Institute for the

Study of Modern Israel

of Emory University

ISMI

ISMI NEWSLETTER

Number 4

July 2005

1256 Briarcliff Road A-427N

Atlanta, GA 30306
404.727.2798 tel

404.727.2441 fax

www.ismi.emory.edu
Kenneth W. Stein, Director

*********************************

 

Hi,

 

            What follows is our fourth newsletter to pre-collegiate teachers, educators, and those generally interested in Israel education. ISMI began publishing newsletters in the winter of 2004 as a result of summer teacher alumni interest. Last summer, more than 60 teachers gathered in Los Angeles for the Fifth Summer Pre-Collegiate Teacher Education Workshop on the History, Culture, and Politics of Modern Israel; later this month, we shall gather more than 70 educators from 18 states in Boston for yet another one-week workshop. In the meantime, The Avi Chai Foundation of North America continues to be our workshop’s key sponsor.

As part of our continuing effort to keep you informed, we offer you this newsletter. We encourage you to share your developed curriculum and lesson plans on Israel education with us. Please send it to us via e-mail to kstein@emory.edu or regular mail at the address above.

We hope you enjoy and use the information provided here.

 

Ken

 

*********************************

 

CONTENTS

 

I.                    New Reading List on Israel Education: What Did I Miss?

 

II.                  Videos on the Yishuv and the Early Years of the State for Classroom Use or Student Take-Home are Available!

 

III.                Reading List on Origins and Varieties of Zionism: What Do I Assign My High School Student?

 

IV.               Israel’s Disengagement from Gaza: 12 Points Worth Noting

 

V.                 Reading List on Current Contemporary Middle Eastern Events: What Should I, as a Teacher, be Reading?

 

 

*********************************

 

I. New Reading List on Israel Education: What Did I Miss?

 

In the Winter 2004 edition of CAJE’s publication, JEN (Jewish Education News) Online, there are more than half-a-dozen excellent articles focusing on how we teach Israel, why we should teach about it, shaping your classroom activities to make them Israel-engaging, and providing content and strategies on topics that relate to women in Zionism and Herzel’s Zionism. Some are suggested below; however, others are listed on the web site but only accessible with a hard copy of the issue.  To acquire these articles go to:  http://www.caje.org/learn/fs_jen.html and choose “Teaching About Israel, 2004.” You may also copy the author and the article and let Google or Yahoo do the searching for you.

 

Deena Bloom’s article is particularly useful for k-4 grades and creating a classroom environment conducive to Israel education. Deena Bloom is the Director of Early Childhood Education at Hillel Community Day School in North Miami Beach, Florida.

*Deena Bloom, “Making Israel Part of the Everyday Education For Young Students,” CAJE JEN Online, Winter 2004, http://www.caje.org/learn/fs_jen.html.

 

            For use in the classroom -- virtually a curriculum with study questions -- and definitely appropriate for middle school and high school is David Breakstone’s fine article using one of Herzl’s publications. He poses critical questions about the origins and definition of Zionism, using segments of Herzl’s Altneuland as a text for study and reading. It is highly recommended. Dr. David Breakstone heads the Department for Zionist Activities of the World Zionist Organization. david_breakstone@hotmail.com

 

*David Breakstone, “Herzl and Me: A Visit to Altneuland and its Relevance to the Teaching of Israel Today,” CAJE JEN Online, Winter 2004, http://www.caje.org/learn/fs_jen.html.

 

            Articles by Liat-Ben David and Nachama Moskowitz focus on defining Israel literacy and study about Israel. Dr. Liat Ben-David is the director of The Israel Program Center at the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County and Federation's Israeli Shlicha by the JAFI. Nachama Skolnik Moskowitz is Director of Curriculum Resources at the Jewish Education Center of Cleveland. NMoskowitz@JECC.org

*Liat Ben-David, “Israel Literacy: The Development of a Conceptual Framework for Jewish Education,” CAJE JEN Online, Winter 2004,  http://www.caje.org/learn/fs_jen.html.

 

*Nachama Skolnik Moskowitz, “Israel Education: Thinking Out of the Box,” CAJE JEN Online, Winter 2004, http://www.caje.org/learn/fs_jen.html.

                                                                                                                                                           

            Barbara Rosoff provides us with half-a-dozen biographies of women who were engaged in the Zionist enterprise, and then gives us a lesson sample on how you might use those biographies. Dr. Barbara Rosoff has served as a principal at both Solomon Schechter and supplementary schools, and was the Chair of the Jewish Education News editorial board for four years. Rosoffbarbaral@aol.com

*Barbara Rosoff, “The Women Who Helped to Found the State of Israel,” CAJE JEN Online, Winter 2004, http://www.caje.org/learn/fs_jen.html.

