Is There Success in Israel for Ethiopians Jews?

The Ethiopian Jews face both tolerance and racism in Israel, yet other factors also contribute to this group’s difficulty succeeding in Israel.  Jews in Ethiopia faced a civil war, famine, and extinction by the 1980s in Ethiopia so the Israeli government organized a mass emigration of these Jews to Israel.  The Ministry of Absorption in Israel welcomed and accepted the Jewish Ethiopians by offering benefits such as free Hebrew classes, health coverage, and grants for housing (Rosenthal, 167).  Quoting the Ministry of Absorption, Rosenthal even states that absorbing the Ethiopians into Israel was a “national test of honor.”  Consequently, Rosenthal explains that Ethiopian children have integrated in the Israeli culture quite well with Ethiopian academic skill surpassing that of their Israeli peers (Rosenthal, 170).  Rosenthal explains that Ethiopians thrive in classes that involve memory skills and concentration because the Ethiopian Jews underscored the importance of knowing one’s family history and memorizing all of psalms.

However, Rosenthal undermines the examples of progress that Ethiopian Jews have made by stating obstacles which the Ethiopian Jews have faced.  Jewish Israelis have criticized Ethiopian Jews for not following strict Rabbinic Judaism.  She explains that criticism of Ethiopian religious practices could be an obstacle to their ability to succeed in Israel.  Some Israeli Jews questioned the religious authenticity of the Ethiopian Jewish community (Rosenthal, 176).  These Israelis explained that the Ethiopians had been isolated from the other Jews since 586 B.C.E. and did not follow the laws of the Talmud throughout their years in Ethiopia (Rosenthal, 162-3).  Nevertheless, differences in religious practices are not the source of racist sentiment.  Rosenthal provides the testimony of Solomon who was called “kushi” by a peer in the military (Rosenthal, 166).  Once Solomon told the officer that he is a Jew, the officer did not make a derogatory, racist comment again.  According to Rosenthal, the lack of success which the Ethiopians experience is not stemming from racist sentiment, but may be from differences in religious beliefs.

Additionally, throughout the chapter, Rosenthal explains that there are limited academic and occupational opportunities for the Ethiopian Jews.  Rosenthal provides the success stories of the Idan Raichel Project and Solomon Ezra, but she also states that teachers overlook the potential of their Ethiopian students (Rosenthal, 169).  As a result, the Ethiopian students are placed in lower level classes; men are lead to the path of blue collar jobs and motherhood for women.  Teachers and Israeli parents tended to judge the Ethiopian Jews as lacking educational ability and religious devotion, respectively (Rosenthal, 170).  A Haaretz article titled “Ethiopian-Israeli Woman Makes Good in High-tech: An Unrepresentative Story” written by Ruti Levy, provides another example of subtle racism in the Israeli tech industry.  Levy praises Shoshi Jambar, an Israeli Ethiopian, for her ability to climb the ladder of success in the WalkMe startup from cleaner to manager.  However, Jambar attributes her own success to her social personality and young age—she adds that other Ethiopians do not tend to be as accomplished as she.  Levy states that Ethiopian Jews tend to lack academic achievement and do not join the army; she adds that joining the army is a stepping stone into the Israeli tech industry.  Rosenthal states that although 95% of draft-able Ethiopian men serve in the army, only 45% of high school students are eligible for their matriculation certificates (Rosenthal, 173, 170).  Rosenthal and Levy seem to agree that Ethiopian Jews in Israel suffer from an inequality of academic achievement when compared to other Israelis.  The paper “Education in Israel: The Challenges Ahead” written by Laurence Wolff, a senior educator, and Elizabeth Breit, a Yale University graduate, supports Levy’s arguments.  The authors explain that Jewish Ethiopian immigrants have lower scores on standardized tests compared to other Jewish students due to Ethiopian socio-economic disadvantages (Education in Israel, 11-12) .

