What do you think?
Rate this book
City on a Hilltop: American Jews and the Israeli Settler Movement
Since 1967, more than 60,000 Jewish-Americans have settled in the territories captured by the State of Israel during the Six Day War. Comprising 15 percent of the settler population today, these immigrants have established major communities, transformed domestic politics and international relations, and committed shocking acts of terrorism. They demand attention in both Israel and the United States, but little is known about who they are and why they chose to leave America to live at the center of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In this deeply researched, engaging work, Sara Yael Hirschhorn unsettles stereotypes, showing that the 1960s generation who moved to the occupied territories were not messianic zealots or right-wing extremists but idealists engaged in liberal causes. They did not abandon their progressive heritage when they crossed the Green Line. Rather, they saw a historic opportunity to create new communities to serve as a beacon a city on a hilltop to Jews across the globe. This pioneering vision was realized in their ventures at Yamit in the Sinai and Efrat and Tekoa in the West Bank. Later, the movement mobilized the rhetoric of civil rights to rebrand itself, especially in the wake of the 1994 Hebron massacre perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein, one of their own.
On the fiftieth anniversary of the 1967 war, Hirschhorn illuminates the changing face of the settlements and the clash between liberal values and political realities at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"
In this deeply researched, engaging work, Sara Yael Hirschhorn unsettles stereotypes, showing that the 1960s generation who moved to the occupied territories were not messianic zealots or right-wing extremists but idealists engaged in liberal causes. They did not abandon their progressive heritage when they crossed the Green Line. Rather, they saw a historic opportunity to create new communities to serve as a beacon a city on a hilltop to Jews across the globe. This pioneering vision was realized in their ventures at Yamit in the Sinai and Efrat and Tekoa in the West Bank. Later, the movement mobilized the rhetoric of civil rights to rebrand itself, especially in the wake of the 1994 Hebron massacre perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein, one of their own.
On the fiftieth anniversary of the 1967 war, Hirschhorn illuminates the changing face of the settlements and the clash between liberal values and political realities at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"
340 pages, Hardcover
First published May 22, 2017
3 people are currently reading
255 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 19, 2017
For the past couple of years a Goodreads friend, David, and I have had a running commentary on liberal and conservative views on issues at home and abroad. One of these issues concerned the rightness or fairness of Israeli settlements on disputed land, land called the Occupied Territories. The settlements have been pronounced illegal by the United Nations, but settlers continue to develop that seized land, claiming religious right to it that legally they do not possess.
This title just published this summer by Harvard University Press describes how many of the original settlers in these disputed areas were in fact American Jews. This was startling information to me. Although my perception of the liberality or conservatism of America Jews has been shifting with the times, I never expected that essentially left-leaning liberals from the 1960s U.S. would become the symbol of what appears to be now essentially oppressive, entrenched right-wing privilege.
Hirschhorn is clearly seeking answers to that very conundrum herself, and very carefully unpicks the origins of several settlements with an academic’s detailed forensics. What she finds is a kind of pioneering energy and fighting spirit, but also a kind of selective deafness and willful delusion. Each settlement came at a different time for a different reason, but settlers who choose to live on undeveloped “empty” land have their own impetus and intention, mixing up their defense of Judaism with a distinctly American notion of manifest destiny.
Citing a 1984 empirical study of American Israelis in Judea and Samaria by Chaim Waxman, Hirschhorn tells us that the majority of emigrating settlers felt in the 1960s “Blacks in America have gone too far in their demands.” So maybe these individuals were not as liberal as they felt themselves, but held the roots of conservatism. And the pioneering aspect of making settlements was so reminiscent of America’s founding that individuals felt some connection to debates about values that occurred at that time.