 

            Sims and Rothenberg’s article is a wonderful compilation and guide for integrating materials and initiating classroom teaching strategies for Israel literacy. Ronni Sims is currently developing a Jewish Teacher Resource Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Anne Rothenberg, along with Ronni Sims, co-chairs the CAJE Teacher Resource Center and the CAJE Teacher Resource Center Network.

*Ronni Sims and Anne Rothenberg, “Making Israel Real: Strategies for acquiring and using authentic resources as learning tools in the process of student inquiry and discovery,” CAJE JEN Online, Winter 2004, http://www.caje.org/learn/fs_jen.html.

                                               

            A second publication, in case you missed it, is JESNA’s Winter 2004 Issue of Agenda: Jewish Education. The title of this Issue is “Israel Education.”  In it you will find five or six articles on why Israel education is not where it should be at the present time in Jewish educational settings. http://secure.jesna.org/j/pdfs/agenda18.pdf

 

Return to Contents

*********************************

II. Videos on the Yishuv and the Early Years of the State for Classroom Use or Student Take-Home are Available!

           

The Hebrew University in conjunction with Steven Spielberg Films presents:

 

Steven Spielberg Jewish Film Library, Hebrew University

http://www.spielbergfilmarchive.org.il/

 

The Steven Spielberg Jewish Film Archive made its films accessible online in 2002 with over 200 films currently available. This project is made possible by funds raised by the American Friends of the Hebrew University in honor of Jack Valenti, Chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America. Over a five-year period, approximately 100 films are being added annually until over 500 full films will be viewable over the Internet. It is the Archive's hope that this pioneering effort will be of benefit to all users, whether for purposes of study, research, or production. To view the introduction, go to: http://www.spielbergfilmarchive.org.il/.

 

The titles available in this project have been divided into five main subject groups, broadly representative of the Archive's holdings, including chronological and topical categories.  A number of films may appear in more than one relevant category. The films are of uneven quality. The films reflect the heroic and triumphal nature of Zionism and the struggle to create the state.  They are wonderful pictorial representations and will allow your students a visual connection to the history of Israel’s founding. Most of the films were made by the Jewish Agency, Jewish National Fund, or other official Zionist organizations, though some private film makers are included in the collection (of over three dozen).

What you have below are summaries of two of the many excellent films to be viewed. The summaries are meant to give you a flavor of what is in the archive. You can show these films to students, use them in an informal education setting, or simply assign one of the films to a student with study questions that could be combine with text study. If you plan to peruse the films, expect to devote more time than you anticipated. They can be captivating. Remember, they are meant to emphasize struggle, nationalism, and triumph. And they do just that.

 

A State is Born (16 minutes, English) Abba Eban commences this film with photos of the yishuv, politics before the state, and his reading of Israel’s Declaration of Independence. This film does not include fighting in 1948, but shows preparation for war, and the “pushing back” of the desert. A State is Born is ideal for use with or without Israel’s Declaration of Independence as a text accompanying the study. (1949: A JNF film)

http://w3.castup.net/jfa/filmsscreen.asp?ai=148&ar=CMID23156

 

Israel in Action (10 minutes, English) This film depicts heavy fighting in the 1948 war; the music in the film is classic triumphal; tones are of miracle, toil, commitment, sacrifice, everyone pitching in. The film starts in the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem during the 1948 War and includes mention of Abdullah and discussion of the first ceasefire in June 1948; some house-to-house fighting from roof tops in Jerusalem; the end of the first ceasefire in July 1948; pictures of Abba Eban at the UN,  Eliahu Epstein at Israeli Washington’s mission, and James G. MacDonald as first U.S. envoy to Israel; Abdullah-Farouq entering into pact in July 1948 -- combining military forces -- additional Arab forces joining the attack on Israel; a picture of young Moshe Dayan in 1948; the death of Micky Marcus -- the first American to die in the War; pictures of Ralph Bunche negotiating between Egyptians and Israelis; exchange of prisoners -- Israeli women returned from Egyptian captivity. The narrator acknowledges that the greatest “Jewish colonization” is yet to take place, and that all Jews are in defense of Israel. (1948: Palestine Films in cooperation with the United Palestine Appeal)

http://w3.castup.net/jfa/filmsscreen.asp?ai=148&ar=CMID23218

 

Return to Contents

 

*********************************

 

III. Reading List on Origins and Varieties of Zionism: What Do I Assign My High School Student?

 

            There remain the classic texts such as David Vital’s The Origins of Zionism (Oxford: 1975, ISBN:0198274394), reprinted in paper in 1990 for $15.98 (used) and upwards on Amazon.com -- not a bad price for this 330+ page book which reads easily. Vital’s work is a classic, replete with details, analyses, and conclusions. Chapters Three to Five are the best for reminding us why and how Zionism emerged particularly in the 19th century. His discussion of the social changes within the Jewish communities of Europe and Europe’s varied and changing views of Jews is nothing short of superb.

