Rosner’s Domain: Is Hebron Above Controversy?

At the Cave of the Patriarchs, President Isaac Herzog made a bold statement. In fact, just his presence was a bold statement. It was Sunday evening, the first night of Hanukkah, and Israel’s President, formerly the head of the Labor movement, decided to pay a visit to our forefathers, in the city of Hebron. “The historical connection of the Jewish people to Hebron, to the Cave of the Patriarchs, to the heritage of mothers and fathers is unquestionable,” he said. “The recognition of this connection should be above all controversy.”

Well, it isn’t. The leftist Meretz party condemned the visit. Peace Now said it was “incomprehensible.” Other left-leaning parties decided to refrain from criticism, but grumbled behind closed doors. And on the right, politicians celebrated as if Herzog just joined the Revisionist movement. 

Herzog is a thoughtful and calculated leader. If he decided to go to Hebron, knowing quite well how this visit would be interpreted by this or that group (and the furious Palestinians), this wasn’t something he just stumbled into by accident. Cynics might say that Herzog is trying to appease the right, thinking about the day after the presidency, in case he wants to return to the political arena. Less cynical observers might say that Herzog is trying to appease the radical right, because he believes that this will make him more effective as president. His predecessor, Reuven Rivlin, lost the support of right wingers fairly early in his term, and never recovered from it. 

The least cynical observers would assume that Herzog was actually doing what he did as a message to the left. He was trying to remind the left, that politics aside, there is history, culture and tradition that must be respected and preserved if the Zionist idea, and the Israeli enterprise, aim to keep thriving. Yes, Hebron is a city with an Arab majority. Yes, it was captured by Israel in the Six Days War. Yes, it’s political future is undecided and much debated. And yet, it is undeniably a component of our history and tradition. An important component. Second to only one place—Jerusalem.

A few years ago, I was testing the ties of Jewish Israelis to different places as part of a study by the Jewish People Policy Institute. This is the proof I have when I say that indeed Hebron is not “above all controversy” as the President wants it to be. The connection of Jewish Israelis to Hebron is relatively weak, our study found. A majority of them said they were “not at all connected” to the place (see graph on the right hand column). The 30% who said they are  “connected” or “highly connected” had a strong Orthodox tilt. “This could mean,” we concluded, “that the stature of conflict-charged places diminishes even when its value from a Jewish historical, cultural, and religious perspective is high.”

Herzog made a decision to battle this diminishing stature of a high-value city. By doing this, he was reminding Israelis what brought them back to this land to begin with. 

Herzog made a decision to battle this diminishing stature of a high-value city. By doing this, he was reminding Israelis what brought them back to this land to begin with. Obviously, not all of them liked this reminder. And I assume this is as true for Jewish Americans as it is for Israelis, if not more so.

In fact, from the same study I know that a majority of Jewish Americans are as alienated from Hebron as Jewish Israelis. Very few American tourists visit Hebron, and those who do are almost all Orthodox. Very few who remember that Hebron was occupied in 1967 by Israeli forces, also remember that Jews lived in Hebron for hundreds of years, if not thousands, before they were thrown out of the city in a heinous massacre in 1936. 

I think what Herzog was trying to say to Jews all around the world is that a 3,000-year heritage cannot be taken hostage by a 100-year national dispute. So when leftist Haaretz Daily comments that the President chose to visit a place “which has no equal in symbolizing the ugliness of the occupation,” a defense of Herzog’s move would not even need to dispute this specific point. Maybe. Maybe Hebron “has no equal in symbolizing the ugliness of the occupation.” It also has no equal in symbolizing the chain that links our forefathers and hence us to this land. Hebron is a troubled, often violent, always disputed place. It is also the place of Abraham and Sarah, of Jacob, of David. 

Is it “above controversy”? That depends on the timeframe one thinks about. And on Hanukkah, Herzog chose the 3,000-year longview.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

When a Likud Member of Knesset argued that Legal Advisors should be jailed (for being against Likud), I explained why I wouldn’t have him as a guest on my talk show (I don’t have a talk show):

Should the manners of MKs, or of any other speaker, be a consideration in choosing interviewees? My answer is yes. Why? Because the media at its best aims to serve the public, and the public is not well-served when the media contributes to the deterioration of public discourse … Ask: And who determines what is the basic required etiquette? The answer: Each and every one set the goal for his or her own show. Naturally, this means that what is considered polite on one stage will be considered rude on another stage. And that’s okay. For the very act of placing politeness as something to be aspired to, even if there is no meticulous agreement on its essence, is an important act. 

A week’s numbers

The numbers that prove the point I’m trying to make in the article on the left hand column.

A reader’s response:

Avi Lefkovitz responded to an article on Iran: “Israel cannot trust the U.S. anymore. But you are wrong to say that Iran is winning. Israel managed to thrive without the U.S. in the fifties and sixties, and can do it again today.” 

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.