In the 1960s, Hirschhorn highlights Sandy Susan at Kibbutz Kfar Etzion, and Miriam Levinger at Hebron to illustrate the intensity with which they struggled through the early days of deprivation and camaraderie. The Levingers were so sure they were entitled to the land “We see ourselves in a link in the chain of return…this site is biblical…we are sovereign…[in the Middle East] there’s no such thing as compromise.” Settlers often opposed the Oslo peace process which would return disputed territories to the Palestinians and as a result were often at the center of a cycle of violence.
The Rabbi Shlomo Riskin of Brooklyn played an important role recruiting for a new camp at Efrat, which today is a high-middle class municipality composed of families whose adults often work in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Riskin had trouble finding a job in Israel, despite great success in growing his synagogue in New York, and when approached about establishing a new settlement, he did not hesitate. He believed the whole land of Israel belongs to the Jews, but that “It’s very important, very, very important” that the land be unclaimed. While in later interviews Riskin says the land of Efrat was “completely empty,” contention and resentment dogs the gated settlement which has seen terrible violence.
The point is that thirty years ago there were dirt roads and pioneers who thought they were doing something difficult but worthwhile. Now the municipality is no longer temporary and is instead considered prosperous and even a little luxurious. It is normalized, and no longer something that one can be imagine giving up. Hirschhorn suggests Riskin paid lip service to “talking to everyone” and “every nation requires independence,” as he gradually crept rightward in his politics and religious teachings. In her conclusions, Hirschhorn suggests we can view American Jews in Israel within the larger category "Americans abroad:" liberal at home, illiberal abroad. The reality on the ground, they claim, changed them.
Efrat was a center of opposition to the Oslo peace accords because, in the words of native Israel settlers
“Americans…we just ran life in Tekoa,” a settler said of the settlement in the West Bank. “Living here reminds me of what America was like two hundred years ago. Here you have the spirit of just starting, of being a pioneer.” Except that one isn’t just starting. There is history to contend with, land rights, Palestinians, who are growing increasingly agitated.
This title just published this summer by Harvard University Press describes how many of the original settlers in these disputed areas were in fact American Jews. This was startling information to me. Although my perception of the liberality or conservatism of America Jews has been shifting with the times, I never expected that essentially left-leaning liberals from the 1960s U.S. would become the symbol of what appears to be now essentially oppressive, entrenched right-wing privilege.
Hirschhorn is clearly seeking answers to that very conundrum herself, and very carefully unpicks the origins of several settlements with an academic’s detailed forensics. What she finds is a kind of pioneering energy and fighting spirit, but also a kind of selective deafness and willful delusion. Each settlement came at a different time for a different reason, but settlers who choose to live on undeveloped “empty” land have their own impetus and intention, mixing up their defense of Judaism with a distinctly American notion of manifest destiny.
Citing a 1984 empirical study of American Israelis in Judea and Samaria by Chaim Waxman, Hirschhorn tells us that the majority of emigrating settlers felt in the 1960s “Blacks in America have gone too far in their demands.” So maybe these individuals were not as liberal as they felt themselves, but held the roots of conservatism. And the pioneering aspect of making settlements was so reminiscent of America’s founding that individuals felt some connection to debates about values that occurred at that time.
In the 1960s, Hirschhorn highlights Sandy Susan at Kibbutz Kfar Etzion, and Miriam Levinger at Hebron to illustrate the intensity with which they struggled through the early days of deprivation and camaraderie. The Levingers were so sure they were entitled to the land “We see ourselves in a link in the chain of return…this site is biblical…we are sovereign…[in the Middle East] there’s no such thing as compromise.” Settlers often opposed the Oslo peace process which would return disputed territories to the Palestinians and as a result were often at the center of a cycle of violence.
The Rabbi Shlomo Riskin of Brooklyn played an important role recruiting for a new camp at Efrat, which today is a high-middle class municipality composed of families whose adults often work in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Riskin had trouble finding a job in Israel, despite great success in growing his synagogue in New York, and when approached about establishing a new settlement, he did not hesitate. He believed the whole land of Israel belongs to the Jews, but that “It’s very important, very, very important” that the land be unclaimed. While in later interviews Riskin says the land of Efrat was “completely empty,” contention and resentment dogs the gated settlement which has seen terrible violence.