 

            A second favorite is Walter Laqueur’s A History of Zionism (Schocken: 2003, ISBN:0805211497), available at Amazon.com for $12.00 (used) and up. This 688-page book is tough to assign to pre-collegiate students because of its length, but it remains one of the best overviews. These are not books that are easily comprehended by pre-collegiate students, though a serious student who wants to learn will find them a pleasure to read. Laqueur’s book focuses more on the politics of nations and the Jews, while Vital focuses more on the Jews and their interactions with nations.

 

            My favorite summation of the varieties of Zionism that evolved for any level (pre-collegiate, college, and adult education/informal education) student is the array of  short summaries provided for each Zionist thinker of the 19th and 20th century in Arthur Hertzberg’s The Zionist Idea (Jewish Publisher Society: 1997, reprinted from many earlier editions, the first in 1959). This book is a collection of documentary primary sources of some 39 important Zionist thinkers from the pre-cursors of Herzl through Ben-Gurion. Each of Hertzberg’s selections of the various Zionist thinkers is preceded by a snappy and informative one or two page introduction. Teachers can use four or five Zionist thinkers to show the students comparisons within original works by these Zionist thinkers, and/or assign the succinct 99-page introduction to the book, which collates all of the Zionist thinkers in one coherently written essay. Nothing exists to match what Hertzberg has provided in this compendium.

 

            One of the most complete summaries of the Zionist movement from World War I to 1948 can be found in H.H. Ben Sasson’s A History of the Jewish People (Harvard: 1969). In a little less than 100 pages (pp.989-1062), he captures the political history in a sharp and accurate manner. If you had to assign reading material for this period to those in 10th grade and above, this would certainly be no mistake.

 

            There are, of course, other excellent books on the history of modern Israel, two of which deserve special notice: Howard M. Sachar’s A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time (Knopf: 2000, 1150-pages) and Alan Dowty’s The Jewish State A Century Later (California Press, 1998, 335-pages). Both are fine for college undergraduates and for use in adult education programs. Dowty’s book contains more political analysis of contemporary events. If you need a bibliography on modern Israel, the one Sachar provides is encompassing.

 

            In summary, the best combination might be Hertzberg’s 99-pages and Ben-Sasson’s 73-pages -- not a combined burden for students of 10th grade and up to read.

 

Return to Contents

 

*********************************

 

 

IV. Israel’s Disengagement From Gaza: 12 Points Worth Noting

 

*You may choose to print out Section IV and use as needed in the classroom.

 

When classes resume in fall 2005, Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, if most goes as planned, will be a topic of media and public discussion. It will inevitably surface in conversations in many settings, so, in advance, I thought I would provide some background and reading material.  There are many facets of the disengagement that require notice.

 

            Israel’s disengagement from Gaza contains many benefits and liabilities. Without taking a political stance, here are some points that may be made and some references for your consideration. First, let me offer the references for you to consider reading, then offer some questions to pose to your students/peers, with some suggested answers.  I have tried to put the disengagement from Gaza in a long-, intermediate- and short-term context as it pertains to Zionism, Jewish settlement (hityashvut), and the perennial unending Zionist question of defining the boundaries of the Jewish state.

 

            The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website has the complete collation of all documents associated with the pending withdrawal. The most important dates are PM Sharon’s address at the Herzelia Conference on December 18, 2003; the June 6, 2004, Israel's cabinet approval of the plan for disengagement from the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria; and the Knesset’s endorsement of the plan on October 25, 2004.  These documents and others may be found at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israeli+Disengagement+Plan+20-Jan-2005.htm.

 

Three superb articles that provide background to the notion of withdrawal in a pragmatic nature without tackling the ideological controversy surrounding the pros and cons of Israeli withdrawal are David Makovsky’s “Gaza: Moving Forward: Pulling Back,” in Foreign Affairs (May/June 2005) at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=809; Yehuda Ben Meir’s “The Disengagement an Ideological Crisis,” in Strategic Assessment (Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies, Vol 7 no. 4, March 2005) at http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p2BenMeir.html; and Minda Lee Arrow’s “Gaza Settler Relocation: New Progress, Ongoing Complications,” in Peacewatch #504 (Washington Institute for Near East Policy, June 2005) at  http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2326.

Here are some basic questions that may be posed to your students with brief answers.

 

1. How did Israel come to be in the Gaza Strip?

Here, some mention that Gaza was part of the Palestine Mandate, taken and controlled by Egypt from 1948 to June 1967 War, Israel’s success at taking the Gaza Strip in June 1967 and control of its periphery since.

 

2. Who lives is in the Gaza Strip?

Mention of 1.5 million Palestinians who live in the Gaza Strip and 9,000 Jewish settlers who began to live there after June 1967.

