Answering readers’ questions and comments on ‘No, Settlers don’t control Israeli politics’

As I ” target=”_blank”>do ” target=”_blank”>my ” target=”_blank”>No, Settlers don’t control Israeli politics. This is worth doing for three reasons. A. some of the questions and comments were interesting and worthy of response or further clarification. B. recent events in Amona, the West Bank outpost that is slated be evacuated, make the topic still timely. C. the appointment of David Friedman, a supposed “settlement-supporter” as the next ambassador to Israel makes the issue of settlement policy even more timely.

First things first – here is one key paragraph from the New York Times article, followed by questions, comments and my response to them. You can read the article in full ” target=”_blank”>comment on my Facebook page – and gave voice to what many of the other commentators and objectors were saying:

Things have changed. The settlers have become more active in Likkud primaries and influence Likkud MKs more than in the past. They also have at least 2 extremist representatives in Bennet's party, besides Bennet himself. Yes the settlers do control Israeli politics, even if Amona gets moved 100 meters. 

My response: Zornberg makes a good point. The settlers and their leadership learned with time how to play the political system more wisely and use their limited numbers to maximize their impact. As I state in my article, I have no problem with that: politics is the art of the possible, and maximizing possibilities is what all political forces want to do. So yes, in some ways the settlers today have more power than they had in the past – due to their wisdom, to demographic changes in Israel, but most of all to the collapse of the camp that actively opposed the settlements. This camp collapsed first and foremost not because of the settlers’ trickery – it collapsed because its ideology of Peace Now collapsed. It was mugged by reality.

Still, as I say in the article, the settlers have the image of policy makers more than they actually are policy makers. When the Prime Minister decided to freeze constriction because of American demands – construction was halted. When he is forced to evacuate Amona – he evacuates it. In other words: the settlers have a lot of power if their actions do not interfere with government policies. When they do – the settlers lose, and the government wins. So the people who are displeased with Israel’s actions ought not blame the settlers – the government is in charge and is plenty capable to tame the settlers’ influence if it wants to.

Amona is proof

On Twitter, Bruce Levine ” target=”_blank”>the settlers accepted a deal and will leave Amona peacefully. This means that the government achieved all of its goals. 1. It abided by the court’s order. 2. It did not alienate its core constituency (the right). 3. It will have a peaceful evacuation.

True, for all of this to happen the government had to negotiate and entice the settlers into accepting a deal. And you might see it as a victory for the settlers. But remember: the government had no interest in evacuating Amona in the first place, and the PM considered the whole affair as disruption. His true motivation was to abide by the law and still avoid confrontation. And this is what he did. More a victory for him than anyone else.

They ruin Israel

This came by mail:

The settlers are ruining Israel by changing the reality on the ground. Because of them Israel will be destroyed and become a binational state.

My response: Maybe so. My article was not about settlement policy. It was not about the threat of a binational state. It was about the politics behind the policy, and what I wanted to emphasize is a simple fact: Israel – not settlers – oversees the policy. Israel – not settlers – will determine the future of the settlements (and the future of Israel). That is to say: if indeed something is “ruining Israel,” as my reader says (and I am not yet convinced something is) it isn’t the settlers, it is the Israeli government.

And how about Friedman?

David Chack (on Facebook) and other readers made the connection between my article and the appointment of David Friedman as the next US ambassador to Israel:

I would like your opinion on Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel, David M. Friedman.

My response: the settlers are indeed pleased. They believe that they will have an ally – and even more, so they understand that the appointment of Friedman might deny the PM one of his most useful arguments against overreaching: the objection of the US administration.

But it is useful to keep in mind five things:

1. Ambassadors do not make policy (even though the appointment does signal that a certain change is coming).

2. People tend to change their minds as they become responsible for policies – writing columns is easy, taking responsibility for action is hard.

3. The settlers might have got an ally, but are also denied a useful adversary – the US administration. Spiting Obama was popular at times; spiting Trump might not be.

4. Even if the Trump administration doesn’t care about settlement policies, the PM and his government could still decide to oppose certain demands – because the settlers can’t politically threaten a rightwing government. It is their government, and toppling it would not get them a better one.

5. As I say in my article: most Israelis do not want a binational state. Thus, the settler’s main problem is that they don’t have a good, solid plan for Israel’s future (annexation could be a disaster, as I argued