The point is that thirty years ago there were dirt roads and pioneers who thought they were doing something difficult but worthwhile. Now the municipality is no longer temporary and is instead considered prosperous and even a little luxurious. It is normalized, and no longer something that one can be imagine giving up. Hirschhorn suggests Riskin paid lip service to “talking to everyone” and “every nation requires independence,” as he gradually crept rightward in his politics and religious teachings. In her conclusions, Hirschhorn suggests we can view American Jews in Israel within the larger category "Americans abroad:" liberal at home, illiberal abroad. The reality on the ground, they claim, changed them.
Efrat was a center of opposition to the Oslo peace accords because, in the words of native Israel settlers
“Efrat has a large number of Anglo-Saxons…who understand democracy. They understand civil disobedience. They understand that the citizen has certain rights that can’t be trampled on…[they had] the fury of moderates who feel that they are betrayed [and the land taken away].”So, here is that basic contradiction that Hirschhorn set out to unravel. “Rights” and “freedom” are two words that have different meanings depending on the context. Though Americans used to think those words applied to all within its borders, the camp settlers had narrowed that meaning to exclude Palestinians, just as today in America certain far-right groups believe their “rights” cannot be abridged but they are not so sure about the rights of brown-skinned citizens.
“Americans…we just ran life in Tekoa,” a settler said of the settlement in the West Bank. “Living here reminds me of what America was like two hundred years ago. Here you have the spirit of just starting, of being a pioneer.” Except that one isn’t just starting. There is history to contend with, land rights, Palestinians, who are growing increasingly agitated.
“It was clear from the origins of Tekoa that its Jewish-American founders and Palestinians rights did not have coinciding interests when it came to the land. Tekoa’s leaders did not—and do not—recognize Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank, nor do they honor local territorial claims to their settlement or its surroundings. However, evoking their U.S. heritage, many American-Israelis in the settlements do envision a hierarchy of citizenship rights [my emphasis], especially if Israeli sovereignty is extended to the West Bank…[West Bank] Arabs must have personal rights—due process, even voting and representation if this comes with duties like some form of [nonmilitary] national service.”Hirschhorn shows us what led individuals and groups to cross the Atlantic and shows us how, despite their claims to democracy, freedom, and fairness, they have exhibited something less than those ideals, sometimes far less.
July 28, 2017
As Dr. Hirschhorn notes in her introduction, there is a popular picture of the American-Israeli settler--overrepresented amongst the settlers-- as an extremist. The real picture, as she sets out to show, is more nuanced.
In part due to research limitations (there is a 30 year locked period for official documents) the bulk of the book focuses on the earlier years of settlement. This generation came of age at the time of the Six Day War of 1967. Many of the Jews who emigrated to Israel saw themselves as liberals, though some had been disillusioned by changes in US political movements. They saw settlement as an opportunity and a fulfillment of Jewish dreams. Their view of themselves as pioneers echoes both the chalutzim of the Israeli past and the settlers of the American West.
The core of the book focuses on three specific settlements: Yamit, Efrat, and Tekoa. Dr. Hirschhorn has chosen to focus on settlements where Americans were involved not just as individuals, but as key parts of the planning process. All of these differ from the stereotype in key ways. Yamit, as part of the Sinai, is an interesting story in its own right, but politically is very different from the West Bank. However, the settlers here faced similar issues to the rest: the Americans were ill equipped on their own to tackle Israeli bureaucracy, and their approach and vision were not aligned with the strategic aims of the Israeli government.