 

3. What is the background to the settlements?

Broadly, of course, the future of Jewish settlement of the territories taken in the June 1967 War is touched upon by Gaza withdrawal.  For those who settled in those territories, those who ideologically support them, but do not live there, and on the other side of the political divide, those who for whatever reasons oppose settlers and the settlements, the withdrawal from Gaza is fraught with meaning and sentiment. Explaining Gaza withdrawal may be best made in the context of the aftermath of the June 1967 War.  Gush Emunim (Block of the Faithful) emerged to settle the territories taken in the June 1967 War. For Gush Emunim, see http://countrystudies.us/israel/102.htm.

 

            A fusion evolved between the ideological religious imperative as seen by some Jews to settle in all of the land of Israel and the secular right who saw Israel’s conquest of the territories in June 1967 as territories not “occupied” but “liberated.” It must be clearly stated that there is no evidence to indicate that Israel went to war in June 1967 to liberate the West Bank, Gaza, or east Jerusalem. Its motivation for going to war in June 1967 was strategic national defense. Just as there is no evidence to show that the Arab world was interested in establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza areas when Egypt and Jordan ruled those areas from 1949-1967, there is no evidence to indicate that Israeli politicians were hankering to go to war in the same period to liberate the land of Israel as promised by G-d on several occasions to the Jewish people. Furthermore, there are numerous indicators that Israeli leaders in the aftermath of the June 1967 War had no intention of ruling the Palestinian population and in fact wanted to avoid doing so. See Shabtai Teveth’s The Story of Israel’s Occupation of the West Bank The Cursed Blessing, (Random House: 1970), for a most compelling account of why Israeli political leaders saw continued presence in the territories as a mistake.

 

                The best summary of the impact of the settler’s ideology and religious Zionism was offered on June 24, 2005, by Aviezer Ravitsky, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an expert on religious Zionism. He addressed The Washington Institute's Special Policy Forum. The following is a reporter’s summary of his remarks. To view this PeaceWatch, see http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2337.

 

        “The impending Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the northern West Bank threatens the ideological foundations of many settlers.  This is particularly true for religious settlers, most of whom view Israeli habitation of the West Bank as the fulfillment of a biblical mandate initiated by the Hebrew patriarchs. The fact that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a prime architect of the settlement movement during his tenure as housing minister in the late 1970s, unilaterally proposed the disengagement epitomizes what many settlers see as their abandonment by the political establishment. They fear that Israel will eventually withdraw from most, if not all, of the West Bank. That prospect threatens to undermine the cause of the national-religious camp in Israel, which has championed the settlement movement above all else since Israel assumed control over the territories in 1967.

 

Origins of Religious Zionist Ideology

            In the early twentieth century, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook established the theological basis for what became the dati le'umi (National Religious or Religious Zionist) movement. His son Tzvi Yehudah Kook continued his legacy through Israel's founding and the 1967 War. Both men attributed messianic significance to the settlement of the biblical land of Israel. Whereas the elder Kook spoke of the creation of modern Israel in universally messianic terms, his son cast it in a nationalistically geared redemptive role. To this day, some combination of these two models, with particular emphasis on the latter, remains the raison d'etre of many religious settlers.

               

                For the most part, the initial settlement of the land that became modern Israel and the West Bank was not a religious venture. Secular Zionists dominated the first waves of aliyot (migrations) in the early twentieth century, and overwhelmingly secular governments approved and financed the creation of the hundreds of settlements that now populate the territories. Kook and his son believed that the hand of G-d guided the efforts of secular Jews in a process that would ultimately produce the messianic redemption. Accordingly, many settlers are theologically driven by the notion that settling the land constitutes an act on behalf of G-d insofar as it facilitates the redemption. Such views sometimes blind the settlers to the consequences of their efforts, most notably the Israel Defense Forces' occupation of the territories, also home to more than three million Palestinians.  

 

The Role of the Territories in Religious Zionist Ideology

                The rabbinic establishment within the settlement movement is marked by disparate views regarding the necessity of an Israeli presence in the territories. In either case, settler ideologues, hawk and dove alike, accord the territories a unique importance. On the political right, prominent activist Hanan Porat compared ceding the territories to the Palestinians as tantamount to forfeiting  one's wife in order to save oneself; in other words, unthinkable. For those like Porat, a meta-historical sense looms over Israel, not to mention the territories, which are seen as both "homeland" and "holy land." On the political left, well-known rabbi Yehuda Amital, formerly of the dovish Meimad Party, compares withdrawal to the painful but necessary amputation of a diseased limb in order to save the larger, healthy body.

 

                In general, withdrawal challenges the self-esteem of the settlers and the National Religious camp. Settling up to the frontiers of the territories gained in 1967, particularly biblical cities such as Hebron, became a source of pride for them. If disengagement is carried out in full, they will no longer see themselves as pioneers, encouraged by Labor and Likud governments alike to settle the territories, but rather as losers in a national experiment deemed politically unfeasible. This loss of purpose stems in no small part from the National Religious camp's precarious place in Israeli society, representing a compromise between the non-nationalistic sensibilities of the ultra orthodox and the irreligious sensibilities of the secularists.

