 4 8 M a sh ia c h B e n - Y o s e f v s . M a s h ia c h B en D a v i d , 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 163

M assada, 38, 249 M a ss m e d ia , 2 0 1 - 2 , 2 4 6 M a tz a d m o v e m e n t, 1 7 2 , 3 4 5 « 9 “ M a y o rs a f f a ir ,” 9 7 , 99 M e c h d a l (c u lp a b le b lu n d e r), 65 M e im a d (D im e n sio n ) p a rty , 3 4 2 « 116 M eir, G o ld a , 6 2 , 6 5 , 1 0 0 , 141 M e la m e d , Z a lm a n , 109 M e rh a v ia , M o sh e , 103 M e rid o r, D a n , 2 0 7 M essian ism o f L e m e r, 2 7 8 M a sh ia c h B e n - Y o s e f v s . M a sh ia c h B en D a v id d is tin c tio n , 1 1 1 - 1 2

o u tc o m e o f S ix -D ay W a r a n d , 4 3 - 4 5 of R abbi K ahane, 2 2 0 -2 3 o f R a b b i K o o k th e eld er, 4 5 - 4 6 M H R S . S ee M o v e m e n t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai M id d le E ast, in sta b ility o f, 1 8 5 - 8 6 M id ra s h o t, in W est B a n k , 1 3 4 - 3 5 M ilita ry G o v e rn m e n t (M G ), 3 3 4 « 7 4 M ilita ry stru g g le , 2 6 , 2 9 , 1 8 3 - 8 4 , 1 9 8 - 9 9 . S ee a ls o Israeli m ilita ry M ill, J o h n S tu a rt, 2 7 3 M ilo , R o n i, 2 0 7 M in tz , A v ra h a m , 2 5 3 M is h m a a t Y isro e l (slo g a n ; Jew ish d isc ip lin e a n d u n ity ), 53 M iz ra h i m o v e m e n t, 3 0 , 31 M o d a i, Itz h a k , 8 4 , 2 0 9 , 3 1 0 M o e tz e t Y esh a (C o u n c il o f th e S e ttle m e n ts o f Ju d e a , S a m a ria , a n d G a z a ). S ee Y esha C o u n c il

387

M o le d e t (H o m e la n d ) p a rty , 5 d e m o c ra c y a n d , 1 80 e d u c a tio n a n d , 181 e m erg en ce of, 1 68, 3 4 4 « 2 id eo lo g y of, 1 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 9 8 in K n esset, 1 7 3 - 7 4 le a d e rs o f, 2 0 tra n s fe r c o n c e p t a n d , 16 9 , 172 Z io n is t tra d itio n a n d , 1 7 9 , 2 9 8 M o n d a le , W alter, 7 4 M o r a s h a (T ra d itio n ), 3 4 5 « 9 M o sh a v m o v e m e n t, 13 M o sh a v N e o t S inai, 1 0 1 - 2 M o u n t M o ria . S ee T em p le M o u n t M o v e m e n t fo r Peace a n d S ecurity, 61 M o v e m e n t fo r th e R e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e T em p le, 2 8 6 - 8 7 M o v e m e n t to H a lt th e R e tre a t in Sinai (M H R S ; H a te n u a L e a tz ira t H a n e sig a B esinai), 9 9 , 1 0 2 - 5 , 148 A riel a n d , 2 6 3 E litz u r a n d , 144 G u sh a n d , 1 5 1 , 1 5 2 - 5 4 , 157 L e rn e r a n d , 2 7 8 L io r a n d , 2 6 2 M o y n ih a n , D an iel P a tric k , 185 M u se u m o f th e T em p le, 2 8 6 M u slim college a tta c k , 9 8 , 99 N a b lu s . S ee E lon M o re h (N ab lu s) N a sse r, G a m a l A b d -el, 3 6 - 3 7 , 194 N a tio n a lis m . S ee a lso E retz Y israel; T e rrito ria l m a x im a lism ; U ltra n a tio n a lis m o f Ja b o tin sk y , 26 m ilita ry stru g g le a n d , 1 8 3 - 8 4 m o d e ra te , 2 0 6 - 7 P a le stin ia n , 8 5 - 8 7 , 1 49, 188 N a tio n a l R elig io u s P arty (N R P ), 3 0 C a m p D a v id A cco rd s a n d , 7 7 E litz u r a n d , 144 G u sh E m u n im a n d , 6 6 , 7 7 , 7 8 , 3 4 0 « 8 4 1 9 6 0 s p o litic a l a ctiv ity o f, 4 6 - 4 8 ra d ic a l lead ers o f, 13 N e ’e m a n , Y uval, 2 0 0 , 2 9 7 A ra b s a n d , 188 C a m p D av id A cco rd s a n d , 7 5 , 7 6 - 7 7 , 102 C o h e n a n d , 1 96, 199 c o m m u n ity o f n a tio n s a n d , 1 8 5 —86 E ita n a n d , 168 H a e tz n i a n d , 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 in K nesset, 1 4 6 , 166, 1 67, 2 0 9 , 3 0 5 , 3 0 9 le a d e rsh ip of, 1 9 2 - 9 5 L ebanon and, 303 p eace w ith E g y p t a n d , 3 3 2 « 2 2 p o litics a n d , 1 9 4 - 9 5 re sig n a tio n fro m K nesset, 195, 2 0 3 S h a m ir a n d , 3 0 7 stru g g le a n d , 1 8 3 —84