An opinion article written in Haaretz supports Jambar’s attitudes as well.  In her article titled “Racism in Israel? You're Exaggerating!,” Mesi Aycheck explains that racism against Ethiopian Jews in Israel is prevalent.  Israelis do notice the differences in skin color; such differences influence Israeli attitudes, implying that Ethiopians are inferior.  Aycheck adds that Israelis tend to ignore or underestimate the profundity of racism in Israel.  She explains that Israelis overlook her claims of racism because they are all Jewish or all Semites.  The article “‘No Ethiopians wanted’ job ad sparks outrage,” written in the Times of Israel, supports Aycheck’s claims that racism is still apparent in Israel.  The article states that a clothing company published an ad recruiting new employees; however, ‘no Ethiopians are wanted’ according to the employers.  This is an example of blatant racism acted toward Ethiopian Jews.  The authors quote the director of the Justice Ministry who said that this was not the first or last case of discrimination against the Ethiopian Israelis.

Nevertheless, there are other factors that also contribute to the lack of Ethiopian Jewish success in Israel which should not be ignored.  Rosenthal describes that the older generations of Ethiopians experience a disadvantage in the fast-paced Israeli culture (Rosenthal, 167-8).  Ethiopian parents depend on their children’s ability to assimilate within the Israeli culture.  These children know the Hebrew language, are earning an education, and understand how to cope with Israel’s chaotic war environment.  The older generation seems to be stuck in the Ethiopian culture.  Ruti Levy also differentiates Jambar’s success from the older generation’s lack of success.  Jambar was able to become a manager because she is familiar with Israeli culture; however, an older Ethiopian woman will not succeed because she is still immersed in her traditional cultural practices.  The older generation may have a slight accent when speaking in Hebrew, may not know Hebrew at all, and are likelier to be uneducated or unemployed. 

As shown, Ethiopian Jews are able to succeed in Israel, Shoshi Jambar, Solomon Ezra and Idal Raichel are just a few examples of this phenomenon.  Ethiopian Jews have experienced both tolerance and racism in Israel.  However, factors such as underestimating Ethiopian academic ability and Ethiopian cultural differences may negatively impact an Ethiopian’s ability to succeed in Israel as well.

The Blurred Lines of Love and Hate

There is a popular perception that Israeli Arabs and Jews hate each other, and that Arabs do not support the State of Israel while Jews do.  However, evidence shows that is not the case.  The relationship between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis has blurred lines.  There are Israeli Jews who support the actions of their government in their abhorrence of Israeli Arabs; there are also Israeli Arabs who abhor Jewish Israelis and the government it represents.  Yet some Israeli Jews, and Israeli Arabs, dislike the actions of their own government and fight for the liberty of Arab Israelis.

Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews sometimes have different opinions about the government; some Israeli Arabs tend to reject the government and Jewish Israelis as rightful entities, while Israeli Jews tend to support the government and hate Arabs.  For this reason, the Pew Religious Forum website titled Israel’s Religiously Divided Society is appropriately named.  For instance, 64% of Arab Israelis say that Israel cannot be a democracy and a Jewish state simultaneously (Pew Report, Table: Most Arabs say Israel cannot be both a democracy and Jewish state).  A minority of 36% Arab Israelis believe that democracy is possible with a Jewish state, which supports the idea that not all Israeli Arabs reject the State.  The statistic shows that Muslim, Christian, and Druzi populations agree that the principle of a Jewish Israeli state is not ideal or feasible.  Additionally, 79% of Arab Israelis state that there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims specifically, whether it is by security personnel, while traveling, or by other citizens (Pew Report, Tables: Vast majority of Arabs see ‘a lot’ of discrimination against Muslims; Roughly one-third of Muslims report having experienced at least one incident of discrimination in the past 12 months).  In her book Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land: The Israelis, Donna Rosenthal provides information that supports that the popular simplistic notion is wrong.  Rosenthal explains that as religious devotion increases, Israeli Arabs are less accepting of the State of Israel and coexistence (Rosenthal, Chapter 12).  Additionally, Rosenthal provides the account of Sheik Salah, a devout Muslim Arab leader who despises Jews, and the existence of a Jewish state.  The extent of his hatred for Jews is supported by the fact that Sheik Salah celebrates suicide bombings and deems the Knesset, Israel, and Zionism as illegal.  The Pew Report also states that Jews tend to support the State of Israel as well as a Jewish government.  For example, about 91% of all Jews claim that a Jewish state is vital for the long-term survival of the Jewish nation (Pew Report, Israeli Jews united on need for Jewish homeland).  Dati, Masorti, Hiloni, and Haredi Jews agree that Israel is a religious haven for the Jewish people, a country where Jews can escape anti-Semitism.  Furthermore, 79% of the Jews who were surveyed stated that Jewish citizens deserve preferential treatment by the government (Pew Report, Table: Most Jews Say that Israel should give preferential treatment to Jews).  The Pew Research Center describes its position and mission here and here.  It is described as a ‘nonpartisan fact tank’ with the goal of reporting data that are empirically researched with little conflict of interest.  The Pew Report is run by President Michael Dimock, who is an expert in the subjects of politics, foreign policy, and economy, with a staff of more than 130 people.  The Pew Research is based in Washington D.C., seems to be reliable and is not inclined toward either Israeli Jews or Israeli Arabs.  Thus the Pew Report has a third party point of view and is not influenced by the internal politics of Israel proper. 