 

                In light of this background, the Gaza disengagement is not simply about evacuating 8,000 settlers. Government officials and private citizens are equally aware that success in Gaza could pave the way for further withdrawals from the West Bank, where the vast majority of settlers live and sentimental attachments to the land run strongest. In all cases, the same fundamental dilemma will sear the ideological underpinnings of the National Religious camp: a tug-of-war between allegiances to religion and the state, the movement's most prized ideals. The movement has long prided itself on equal allegiance to both, insofar as they are in service to G-d. Yet, given the political establishment's decision to uproot Jewish communities that many view as the fulfillment of a religious obligation, the movement is contemplating anew whether it can still strike a balance between state and religion. From the movement's perspective, the government's willingness to carry out a policy that reverses more than thirty-five years of tangible support is the most devastating aspect of the disengagement, especially for the more religious settlers.

 

                In practice, this dilemma will manifest itself as a choice between obeying those rabbis who call for refusing evacuation orders and obeying the state's military orders to dismantle the settlements. At the very least, the movement hopes to inflict emotional trauma on the nation by resisting the disengagement and making the prospect of further withdrawals seem too painful to consider enacting. Hence, substantial civil disobedience will likely emerge throughout the summer  among settlers and their sympathizers in Israel, with some seeking to halt even  the Gaza disengagement.

 

4. What is the meaning of withdrawal?

                On the international political level, in November 1967, the United Nations passed Security Council Resolution 242 which called for “withdrawal from territories taken in the recent conflict.” That amorphous phrase came to debated among Israelis and between Arabs and Israelis.

 

                Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip may be interpreted as part of Israel’s commitment to resolve the outstanding territorial questions caused by the June 1967 war but it is not the correct answer. Israel is withdrawing from the Gaza Strip as it withdrew earlier from the Sinai (1974-1988) and portions of Hebron (after 1998) because Israel saw the withdrawals then, and the withdrawal now, as meeting strategic national interests. Hamas, other political organizations, leaders, and countries may claim that Israel is withdrawing from Gaza as a result of successful use of violence – the intifadah – and will likely do so as a marketing tool for branding to its organization or philosophy. The bottom line remains Israel is withdrawing for its own strategic reasons, not under the duress of violence.

 

                Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is opening and sharpening deep sentiments within Israel about the impact of settlement in the territories upon Israelis and upon Israeli society. After Gaza withdrawal is completed those sentiments will not likely recede into oblivion, but instead remain passionate and acrimonious. Debate about its wisdom, implementation, and effect will remain part of the Israeli political scene for months and years to come. Gaza withdrawal will be part of Israeli history, context for future withdrawals, and a portion of the narrative that may describe the establishment of the state’s final borders.

 

5. Are there precedents in Israeli history to withdrawal?

The Historical Context

                Israel initiated its first withdrawals from lands taken in the June 1967 war with the first disengagement agreement Israel made with Egypt (January 1974) and continuing in Sinai until complete in the late 1980s with the final Israeli withdrawal from Tabah, just south of Eilat in the Sinai Peninsula.  In its disengagement agreement with Syria in May 1974, Israel withdrew from some areas it captured during the 1973 War and a small wedge of land taken in the June 1967 War (more for symbolism for Syrian government needs than for any strategic decision made by Israel). Israel withdrew further from Sinai in its second disengagement agreement with Egypt (September 1975), again with Cairo because there was an Israeli sense that Egypt could and would reduce tension with Israel if Sinai were returned to Egyptian sovereignty. Both the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty called for an additional return of land taken in the June 1967 War in return for Egypt’s (strategic) removal from its military conflict with Israel. In 1982, Menachem Begin, through a decision of the Israeli parliament, agreed to evacuation of Jewish settlements in the Sinai, especially the withdrawal of 2,500 Yamit inhabitants in Sinai. In 1994, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, following the Declaration of Principles with PLO in 1993, agreed to turn over Gaza and Jericho to the Palestinians. When Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994 it turned over more than 100 square miles to the Jordanians. In 1997 Israel agreed, when Benjamin Netanyahu was Prime Minister, to turn over most of the city of Hebron to Palestinians, with Israelis retaining some presence in this holy Jewish city. No less than six Israeli Prime Ministers (Meir, Rabin, Begin, Shamir, Netanyahu, and now Sharon) have agreed to withdraw from lands taken in the June 1967 War. And each decision was based upon enhancing Israel’s strategic national interest. Some who oppose or opposed these withdrawals do so on the basis that secular political leaders have no legitimacy or right to compromise with G-d’s promise to the Jewish people.