388

Index

N e ’e m a n , Y uval (c o n tin u e d ) te a c h in g a b r o a d , 3 4 8 « 6 8 T ehiya m o v e m e n t a n d , 7 8 , 7 9 , 8 0 , 1 6 9 - 7 0 w ritin g s of, 1 77 N e ’em an ei H a r H a b a it (T em ple M o u n t F a ith fu l), 2 7 7 , 2 7 9 - 8 1 , 2 8 7 N e k u d a (P o in t), 108, 1 58, 2 0 7 , 2 5 9 N e o fu n d a m e n ta lis m , secu lar, 18, 19 N e ria h , R a b b i Z v i M o sh e , 4 5 , 62 N e ta n iy a h u , B en jam in , 2 0 7 N e tu re i K a rta , 118 N e w Israeli R ig h t, 2 7 5 “ N e w Z io n is m ,” 321 «21 N ir, S h au l, 9 8 - 9 9 N o a m S chools, 133 N o n v io le n c e , 6 8 , 8 8 , 2 8 0 - 8 1 N o rm a liz a tio n , 1 1 5 —16 N o sa ir, E l-Sayyid al, 2 5 0 N u c le a r e ffo rt, 194 O c c u p ie d te rrito rie s , 15, 5 9 , 6 3 , 1 7 5 , 2 2 3 2 4 . S ee a lso E retz Y israel; I n tif a d a ; P alestin ian L ib e ra tio n O rg a n iz a tio n (P L O ); P a le stin ia n q u e s tio n ; W est B ank se ttle m e n ts A rab s in, 8 8 - 9 0 , 1 7 2 - 7 6 O rie n ta l Jew s. S ee S e p h a ra d i Jew s O r o t (lights), 3 4 5 « 9 O rte g a y G a sse t, José, 2 7 3 O r th o d o x Jew s, 2 9 0 - 9 2 . S ee a ls o U ltra o rth o d o x Jew s Paglin, A m ich ai, 5 6 P a lestin ian L ib e ra tio n O rg a n iz a tio n (P L O ), 8 5 - 8 6 , 3 0 6 - 7 . S ee a ls o L e b a n o n W ar P alestin ian N a tio n a l G u id a n c e C o m m itte e , 97 P alestin ian q u e stio n G u sh E m u n im a n d , 121 R ab b i K a h a n e a n d , 2 2 4 , 2 2 5 - 2 7 , 2 3 1 - 3 2 secu lar ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 1 8 7 —88 P arso n s, T a lc o tt, 10 P ath s o f Peace ( N e tiv o t S h a lo m ) g ro u p , 154 Peace N o w , 7 4 , 112 Peel C o m m issio n re p o rt, 28 Peres, S h im o n , 7 6 , 194 E sh k o l a n d , 3 7 G u sh p o litics a n d , 1 42, 1 45, 147 H a e tz n i a n d , 19, 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 h o stility to se ttle rs, 149, 166 in tifa d a a n d , 1 6 2 , 166 P ilsu d sk i, Jo se p h , 2 6 P insker, L eo, 5 3 , 115 P L O . See P a le stin ia n L ib e ra tio n O rg a n iz a tio n Political p ro te s t, 18. S ee a ls o E x tra le g a l a c tio n Politics. S ee a ls o K nesset (Isra e l’s p a rlia m e n t) e x tra p a rlia m e n ta ry , 1 4 8 —51