Nevertheless, there are other sources which explain that Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs not only have harmonious relationships, but may also oppose certain government policies together.  Rosenthal explains that the relationship between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews is not one of complete hatred.  For instance, Rosenthal provides the account of a few Arabs who live in the mixed city of Haifa, a city that has a coexisting population of both Jewish Israelis and Arabs Israelis (Rosenthal, 260).  She includes the testimony of Yasser Mansour, a secular Sunni Muslim, who is tolerant of his Jewish neighbors, coworkers, and patients, and accepts the existence of the State of Israel.  In addition, Naama Riba explains that Jewish and Arab Israelis protested acts of the Israeli government in her recent Haaretz article titled “Hundreds of Arab and Jewish Architects Call for End to Arab Home Demolitions”.  She explains that an Arab-Jewish Planners Forum was created in order to fight the state-run demolitions in Kalansua and Umm al-Hiran.  In a letter sent to the Knesset members, distinguished architects, planners, and engineers, Jewish and Arab alike, decried the Israeli government policy which destroyed houses built by Arabs, houses which were deemed illegal.  The letter describes that destroying these homes does not solve the housing needed for the growing Arab population.  The protestors believe that the Israeli government is committing a discriminatory act undermining the rights of the Arab communities.  Riba sites another Haaretz article, Tough Bill on Illegal Construction Set to Get OK from Knesset Panel, which supports the information Riba provides, and also has strong suggestions that the policy is unjust.  The author, Or Kashti, explains that the Arab population has been neglected by the Israeli government, and the government has created policies which curb the building of Arab housing; thus the Arab population has a severe housing shortage.  Consequently, the Arab communities had to build their own homes without permits.  Kashti also explains that a new bill is being discussed by the Knesset which has strict policies against those who build the illegal housing, such as two to three years of imprisonment.  Another Haaretz article, written by Kashti and Jack Khoury, describes another protest by thousands of Tel Aviv residents, Jewish and Arab Israelis, who united against the Israeli government in hopes of creating civil equality in the Israeli government.  Haaretz does not provide information about Naama Riba’s qualifications; however, her personal Facebook page offers a description of her qualifications.  She is a former architecture and design reporter for Xnet, an Israeli media and news source with degrees in architecture from Tel Aviv University and NB Haifa School of Design.  Riba’s information seems to be factual for there are other Haaretz news sources which support her claims.  Additionally, an article in the Times of Israel provides detailed accounts of the protests in Tel Aviv, which decried the racist treatment in which the government is treating the Arab minorities.  The author, Dov Lieber states that the 5,000 protesters were Jewish and Arab Israelis who were angered about the state ordered demolitions in Umm al-Hiran and Kalansua.  Both Riba and Lieber’s articles include similar facts, although Dov Lieber provides a detailed account of the events, such as the testimony of the wife of a Bedouin man who was shot during a demolition.  Additionally, the link which Riba provides, and the links which Haaretz includes in the article, seems to be overtly anti-government in the description of the events.  The articles use statements such as “tough bill,” “racist,” and “discriminatory” in describing the government policies and actions.  Naama Riba, Or Kashti, and Jack Khoury make it seem as if there is a growing population which supports the coexistence of Jewish and Arab Israelis and who desire a shift in the politics of the current government.