 

6. Who is Hamas?

                Here, I would look at the Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia entry http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580639/Hamas.html and some of the quotations from Arabic sources that state their intentions which appear after these questions.

 

7. What motivates Israel to do this now?

                a) Israel is not being forced physically to withdraw by either Arab, Palestinian, settler, or foreign sources; Israel is doing this of its own voluntary accord. The decision to do so was made in the winter of 2003, a year prior to Arafat’s death (see Sharon’s Herzelia speech as cited in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site noted above).

 

                b) Depending on which polls you read and when, between 50-65% of Israelis are in favor of full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

 

                c) Israeli domestic politics did not catalyze the withdrawal idea, in fact the idea splintered Sharon’s Likud Party and necessitated a coalition with the Labour Party and other parties otherwise not compatible to Likud but interested in withdrawal.

 

                d) Israel was not defeated by terrorism, though some may claim that as a cause.

 

                e) Israel is not interested in controlling the lives of 1.5 million Palestinians and subjecting itself to international pressure to make those Palestinians citizens of the state of Israel. Israel seeks to protect its Jewish demographic majority at all costs. Morally, Israeli and Diaspora Jews find ruling another population uncomfortable at best and abhorrent at worst.

 

8. In a broader context of Zionism and its future, what does withdrawal from a portion of the land of Israel mean?

                a) Israeli political leaders (Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, and Shamir) have all advocated some aspect of separation from the Palestinians in the land west of the Jordan River. Israel is separating from the Palestinians on its own terms.

 

                b) Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is the quintessential exhibition of Israeli (Jewish) power, the ability to determine its own future, a central goal in the evolution of Zionism and the state of Israel in the first place.

 

                c) Much like Israel’s participation in the June 1967 War and the attack on the Iraqi reactor in June 1981, the act of withdrawing from Gaza is an act of political pre-emption. Israel is taking action to protect present and future Jewish lives, and is not doing so because it must satisfy the needs of a great power or ruler of a great power as was the case a century or a century and a half ago.

 

                d) Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, and the construction of the “Barrier-wall” near the 1967 borders, but with obvious modifications, should be collectively interpreted as a time in Israeli history when its leaders and citizens are most prepared to define or come close to defining its borders.

 

9. What are the intermediate and long-term results?

                Impossible to tell, but here are some points.

 

                a) Disengagement is separation or partition of the land west of the Jordan River; it is not peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors.

 

                b) Disengagement means Israel will continue to work compatibly with the U.S., European, and moderate Arab state goals of reducing or managing the tension between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

                c) Israel planned to undertake this withdrawal from Gaza in a unilateral framework that is without signing any formal agreement with the Palestinians who will take over the area upon Israel’s withdrawal. By the time the withdrawal is completed, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza could become part of a formal agreement with the Palestinians that connect to other territorial, political or substantive issues. The Gaza withdrawal could be formally or informally linked to the so-called “Road Map,” the plan endorsed by the UN, U.S., Russia, and the EU for progressing forward on the Palestinian-Israeli negotiating track. For a description of the Road Map, see http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm.

 

                d) There is at present no indication to suggest that Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will have an impact on Syrian readiness to negotiate with Israel over the Golan Heights.

 

                e) Israel’s fulfillment of withdrawal from Gaza is uniformly embraced by American and European policy-makers, which will make for warmer relations between Israel and certain European capitals, and reinforce the already deep Israeli-American relationship that has tentacles and connections that reach to all parts of their respective bureaucracies and political constituencies.

 

10. What is the U.S. Role in seeing disengagement from Gaza to conclusion?

                It is important to note that the choreography of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, though managed locally by Israelis, is assisted by the EU and Egypt who provide logistical and training support to the Palestinians and who are to provide the security services in Gaza upon Israeli withdrawal. So while the withdrawal from Gaza was unilaterally decided upon by Israel, the U.S. through Lt. General William Ward (the Department of State’s Emissary to the withdrawal process – “Security Coordinator”) is managing the handover process with Israeli and Palestinian officials. Alongside Ward is William Wolfensohn, the U.S. Emissary for disengagement to the EU Quartet. Both Ward and Wolfensohn work directly with and under the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, C. David Welch. In the broader historical context, the U.S. remains the choreographer of first choice by Israelis and Palestinians alike, and with engagement in this mission, the U.S. adds the concept of “Withdrawal Coordinator” to the other roles it has played in previous Israeli-Arab negotiations (wordsmith, engineer, nudge, mediator, guarantor, hand-holder, financier, negotiator, etc.). See http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2005/hrg050630a.html for the testimony given by C. David Welch and William Wolfensohn on the issues, problems, and coordination relevant to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, on June 30, 2005, before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

 

11. What about settlers’ compensation and relocation?

                On June 9, 2005, the Israeli Supreme Court handed down judgment on twelve petitions challenging the Evacuation Compensation Law. Although the court upheld the legality of the disengagement, it offered additional support to the settlers, increasing the amount of aid for relocation.