G u sh c o n d u c t o f, 1 3 7 - 5 1 im p a c t o f settlers o n , 15 K ach P arty a n d , 2 3 3 - 4 5 1 9 6 0 s N a tio n a l R eligious P arty a n d , 4 6 *48 p ro g ra m o f R a b b i K a h a n e a n d , 2 3 1 —33 style of, in T eh iy a, 1 9 1 - 2 0 6 te rrito ria l m a x im a lism a n d , 6 1 - 6 9 P o llack , T ira n , 2 4 8 P o ra t, H a n a n , 1 38, 1 4 3 , 154, 1 5 6 , 1 5 8 , 2 6 2 , 341«98 a n n e x a tio n o f L eb a n o n a n d , 114 Begin a n d , 146 fo rm a tio n o f G u sh E m u n im a n d , 6 6 , 1 25, 128 M e rk a z H a ra v a n d , 4 4 , 109 M H R S a n d , 153 N a tio n a l R elig io u s P arty a n d , 3 4 5 « 9 re sig n a tio n fro m K nesset, 171 sa n c tity o f E retz Y israel a n d , 112 se ttle r secu rity a n d , 1 60, 161 T ehiya a n d , 7 7 , 7 8 , 7 9 , 1 0 2 , 1 03, 169, 1 7 1 -7 2 P o resh (“ se c e ssio n ist” ), 3 2 P ro p a g a n d a , o f K ach Party, 2 3 8 - 3 9 , 2 4 0 P ublic o p in io n a p p e a l o f K ach P arty a n d , 8 3 - 8 5 , 2 4 6 a p p e a l o f ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 1 68, 3 0 8 , 321«20 G u sh a n ti-re tre a t stra te g y a n d , 1 0 2 - 3 p o litic a l a ttitu d e s o f y o u th , 3 1 9 « 3 , 347«34 tra n s fe r a n d , 173 Q u asi-fascism d y n a m ic s of, 2 3 3 —3 4 K ach P arty a n d , 2 3 4 - 4 5 R a ’a n a n , R ab b i H a rla p , 4 9 R a b b in ic a l a u th o rity c u ltu ra l rad icals a n d , 2 5 2 Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d a n d , 9 8 - 9 9 ,1 5 6 ,1 5 8 T em ple M o u n t p lo t a n d , 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 2 7 7 Y am it stru g g le a n d , 104 R a b b in ic a l c o u rts, 137 R a b in , Itz h a k , 196, 301 G u sh p o litics a n d , 1 42, 145, 147 L a b o r a d m in is tra tio n o f, 6 6 , 6 7 , 71 S h a m ir a n d , 2 0 9 , 3 0 7 , 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 Six-D ay W ar a n d , 3 7 T ehiya a n d , 178 tra n s fe r c o n c e p t a n d , 174 W est B ank settlem en ts a n d , 8 9 , 166 Yom K ip p u r W ar a n d , 65 R acism , a n d K ach Party, 2 3 8 - 4 0 R ad ical rig h t. S ee a lso C u ltu ra l ra d ic a ls; G u sh E m u n im ; Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d ; K ach P arty ; K ah an e; M o le d e t p a rty ; T ehiya m o v e m e n t; T z o m e t p a rty

Index “ c o n s tru c tiv e ” vs. “ d e s tr u c tiv e ,” 168 E u ro p e a n vs. A m e ric a n m o d e l o f, 9 —11 fu tu re o f, 3 1 1 - 1 3 id eo lo g y o f s e c u la r vs. re lig io u s e le m e n ts in , 179 Israeli d e m o c ra c y a n d , 2 8 9 - 9 6 m ilita ristic sc h o o l, 19 p a ra n o ia o f, 1 9 9 - 2 0 3 p o litic a l in flu en ce o f, 1 3 - 1 5 p o litic a l p a rtie s re p re s e n tin g , 6, 13, 15 ro le o f fu n d a m e n ta lis m in, 2 0 - 2 1 ro o ts in Z io n is t h isto ry , 6 , 2 3 - 3 4 , 2 9 6 - 9 9 s o c io c u ltu ra l fe a tu re s o f, 5 - 6 , 1 5 - 2 1 w e a k n e ss o f m o d e ra te s in, 2 0 6 - 1 0 R afiah S alien t, 100 Rafi p a rty , 3 7 , 4 0 R afu l. S ee E ita n , R afael R a h a m in , S h im o n , 2 7 4 R a k a h (N e w C o m m u n is t L ist), 8 5 - 8 6 R a m a lla , m a y o r o f, 9 7 R a to sh , Y o n a th a n (U riel S h elah ), 2 5 , 43 R aziel, D a v id , 2 8 , 3 1 , 2 3 5 , 2 9 8 R eag an , R o n a ld , 2 1 6 R e d e m p tio n . S ee M e ssia n ism activ e, 7, 9 5 - 9 6 , 9 8 , 1 6 3 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 7 , 2 7 8 , 284 B en -N u n a n d , 163 in E tz io n ’s th eo lo g y , 9 5 - 9 6 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 7 G eu la C o h e n a n d , 198 G u sh E m u n im a n d , 2 9 2 K a h a n e ’s view o f, 2 2 1 - 2 2 in K o o k ist th eo lo g y , 1 1 0 - 1 2 lead ers o f Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d a n d , 9 4 — 96 L e rn e r’s view o f, 2 7 8 T em p le M o u n t a n d , 2 6 6 , 2 6 7 - 6 8 , 2 6 9 R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t (T n u a t H a g e u la ), 2 5 3 , 2 5 9 - 6 1 , 3 5 8w 26 R eg io n al d efen se sy ste m , 9 1 , 1 3 5 - 3 6 R eines, R a b b i, 3 0 - 3 1 R elig io u s ra d ic a l rig h t. S ee G u sh E m u n im ; K ach P a rty ; K a h a n e R e se ttle m e n t. S ee T ra n sfe r c o n c e p t R evenge th e o ry , 2 1 8 - 2 0 R ev isio n ism . S ee Z io n is t R ev isio n ism R ich ter, Y eh u d a, 2 3 6 —3 7 R iesm an , D a v id , 10 R ig h t-w in g c o a litio n , 166, 1 9 5 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 6 , 209, 309 R o b e rts, O ra l, 2 1 5 R o h a n , D en is M ic h a e l, 281 R o sen tzw eig , D a v id , 123 R u b in , Jerry, 2 4 3 R ule o f law , 1 1 9 —2 0 , 2 9 3 . S ee a ls o Israeli d e m o c ra c y S ab ra (P a le stin ia n refu g ee c a m p ), 8 4 , 2 8 5 S acrilizatio n o f th e p ro fa n e , 115 S ad an , Eli, 138

