This is going to be the first of what I hope to be several posts addressing how and why two movements on opposite sides of the divide, Peace Now and the Settler Movement, have gone from positions (at varying times) of having majority support from the Israeli populace to becoming marginalized and derided movements in the eyes of their previous supporters. This first post will focus on the current, common, mistakes these two movements are making today, given that they have become “minority” movements –that is, having the support of only a small portion of the population. It will also show why the settlers come out somewhat ahead (though that is not saying much).
For a minority group or movement to play a truly influential role and to gain (or in this case, regain) majority support, years of research on movements have shown that there are two fundamental and crucial things that the movement must do in order to succeed. The movement and its members must present a unified front and the movement must demonstrate flexibility. While presenting a united front is crucial, demonstrating inflexibility and dogmatically adhering to a hardline approach is the most damaging to a minority movement.
For any movement, being able to both present a united front while at the same time demonstrating flexibility is a tall order. A very tall order. It is why so few minority groups make the big time. And, while it is quite difficult (especially so when it comes to Israelis!) to get all of the members of a movement to toe a particular line (united front) without any significant individual deviation from the “party line,” it is doubly difficult to get all those members to continue to toe the party line when flexibility must be demonstrated. In other words, when there must be some slight alteration to the originally stated party line, some compromise somewhere.
Consider, for instance a situation where in the Settler Movement all of those supporting the movement solidly agree and take a united stand that there will be absolutely no pullout from Judea and Sumaria (the West Bank). Nice, they’ve got a united front and all is good on that score. Ah but then here is this illegal outpost in the West Bank and the majority of Israelis are saying no, no, no you must get out of that outpost (not out of Judea and Sumaria but out of that particular patch of land). Continuing to say “get stuff because hell no we won’t go, not one inch will we move from any spot we’ve decided to put ourselves, legally or not, in all of Judea and Sumaria” is not demonstrating flexibility. Indeed, it is demonstrating a hardline adherence thereby causing the majority to become even more firmly against the Settler movement. This is where we usually can conclude that that’s all she wrote because this is where things typically end up.
But let’s suppose that this is not the case. Instead, to remedy things the leaders of the Settler Movement decide it is best to show some flexibility in order to gain the support and approval of the majority (and thereby have a chance of achieving the Movement’s greater aims beyond this one little outpost) and say something like, “we’d be willing to pull out of place X if the people living there can take up residence and have some new homes built for them in legal settlement Y” (or any other kind of “compromise” they might come up with –still staying in the West Bank, indeed “growing” in the West Bank just on a different patch of land in the West Bank and “legally” if the government approves it) –and then they follow through with this. Now this would be greeted by the majority as “wow, they are being reasonable” and the movement’s standing would be raised –e.g. there would be more support for the movement and less animosity toward them. Unless, and here’s where the real spanner tends to jam things up, members of the Settler Movement rebel and decide to deviate from this (new) united front position and scream and yell, claim they won’t go, have to be dragged away and so forth. Then, the majority does not view the movement as flexible, it does not view it as reliable, and they continue to have a negative view of the movement. Indeed that negative view is likely to deepen as a result of the action of these rebel members. Keeping these rebels in line is a daunting task and, in most movements, is not achieved.
The example I’ve given above is actually what has happened with the Migron outpost and the situation is currently unfolding…we’ll see where things end up when push comes to pullout. The settler movement got a good “boost” in approval from many “oy the damn settlers” average Israelis when news came out that the leaders had agreed to dismantle Migron in return for the creation of an entirely new, but this time legal, settlement in the West Bank. Yo, your average Israeli did not jump up and down and scream “NO NO look they are building a whole new settlement, how terrible!” Instead, that part got a big shrug –nu, well it is legal and at least they are being flexible and not so dogmatic. Mostly you heard people saying things like, “can you imagine, they are actually being reasonable, they are doing the right thing.” I know a number of people who have in recent years become pretty staunchly anti-settler who expressed increased respect for the movement following this announcement and started saying things like, “well they have some really good points” and even, “I’m no longer so sure that we should even be considering dividing Jerusalem.”
But the deal is, with every “rebel action,” with every rabidly dogmatic proclamation of “not one inch” with every bit of bad behaviour on the part of individuals within the wider movement, the less support the movement finds in “middle Israel.”
I’m going to continue this and discuss Peace Now in another post because my battery is on “dying” and I forgot half of my cable at home so I can’t plug it in. So the continuation coming soon (tonight or tomorrow)