                The Evacuation Compensation Law originally authorized $884 million in compensation for the settlers. In order to provide compensation that settlers would find adequate, the government employed a complex mathematical formula that took into account the size of each family, the number of years the family had lived in its home, the value and size of the home, the household's annual income, and the price of homes in the relocation area. The law entitles families to approach the Disengagement Authority for compensation up to three years following the withdrawal.

 

                In April 1982, the Israeli government evacuated 1,400 settler families from Sinai. The experiences of the families who left the Yamit settlement provide a clear lesson for policymakers: the transition into new homes and lives will be easier for evacuees if they are relocated together. While all evacuated settlers are eligible for aid under the Evacuation Compensation Law, Clause 85 of the legislation provides increased compensation to those who agree to evacuate as a group. Under this provision, the government proposed building four new towns around Nitzanim, a beachfront community about three miles south of Ashdod and slightly north of Gaza. These towns would contain homes for 1,000 families from Gush Katif.

 

            According to Israeli officials, the residents of Nitzanim are ideologically similar to those of Gush Katif, and the beachside location makes the area quite similar to the settlements that will be evacuated. The Gush Katif leadership refused the offer, along with other attempts at planning for disengagement.  This information was taken from “The Washington Institute’s Special Reports on the Arab-Israeli Peace Process Gaza Settler Relocation: New Progress, Ongoing Complications,” by Minda Lee Arrow in PEACEWATCH #504, June 15, 2005, at www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2326.

 

            Please recall in their exchange of letters in April 2004, President Bush promised Prime Minister Sharon to help Israel develop the Negev and Galilee, two areas where present and future settlers might be relocated.  Put differently, American foreign aid might be earmarked for settler compensation and relocation as part of the package the U.S. government is offering Israel to continue removal of settlements from portions of the West Bank.

 

12. How will the disengagement be carried out?

            In a June article in Yediot Ahronot, the editors assembled the following information from a variety of sources to describe HOW it will happen. The general objective is to make it happen smoothly, quickly, and without fanfare or unnecessary distress or confrontation. The Yediot editors summarized the evacuation from the settlements taking place in a series of six concentric circles (“Evacuation of Gush Katif and Northern Shomrom,” Yediot Ahronot, June 14, 2005). For a visual, draw six concentric circles placing the number at the center and working out to the periphery with the task and definition of each listed.

 

            The IDF name given to the operation is “Shevet Achim.” The term is used because it literally means “brotherly tribe,” to suggest that the settlers and those who may remove them are of the same Jewish tribe! The article enumerated six phases or circles for the disengagement.

 

            From the outer circles to the center:

 

            Circle 6. This will be outside of Gaza. The forces will consist of policemen from the Lachish and the Negev districts. All intersection and road junctures will be supervised to prevent unauthorized persons from entering Gaza.

 

            Circle 5. This circle will be deployed close to the border line between the Gaza Strip and Israel which will create an additional barrier and will be manned by Military Police.

 

            Circle 4. This area will actually encircle the designated area for evacuation. It is defined as an offensive force and is aimed to prevent terror attacks and other forms of disturbances by the Palestinians. The IDF soldiers will be from the infantry, armory and engineers.

 

            Circle 3. In this circle, IDF forces, relatively small in number, will be stationed in existing outposts where they are serving today and will be charged with securing the evacuated areas.

 

            Circle 2. This circle will consist of IDF soldiers. Their areas of responsibilities are as follows:

 

            a. to isolate the settlements; to avoid settlements from aggregating together, thus the IDF will cut the roads between existing settlements;

 

            b. the IDF will control strategic junctions; and

 

            c. the IDF will secure  narrow secondary roads that lead to isolated settlements.

 

            Circle 1. In this circle, the evacuation will be directly carried out by military policemen, including medical personnel and female officers. The aim is to use unarmed policemen that will be assisted by unarmed MPs and personnel from the medical corps. Deployment of women soldiers, officers and policewomen is contemplated in order to “deal” with women and girls who would refuse to be evacuated. The IDF will seek to isolate each settlement so that the inhabitants from one will not be able to move from an evacuated settlement to one that is next on the evacuating schedule. The air force will also be deployed using drones and other tools and specialty-trained units on the ground to assist in the settlers’ evacuation.

 

Return to Contents

 

*********************************

 

 

V. Reading List on Current Contemporary Middle Eastern Events and Those Surrounding Israel: What Should I Be Reading?

 

A daunting question to be sure, given the reality that we have less and less time to read books, more and more information, and are overwhelmed by material of incredible quantity and questionable quality.