389

S a d a t, A n w a r al-, 2 0 , 6 5 , 7 1 , 7 4 , 7 6 , 301 a ssa ssin a tio n o f, 7 3 , 3 0 3 visit to Je ru sa le m , 7 3 , 198 S a lo m a , Y eh o sh u a, 91 S a m a ria , s e ttle m e n t of, 4 7 - 4 8 , 6 6 - 6 7 . S ee a ls o W est B an k se ttle m e n ts S a n h e d rin , revival o f, 9 5 - 9 6 , 2 7 8 S a p ir (finance m in iste r), 65 S a tm a r H a sid ic s, 118 SBA (W est B an k c o rp o ra tio n ), 131 S ch n eid er, Y osef, 2 4 3 , 2 4 4 S chneler, O tn ie l, 1 4 7 - 4 8 S ecu lar ra d ic a l rig h t. S ee M o le d e t p a rty ; T eh iy a m o v e m e n t; T z o m e t p a rty S ecu lar Z io n ism G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 1 5 —17 T eh iy a m a n ife sto a n d , 178 Segal, R a b b i M o sh e H alev i, 3 2 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 9 , 272, 277 S e p h a ra d i Jew s, 15, 2 4 1 - 4 3 S ettler le a d e rs, a n d G u sh p o litic a l style, 1 3 8 41 S h ach , Rav, 2 1 7 S h a fa t, G e rsh o n , 7 7 , 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 1 6 7 , 172 S h a k ’a, B assam (m a y o r o f N a b lu s), 9 7 S h ak i, A vner, 6 2 , 2 7 2 S h am ir, Itz h a k , 7 5 , 147, 2 4 9 C a m p D av id A cco rd s a n d , 80 as h e a d o f g o v e rn m e n t, 84 H eru t and, 2 07 in tifa d a a n d , 161, 166, 2 4 6 L ik u d a n d , 3 1 1 - 1 2 198 8 electio n s a n d , 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 P ale stin ia n rig h ts a n d , 164 p eace w ith E g y p t a n d , 3 0 3 R a b in a n d , 3 0 7 , 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 rig h t-w in g c o a litio n a n d , 166, 195, 1 99, 206, 209, 309 Segal a n d , 3 2 T em p le M o u n t a n d , 2 8 6 u n ity c o a litio n a n d , 2 0 3 , 3 0 7 - 8 , 3 0 9 - 1 0 S h am ir, M o sh e , 5 7 , 6 2 , 7 7 - 7 8 , 79 S h a p ira , R a b b i A b ra h a m , 104 S h a p iro , Y o n a th a n , 26 S h a p iro , Y osef (Y oske), 147, 346w 20 S h a ro n , A riel, 14 1 , 1 97, 2 0 0 , 3 5 9 « 3 5 a n n e x a tio n o f W est B ank a n d , 162 B a r-O n a n d , 142, 143, 146 B eita in c id e n t a n d , 150 fall o f, 84 influ en ce of, 13 Israeli m ilita ry a n d , 3 4 S h a m ir a n d , 2 0 9 , 3 0 7 , 3 1 0 s u p p o r t fo r ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 2 0 7 - 8 s u p p o r t fo r se ttle m e n t effo rts a n d , 68 , 10 1 , 1 46, 147, 30 3 S has, 13 S h atila (P alestin ian refugee c a m p ), 84 , 2 8 5 Shaviv, R ab b i Y ehuda, 1 3 6 —3 7 , 1 3 8 ,2 6 9 —7 0

390

Index

S h elah , U riel. S ee R a to s h , Y o n a th a n Sheleg, Yair, 3 2 5 « 13 S h e lila t H a g a lu t (n e g a tio n o f D ia s p o ra ), 4 8 , 54 S hem er, N a o m i, 75 S hilansky, D ov, 2 8 5 , 3 6 2 « 8 7 S h ilat, Itz h a k , 1 3 8 , 158 Shills, E d w a rd , 10 S h ilo ah , Z v i, 3 9 , 5 7 , 1 7 2 , 1 77, 2 9 8 S h o m ro n , D a n , 150 S htieglitz. S ee A riel S h u ra t H a m itn a d v im (V o lu n te e r’s F ro n t),