As shown, the love-hate relationship between the Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and the Israeli government does not have a clearly defined boundary.

Israeli Alliances on the Rise

The Haaretz article “Israeli Air Force Holds Joint Exercise with United Arab Emirates,U.S. and Italy” was written by Gili Cohen on the 29 of March describing the recent Iniohos 2017 event.  This event is unique because the air force exercise took place in Greece and included the armies of Israel, the United States, the United Arab Emirates, and Italy.  Cohen adds that flags of the participating countries were hung as a slogan for “Act with Awareness”.  Nevertheless, Cohen notes twice that the Israelis and the UAE do not have diplomatic relations.  Yet, she adds that Israel and the UAE have participated in the Red Flag training exercise, which took place in the U.S. and included the air force of Pakistan and Spain as well.  Additionally, she states that according to reports of the media, there have been secretive meetings between representatives of Israel and the UAE. 

Iniohos 2017 Participating Country Flags Cohen includes reports of the event which only add to the grandeur image of Iniohos.  For instance, according to a U.S. army report, Iniohos 2017 had the capability of increasing the bond of the participating countries.  Additionally, Cohen states that Israel’s participation in the exercise maintains its ongoing relationship with Greece.  She states that Israel has had joint air force training with Greece for two years thus far.  She also includes the account of Brig. General Erez Meisel who signed a cooperation agreement with Greece while visiting the country.  Furthermore, Cohen includes the statement of an unnamed senior officer who explained that this joint relationship between Greece and Israel has military and economic benefits for both parties.  For instance, Cohen quotes Leutenant Coronel Gilad that the exercise is of particular interest to Israel because its air force can practice landing in terrain that is foreign to that of Israel.  In an exercise that took place about 6 months ago, Israeli air force was able to practice landing on Mt. Olympus which has terrain similar to what it hopes to land on in the future.

Israel, too, will imitate these countries’ precedence by hosting an Air Force exercise of its own.   Cohen states that in November, Israel will host a grand-scale exercise as well.  An Israeli Air Force Commander, Amir Eshel, expanded on the statement regarding Israel’s upcoming exercise.  He says that Israel has had a year of cooperation with foreign armies; as such, the exercise will include the air force of nine countries, including that of India, the U.S., Poland and Italy. 

Gili Cohen provides data which offer a simple introduction to the Iniohos 2017 event.  On the one hand, she provides data which seem to be reliable fact.  This short article, featured in the Greek Reporter, also states that the Air Forces of U.S., Greece, Italy, Israel and the UAE flew over the Acropolis as a training exercise.  Additionally, this Wikipedia page explains what the Red Flag training exercise comprises of, and lists the participating countries, Israel and the UAE among the many countries listed.  On the other hand, Cohen also provides data that seems to lack sufficient credibility.  For instance, the link for “Act with Awareness,” which Cohen provides, leads to an error page.  When searching this slogan on my own, I found mixed results, none of which could truly explain the slogan adequately.  Additionally, Cohen states that foreign media has reported unofficial meetings between representatives of Israel and the UAE, but she does not provide support for this claim.  In doing my own research, I have found these articles in the Huffington Post and Jewish Press, which fortunately support her claims.  All three articles concur that although Israel and the UAE do not have diplomatic relations, both parties have made an alliance regarding other issues.  Furthermore, Cohen includes a U.S. army report, without acknowledging the source of such statements.  Again, by doing my own research, I found an article which accredits US Air Force spokesman Capt. Robert Howard for stating that Iniohos 2017 has the capability of creating national bonds.  Furthermore, Cohen includes an anonymous statement given by a senior officer explaining the benefits of a relationship between the Israeli and Greek nations.  This Greek article details the particular strategic benefits which the Greek-Israeli alliance has created, while attributing the claims to Robert Singer, a chief representative of the World Jewish Congress. It is puzzling as to why Gili Cohen does not provide support by means of links or identifying the names of the statements she provides.  Although her data is reliable, she does not provide adequate evidence for the audience to deem the statements legitimate.

