JRV1338

A Discussion at Lunch

#1338 September 6, 2026

Like the two-state solution, “West Bank settler violence” is a hot topic here in America. We U.S. Jews have to form and be able to articulate views on it. Two friends and I discussed this recently at lunch, one of whom this week posted the guts of our disagreement on his website, and we exchanged comments on that. Perhaps you’ll find here your view.

A Discussion at Lunch

We three friends – Steve Crane, Stu Bykofsky and I – shared an enjoyable lunch a couple weeks back at Famous Deli on 4th street in downtown Philly. We talked of course about current Israel events, including “settler violence,” about which Stu comes down harder on Israel than do what he calls his “right-wing friends,” Steve and me.  Stu wrote about it this week on stubykofsky.com, mentioning our lunch discussion but not Steve and me by name.  

Here’s Stu’s post, headline and sub-head in bold and references to our lunch chat in italics, followed by my posted reader comment, and then Stu’s comment on that.  I offer you these contrasting views as this week’s #1338 because as with “the two-state solution” this “settler violence” is a hot topic in America and we all have to frame and be able to articulate our personal view on it.

Stu’s post:

When Israel acts badly, I can’t condone it

Recent violence got so bad that in a highly unusual move, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu issued a public denunciation of the “criminal acts.”

I stand with Israel, 100%. Always have.

That does not mean I support its government, any more than I support my own government, even though I stand with America, 100%. Always have.

What I am publishing below [see on Stu’s site] is a long The New York Times report on what is called “settler violence” on what is called the “West Bank.”

A little background:

Why the quotes? Because for most of human history, the “West Bank” was known as Samaria and Judea, two Jewish provinces. 

The term “West Bank” was invented by Jordan after Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, during which the Arab state captured and occupied territory west of the Jordan river. That had been Jordan’s border. Israel liberated the area during the Six-Day War of 1967. (Some will object to the word “liberated,” but I think it is a fair use.)

Israel still holds that land today, although most of the world calls Israel’s presence an occupation, and illegal.

Israel says the land is “disputed,” and there is no dispute about that, but what tribunal will settle the dispute while being fair to Israel?

The United Nations? You must be joking.

The International Court of Justice? That entity is so far gone even the United States does not recognize its authority.

In the world’s view, occupied land must not be settled by the governing power, yet Israel has permitted — planted, in fact — many “settlements” (they call them “communities”) on the disputed land. I reported from there in 2008. 

Prospects for peace then were bad. Today, they are worse.

But that’s not my focus today.

At a recent lunch with a couple of right-wing Jews (it sounds like an oxymoron, I know), we talked at length about “settler violence” and exchanged printouts and links to support our position.

I am totally opposed to violence from all quarters, and the internet is crawling with reports of “settler violence.”

My two friends largely discount any reporting from Western media as hostile to Israel, especially The New York Times.

There is some truth to that, but facts are facts.

And the fact is that recent violence got so bad that in a highly unusual move, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu issued a public denunciation of the “criminal acts.”

He qualified that it was a “handful of rioters” who were harming “Israel’s standing in the world.”

That is certainly true, as is the fact that Netanyahu could squash the religious extremists if he wanted to.

My friends tried to put it into context, saying that often Arabs “started it” by rock-throwing, theft and acts of vandalism, or terror.

I can concede that, but when Arabs attack Jews, the Jews have a police force, and an army.

They are not entitled to respond with vigilantism.

Israel is supposed to be the good guy. It has to act like that, now and forever.

The situation is much deeper and more complicated than I present here, but this is enough for now: illegal behavior by Jewish Israelis that must be stopped by the government, or the Jewish State will become even more of an international pariah.

I love Israel, but the love is not unconditional. I take no joy in writing this.

If Israel turns its back on its founding as a multi-ethnic, liberal democracy, as a Biblical “light to the nations,” how can it remain lovable to me?

My posted comment:

I’m one of the two “right-wing” friends of Stu’s whom this posting says discussed “settler violence” at lunch with him recently.  We do differ on this, as on “the two-state solution,” ripping from Israel historic Jerusalem and defensible Judea-Samaria heartland, which I agree with Israel National News as fatally “Unthinkable” for Israel.

 Three points of disagreement with this posting of Stu’s:

 #1: Stu’s posting says Steve Crane and I “tried to put it [“settler violence”] into context,” citing Arabs having “started it” through rock-throwing or worse, but the true context, unmentioned by Stu, is Palestinian Authority “Pay-for-Slay” instigation and rewarding of Arabs slaying Israelis, creating an entire environment, not unconnected incidents. 

 E.g.: Israeli newspaper Jewish Edition, 8/13/26 on recent Qusra occurrence: “Qusra is not simply an isolated Arab village suddenly victimized by marauding Jews. For years, Qusra has been the source of repeated violent incidents against Jewish hikers, shepherds and nearby communities, including lynching attempts, road spikes, attacks on Jewish drivers, stone-throwing, explosive devices and other attacks.”

 Talk about “context”: That Steve and I see “settler violence” in the far vaster Pay-for-Slay context is trivial compared to UN Sec. Gen’s “not in a vacuum” context for Hamas’ Oct. 7 sadistically murderous pogrom.  

 #2: Stu’s posting says Israel calls Judea-Samaria “disputed.” If it does, both Israel and Stu shouldn’t. The world doesn’t call it “disputed.” The world, e.g., UNSC 2334, calls it “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Israel and Stu should call it “Ours.”

#3: Stu’s posting concludes that his love for Israel “is not unconditional,” that “if Israel turns its back on its founding as a multi-ethnic, liberal democracy … how can it remain lovable to me?” 

 Indeed, Israel IS “a multi-ethnic liberal democracy,” but its raison d’etre is that it’s our Jewish people’s Dream of Generations sovereign national home in which Jews can openly freely be Jewish and in which we can Ingather our persecuted Exiles from the ends of the earth.  Historically, legally, equitably (eastern Palestine, judenrein Jordan, is Palestinian Arabs’ majority in-Palestine homeland), the land of Israel, Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria at its core, is indispensably Ours. Yes, minor-compared-to-Arab-on-Jew-violence and all, Stu, Love It.

Stu’s reply to my comment:

1- Pay-for-Slay is not unique to West Bank nor does it justify vigilante action.

2- Israel does call it “disputed.” I have seen that word used.

3- It is NOW a multi-ethnic liberal democracy and your beliefs would change it.

Bottom Line

The crux of my disagreement with Stu isn’t whether vigilante action is justified, even when it’s “not in a vacuum,” which these far minority Judea-Samaria residents’ far less than Arab-on-Jew violence there certainly is.  The context here is that our Jewish people’s homeland’s sovereignty, reborn in our time after eighteen hundred years, is under existential canard-bomb attack the world over, including by governments in Europe and powerful political forces here.  We U.S. Jews have to stand by it, yes, unconditionally.  The land of Israel, historic Jerusalem and defensible Judea-Samaria heartland at its very core, is justly and indispensably Ours.