200 S ik arik in (secret u n d e rg ro u n d ), 1 9 1 , 2 4 9 5 0 ,356«122 Sinai se ttle m e n ts. S ee a ls o R afiah S alien t C a m p D av id A c c o rd s a n d , 7 4 , 7 5 , 76 stru g g le a g a in st w ith d ra w a l fro m , 1 0 1 —5 T ehiya a n d , 7 9 , 80 w ith d ra w a l fro m , 1 5 1 —53 Six-D ay W ar B en-D ov a n d , 2 5 5 G eu la C o h e n a n d , 197 G u sh E m u n im a n d , 111 in te rn a tio n a l re la tio n s a n d , 187 Israeli p syche a n d , 5, 6, 3 5 - 3 8 PL O a n d , 85 p o litical significance o f, 3 0 0 p o litical s itu a tio n p re c e d in g , 3 5 - 3 8 re sp o n se to o u tc o m e of, 4 3 - 4 5 revival o f te rrito ria l m a x im a lism a n d , 3 5 — 69 th e o re tic a l significance of, 5 8 - 5 9 Z io n is t cau se a n d , 184 S lonim , Z v i, 134 S m ear c a m p a ig n s, 2 4 0 - 4 1 , 2 4 2 - 4 3 Social D a rw in ism , 7, 10, 11, 2 3 9 Social g a p , 2 4 2 S ocialism , 2 4 , 4 2 . S ee a ls o L a b o r m o v e m e n t; L eftists S o cio eco n o m ic sta tu s, a n d ra d ic a l rig h t m e m b e rsh ip , 1 5 - 1 6 , 108 S o lo m o n , G e rsh o n , 7 4 , 7 5 , 2 8 0 , 2 8 6 , 361«85 Sons o f th e V illage (A rab o rg a n iz a tio n ), 86, 304 Sorel, G eo rg es, 2 2 0 S o u th A frica, 3 6 0 « 6 6 Soviet Jew s, 2 7 5 , 3 0 9 Spengler, O s w a ld , 2 73 S p rin zak , Y air, 1 6 9 , 172, 1 7 3 - 7 5 , 177, 346«16 S tate o f Israel A riel’s view of, 156 c u ltu ra l ra d ic a ls ’ view o f, 291 D e c la ra tio n o f In d e p e n d e n c e (1 9 4 8 ), 12, 8 2 -8 3 in E tz io n ’s th eo lo g y , 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 2 5 9 - 6 1 first tw e n ty y ears in, 1 1 - 1 3

K a h a n e ’s revenge th e o ry of, 2 1 8 —2 0 a n d K in g d o m o f Israel, 4 6 in K o o k ist theo lo g y , 1 1 7 - 1 9 in K o o k ist vs. K a h a n e ’s theo lo g y , 2 3 0 - 3 1 vs. L a n d o f Israel, 1 1 8 - 1 9 M e rk a z H a ra v a ttitu d e to w a rd , 4 9 m o ra le in, b efo re S ix-D ay W ar, 3 5 - 3 8 ro le o f rig h t in fo u n d in g of, 3 2 - 3 4 , 2 9 9 300 se c u la r rad ical rig h t a n d , 1 7 9 - 8 3 , 2 9 3 u ltr a o r th o d o x Jew s a n d , 2 6 5 S tern , A b ra h a m (Y air), 3 2 , 3 3 , 2 9 7 , 2 9 8 , 299 “ E ig h teen T ehiya P rin c ip le s,” 3 3 2 « 3 1 G re e n b e rg a n d , 2 5 4 R e v isio n ist m o v e m e n t a n d , 2 7 , 3 1 , 41 T ehiya a n d , 7 8 , 1 77 “ S tern G a n g .” S ee Lehi u n d e rg ro u n d S tra its o f T ira n , 3 6 , 3 7 S u la m m ag azin e, 3 3 - 3 4 S w a g g a rt, Jim m y, 2 1 5 T a b e n k in , Itz h a k , 2 7 , 2 9 , 4 1 - 4 3 , 5 7 , 6 2 - 6 3 , 1 77, 2 9 9 T a b e n k in , M o sh e , 4 2 T a b e n k in , Yosef, 4 2 T au , R a b b i T zvi, 1 5 6 , 2 6 5 T ehiya (R en aissan ce) p arty , 5, 73 c o n c e p t o f Z io n is t reg ressio n a n d , 1 7 7 —79 d e m o c ra c y a n d , 2 9 3 E itan a n d , 2 0 3 - 6 e sta b lish m e n t of, 7 8 - 7 9 G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 1 7 1 - 7 2 id eo lo g y of, 1 7 6 - 9 0 , 2 9 6 - 9 7 in tifa d a a n d , 1 8 9 - 9 0 , 3 0 6 Israeli A rab s a n d , 1 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 8 8 - 8 9 K nesset a n d , 7 9 - 8 0 lead ers of, 2 0 , 1 9 2 —2 0 6 L ik u d c o a litio n a n d , 80 m a n ife sto , 7 9 , 178 1988 electio n a n d , 180, 188, 3 4 4 « 2 p o litical influence of, 1 6 7 —69 p o litical style of, 1 9 1 - 9 2 p o p u la rity of, 3 0 5 R a b b i Segal a n d , 32 T e h iy a -T z o m et allian ce, 2 0 3 - 4 , 2 0 5 , 2 0 6 T em ple M o u n t in B en -D o v ’s v isio n , 2 5 5 c o n q u e st o f, 2 6 2 early c la n d e stin e o p e ra tio n s a t, 2 8 1 —84 Israeli p olicy o n , 2 5 5 , 2 7 9 - 8 1 , 2 8 2 Jew ish p u rc h a se o f M u slim Q u a rte r p ro p e rty a n d , 359w 35 L e m e r’s p la n n e d b o m b in g o f m o sq u es o n , 276, 277 O c to b e r 1 990 v iolence a t, 2 8 7 , 311 as p o litical issue, 2 7 9 —88 ra b b is ’ c o n feren ce o n , 2 8 5 - 8 6 relig io u s significance of, 9 4 - 9 5 , 2 6 5