In both Efrat and Tekoa, the ideals of their American founders have coexisted uneasily within the wider context of Israeli politics. Efrat is periodically mocked as "Occupied Scarsdale," with an affluent, heavily American population, a high standard of living, and a famous, religiously liberal founder-rabbi. In order to found Efrat, Rav Riskin and his partners had to navigate opposition from HaKibbutz HaDati and Gush Emunim, retaining their independence. But Efrat has become part of the conflict regardless, with leaders navigating between talk of coexistence and expansion towards neighboring villages. Meanwhile, Tekoa has maintained its unique internal harmony between religious and secular populations, often separated in settlements, but has also been drawn into the wider picture.
Although she identifies as a liberal Zionist, Dr. Hirschhorn is not interested in pushing a simplified political point of view from any side. Even when dealing with the settlers of Hebron in the introduction, regarded as among the most right wing, she seeks to portray them as individuals with complex motivations. Her mission is to explain, not to judge.
The fifth chapter is a brief survey of some more recent events, including Dr. Baruch Goldstein and recent movements. It would have been interesting to see more on Americans elsewhere in the territories and how they live and interact in a more Israeli millieu--including the stereotypical large kippa wearing, bearded settlers arguing in Brooklyn accented English on TV--but that was outside the scope of the project.
Overall, this was a well researched, absorbing, and non-polemical view. Highly recommended.
In part due to research limitations (there is a 30 year locked period for official documents) the bulk of the book focuses on the earlier years of settlement. This generation came of age at the time of the Six Day War of 1967. Many of the Jews who emigrated to Israel saw themselves as liberals, though some had been disillusioned by changes in US political movements. They saw settlement as an opportunity and a fulfillment of Jewish dreams. Their view of themselves as pioneers echoes both the chalutzim of the Israeli past and the settlers of the American West.
The core of the book focuses on three specific settlements: Yamit, Efrat, and Tekoa. Dr. Hirschhorn has chosen to focus on settlements where Americans were involved not just as individuals, but as key parts of the planning process. All of these differ from the stereotype in key ways. Yamit, as part of the Sinai, is an interesting story in its own right, but politically is very different from the West Bank. However, the settlers here faced similar issues to the rest: the Americans were ill equipped on their own to tackle Israeli bureaucracy, and their approach and vision were not aligned with the strategic aims of the Israeli government.
In both Efrat and Tekoa, the ideals of their American founders have coexisted uneasily within the wider context of Israeli politics. Efrat is periodically mocked as "Occupied Scarsdale," with an affluent, heavily American population, a high standard of living, and a famous, religiously liberal founder-rabbi. In order to found Efrat, Rav Riskin and his partners had to navigate opposition from HaKibbutz HaDati and Gush Emunim, retaining their independence. But Efrat has become part of the conflict regardless, with leaders navigating between talk of coexistence and expansion towards neighboring villages. Meanwhile, Tekoa has maintained its unique internal harmony between religious and secular populations, often separated in settlements, but has also been drawn into the wider picture.
Although she identifies as a liberal Zionist, Dr. Hirschhorn is not interested in pushing a simplified political point of view from any side. Even when dealing with the settlers of Hebron in the introduction, regarded as among the most right wing, she seeks to portray them as individuals with complex motivations. Her mission is to explain, not to judge.
The fifth chapter is a brief survey of some more recent events, including Dr. Baruch Goldstein and recent movements. It would have been interesting to see more on Americans elsewhere in the territories and how they live and interact in a more Israeli millieu--including the stereotypical large kippa wearing, bearded settlers arguing in Brooklyn accented English on TV--but that was outside the scope of the project.
Overall, this was a well researched, absorbing, and non-polemical view. Highly recommended.
June 20, 2018
I gotta hand it to Sara Yael Hirschhorn for even attempting a subject within the field of the Israeli Occupation and settler movement. Her big goals were to remain impartial while positing the idea that the American-Israeli settlers, a disproportionate amount of American olim and their descendants, aren't a one-dimensional group of rightist extremists. Particularly, she wanted to probe how identification with '60s liberalism and the civil rights movement led them there. And finally, she explored the mindsets of American-Israeli violent and non-violent "activists."
