Not all settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are believers. Some are motivated by practical considerations; among them are those seeking low rents, nature enthusiasts, those trying to escape the burdens of the world, and those pursuing what they consider an optimal environment for raising their children... They are just as implicated in land theft and the oppression of Palestinians as the believers.
With that, the believers have a "cause" that, although the outcomes of their actions are no less devastating than those undertaken by the religious settlers, the others driven by an unscrupulous, cynical selfishness do not.
The religious ones are waging another war in the West Bank. Although it is shaded by the war on Gaza, from which it has begun to derive some of its fodder, this war retains for itself elements that highlight its independence. In the first place, it precedes the Gaza war, and it is justified almost exclusively on binding religious grounds.
Moreover, this religious war does not factor politics into its considerations in the slightest. It is indifferent to the impact of settlement activities on Israel's relationships with its Western backers and on its image in a world that increasingly rejects settlements; nor is it concerned with how its actions undermine the country's position in the Middle East or the implications of their actions for building or upending peace with its neighbors.
While the Zionist settlement of the past was governed by the effort to establish a state, contemporary settlement requires that the state be governed by the requirements for safeguarding settlement. As for regional maps being reshuffled as a result of displacement, starting with Jordan, and the bloody ramifications that come with it, that does not factor into the settlers' considerations either.
Even the prospect of an explosion in the West Bank, which Israel does not have the forces to handle, does not concern them. Incidents like the Allenby Bridge attack, which rang alarm bells around the world, are part of the routine, just like their leaders and activists being hit with international sanctions.
Thus, the religious settlers are not only seen as demented or unhinged because of the outdated beliefs they derive from divine scripture. This perception can also be attributed to their engaging with the contemporary world as though it had not become what it is. To them, what hasn't been allowed to happen is precisely the correct and proper course of action, not what has happened.
As for war, it is rendered apocalyptic, ending only with annihilation and nothingness. It draws its strength from an era that is behind us, making the settlers deserve their frequent qualification as a flock or herd that represents a section of our primordial nature that has been forgotten in contemporary civilization.
Their "strangeness" is amplified by their ambiguous status according to the criteria of states and borders. They are Israeli citizens living in the West Bank, which is not supposed to be part of Israel; with that, however, the "Green Line" of a ceasefire separates the territory from the country, not an international border.
Paradoxically, the settlers' rupture with everything supposedly associated with statehood, politics, and diplomatic considerations, is protected by the Israeli state, even if it occasionally makes pretends to disapproval. Besides their representation in the current government through ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, the army supplies them with arms, grants them construction permits, and turns a blind eye to their human rights violations.
Here, the scandalous aspect of the state's behavior appears, or rather the scandalous aspect of one of the origins of Zionism itself. The actions of the settlers bring to mind what it would be preferable to be forgotten: the original Zionist project began as a settlement enterprise. However, unlike the settlement of the past, which was not state-sponsored, despite the partial and conditional sympathy of the British, contemporary settlement is.
Unlike the old colonial and expansionist movements around the world, which, albeit mendaciously, addressed the other - as exemplified by Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden" - this settlement is a pure monologue. As for "Israel being part of the democratic West," it is also scandalized by this settlement, even beyond the land theft and the abuse of the West Bank’s inhabitants.
At a time when nationalism was ascending, Zionism used to strive to demonstrate that the national took precedence over the religious. Now, we find the settlers saying the opposite, reminding us that like-minded believers from Russia played a decisive role in making Palestine, not Argentina or Uganda, the location chosen for their desired state.
It is worth noting that Netanyahu and the Jabotinskist tradition lie somewhere between secular Zionism and the religious settlers. This is not because they are religious - they are not - but because they are political and nationalist fundamentalists who trace the conflict back to its supposed foundational roots that leave nothing on the horizon but pure violence.
Accordingly, they are the hidden spirit of Zionism, trailing behind and completing it, rendering the past something that never passes. With obnoxiousness exclusive to revolutionaries, the theft of land, which should be considered a disgraceful crime, is rendered into a divine command.
This phenomenon, which emerged from a rusty skull shortly following the 1967 war, has given rise to a society that grows with each war, and the rust within it grows too. It was reared by lovers of war and despisers of politics who share its myths, albeit an inverted form of these myths. Among them are those who, after October 7, promised us the liberation of Palestine, and are warning against the displacement of West Bank residents today!