Index T zfia w rite rs a n d , 2 6 4 —6 9 visit o f K n esset m e m b e rs to , 2 8 5 T em ple M o u n t F a ith fu l (N e ’e m a n e i H a r H a b a it), 2 7 7 , 2 7 9 - 8 1 , 2 8 7 T em ple M o u n t p lo t E tzio n a n d , 9 6 , 2 5 7 - 5 8 , 2 6 0 - 6 1 Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d a n d , 9 4 , 9 6 - 9 8 K a h a n e a n d , 83 p o litic a l re a litie s a n d , 9 6 —9 7 , 2 5 6 —5 7 p o s tp o n e m e n t o f, 98 ra b b in ic a l a u th o r ity a n d , 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 2 7 7 T en u a t h a -T e h iy a — B r it N e ’e m a n e i E r e tz Y isra el. S ee T ehiya p a rty

T e rrito ria l c o n c e ssio n s, 6 1 , 6 5 —6 6 , 311 —12. S ee a ls o C a m p D a v id A c c o rd s v io le n t s u b v e rsio n o f, 3 6 3 « 1 1 3 , 3 6 5 « 2 4 T e rrito ria l e x p a n s io n A riel a n d , 2 7 0 - 7 1 G u sh E rn u n im a n d , 113 T e rrito ria l m a x im a lism . S ee a ls o G u sh E rn u n im ; Jew ish D efen se L eag u e; L a n d o f Israel M o v e m e n t; T z o m e t p a rty C a m p D a v id A c c o rd s a n d , 7 1 —75 d e f in e d ,5 fu n d a m e n ta l p re c e p ts o f, 5 7 revival of, a n d S ix -D ay W ar, 3 5 - 6 9 rise o f, 6 ta c tic s a n d , 5 6 T e rro rism . S ee A n ti-A ra b v io len ce; A ntiJew ish v io len ce; T .N .T .; V ig ila n tism ; s p e c ific u n d e r g r o u n d m o v e m e n ts

T .N .T . (T e rro r N e g e d T e r r o r ), 4 , 8 1 , 2 3 6 , 333«39, 354«84 T n u a t H a g e u la (R e d e m p tio n M o v e m e n t), 2 5 3 ,2 5 9 - 6 1 ,3 5 8 * 2 6 T olkovsky, D a n , 39 T om b o f Y osef, 1 4 9 - 5 0 , 3 1 0 T o w a rd s th e M o u n ta in o f th e L o rd (E l H a r H a s h e m ) g ro u p , 281 T ra n sfe r c o n c e p t, 6, 1 6 9 , 1 7 2 - 7 6 . S ee a lso F o rced e m ig ra tio n d e f a c to “ tr a n s f e r ” a n d , 3 0 K a h a n e ’s ev ic tio n c o n c e p t a n d , 174 L abor m ovem ent and, 28, 30 se c u la r ra d ic a l rig h t a n d , 2 9 3 —9 4 Z e ’evi a n d , 1 6 9 , 1 7 2 - 7 5 , 2 9 7 Z io n is t ro o ts o f, 1 7 4 , 1 7 6 , 2 9 7 - 9 8 T ru m p e ld o r, J o se p h , 2 6 T z e m a c h , M in a , 2 5 0 T zfia (L o o k in g A h ead ) a s s o c ia tio n , 7, 261 — 74 T zfia m a g a z in e a n ti-A ra b v io len ce a n d , 2 6 9 - 7 0 s ta tu s o f T em p le M o u n t a n d , 2 6 4 - 6 9 T z id o n , Y oash, 187 T z o m e t (C ro ssro a d s) p a rty , 5 , 168 d e m o c ra c y a n d , 180 e d u c a tio n a n d , 181 id eo lo g y o f, 176