 

Over the last decade, a wide variety of short articles have appeared covering all aspects of contemporary Middle Eastern and Israeli history. They have appeared in new journals, as well as new and old web sites. The amount of material released on a monthly basis is nothing short of breathtaking. For any interested student of Israel or the conflict, just reading what is written has become daunting.

 

Some of the web sites are obvious in their political orientation; others are less revealing to a first or second reading. Rather than endorse a particular web site or scholarly source, I would like to continue to inform you of excellent materials. You can, of course, in using these sources and web sites, find additional material in the same web site location. Many of the web sites represent organizations that can distribute their publications to you directly if you subscribe.

 

What you find below are interesting short pieces, mostly for your edification, though some of the material may be suitable to advanced student levels, juniors-seniors in high school, and certainly in collegiate settings.

 

You can find wonderful in-depth reports on Israeli domestic issues, such as democracy and national security, at the Israel Democracy Institute web site. Their publications can only be purchased but detailed summaries of their studies can be found at http://www.idi.org.il/english/. IDI is the largest and longest existent Israeli think-tank/research institution focusing only on Israeli domestic issues, such as building a constitution, civil rights in Israel, democratic freedoms, etc. It is worth browsing to see what publications you could acquire and use for your students.

 

On Arab Democracy and Arab Liberalism

 

*Tamara Coffman Wittess, “The Promise of Arab Liberalism,” Policy Review, July 2004, http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/wittes20041222.html

 

*Nathan Brown, “Evaluating Palestinian Reform,” Carnegie Paper # 59, Spring 2005, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16974&prog=zgp&proj=zdrl

 

*“Access Denied: Iran's Exclusionary Elections,” Human Rights Watch, 17p., June 12, 2005, http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0605/

 

*“In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and How,” Council on Foreign Relations, June 2005, 88p., A Report of an Independent Task Force, sponsored by Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber (co-chairs). Task Force Members include: Larry Diamond, F. Gregory Gause III, Abdeslam Maghraoui, et al. http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Arab_Democracy_TF.pdf

Europe, Anti-Semitism, Israel, and the Middle East

*ADL Survey in 12 European Countries Finds Anti-Semitic Attitudes Still Strongly Held,” Anti Defamation League, May 2005. (This is mandatory to read!) http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4726_13.htm (Summary) http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/european_attitudes_may_2005.pdf (full text)

 

*Cameron Brown, Israel and the WMD Threat: Lessons for Europe,” MERIA Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, September 2004, http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2004/issue3/jv8n3a4.html

                       

*Tsilla Hershco, “French Perceptions of the Middle East,” BESA Center at Bar-Ilan University, May 31, 2005, http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/perspectives.html

 

*Shmuel Trigano, “Is there an end to French Jewry? “ AZURE, Winter 2005, http://www.azure.org.il/.(Article can be accessed for free.)

 

*Susanne Urban, “Being Leftist and Anti-Semitic in Germany,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, No. 32, 1 May 2005, http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-32.htm

 

Israel

 

            The last three articles listed here are not on the web.

*Jonathan Spyer, “An Analytical and Historical Overview of British Policy toward Israel,” MERIA Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, June 2004, http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2004/issue2/jv8n2a7.htm. (This is a particularly important article since Britain takes over the chair of heading the EU on July 1, 2005.)

                       

*David Rodman, “Israel’s National Security Doctrine: An Introductory Overview,” MERIA Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2001, http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue3/jv5n3a6.html

 

*Linda Sharaby, "Israel's Economic Growth: Success Without Security," MERIA Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, September 2002, http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a3.html

 

*Hazony, Yoram, “On the National State - Part I: Empire and Anarchy,” Azure, No. 12, Winter 2002, pp. 27-70.

 

*Hazony, Yoram, “On the National State - Part II: The Guardian of the Jews,” Azure, No. 13, Summer 2002, pp. 133-165.

 

*Hazony, Yoram, “On the National State - Part III: Character,” Azure, No. 14, Winter 2003, pp. 107-144.

 

Israel and the Palestinians

 

“Mr. Abbas Goes to Washington: Can He Still Succeed?” Middle East Briefing No. 17, International Crisis Group, May 24, 2005,

http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/b17_mr_abbas_goes_to_washington__can_he_still_succeed.pdf

 

Jerusalem’s Political Future–Redefine it or Partition?

 

*Shaul Arieli, “Toward a Final Settlement in Jerusalem: Redefinition rather than Partition,” Strategic Assessment, Volume 8, No. 1, June 2005, Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v8n1p5Arieli.html

 

The Arab World

 

*Eyal Zisser, “Hizbullah’s Strategy Following Syria’s Withdrawal from Lebanon,” May 22, 2005, No. 134, The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies (co-published with the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University), http://www.dayan.org/framehodaot.html

                                                                                   

*Anthony Cordesman, “Iraq’s Evolving Insurgency,” May 19, 2005, Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.csis.org/features/050512_IraqInsurg.pdf

 

Return to Contents