 In the entirety of Gili Cohen’s article, she includes reliable, yet inadequately supported facts.  She also provides the information in a neutral stance, yet in a manner that focuses on Israel. Cohen desires to inform the public of the recent Iniohos exercise and its particular impact on Israel.  For instance, she states that Israel has been able to forge alliances due to its participation in Air Force exercises.  She states that although Israel and the UAE do not have the best of relations, their relationship has been increasing in rapport.  She adds that the Israeli’s relationship with Greece has been flourishing as well due to their common military and economic interests.  Furthermore, Cohen boasts about the upcoming “wide-scale exercise” which will be hosted by Israel.

A Home for East Jerusalemite Palestinians

An article written by Dov Lieber titled “Dramatic Ruling Paves Way for Thousands of East Jerusalemites to Regain ResidencyRights” was featured in the Times of Israel on March 22.  The article includes a description of the Israeli Jewish Supreme Court decision to revoke the permanent residency status of indigenous East Jerusalemites.  In a precedent-setting unanimous decision, the three justices of the case, Uzi Fogelman, Menachem Mazuz, and Miriam Naor decided to restore the rights of indigenous East Jerusalemite residents.  Lieber states the justice’s decision to consider East Jerusalemites as native-born, rather than as a foreigner, with regards to restoring their residency rights.  For instance, Justice Fogelman stated that the status of East Jerusalemites is unique for they have special ties to Israel; he explains that either they may have been born in Israel, or they may have familial ties to the land.  Supreme Court president Naor agreed with this logic, but added that each case would need to be reviewed in order to identify the individual’s merits.

Lieber describes the complex history of the revocation policy in the conclusion of his article.  He states that when Israel seized the territory of East Jerusalem in 1967, the Israelis did not want to extend citizenship to the residents, and the residents did not desire to be considered as citizens of this illegal Jewish state.  To solve this dilemma, the Israeli authorities decided to conduct an impulsive census of the East Jerusalem residents; only those who registered for the census were granted “permanent residency status.”  Even so, this residency status was akin to that which is granted to non-Jews who moved into Israel under the “Entry into Israel” law of 1952; this strict edict regarding residency in Israel was applied to foreigners as well as native-born East Jerusalemites.  The law states that the East Jerusalemites have the right to apply for citizenship, but it allows the Interior Ministry to restore or remove permanent residency status.  According to the article, the Interior Ministry began revoking residency statuses in 1995 and continued through 2008.  Lieber adds that in recent years, East Jerusalemite permanent resident statuses and applications for citizenship have decreased substantially.  Nevertheless, Israeli law states that there are two ways in which an East Jerusalemite can forfeit this resident status; either by residing in another country for more than seven years, or by having citizenship in a foreign country.  Israel’s Interior Ministry excuses the harsh laws by stating that not only must Israel abide by their residency laws, but also it must ensure that Palestinians who claim to live in East Jerusalem are actual residents, rather than West Bank residents who claim residency in order to access Israeli services.

The article details the story of Akhram Abdalhak, the Palestinian native who is seeking to renew his Israeli residence with the help of Israeli lawyers.  Originally a Jerusalem native who moved to America at the age of 9, Abdalhak desired to move back to Jerusalem about 20 years ago.  However, according to Israeli law, he was no longer an Israeli resident, and thus would be considered an illegal resident.  Abdalhak moved to East Jerusalem, regardless of the illegal status he and his family would have.  It was his affinity for the land, and the residency with which his parents had that prompted his return to Israel.  In 2014, he appealed the Supreme Court to restore his residency status, but was denied.  According to the Israeli authorities, Abdalhak had been living in Jerusalem illegally since 1997 for his residency had been removed 27 years earlier due to his residency and citizenship in the United States.  Additionally, his two wives and 10 children resided with him illegally in Israel.  Nevertheless, Justice Fogelman argued that Abdalhak’s time spent in Israel proves his commitment to cherishing the land; thus, the 20 year span of illegal residency was used to his benefit.  When Abdalhak appealed the Supreme Court on March 15, he received his residency status once again, with a unanimous ruling.