391

le a d e rs o f, 2 0 p o litic a l style of, 1 9 1 - 9 2 T eh iy a a n d , 2 0 3 tra n s fe r a n d , 176 Z io n is t tra d itio n a n d , 1 7 9 , 2 9 6 - 9 7 T z u ria , H a im , 123 T zvielli, R a b b i B in y am in , 2 7 3

U lm a rt, E h u d , 2 0 7 U ltra n a tio n a lis m , 2 3 - 2 5 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 E tzio n a n d , 2 5 4 - 5 6 1 9 9 0 Israeli c a b in e t a n d , 3 1 0 19 7 3 L IM a n d , 6 4 relig io u s s u p p o r t for, 31 W o rld W ar II a n d , 33 U ltr a o r th o d o x Jew s, 1 18, 2 6 5 U n d e rg ro u n d m o v e m e n ts, 1 9 8 —9 9 , 2 5 3 , 3 3 6 « 111. S ee a ls o Etzel u n d e rg ro u n d ; G al u n d e rg ro u n d ; Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d ; K in g d o m o f Israel U n d e rg ro u n d ; Lehi u n d e rg ro u n d U N E F. S ee U n ited N a tio n s E m erg en cy F o rce U n io n o f S oviet S o cialist R ep u b lics (USSR), 3 6 ,5 1 - 5 2 ,3 0 9 U n ited K ib b u tz (H a k ib b u tz H a m e u c h a d ) m o v e m e n t, 4 1 —4 3 , 61 U n ited N a tio n s P a rtitio n R e so lu tio n o f 1 9 4 7 , 4 1 , 4 2 R e so lu tio n 2 4 2 , 7 2 , 2 0 8 , 3 0 6 U n ited N a tio n s E m erg en cy F o rce (U N E F ), 36 U n ited S tates. S ee a ls o C a m p D a v id A cco rd s Jew ish D efense L eague in, 5 1 —5 3 , 2 3 4 —35 ra d ic a l rig h t in, 1 0 —11, 16 se c u la r ra d ic a l rig h t view o f, 1 8 5 —8 7 S tate D e p a rtm e n t, 2 0 U nity c o a litio n of 1984, 305 of 1989, 2 0 8 -9 , 3 0 7 -8 , 3 0 9 -1 0 o f 1 9 8 9 , d em ise of, 1 6 4 , 1 65, 1 66, 3 0 9 p o ssib ility o f, in 1 9 9 0 s, 3 1 2 U niversity o f Tel-Aviv, 193 “ U n m a s k in g ” p h e n o m e n o n , 241 U p h o ld e rs o f H e ru t P rin cip les, 7 3 , 7 4 , 7 5 , 7 7 -7 8 U T h a n t (U nited N a tio n s S ecretary G en e ra l), 36

V ance, C y ru s, 74 Van L eer F o u n d a tio n , 2 9 5 , 3 1 9 « 3 V ardi, R o n it, 3 5 6 « 1 2 2 V erdiger, A v rah am , 3 4 5 « 9 V eteran s o f th e U n d e rg ro u n d , 1 7 0 - 7 1 V ig ila n tism , 8 7 - 9 4 , 136, 2 4 8 R abbi K ahane and, 220, 235, 237 V o lu n te e r’s F ro n t (S h u ra t H a m itn a d v im ),

200

392

Index

W ailing W all, 2 8 0 , 2 8 7 , 3 1 1 . S ee a ls o T em ple M o u n t W a ld m a n , R a b b i E liezer, 7 7 , 1 0 9 ,1 3 3 ,1 3 8 , 167 K iry at A rb a a n d , 2 6 2 “ m a y o rs a f f a ir ” a n d , 99 T ehiya a n d , 7 8 , 172 W ar o f In d e p e n d e n c e , a n d tra n s fe r c o n c e p t, 1 74, 176, 2 9 7 - 9 8 W eisb u rd , D a v id , 9 1 - 9 2 , 93 W eiss, D a n ie la , 138, 15 7, 158, 1 59, 160, 172 W eitz, Jo se p h , 2 9 - 3 0 , 2 9 7 W eizm an , Ezer, 8 0 , 1 41, 197 Begin a n d , 7 2 , 84 H e b ro n a n d , 90 PL O a n d , 9 7 R afu l a n d , 2 0 4 re sig n a tio n o f, 3 0 2 S ix-D ay W ar a n d , 3 7 W est B ank se ttle m e n ts. See also I n tifa d a A m a n a a n d , 128 a n ti-Jew ish v io len ce in, 9 7 Begin a n d , 72 c o ex isten ce in, 89 defense in, 8 7 - 9 4 , 9 1 , 1 3 5 - 3 6 , 162 local a n d reg io n al c o u n c ils a n d , 1 2 9 —3 0 M ilita ry G o v e rn m e n t (M G ) of, 3 3 4 * 7 4 n o n v io le n c e a n d , 68 p re fe re n tia l tre a tm e n t for, 130, 1 3 1 —3 2 , 1 3 3 -3 4 stra te g ic lo c a tio n of, 1 4 - 1 5 te rrito ria l co n c e ssio n s a n d , 19 W o m en d a tin g o f A ra b s a n d , 2 3 8 - 3 9 in G u sh E m u n im , 108 se ttle m e n t ta c tic s a n d , 9 0 —91 W o rld Z io n is t O rg a n iz a tio n (W Z O ), 1 2 7 ,1 2 8 W ritin g s o f ra d ic a l rig h t. See also N e k u d a (P o int); T zfia m ag azin e E tzio n a n d , 2 5 9 H a e tz n i a n d , 2 0 2 R ab b i K a h a n e a n d , 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 se c u la r w rite rs, 177, 197 W Z O . See W o rld Z io n is t O rg a n iz a tio n X e n o p h o b ia , 10, 11. See a ls o R acism Y achil, H a im , 3 9 , 62 Y adin, Y igal, 8 4 , 102 Yaffe, A b ra h a m , 39 Yair. S ee S tern , A b ra h a m Y am it. S ee a ls o Sinai se ttle m e n ts e v a c u a tio n of, 7 6 , 1 46, 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 2 6 3 , 3 0 2 se ttle m e n t of, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 - 5 Y eh areg U v a l Y a a v o r (Be killed r a th e r th a n sin) d o c trin e , 2 2 3 , 2 6 3 Yesha C o u n c il, 127, 1 3 0 - 3 1 , 1 46, 1 47, 179

