Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2009
The question of the Israeli settlement in the occupied territories has become a focal point for the political system, an issue of ‘high politics’ affecting values and symbols important to Israeli society as a whole. Indeed, the settlement issue may be described as having a significant bearing both on the domestic scene and on Israel's posture In the international arena. Domestically, it has been a subject of acute controversy and intense power straggles. Externally, the. settlements have aroused widespread international opposition and criticism.
1. On the role of interest groups in the foreign policy process see Milbrath, L., ‘Interest Groups and Foreign Policy’ in Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy Rosenau, J. (ed.) (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Cohen, B. C., The Influence of Non-Governmental Groups on Foreign Policy Making (Boston, 1959)Google Scholar; Bauer, R. A.et al., American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade (New York, 1963).Google Scholar
2. Brecher, M., The Foreign Policy System of Israel (London, 1972)Google Scholar; Browstein, L., ‘Decision Making in Israeli Foreign Policy: An Unplanned Process’, Political Science Quarterly, 92 (1977), pp. 259–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Medding, P. Y., Mapai in Israel (Cambridge, 1972), p. 218.Google Scholar
4. Brecher, op. cit. p. 547.
5. A description of these groups may be found in Mclaurin, R. D.et al., Foreign Policy Making in the Middle East (New York, 1977), pp. 169–211.Google Scholar
6. This classification is derived of Cohen, B. C., The Public's Impact on Foreign Policy (Boston, 1972), p. 146.Google Scholar
7. Gamson, W. A., Power and Discontent (Homewood, III, 1968).Google Scholar
8. Dahl, R. A., ‘The Concept of Power’, Behavioral Science, 2 (1957), pp. 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Selznick, P., The Organizational Weapon (Glencoe, III., 1960).Google Scholar
10. A comprehensive description of the LIM is found in Isaac, R. J., Israel Divided (Baltimore, 1976), pp. 45–73.Google Scholar
11. On the foreign policy of the NRP see Yishai, Y. ‘Party Factionalism and Foreign Policy: Demands and Responses’, Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, 3 (1977), pp. 53–70.Google Scholar
12. A full version of this letter was published in the Jerusalem Post, 8 March 1978.Google Scholar
13. On the Peace Movement see Isaac, op. cit. pp. 73–102.
14. On Ein Vered see Jerusalem Post 24 April 1976. The Faithfuls of Eretz Israel first organized as a faction in Herut in opposition to Begin's policy at Camp David. Subsequently the faction withdrew from Herut and formed with other hawkish groups the Hatchia party (the Revival).
15. Guttman, L., ‘The Israeli Public, Peace and Territory’, in The Impact of the Sadat Initiative (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 4Google Scholar. A poll conducted in July 1979 revealed that only a third of the Israeli public support retreat from land in return for peace. Haaretz, 3 July 1979.Google Scholar
16. On the ideology of Gush Emunim see Odea, J., ‘Gush Emunim: Roots and Ambiguities’, Forum, 24 (1976), pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
17. Levinger, M., a noted Gush Emunim leader, in an interview with Jerusalem Post, 8 August 1976.Google Scholar
18. As one of the Gush leaders put it: ‘We wanted people to feel that their contribution to the cause does not consist only in carrying a membership card, but that their “card” is the acts they perform… volunteering to do work in the offices or at settlement sites.’ Jerusalem Post, 8 August 1976.Google Scholar
19. In fact a senior US senator warned that Congress was likely to withhold economic and military aid to Israel if it continued to invest in the proliferation of new settlements in the West Bank, see Jerusalem Post, December 13, 1978Google Scholar. See also Vance's statement quoted in the Washington Post, 27 July 1977.Google Scholar
20. G. Cohen, a former militant MK of the Herut party had warned this would be the case. Minutes of the Knesset, 75 (1975), p. 587.Google Scholar
21. Palgi, A., Peace and Nothing More (Tel Aviv, 1978)Google Scholar. In Hebrew.
22. Dowse, R. E. and Hughes, J. E., ‘Sporadic Interventionists’, Political Studies, 25 (1977), pp.84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Verba, S.et. al, ‘Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam’, American Political Science Review, 61 (1967), pp. 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Yigai Allon, who served both as Minister of Education and as Deputy Premier, submitted the plan to the government on 26 July 1967.
25. Haaretz, 1–5 May 1975.
26. Haaretz, 5 June; 18 June; 28 July 1974.
27. Haaretz, 9 December 1975.
28. Rabin denounced Gush Emunim as the advocate of anti-democratic ideologies. Minutes of the Knesset, 11 (1976), p. 2756.Google Scholar
29. According to the Administration Permit Law 1970, Israeli citizens need personal licenses issued by the military commander for visiting the occupied territories for longer than 24 hours.
30. Budget Proposal for the Fiscal Year 1980/81 (Jerusalem, 1980), p. 119Google Scholar. According to unofficial information government indirect investments in the settlements in the fiscal year 1979/80 amounted to nearly 20 billion IL, 15 per cent of the national budget Haaretz, 25 July 1980.Google Scholar
31. In the period May 1977 – December 1978, fourteen settlements were founded in the West Bank inhabited by 420 families. The number of Jewish settlers increased from 2,006 in 1977 to 3,394 in 1978, see Budget Proposal, op. cit. During 1979 11 new settlements were either established or in the process of being formed, see Haaretz, 21 September 1979.Google Scholar
32. Gable, R. W., ‘Interest Groups as Policy Shapers’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 319 (1958), pp. 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. The advisers were Prof. Yuval Neeman, nominated on 11 October 1974, and General Arik Sharon, nominated on 2 June 1975.
34. During the settlement activities in December 1978 two cabinet members joined the settlers. Their participation was discussed in the Knesset and raised as an issue by the opposition. Maariv, 1 January 1978.Google Scholar
35. Only after his resignation from the government, on May 1980, did the former Minister of Defence, Ezer Wiezmann, adhere to some of the causes of Peace Now.
36. On this meeting see Haaretz, 9 May 1978.Google Scholar
37. In a press interview the General Secretary of the NRP declared: ‘should the government decide to stop new settlements or not to enlarge existing ones, we would consider it our red line.’ Jerusalem Post, 15 January 1979.Google Scholar
38. In the last elections to the Knesset (June 1981) some Peace Now leaders joined a fringe party (The Movement for Civil Rights – Ratz) and failed to secure a mandate.
39. Shimon Peres, Minister of Defence in the Alignment cabinet, declared in the Knesset that dissent between the government and Gush Emunim is not over ideology but timing; not on principle but on details of implementation. Minutes of the Knesset, 75 (1975), p. 595.Google Scholar
40. This distinction is made by Trice, R. E., Interest Groups and the Foreign Policy Process: US Policy in the Middle East (Beverly Hills, Calif., 1976), p. 10.Google Scholar