At least I hope I'm getting all of this right, because more than any social history book I've read, Hirschhorn lays out her writing like in a textbook. "This section will explore x, y, z." "These are the statistics of people, amenities, etc from this settler community." In her intro she acknowledges how easy it would be for the "pro" and "anti" camps to co-opt her words for propaganda, and how much she's really just trying to give an academic picture. In the conclusion she moves broadly from topic to topic, settlers vs the Israeli government, Israel vs world perception, the changing face of American liberalism, generational shifts among American Jews and where Israel fits into their politics, the various factions of "The Israel Lobby," etc, all in service of what might or might not work in achieving peace. But she's smart enough to not give any absolutist answers.
I've already glimpsed a book review and Hirschhorn's response in the left-leaning Tikkun magazine that I really want to read, but I think I need a little bit of a breather first! :P This subject is exhausting, and I hope I do the book justice in my own, amateur GoodReads review.
I do think that in some ways, Hirschhorn failed. She came out of the gate swinging with wanting to portray American-Israeli settlers as progressive and empathetic to American minorities, rather than "messianic zealots or right wing extremists." But the three settlements that she chronicled, Garin Yamit, Efrat and Tekoa, certainly had their share of religious to messianic-hopeful Jews. I also thought that it was a shame that she led with Malka Chiaken, who may have called herself progressive but allegedly (Hirschorn never disproved it) engaged in racial slurs and even assaulted a Palestinian child.
This does bring me to something that's been niggling in my mind for awhile about how some communal ideology doesn't fit neatly into "liberal" vs "conservative" politics. Chiaken and other Israeli-American settlers were indeed involved in marching for civil rights in America and the like. They took that new '60s focus on social issues and applied it to the Jews. These were, after all, the years when American Jews were trying to come to terms with the Holocaust. After the 1967 war, Jews also had access to historic sites that were denied to them for generations. I can understand the parralel about civil rights and autonomy for one oppressed group vs another. I have more of a problem relating that to racism and violence...though it's also true that militarism became a (small) staple of some ethnic activism.
Racism feels like an anathema to "New Left" values, but perhaps not "Classical Left", which was more focused on labor rights and economic security for the lower classes, vs the civil rights of oppressed minorities. Some American-Israeli settlers moved to Israel when they found themselves being "pushed out" of the civil rights movement for not being Black. (So why not embrace their own particularism?) Others, because of this divide between "new" and "old" left, I think, were discomfited by what was seen as rapid-fire changes in American society. They didn't want Black people to "move too fast." I remember this distinction coming up in THE PRICE OF WHITENESS, which more fully explored Jewish and Black relations in America during this time.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have Meir Kahane's activists, particularly the Jewish Defense League, who I don't believe could ever be called "leftist." It's like Hirschhorn was picking up from another book that I'm reading right now, WHEN THEY COME FOR US WE'LL BE GONE: THE EPIC QUEST TO SAVE SOVIET JEWRY, which became a political platform for Kahane and the JDL, and then she moved their story forward into settler politics. Just saying what should have been obvious to me at the beginning of this year...when you read a lot of Jewish historical nonfiction, subjects tend to overlap. :P
Kahane's followers comprised a lot of Hirschhorn's last chapter, which chronicled groups and individuals engaged in violent and nonviolent acts against Palestinians, and indeed the Israeli government when the groups were at odds. It's worth noting that during the intifadas, settlers were the victims of violence as well, and that violent settlers are a small if disquieting minority. The majority of people that Hirshhorn chronicled came off as regular suburbanites, really. Maybe I feel more affinity for them than most because I identify with the Jewish narrative of wanting a homeland and strong community. "The city on a hilltop" is indeed a call to world Jewry, and most positively it means: all of us, as the Jewish community, matter. survive. thrive. Hirschhorn made sure to include in her settlement statistics such things as community services and the staples of non-controversial life. The interviews could skew into defensiveness, and indeed most settlers didn't mention Palestinians unless they could fit them into their own narratives. (It's also worth noting that by focusing squarely on American-Israeli settlers, Palestinians and even the Israeli government came off as a bit unexplored and one dimensional.)