G u sh E m u n im se c re ta ria t a n d , 157 H a e tz n i a n d , 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 Jew ish U n d e rg ro u n d a n d , 155 se ttle r g ro w th a n d , 165 Y eshivat A te re t C o h a n im , 2 6 6 , 2 8 2 Y eshivat H a r Z io n , 154 Y eshivat M e rk a z H a ra v , 31 c h a ra c te r o f G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 0 8 - 9 c u ltu ra l ro le of, 1 3 2 - 3 3 id e o -th e o lo g y of, 4 5 , 5 9 Isra e l’s e d u c a tio n a l system a n d , 5 0 - 5 1 n a tu re of, 4 9 - 5 0 o rig in s o f G u sh E m u n im a n d , 125, 327*38 re tu rn to W est B an k a n d , 4 7 S ix -D ay W ar a n d , 4 4 Y eshivot H esd er, 5 1 , 102, 1 0 8 , 1 5 3 , 155 Yesh Plan o f 1 9 7 6 , 127 Yevin, Y eh o sh u a H esh el, 2 4 , 25 Y ish u v , 17, 2 4 , 2 8 , 3 2 id e a liz a tio n o f e x p erien ce of, 1 7 7 —79 Y ish u v K e h ila ti (c o m m u n a l settlem en t) c o n c e p t, 129 Y offe, A v ra h a m , 68 Yom K ip p u r W ar, 6 4 - 6 5 , 8 5 , 116 Z a d o k , E fraim Ben, 13 7 Z a h a l (Israeli D efense F o rce), 19. S ee a lso Israeli m ilitary Z a it, R am i, 3 5 1 * 1 2 Z a m ir, Itz h a k , 8 7 , 201 Z e a lo ts , 2 4 - 2 5 Z e ’evi, R e h a v a m , 5 , 1 6 8 - 6 9 , 1 9 2 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 9 tra n s fe r c o n c e p t a n d , 1 7 2 - 7 5 , 2 9 7 , 2 9 8 Z io n ism . S ee a lso C a ta s tro p h ic Z io n ism ; S ecu lar Z io n ism d e m o c ra c y a n d , 1 1 - 1 2 G u sh E m u n im a n d , 1 1 4 —15 K o o k th e eld er a n d , 45 m a rg in a liz a tio n o f rig h t in, 3 2 —3 4 o rth o d o x Jew s a n d , 4 8 - 4 9 p re -1 9 4 8 L a b o r m o v e m e n t a n d , 2 7 - 3 0 rad ical rig h t id eo lo g y a n d , 1 6 - 1 7 ro o ts o f rad ical rig h t in, 6 , 2 3 - 3 4 , 2 9 6 - 9 9 u ltra n a tio n a lis m a n d , 2 3 - 2 5 Z io n is t d em o cracy , 1 8 0 - 8 1 , 1 82, 1 83, 2 9 3 Z io n is t reg ressio n c o n c e p t, 1 7 7 - 7 9 Z io n is t R ev isio n ism b u ild in g o f Z io n is t s ta te a n d , 3 2 - 3 3 F ascism a n d , 33 J a b o tin sk y a n d , 2 5 - 2 7 L a b o r m o v e m e n t a n d , 2 7 , 28 L IM a n d , 3 9 , 4 0 - 4 1 Z io n is t R ev isio n sim , 23 Z o re a , M eir, 3 9 Z o t H a 'a r e tz (“ T h is is th e L a n d ” ) m ag azin e, 57, 60, 65, 67 Z u c k e rm a n , R a b b i, 154