|
[Introduction]
[Zionism and Hityashvut]
[The Socialist Pioneers]
[Continuous Expansion]
[The Early State - '48 to '67]
[The Aftermath to '67]
[Hityashvut, Yesterday's Term for Today's Reality?]
[Summing Up]
[Bibliography]
|
The
Zionist Century - Concepts - Hityashvut
The aftermath to '67:
new territories, new questions
The next major phase of settlement occurred in the aftermath of the 1967
Six Day War which brought large new areas under
Israel's control. The question immediately arose of prospective settlement
activities in the new areas. This question was predictable given the traditional
attitude towards hityashvut both as a way of making a connection to the
Land through productive labour and as a means of securing new areas, as
strategic assets for the state, especially along the borders. For the
first time, the question was muddied by a counter-concept that was immediately
declared by the post-war government as it spelled out its policies towards
the new areas. On the whole, it viewed these areas as bargaining cards
to try and entice the surrounding governments into peace moves that would
end Israel's isolation in the region.
In some areas the two values clashed, but not everywhere. In certain
sectors, there was very strong consensus towards keeping the areas indefinitely
as part of the State of Israel.
The principal areas that were seen in this light were the newly expanded
Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Jordan valley and the area known
as the Etzion bloc or Gush Etzion, just to the south of Jerusalem . In
all of these areas planning started immediately, with government support
and almost complete national approval.
Structure & Settlements
A ring of new urban suburbs were built around Jerusalem, "securing"
the hold on the city through tens of thousands of houses in developments
such as Ramot Eshkol, Gilo, Ramot, and East Talpiot.
In the Golan, two kibbutzim, Merom Golan and Mevo Chama were set up at
opposite ends of the Heights and over the years the area between them
was filled in with a string of settlements, largely kibbutzim and moshavim,
with one town, Katzrin, set up in the late 1970s.
The Jordan valley would soon become the locus of a string of settlements,
the first of which, Kfar Mechola, was founded in 1968. Many settlements,
mostly kibbutzim and moshavim, were founded in the 1970's to fill in the
eastern line of the area newly acquired by Israel, running down from south
of Beit Shean to north of Ein Gedi.
The fourth area which received almost immediate government approval as
an area of new settlement, was Gush
Etzion (the Etzion bloc) where there had been pre-state Jewish settlement,
which had finally fallen in the War of Independence. Here the religious
kibbutz, Kfar Etzion, was established immediately after the war, peopled
largely by the children of the pre-1948 settlement. Within two years it
would be followed by another religious kibbutz and the area would fill
up over the next decades as an area of religious kibbutzim, community
villages and the towns of Efrat and Betar Illit.
Significantly, as the area developed and expanded to include new settlements
increasingly identified with the religious and political right, especially
- but not exclusively - after the change in government in 1977, the consensus
surrounding the area was rapidly whittled away. Gush Etzion became, for
some, synonymous with the whole movement of settlement in the rest of
Judea and Samaria. It was over the pre-1967 border and it was not seen
as necessary from the strategic-defensive point of view. As such it merged
with the rest of the surrounding Jewish settlement landscape and the earlier
distinction that it had held for many as a viable area of settlement became
increasingly blurred.
A fourth area which fairly soon became the focus of settlement activity
in the post-67 years with only marginally a lesser degree of consensus
than the first three areas mentioned, was the south western front. From
our present perspective we can divide this settlement activity into: the
two areas of the Gaza strip and the northern and eastern border of the
Sinai peninsula (right down to Sharm al Sheikh).
The first settlements were set up here in the early seventies largely
as army camps/ settlements which were "civilianised" after a
few years. In the Gaza area the first settlements were Kfar Darom, founded
in 1970, and Netzarim some two years later. Settlement activity continued
throughout the seventies and into the eighties. At the same period, proper
settlement activity started across the border in Sinai along the twin
axes of the Mediteranean shore and the gulf of Eilat right down to the
Straits of Tiran. The latter area was accepted by almost all Israeli public
opinion as being desirable from a security point of view, but settlement
was nevertheless fairly sparse until some new government initiatives in
the mid 70's which brought about two new towns (Yamit and Ophira) and
the Gush Katif settlements in the Gaza strip. These were viewed with differing
degrees of support or ambivalence by the public.
Motives & Differences
In the previously mentioned areas, there was general support for the
settlements, even if there were differences over details. However, outside
of these areas, there was no national consensus on the areas taken in
1967 and what happened in these areas resulted from a clash of ideologies
unleashed by the results of the war. The success of the war and the gaining
of land which had been part of the biblical heartland of Israel, released
strong messianic currents among large sections of the younger generation
of orthodox Zionists which soon found its expression in the creation of
settlement groups who wished to create settlements in the central areas
of the West Bank. The government initially resisted, according to the
policy enshrined in the Allon plan, which viewed these areas as bargaining
cards for the future. Finally, under pressure from the new activist settler
movement (which would organise ultimately in the framework of Gush Emunim
in 1974), the government gave in and agreed initially to the setting up
of a new Jewish settlement next to Hevron.
Here, the issue was complex. It had always been government policy to
avoid settlement in areas that had a large Arab population and especially
in the Arab towns. However, there were important emotional connections
with Hevron that made it a special case. It was not just that the oldest
biblical memories of settlement in the Land were tied up with Hevron,
through the story of Abraham's purchase of the Cave of Machpelah. Hevron
had important modern memories too. For many centuries, Jews had settled
there, seeing it as one of the four "Holy Cities". The centuries
old Jewish community had existed up to 1929 when it was destroyed in a
blood bath by Arab attack. Settlement here was felt by many to be an absolute
moral imperative. The government, under intense pressure, decided to approve
the initiative. The settlement or suburb of Hevron, Kiryat Arba, was officially
founded in 1972, before the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
In the aftermath of that war, settlement activity in the area initially
concentrated in Samaria but later on it returned to the region of Judea,
the location of Kiryat Arba. The initial settlements were set up by the
Labour government, but after the turnabout in government in 1977 that
brought the Likud into power, with its ideological commitment to settlement
throughout all the areas taken in 1967, settlement activity increased.
Settlement in these areas had been largely religious and largely ideological.
Certainly, all the original settlements founded by the activists of Gush
Emunim were ideological in their approach, but as time went on the population
attracted to the new settlements became more diverse. Some secular settlements
were set up and some of the larger settlements, such as the town of Ariel,
were mixed in their population.
The ideological enthusiasm of the original settlers also failed to be
the only reason that people were attracted to the new settlements. The
quality of life, the cheaper house prices, or even environmental considerations,
were increasingly heard as motives for settlement. Nevertheless, the settler
population has injected a strong ideological component into discussions
of settlement over the past decades.
[Index] [Previous]
[Next]
[Concepts] [Zionist Century]
[Homepage]
|
|