Michael Chabon recently wrote some purple (not to say inaccurate, at least in part,) prose about the most occupied land: "I abhor an enclave, too: a gated community, a restricted country club, or a clutch of 800 zealots lodged in illusory safety behind a wall made from the bodies of teenage soldiers, gazing out in scorn and lordly alarm at the surrounding 200,000 residents of the city of Hebron." Hirschhorn documents Jewish settlements and people in Hebron, and at the very least she shows them to be three dimensional, imho.
Another aspect of this book that intrigued me had to do with the founding of these three settlements, and the disparity between the Israeli government and American olim. The Americans came with their idealism about creating strong, Jewish communities in a Jewish homeland and on historically Jewish turf; the pragmatic Israelis wanted communities as territorial buffers after the 1967 and Yom Kippur wars. There was a lot of miscommunication (or on the Israeli part, willful lack of communication) on these lines. The first community, Sinai-situated Yamit, was ultimately given back to Egypt, and the former settlers carry their grief at losing their home. This "loss of home" and ideological dream also drives settlers to work against Oslo or other peace initiatives. "Loss of home" is an empathetic perspective, at least, rather than the (not always wrong) stereotypes of militant racism.
To return briefly to the violent terrorists (and to some extent the non-violent agitators) whom Hirschhorn profiled, it was a disquieting read. There's obvious parallels to be drawn between their beliefs and those who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam or white supremacy. Perhaps it's actually heartening to realize that this, indeed, is a "universal" human trait rather than borne solely out of Jewish "particularism."
(It's also worth noting that Israeli society that lives within the Green Line, especially around peace process attempts like Camp David, or after Baruch Goldstein's infamous massacre, often blamed settlers, particularly American-Israeli settlers, for the country's woes. They blamed American Jews for "sending us your worst," and the left-leaning American Jews also blame settlers. That leads to more defensiveness about not being heard and understood, and using "leftist" as a pejorative. Just trying to understand things from a more empathetic angle, particularly when the violent actions of the few are blamed on the many.)
On the left today, "universalism" is generally seen as better than "particularism," maybe. There's also a strong emphasis on the "own voices" stories of minority groups that have often been overlooked. But as Jews are often not seen as part of those overlooked minorities, they're increasingly lumped with "the white majority" in our polarized world. This is part of the reason, surely, for the rightward shift, particularly among Israeli and Israeli-American Jews. Even, sometimes, the abandonment of faith in democracy.
Another phrase that Hirschhorn liked to throw around was "the clash between liberal values and political realities." It's a broad blanket for American-Israeli settler beliefs that can apply to anything from the psychological response to Palestinian attacks to trying to brand themselves as a civil rights movement to a bemused Israeli government. The phrase tends to feel a little kitschy after awhile, too much short hand and not enough delving into specifics, but I respect that it means (I think) that human experiences can be too complicated to fit into labels and boxes. The most important takeaway from the book, imho.
At least I hope I'm getting all of this right, because more than any social history book I've read, Hirschhorn lays out her writing like in a textbook. "This section will explore x, y, z." "These are the statistics of people, amenities, etc from this settler community." In her intro she acknowledges how easy it would be for the "pro" and "anti" camps to co-opt her words for propaganda, and how much she's really just trying to give an academic picture. In the conclusion she moves broadly from topic to topic, settlers vs the Israeli government, Israel vs world perception, the changing face of American liberalism, generational shifts among American Jews and where Israel fits into their politics, the various factions of "The Israel Lobby," etc, all in service of what might or might not work in achieving peace. But she's smart enough to not give any absolutist answers.