According to Lieber, as well as other articles on the same topic, the laws of any other foreigner in terms of residency status applied to residents of East Jerusalem.  Additionally, these residents had been having their residency statuses revoked for decades.  As a result, these East Jerusalem residents had a growing concern of their welfare in the territory.  Nevertheless, this groundbreaking rule now recognizes the “unique” status of East Jerusalemites who are natives to the land.  The three Supreme Court justices on this case finally extend the right of residency to the residents of East Jerusalem.  The superiors agree that these residents are natives to the land and have an affinity for it; therefore, they can receive residency status once they prove that they intend to live in the area and are not a threat to the citizens’ security.  This law, which was enacted due to the persistence of Abdalhak and his lawyers, should offer the East Jerusalemites some respite.  However, the author makes note of the comments of Adi Lustigman, one of Abdalhak’s lawyers.  She states that although this law has been enacted, “only time would tell if the apparent precedent will hold.”  Consequently, Lustigman is insinuating that the law seems to offer respite to the fear of Palestinians; however, one may not know if Israeli authorities will surely enact the law in its totality.

The author of the article, Dov Lieber, is an avid writer for The Times of Israel with regards to Arab affairs.  His qualifications seem to be his degree in History of the Middle East, as well as his residency in Jerusalem.  On the one hand, when comparing this article, written by Lieber, with an article of the same topic written in Haaretz, both include the same factual details.  For example, both articles use terms such as “special circumstances” and “unique” when describing the legality of East Jerusalemites’ residency in their native state and “precedent- setting” when describing Akhram Abdalhak’s court case.  Additionally, the history of the territory with regards to the Arab population is similar in both articles.  Both articles include the fact that when East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, the population was regarded as permanent residents, as opposed to citizens or native residents.  Furthermore, a second article also describes these Palestinians as indigenous to the land of East Jerusalem; as such, their rights should not be compared to that of non-Jewish foreigners who immigrate to the territory.  On the other hand, Lieber’s job description is a “correspondent for Arab affairs;” as such, the focus of the article is on the underlying issues of Israeli law as it pertains to East Jerusalem residents specifically.  For instance, Lieber states that Akhram Abdalhak’s case is an underdog case for he had been living in America for a number of years, had an American citizenship, and had been living in Israel illegally for 20 years.  Yet Lieber also quotes Menachem Mazuz, one of the Supreme Court justices who resided on the case.  Mazuz says that Abdalhak’s situation is unique for not only is his family indigenous to the land, but also Abdalhak’s affinity for the land is proven by the number of years that he has been residing in it—illegally.   Consequently, one may deduce that the article states the facts with regards to history and Israeli law; additionally, it takes care to note the viewpoint of both Israelis as well as Palestinians.

With this article, Lieber’s goal is to elaborate on the plight of the Arab population in East Jerusalem; to inform the public of the facts.   For instance, Lieber dedicates an entire subheading to describe the “evolution of the revocation policy.”  This information is factual, as stated in the previous paragraph; however, it seems to be biased toward the unfair policies created by the Israeli authorities which target the East Jerusalemites.  It reiterates the fact that the “Entry into Israel” law of 1952 law is unfair for it equated the residency status of foreigners who wanted to move to Israel with that of native East Jerusalemites.  The law also gives the Israeli government the ability to remove their residency status.  Additionally, Lieber includes the statements of Adi Lustigman, one of Abdalhak’s immigration lawyers.  She states that this new law should come as a sigh of relief for East Jerusalemites who constantly feared the threat of resident status.  However, she also cautions that the enactment of the law is not guaranteed; “only time will tell.”  Moreover, three out of four photos in which Lieber includes in the article depict the humanity of the East Jerusalem population.  The first photo depicts Muslims who are praying their Friday afternoon services, amid Israeli security.  The second photo depicts Palestinian children playfully posing for a photo on a block of cement that was placed there by Israeli security.  The third photo depicts Palestinian school girls in front of their school, clad in modern uniform.  The juxtaposition of peaceful East Jerusalemites with the controlling, armed Israeli activity is implicit in these photos.  The illustrations offer the idea that East Jerusalem is a territory of Palestinian harmony that is constantly threatened by the presence of Israeli authority.  As such, the photos included in the article shed a positive light on not only the Arab population of East Jerusalem, but also the Supreme Court decision to revoke the permanent residency status of indigenous East Jerusalemites.  Therefore, although the article is not biased, for it provides factual information and does so in a manner that focuses on the Arabs’ justified right to live as permanent residents in East Jerusalem.  These residents are described as indigenous to the land and have a genuine affinity for it.  In his article, Dov Lieber articulates his support for the Supreme Court ruling by including historical facts which underscore Palestinian victimization throughout Israeli history, and by providing photos that depict Palestinians of East Jerusalem in a positive light.  However, by including the statements of lawyer Adi Lustigman, Lieber questions the supposed effectiveness of the law.