I've already glimpsed a book review and Hirschhorn's response in the left-leaning Tikkun magazine that I really want to read, but I think I need a little bit of a breather first! :P This subject is exhausting, and I hope I do the book justice in my own, amateur GoodReads review.
I do think that in some ways, Hirschhorn failed. She came out of the gate swinging with wanting to portray American-Israeli settlers as progressive and empathetic to American minorities, rather than "messianic zealots or right wing extremists." But the three settlements that she chronicled, Garin Yamit, Efrat and Tekoa, certainly had their share of religious to messianic-hopeful Jews. I also thought that it was a shame that she led with Malka Chiaken, who may have called herself progressive but allegedly (Hirschorn never disproved it) engaged in racial slurs and even assaulted a Palestinian child.
This does bring me to something that's been niggling in my mind for awhile about how some communal ideology doesn't fit neatly into "liberal" vs "conservative" politics. Chiaken and other Israeli-American settlers were indeed involved in marching for civil rights in America and the like. They took that new '60s focus on social issues and applied it to the Jews. These were, after all, the years when American Jews were trying to come to terms with the Holocaust. After the 1967 war, Jews also had access to historic sites that were denied to them for generations. I can understand the parralel about civil rights and autonomy for one oppressed group vs another. I have more of a problem relating that to racism and violence...though it's also true that militarism became a (small) staple of some ethnic activism.
Racism feels like an anathema to "New Left" values, but perhaps not "Classical Left", which was more focused on labor rights and economic security for the lower classes, vs the civil rights of oppressed minorities. Some American-Israeli settlers moved to Israel when they found themselves being "pushed out" of the civil rights movement for not being Black. (So why not embrace their own particularism?) Others, because of this divide between "new" and "old" left, I think, were discomfited by what was seen as rapid-fire changes in American society. They didn't want Black people to "move too fast." I remember this distinction coming up in THE PRICE OF WHITENESS, which more fully explored Jewish and Black relations in America during this time.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have Meir Kahane's activists, particularly the Jewish Defense League, who I don't believe could ever be called "leftist." It's like Hirschhorn was picking up from another book that I'm reading right now, WHEN THEY COME FOR US WE'LL BE GONE: THE EPIC QUEST TO SAVE SOVIET JEWRY, which became a political platform for Kahane and the JDL, and then she moved their story forward into settler politics. Just saying what should have been obvious to me at the beginning of this year...when you read a lot of Jewish historical nonfiction, subjects tend to overlap. :P
Kahane's followers comprised a lot of Hirschhorn's last chapter, which chronicled groups and individuals engaged in violent and nonviolent acts against Palestinians, and indeed the Israeli government when the groups were at odds. It's worth noting that during the intifadas, settlers were the victims of violence as well, and that violent settlers are a small if disquieting minority. The majority of people that Hirshhorn chronicled came off as regular suburbanites, really. Maybe I feel more affinity for them than most because I identify with the Jewish narrative of wanting a homeland and strong community. "The city on a hilltop" is indeed a call to world Jewry, and most positively it means: all of us, as the Jewish community, matter. survive. thrive. Hirschhorn made sure to include in her settlement statistics such things as community services and the staples of non-controversial life. The interviews could skew into defensiveness, and indeed most settlers didn't mention Palestinians unless they could fit them into their own narratives. (It's also worth noting that by focusing squarely on American-Israeli settlers, Palestinians and even the Israeli government came off as a bit unexplored and one dimensional.)
Michael Chabon recently wrote some purple (not to say inaccurate, at least in part,) prose about the most occupied land: "I abhor an enclave, too: a gated community, a restricted country club, or a clutch of 800 zealots lodged in illusory safety behind a wall made from the bodies of teenage soldiers, gazing out in scorn and lordly alarm at the surrounding 200,000 residents of the city of Hebron." Hirschhorn documents Jewish settlements and people in Hebron, and at the very least she shows them to be three dimensional, imho.