Children atop block of cement

Palestinians praying, Israeli security in background

East Jerusalem school girls

How do the Israelis Settle the Settlement Issue?

On February 28, Jeremy Sharon wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post titled ‘27 Days After Amona, Police Evacuate 9 Ofra Homes’. The article describes a protest on February 28 regarding various activists who gathered in Ofra in order to demonstrate against the evacuation and demolition of nine houses built on the settlement.  The activists gathered together as an answer to the plea of various settlement leaders and rabbis.  For instance, the Rabbi of Ofra, Rabbi Avi Gisser, insisted that civilians protest the forced evacuation in a peaceful manner.  According to the Jerusalem Post article, among the activists were settlers who were forced to evacuate another settlement Amona one month prior, current Ofra residents, Bnei Akiva members, and other political leaders.  The majority of the activists were minors and yeshiva students.  The unrest concerned the issue of the forced evacuation in Ofra.  According to another source, this settlement has a controversial status for it is in the West Bank, an area that is deemed as an illegally occupied territory, according to international law.  Nevertheless, the religious activists resisted police force; according to the Jerusalem Post article, some protested calmly, but others did not.  For instance, the police force was required to physically evacuate the protestors while hearing “worse than Germans” and “soldier, policeman, refuse orders” by various protestors.  In addition, several protestors and police forces were injured in the demonstration.

Image of the West Bank

Image of the West Bank, with Ofra

         The article’s author included statements from Tamar Nizri, one of the protestors who lived in Amona.  She stated that the demonstration is a vital cause for her family; although it is risky behavior, because they are confronting the police, she must instill the value of the Jewish homeland in her children.  She stated that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews according to historical evidence.  It cannot be taken away under any circumstances.

The author, Jeremy Sharon, is a reporter of religious affairs in Israel for the Jerusalem Post.  He also has experience writing for news articles including The Guardian and LA Times.  His qualifications seem to be his BA in History and MA in the History of International Relations.  When comparing this article, written by Sharon, with articles of the same topic written in Haaretz, both seem to include the same facts.  For example, both articles state that the leaders of Ofra valued peaceful protests, there were hundreds of protestors at the Ofra homes, and among those injured were both protestors and the police.  Nevertheless, Sharon’s article tends to underscore the passions and beliefs of the religious protestors.  For instance, one third of the article is dedicated to the opinions of the religious protesters Rabbi Avi Gisser and Tamar Nizri.  Consequently, one may deduce that while the article states the facts, the author may be more sympathetic toward the passions and feelings of the settlers.

In his article, Sharon tries to capture the emotions of the reader.  For example, this article focuses on the emotional and religious aspects of the protest; however, an article written in the Times of Israel focuses on the democratic law of the state.  It explains that the IDF was called to evacuate the protestors because this territory was deemed as an illegal settlement by the Israeli High Court.  Additionally, Sharon describes the protest methods employed by the demonstrators- both peaceful and violent.  The article describes the words of slander said by the protestors to the police, yet the article also includes two videos which show the peaceful aspect of the protest.  Nevertheless, Sharon includes two videos of the emotional and passionate protest, and he excuses the “Nazi” remarks by stating that the protesters were young men and women.  Furthermore, Sharon may signal his empathy toward the religious protestors by naming the West Bank with its ancient biblical names, Judea and Samaria.  Although the article is not biased, for it provides factual information, it does so in a manner that focuses on religious passions and beliefs.