Another aspect of this book that intrigued me had to do with the founding of these three settlements, and the disparity between the Israeli government and American olim. The Americans came with their idealism about creating strong, Jewish communities in a Jewish homeland and on historically Jewish turf; the pragmatic Israelis wanted communities as territorial buffers after the 1967 and Yom Kippur wars. There was a lot of miscommunication (or on the Israeli part, willful lack of communication) on these lines. The first community, Sinai-situated Yamit, was ultimately given back to Egypt, and the former settlers carry their grief at losing their home. This "loss of home" and ideological dream also drives settlers to work against Oslo or other peace initiatives. "Loss of home" is an empathetic perspective, at least, rather than the (not always wrong) stereotypes of militant racism.
To return briefly to the violent terrorists (and to some extent the non-violent agitators) whom Hirschhorn profiled, it was a disquieting read. There's obvious parallels to be drawn between their beliefs and those who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam or white supremacy. Perhaps it's actually heartening to realize that this, indeed, is a "universal" human trait rather than borne solely out of Jewish "particularism."
(It's also worth noting that Israeli society that lives within the Green Line, especially around peace process attempts like Camp David, or after Baruch Goldstein's infamous massacre, often blamed settlers, particularly American-Israeli settlers, for the country's woes. They blamed American Jews for "sending us your worst," and the left-leaning American Jews also blame settlers. That leads to more defensiveness about not being heard and understood, and using "leftist" as a pejorative. Just trying to understand things from a more empathetic angle, particularly when the violent actions of the few are blamed on the many.)
On the left today, "universalism" is generally seen as better than "particularism," maybe. There's also a strong emphasis on the "own voices" stories of minority groups that have often been overlooked. But as Jews are often not seen as part of those overlooked minorities, they're increasingly lumped with "the white majority" in our polarized world. This is part of the reason, surely, for the rightward shift, particularly among Israeli and Israeli-American Jews. Even, sometimes, the abandonment of faith in democracy.
Another phrase that Hirschhorn liked to throw around was "the clash between liberal values and political realities." It's a broad blanket for American-Israeli settler beliefs that can apply to anything from the psychological response to Palestinian attacks to trying to brand themselves as a civil rights movement to a bemused Israeli government. The phrase tends to feel a little kitschy after awhile, too much short hand and not enough delving into specifics, but I respect that it means (I think) that human experiences can be too complicated to fit into labels and boxes. The most important takeaway from the book, imho.
February 28, 2025
Dust jacket
I paid the most attention in the beginning of the book
Weird how modern people from liberal societies can become radicalized by living in these settler areas and how nice people can support horrendous systems in today’s modern age. They sound like the French in Asia, justifying the settlement by saying that they are spreading liberal ideas in a backwards area and giving off the feeling like the Western world owes them for that
It also talks about how a lot of liberal Jews supported the Israeli cause until the 1967 Six Day War. Then, public sentiment changed and a lot of them shifted support to freeing Soviet Jews or stopping antisemitism in New York. A lot of other Jews see Israeli as their homeland though, for better or worse
I paid the most attention in the beginning of the book
Weird how modern people from liberal societies can become radicalized by living in these settler areas and how nice people can support horrendous systems in today’s modern age. They sound like the French in Asia, justifying the settlement by saying that they are spreading liberal ideas in a backwards area and giving off the feeling like the Western world owes them for that
It also talks about how a lot of liberal Jews supported the Israeli cause until the 1967 Six Day War. Then, public sentiment changed and a lot of them shifted support to freeing Soviet Jews or stopping antisemitism in New York. A lot of other Jews see Israeli as their homeland though, for better or worse
March 11, 2024
A book about liberals exposing their true face: thieves, racists, and murderers when the need arises to maintain their stolen privileges.
At least the conservatives don't hide in sheep's clothing.
At least the conservatives don't hide in sheep's clothing.
Read
April 27, 2018305.892 H6696 2017
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews