always pray and never give up essay

Luke 18:1-8: Always Pray and Do Not Give Up

August 15, 2021, today's bible reading:.

Nehemiah 9 ,  Proverbs 12:15-28 ,  Luke 18:1-8 ,  2 Timothy 3:10-17  

Luke 18:1-8 :

There are motivations for prayer, but here in this parable Jesus pulls upon two less commonly considered motivations. The aim of Jesus teaching in these eight verses is, as Luke says, to teach us to “always pray and not give up.” Both those lessons need to be learned: we need to learn to always pray, and we need to learn not to give up.

Of course, we cannot always be in a “prayer meeting,” but we can have a pattern of life whereby regular prayer is consistently, always, an aspect of our lives. We can regularly and consistently resort to God in prayer throughout the day too, and not just in our quiet times at the beginning of the day. But we also need to learn “not to give up.” It is easy to become discouraged by prayer, to think that prayer doesn’t make any difference. But we need to not give up. How, though, do we find the motivation to always pray and not give up?

Jesus’ parable provides us with less commonly considered motivations. The story is of an unrighteous judge. He neither fears God nor cares about men. A God-fearing judge would be best of all. He would do what was right in the eyes of God, whether or not it pleased people. But many judges would at least care about the opinion of other people, and therefore do what is right if people were paying any attention. But to come before a judge who neither fears God nor cares about people is the worst kind of judge!

The widow, vulnerable with her lack of a husband to protect her and advocate for her, is seeking justice against an adversary. The adversary has taken advantage of her vulnerable state, perhaps. At any rate, the judge will not listen to the widow. He refuses to give justice. But, note this, her persistent inquiring eventually wears down even the unrighteous judge!

Now what is the conclusion from this? The conclusion is that if an unrighteous judge will hear the plea of a widow because of her persistence,  how much more then  will God, who is a righteous judge, hear the prayers of his elect people! So the first motivation is that God is the kind of God who hears prayers. Therefore, pray! And keep on praying, and don’t give up!

But the second motivation, in the second half of verse 8, perhaps building on the first, is to do with the coming return of Jesus. In context, Jesus is talking about this return. The point here is that while God’s answer to his elect people’s prayers is absolutely certain, Jesus brings a question to the perseverance of his people to the end: “when the Son of Man comes will he find faith on earth?” In other words, God will be faithful—but will we?

The second motivation then is the challenge that this gives us. Be faithful; there may well be times when it is difficult. But the challenge is laid down before us and, in God’s power, we can do it. Therefore, rise to the challenge, be faithful! Always pray and do not give up.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Josh Moody (Ph.D., University of Cambridge) is the senior pastor of College Church in Wheaton, IL., president and founder of God Centered Life Ministries, and author of several books including How the Bible Can Change Your Life  and John 1-12 For You .

To receive God Centered Life devotionals directly in your inbox, as well as other resources, enter your email address in the form at the bottom of this page and click "subscribe."

Devotionals

Get pastor josh’s daily devotional in your inbox..

exploring the faith

With curt parton, persevering prayer: always pray and never give up.

[For some of you, this will be a continuation of both our Taking Root study last week and our church adult study on Sunday morning.]

There are some passages of Scripture that emphasize ‘not giving up’ or ‘persevering’ in our prayer. If we don’t look at these texts carefully, it’s easy to get the wrong idea. Let’s take a look at one that sometimes confuses believers, Luke 18:1-8:

One day Jesus told his disciples a story to show that they should always pray and never give up. “There was a judge in a certain city,” he said, “who neither feared God nor cared about people. A widow of that city came to him repeatedly, saying, ‘Give me justice in this dispute with my enemy.’ The judge ignored her for a while, but finally he said to himself, ‘I don’t fear God or care about people, but this woman is driving me crazy. I’m going to see that she gets justice, because she is wearing me out with her constant requests!'”

I can’t tell you how many people have said to me: “See, the woman had to hound the judge until he did what she asked, and God is teaching us to do the same thing with him!” But is this what Jesus is teaching us in this story?

Those who were with us on Sunday morning will recall a similar story (in Luke 11:5-8). During our discussion, I referred to some of the imagery from Psalm 23. Do we believe that the Lord is really our Shepherd? Of course, we do. Then how often do we get down on all fours and follow him out to some pasture where we munch on grass and then go and stick our face in the water for a cool drink? That’s silly, isn’t it? We don’t do that because we know the Psalm is speaking figuratively about the way God cares for us. We understand there are limitations to the metaphor.

The week before, we studied the story of the “good Samaritan” in Luke 10:30-37. Jesus ends the conversation by telling the expert in religious law to “go and do the same.” Does this mean that the man was supposed to convert and become a Samaritan, hang out on the road to Jericho and search for a man who had been robbed, beaten and left for dead? No, we understand that Jesus was teaching the man to show the same kind of mercy, to love his neighbor as the Samaritan did in the story. We need to see that we don’t just settle for an easy, surface application of a parable; we have to really understand what Jesus is getting across to the people—and to us.

So what’s happening in our story? Right away, we tend to identify with the widow. She’s in need. She’s been a victim of injustice. She desperately needs help. Is she like some of us? Definitely.

But the first character that Jesus mentions isn’t the widow. It’s the judge. What is he like? He didn’t care about anybody else—not the will of God or the needs of the people around him. All he cared about was himself. Is this a picture of God? Not at all! This isn’t anything like God, is it? So if the judge isn’t a picture of God, then the way the woman has to wear down the judge is not a picture of how we are to pray to God. This isn’t a comparison; it’s a contrast .

The reason why we should always pray and never give up is that God isn’t like this judge. After all who is actually able to hound God and pressure him to do something for us? If we had to resort to this level of coercion to convince God to act, then we may as well despair now because if God wants to ignore us, he’ll ignore us! There’s nothing we can do about it. We could never pour on enough pressure to make him do anything!

“Then . . . if God already knows what I need, why do I have to keep praying and not give up? Why do I have to pray at all?” Because prayer is not about getting God to respond. It’s about getting me to participate in what he’s doing.

Let’s broaden the question. Scripture makes it clear that God wants us to evangelize, to share the Good News with those around us. Why us? Couldn’t God do a much better job of communicating the Gospel than we can? Doesn’t he have a much better idea of who needs to hear and when they’re ready to listen? Why doesn’t he just bypass us and reach the people directly? You can’t disagree that the job would be accomplished much more quickly and in a much better manner, can you?

When someone is suffering emotional pain, why doesn’t God have us step aside and let the Holy Spirit do all the comforting directly? Why does he insist on also ministering through us ? It’s not that he can accomplish more or produce better quality ministry through us. But, for some reason, he wants us to participate in everything he’s doing.

So you show them where to paint, and you praise their efforts—and then come along behind them and fix where they’ve splattered paint everywhere and somehow make it right. “Look what we did together!” You do this because you love them and want them to be with you. And I’m sure God does the same thing for us all the time.

“But God responds to our prayers.” Yes he does, and I’m so glad of that. But be careful of thinking this is a clear ’cause and effect’ kind of thing. Let’s say your six-year-old son has decided to put together a model airplane, and he gets a model that’s way beyond his ability to put together on his own. You offer him help, but he pushes you away. “I’ll do it myself!” So you say, “Alright, buddy, you can tackle this all on your own.” And—when you can see he’s getting frustrated—you remind everyone: “Bobby wants to put the model together himself without any help.” Until, finally, Bobby comes to you and, in a small voice, tells you that maybe he can’t do it all by himself, and would you help him?

Do you respond? Of course. Are you wanting to help him? You’ve wanted to help him all along. But it was more important that he come to the place where he recognize his need for help and where he’s willing to ask you for help. This illustration is somewhat flawed, because our children can ask for things that we didn’t anticipate. But we can never surprise God.

When we pray, we’re not telling God anything he doesn’t already know. And when he responds, it’s not because we’ve somehow thought of the perfect solution for him to put into motion. “Oh Lord, this is what I think you should do in this situation. Amen.” Sometimes he may delay doing what he desires to do until we get with his program. But when he responds, it’s always according to his will, it’s always what he intended to do all along.

So when we pray for someone’s healing, what we are saying, in essence, is: “Lord, we want to be a part of what you’re doing in this situation—because we know that’s what you want. We don’t know exactly what you intend to do in this circumstance, but we know that you love this person and that you desire to work in their life in a powerful way according to your perfect wisdom and timing. We confidently, but humbly, make our requests. But we’re not asking you to conform to our idea of what should happen here; we’re asking you to help us pray according to what you intend to do. And we know that what you do will be the best outcome for everyone involved. Thank you for choosing to involve us in your work, and even to work through us.”

So always pray and never give up. God is not like the uncaring judge, and we don’t have to hound him to get him to listen. In fact, this is just what Jesus said when he himself commented on this story:

Then the Lord said: “Learn a lesson from the unjust judge. Even he rendered a just decision in the end. So don’t you think God will surely give justice to his chosen people who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will grant them justice quickly!”

[This is all I have planned for our series on prayer. If you have more prayer-related questions, email me or let me know in the blog comments. If I don’t receive any prayer questions for us to tackle, then we’ll move on to another topic next week. (Feel free to submit any questions or topics that you’d like to study.)]

Prayer  series:

Why is prayer sometimes so . . . strange?

Prayer: Learning from the pros

Pray without ceasing?

Prayer: Expecting an answer

Persevering prayer: Always pray and never give up [see above]

Share this:

4 thoughts on “ Persevering prayer: Always pray and never give up ”

Thank you, Gabriel. I’m glad this was helpful to you.

This has been so helpful to me. Wow! Prayer is God wanting us to be a part of what He is doing. Thank you.

I’m so glad this blessed you! Thank you for commenting and letting me know.

Comments are closed.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Resource Detail

Always pray and not give up.

• by Ron Ward
• Dec 09, 2013

Luke 18:1-14

Key Verse: 18:1

1. Read verse 1. What was the point of Jesus' parable? Why do people give up instead of praying? Why should they not? (1 Thes 5:16-18)

2. Read verses 2-5. How does Jesus describe the judge? What does it mean that he did not fear God? Care about people? What effect did this have on him?

3. What is the prayer topic of the persistent widow? What in her situation might cause her to be so persistent? What does it mean to be persistent? What did the judge decide to do? Why? How is this consistent with his character?

4. Read verses 6-8. Why does Jesus say, "Listen to the unjust judge"? How is God different from this judge? What does it mean to "cry out to him day and night?" What kind of prayer topics should God's chosen ones have?

5. Why is it that God will surely listen to the prayers of his chosen ones? What will God do for them? What does it mean to "bring about justice?" Why don't people pray? What will be revealed when Jesus comes again?

6. Read verses 9-14. What does Jesus continue to teach about prayer? To whom did Jesus tell this parable?

7. Describe the prayer topic of the first man? What was his attitude? What was the prayer topic of the second man? What was his attitude? Which man's prayer does God answer? Why? What do you learn about God?

File attachments:

• lk18_1-14q.doc
• lk18_1-14q.pdf

"Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up."

At this point in Luke's gospel, Jesus was approaching Jerusalem, where he would die for our sins and rise again. Then he would leave this world and turn gospel ministry over to his disciples. They traveled with him toward Jerusalem, but they did not understand what was happening. They had a false hope that Jesus would establish a glorious kingdom on earth. Jesus knew that these false hopes would soon be dashed to pieces; then they would be disoriented. They would also face persecution and trials. In order to prepare them, Jesus imparted truth through a simple story to teach them to always pray and not give up. This is a most fitting study for us as we begin a new year. We may have dreams and expectations for 2013 that will not be fulfilled. We face challenges that are beyond our capability to handle. We have problems that only God can solve. How can we reach the other side of 2013 victoriously? Jesus tells us, "always pray and not give up."

What do you think when you hear the words, "always pray"? To some it sounds like a demand for more work. To others it evokes feelings of guilt, for they think they did not pray enough. Others are burdened by a sense of duty, imagining lists of requests they should recite over and over again, and they feel bored before even beginning. These negative thoughts hinder us from experiencing the joy and power of prayer. As we study verse 1, let's consider what it really means to pray and what it means to "always pray and not give up." In verses 2-8, Jesus teaches us about persistence in prayer and the character of God. In verses 9-14, Jesus teaches us humble repentance in prayer and more about God's character.

First, "always pray and not give up" (1). Verse 1 says, "Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." Prayer is coming into the presence of God for fellowship. Jesus gives us this privilege through his blood shed on the cross (Heb 9:14). Moreover, Jesus gives us the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells within us and testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. He enables us to call God "Abba, Father" (Ro 8:15-16). So our coming to God in prayer is like a royal prince or princess approaching our Father, who is also the King. On the one hand, we are entering the presence of the Almighty Creator, who knows all things, and can do all things. He is the Eternal God, who existed before time and space. He is the Holy God, who is absolutely perfect in his divine attributes. He is the Sovereign Ruler who raises leaders of nations and humbles them. On the other hand, he is our Father who loves us and is happy to welcome us into fellowship with him. Prayer is the union of our deep innermost being with our Father God, who is our source of life, love and light. It is enjoying his presence, appreciating his magnificence. He is our Rock, our Fortress, and our Refuge. He is our Redeemer, our Savior and our Deliverer. In him our souls find peace. In him we find wisdom to help us in our time of need. In him we find strength to live holy and powerful lives. In him we find love that enlarges our hearts and delights our souls, and joy that thrills us in any circumstance. In him we find the grace to be a blessing to others and to do great things. Prayer is a journey from the toils and troubles of this world into the loving arms of our Heavenly Father through faith in Jesus Christ.

What does it mean to "always pray"? Should we stay in the church 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and pray? Let's look at Jesus. A theme of Luke's gospel is Jesus' humanity--he shows us the perfect man. Jesus obeyed his parents, shared in community life, and grew in humanity and spirituality. Another theme in Luke's gospel is Jesus' prayer life. Jesus' first recorded prayer was at his baptism which inaugurated his ministry (Lk 3:21). After that, Jesus prayed frequently in lonely places and sometimes spent the night praying to God (Lk 5:16; 6:12). Jesus prayed before making important decisions (Lk 6:12; 9:18, 29). Jesus prayed for strength to obey God's will, especially at Gethsemane (Lk 22:41). Jesus even prayed from the cross for the forgiveness of sinners (Lk 23:34a). Jesus' prayers were frequent and intense. Jesus' prayer was not just activity, but intimate personal fellowship with his Father. This prayer continues. Even now, as Jesus resides at the right hand of God, he is constantly in prayer, interceding for his people (Ro 8:34). In this way Jesus always prays and does not give up.

We learn from Jesus that there are times we need to be alone with our Father God and to pray privately. We should be intentional in making a time and place for regular prayer. Yet our prayer should not be limited to this. Jesus told us to "always pray." Paul echoed this when he said, "pray continually." Jesus wants us to have fellowship with our Father God all the time. Brother Lawrence lived a monastic life in 17th century France. He spent 15 years in kitchen duty. At the beginning of his service, he resolved to make dwelling in the presence of God his goal in all things. Whether it was time to work, time to eat or scheduled community prayer time, he tried to think of God and express love to God. For about ten years, he struggled to overcome temptations and distractions, and give his heart and mind to God. At times, he became conscious of sin. Then he simply repented, accepted Jesus' grace and continued to commune with God. The Holy Spirit helped him. Gradually he formed a lifestyle of living in the presence of God. He wrote, "In the noise and clutter of my kitchen, while several persons are at the same time calling for different things, I possess God in as great tranquility as if I were upon my knees in Blessed Supper."1 This helps understand what it means to "always pray." It is constantly remaining in our Father's presence.

By combining the words, "always pray" and "not give up" Jesus tells us that prayer is a decision to persevere through a state of tension. In order for our prayers to be heard, we may need to overcome some hindrance. This hindrance may be within. It may be unbelief. One father repented before Jesus, saying, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief." Then Jesus drove a demon out of his son (Mk 9:24). It may be fear. Jesus told a synagogue ruler, "Don't be afraid; just believe" (Mk 5:36). When the man did so, his daughter was raised from death to life. We may need to confess sin in our lives. Psalm 66:18 says, "If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened...." We may have to let go of grudges. In the context of teaching prayer, Jesus said in Mark 11:25, "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." Perhaps our motives must be purified. James 4:3 says, "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." Our prayers may be hindered by sour relationships, even with our spouses. After encouraging husbands to be considerate of their wives, Peter says, "...so that nothing will hinder your prayers." Or the hindrance may be spiritual forces in the heavenly realms. The prophet Daniel once prayed to understand a vision, and was heard right away. But the answer did not come to him for 21 days because the angel messenger was detained on the way (Dan 10:13). Our prayers may be put on hold, so to speak, as God works out his salvation. Then we need patience. Many of us are praying for loved ones--family members or Bible students. Though we have prayed for several years, we should not give up. Monica prayed 17 years for Augustine; then he was converted. George Mueller prayed for sixty years for two of his friends to be saved. One of the men was converted shortly before Mueller's death. The other was saved within a year of his death. Praying for our campus or our nation is a spiritual struggle. This should not surprise us. Let's remember that we are in a spiritual battle and "always pray and not give up."

Second, the parable of the persistent widow (2-8). In order to encourage us to pray persistently, Jesus told a parable. It contrasts a powerful judge with a helpless widow who kept pleading, "Grant me justice against my adversary." There was no compelling reason for the judge to pay attention to the widow. So he refused her request for some time. But the widow had two things in her favor. Her cause was just, and she kept on coming. The first time she may have visited his office. He made her wait, thinking she would give up after a while. But she never left. Every time he peered through a crack in his door, she was sitting there ready to see him. Finally he snuck out the back door. The next day, he worked from home. But when he went to his favorite restaurant for lunch, she followed him through the door, pleading, "Grant me justice against my adversary." He had her removed for disturbing the peace. Yet, when he went home, she was there in front of his house with a picket sign, "Grant me justice against my adversary." He went inside and tried to ignore her. She sent e-mail's, text messages, tweets, and posted on Facebook. And when he turned on his television, there she was on the local news, being interviewed. At one point, she looked into the camera and said, "Judge, grant me justice against my adversary." Wherever he turned he was confronted by her pitiful cry for justice. Then he began to have nightmares. He felt so harassed that he developed stomach ulcers and high blood pressure. He really felt that she was attacking him. So, at last, he decided to grant her request as an act of self-preservation. This teaches us that perseverance in a just cause can overcome obstacles to bring about justice. Jesus teaches us to persevere in prayer like this widow.

However, God is not like the unjust judge. First of all, God loves justice and works to bring it about. Isaiah 61:8a says, "For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery and iniquity." God does not need to be persuaded to work for justice. It pleases him to do so. Moreover, God loves his people. Jesus calls them "his chosen ones." Ephesians 1:3 says, "He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight" (Eph 1:3). He knows each of us by name and favors us. He has bound himself to us with cords of love. When we feel the pain of injustice and cry out, our cry goes straight to God's heart. The moment he hears, God is eager to satisfy our cry for justice. Jesus assures us that ultimate justice will be done when he comes again in power and great glory. Jesus' question to us is, "When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Prayer and faith are closely related. Prayer is the expression of our faith in God, not a mere expression willpower. Though we are weak, God is mighty. God is wise. God is able to do more than we can ask or imagine. No matter how difficult the problem or the situation, God can give his people victory. Jesus taught us that everything is possible for those who believe.

After Jesus' ascension, the early Christians were like the widow in this passage. They were persecuted by Jewish religious leaders and Roman authorities, who held all political power. These ungodly leaders conspired against Jesus and his people. At that time, the early Christians raised their voices together in prayer to God. They acknowledged him as Creator and Sovereign Ruler of all. They prayed that he would enable them to speak his word with great boldness. Then the place where they met was shaken. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and preached the gospel with great power (Ac 4:13-31). In the most helpless situation, God worked with supernatural power to spread the gospel. When we see our national leaders acting irresponsibly and even immorally, we need not be discouraged. It is time to raise our voices in prayer to God. Our God can shake our nation and send the power of his Holy Spirit upon us once again.

Third, humble and repentant prayer (9-14). Hearing that we should always pray and not give up emboldens us in prayer. However, this boldness needs to be balanced by a sober view of ourselves and God. So Jesus told another parable. "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get'" (10-12). This man was morally upright, willing to deny his bodily appetites, and sacrificed his money for God. But he had no idea that he needed anything from God. He did not acknowledge that he was a sinner; he was self-satisfied. His prayer was like a moment of self-appreciation before God.

On the other hand, the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner'" (13). This man had nothing to offer God. He felt unworthy to stand in the presence of God. He pleaded for mercy, acknowledging that he was nothing but a sinner. Jesus said, "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God" (14a). It means that his sins were forgiven and he was accepted as God's child. Then Jesus taught a most important principle: "For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted" (14b). The spirit of humble repentance characterizes effective prayer.

We can find the quality of persistent prayer and humble repentance in the prayer of Abraham in Genesis 18. When Abraham perceived that the Lord was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness, he began to plead for the salvation of the righteous on the basis that the Lord must do right. He began by asking God to spare the city if fifty righteous people could be found there. Then he began to reduce the number little by little, asking God again and again to spare the city, until he got down to ten righteous people. Though Abraham was bold and persistent, he was also humble. He acknowledged that he was nothing but dust and ashes before the Lord. Let's decide to have this attitude in prayer and to always pray and not give up in this New Year. Then God will surely bless us, our families, our campuses, our nation and the world in 2013.

1 Lawrence, Brother. "The Practice of the Presence of God"

• lk18_1-14m.pdf
• lk18_1-14m.doc

Bible Select

• Genesis 160
• Leviticus 4
• Deuteronomy 16
• 1 Samuel 47
• 2 Samuel 37
• 1 Chronicles 7
• 2 Chronicles 5
• Nehemiah 28
• Ecclesiastes 3
• Lamentations 2
• Zephaniah 2
• Zechariah 2
• Matthew 480
• 1 Corinthians 74
• 2 Corinthians 68
• Galatians 68
• Ephesians 78
• Philippians 56
• Colossians 36
• 1 Thessalonians 28
• 2 Thessalonians 2
• 1 Timothy 7
• 2 Timothy 35
• Revelation 46

• BROWSE TOPICS X
• Devotionals
• Newsletters

Never Give Up through Unanswered Prayers (Luke 18:1) - Your Daily Bible Verse - March 1

• Sign Up for Email?

Never Give Up through Unanswered Prayers By: Lynette Kittle

Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up . - Luke 18:1

Some believe if you ask God once, you don’t need to ask Him again. However, Jesus taught His disciples to always pray and not give up ( Luke 18:1 ).

In one of His parables on prayer , Jesus proposed what you might do if a friend comes to you in the middle of the night seeking food for an unexpected guest. You might be tempted to tell him to go away because it’s late, and you and your family are in bed.

However, because he’s your friend and has so boldly approached and asked you for help, you most likely will get up and give him all He needs ( Luke 11:5-8 ).

In summing it up, Jesus said, “So I say to you; Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; know and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened” ( Luke 11 : 9,10).

Jesus tells in another parable of a godless judge’s dealings with a widow who refused to accept his unwillingness to grant her justice from her adversary. After relentlessly pursuing the judge with her case, he gave into her merely because she refused to give up.

To His followers, Jesus reassures that if an unjust judge who doesn’t fear God will bring about justice to a widow simply because she kept bothering him, how much more will God do for His chosen ones who cry out to Him day and night ( Luke 18:2-8 ).

Jesus also urges in Matthew 7:7 to, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

So instead of seeing unanswered prayer as a reason to stop praying, view it as a motivator to not ever give up. As Thessalonians 5:17 encourages, “Pray continually.”

Keep Praying!

If you’ve been struggling with unanswered prayer, find comfort in knowing God has not forgotten you.

So instead of withdrawing from Him when it seems like He isn’t answering, consider what He might be teaching you during these times, knowing as you draw closer to Him, He will draw closer to you ( James 4:8 ).

Excerpt from: “ 5 Important Things God Teaches You through Unanswered Prayers .”

We want to experience God through the Bible… we really do!

But our good intentions fall flat when reading the Bible just doesn’t seem to help us experience God in a real way. What should feel alive often feels confusing and boring and irrelevant. But it doesn’t have to.

In the  How to Study the Bible  podcast, pastor and Bible teacher Nicole Unice brings life back to reading the Bible by walking listeners through her Alive Method of Bible study, helping us personally encounter God through his Word by giving us a practical, clear road map for understanding, interpreting and applying Scripture to our lives. Just click below to start listening now!

Read More Your Daily Bible Verse

• You Could Give Up, Or You Could Do This (2 Corinthians 1:9) - Your Daily Bible Verse - May 16 May 16, 2024
• Do Not Let Your Hearts Be Troubled (John 14:27) - Your Daily Bible Verse - May 15 May 15, 2024
• Keep Calm in Chaotic Moments (1 John 4:18) - Your Daily Bible Verse - May 14 May 14, 2024
• Will I Have My Own Home in Heaven? (John 14:2) - Your Daily Bible Verse - May 13 May 13, 2024

Editor's Picks

Popular Today

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Crosswalk App
• California - Do Not Sell My Personal Information
• California - CCPA Notice

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Personal Growth and Development — The Power of Never Giving Up

The Power of Never Giving Up

• Categories: Personal Growth and Development

About this sample

Words: 559 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 559 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Ntroduction, the power of perseverance, benefits of never giving up, overcoming obstacles, the role of mindset, the importance of support systems.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 520 words

1 pages / 533 words

1 pages / 673 words

2 pages / 840 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Personal Growth and Development

Why do we need to examine our life? This question delves into the profound practice of introspection and self-reflection. The process of examining our lives allows us to gain deeper insights into our experiences, behaviors, and [...]

Embracing the journey to be your best self is a pursuit that resonates deeply with individuals across cultures and generations. This essay embarks on an exploration of the concept of self-improvement, delving into its [...]

Adonis, J. (1995). A history of The Boys' Brigade. The Boys' Brigade Asia.Boys' Brigade Australia. (2018). History of The Boys' Brigade. Routledge

Help.open.ac.uk. (2019). Friends and family: When study gets difficult - Help Centre - Open University. Available at: Jou

An ideal person is one who is ideal in respect of physical and emotional balance, behavior and attitude, moral values, personality. In practical life, the combination of all these fine characteristics is very rarely found in any [...]

The first step in the development plan is to conduct a self-analysis such as SWOT and then identify the priority areas that junior managers need to become senior managers in the same organization. After completing this section, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Syrophoenician Woman: A Woman of Great Faith

No narration available

“And from thence he arose, and went away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon” (Mark 7:24a). Matthew wrote that Jesus “withdrew” (15:21). This was the third time in which Jesus withdrew from Galilee in the gospel of Mark (cf. 4:35; 6:31).

The Lord sought solitude with his disciples, but the text says,

“And he entered into a house, and would have no man know it; and he could not be hid” (7:24b).

He had not gone into Gentile territory to embark on a healing ministry, but his fame had reached beyond the borders of Galilee (cf. 3:8).

During this retreat into a largely Gentile region, a woman approached Jesus for help. Mark introduced the account with a strong adversative conjunction, “but,” (Grk. alla), recording the fact that in contrast to the need for seclusion, a notable scene developed.

Mark 7:25 reveals that when this woman heard that Jesus was in the area, she came immediately and fell down at his feet. The aorist participles indicate that she fell down at his feet when she heard and when she came. Thus, the writer expressed the urgency in this mother’s heart as she unabashedly pursued Jesus — immediately.

Mark explained that she was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race (7:26). She was a Greek speaking lady who was a Gentile. She kept on asking (Grk. imperfect tense) him to cast forth the demon out of her daughter (cf. Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality? ).

Matthew related that her request was formed in this way: “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon. But he answered her not a word” (Matthew 15:22-23). So intrusive was this woman that the disciples encouraged Jesus to send her away.

Jesus replied by saying, “I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). “But she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me” (v. 25).

“And he said to her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs” (Mark 7:27). Jesus used the diminutive form of the term “dogs” (i.e., the little dogs). D. Edmond Hiebert observed, “Jesus softened the force of the expression with His use of the diminutive, ‘little dogs’. . . Clearly His reference is to the little household pets, which, while not children in the house, yet had a place in the affairs of the household” ( The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary , Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1994, p. 210).

The woman followed the Lord’s parable, acknowledging the distinction implied by his words. Perhaps she saw a glimmer of hope in the word “first,” for Jesus implicitly revealed that while there was a redemptive priority for the Jews, the blessings of heaven did not exclusively belong to them.

With remarkable insight and persistence, she replied, “Yea, Lord; even the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs” (Mark. 7:28). Jesus responded, “For this saying go thy way; the demon is gone out of thy daughter” (v. 29).

“This saying,” (i.e., her reply to Jesus) evidenced great faith on her part. Matthew records the assessment of our Lord: “O woman, great is thy faith” (15:28). Because of her faith, expressed in her thoughtful exchange with Jesus, the Lord granted her request for a miracle. The verb “is gone out,” is in the perfect tense, reflecting the Lord’s control and power. The demon left while they spoke and would remain out .

Consider the following observations about this woman of great faith.

This lady had great spiritual insight. She was not asking the Lord to alter the way he was implementing the plan of God, which would later be carried out by the apostles to the Jew first and also to the Greek. She was simply asking for a “crumb.” Faith is based upon understanding the will of God. It is founded upon knowledge — not mere emotion.

This mother illustrated the connection between faith and unfavorable circumstances. Great faith will rely upon the Son of God. Faith becomes stronger in times of distress for those who tenaciously depend on God (cf. James 1:2-4).

This woman demonstrated that great faith seeks the welfare of others. Those who trust in God will intercede for others. How much more ought we to be concerned about the spiritual welfare of those we love?

The Gentile lady showed the relationship of faith and humility. Her humble disposition complimented her genuine faith. Great faith is seeing one’s complete dependence upon God.

The Syrophoenician woman taught us that great faith endures. She was steadfast and resilient in her request of the Lord. Reminiscent of the woman who pursued the unjust judge, she reminds us to always pray and never give up (cf. Luke 18:1ff).

The distressed mother exemplified that great faith in the Son of God will result in a great deliverance. Although miraculous healings were confined to the first century during the infancy of Christianity (cf. John 20:30-31; see What Does the Bible Say About Miracles? ), today everyone who will follow the Lord with obedient faith can be delivered from that which plagues all morally accountable people — sin.

What a relevant message. We need to cultivate great faith so that we may obtain the greater deliverance through the Great Physician — the salvation of our souls.

• Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
• Faithfulness of God
• Saving Grace
• Adoption by God

Most Popular

• Gender Identity
• Trusting God
• The Holiness of God
• See All Essays

• Best Commentaries
• Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
• Death of Christ
• Resurrection of Jesus
• Church and State
• Sovereignty of God
• Faith and Works
• The Carson Center
• The Keller Center
• New City Catechism
• Publications
• Read the Bible
• TGC Pastors

U.S. Edition

• Arts & Culture
• Bible & Theology
• Christian Living
• Current Events
• Faith & Work
• As In Heaven
• Gospelbound
• Post-Christianity?
• TGC Podcast
• You're Not Crazy
• Churches Planting Churches
• Help Me Teach The Bible
• Word Of The Week
• Upcoming Events
• Past Conference Media
• Foundation Documents
• Church Directory
• Global Resourcing
• Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

What Does It Mean to "Pray without Ceasing"?

More by trevin.

John Piper interprets Paul’s challenging command :

“Praying without ceasing” means at least three things. Advertise on TGC First, it means that t here is a spirit of dependence that should permeate all we do . This is the very spirit and essence of prayer. So, even when we are not speaking consciously to God, there is a deep, abiding dependence on him that is woven into the heart of faith. In that sense, we “pray” or have the spirit of prayer continuously. Second – and I think this is what Paul has in mind most immediately – praying without ceasing means praying repeatedly and often. I base this on the use of the word “without ceasing” in Romans 1:9, where Paul says, “For God is my witness, who I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you.” Now we can be sure that Paul did not mention the Romans every minute of his waking life, or even every minute of his prayers. He prayed about many other things. But he mentioned them over and over, and often. So “without ceasing” doesn’t mean that, verbally or mentally, we have to be speaking prayers every minute of the day in the fight for joy. It means we should pray over and over, and often. Our default mental state should be: “O God, help…” Third, praying without ceasing means not giving up on prayer. Don’t ever come to a point in your life where you cease to pray at all. Don’t abandon the God of hope and say, “There’s no use praying.” Jesus is very jealous for us to learn this lesson. One of his parables is introduced by the words, “And he told them a parable to the effect tha tthey ought always to pray and not lose heart. He knew our experience in prayer would tempt us to quit altogether. So he, along with the apostle Paul, says, Never lose heart. Go on praying. Don’t cease.

Trevin Wax is vice president of research and resource development at the North American Mission Board and a visiting professor at Cedarville University. A former missionary to Romania, Trevin is a regular columnist at The Gospel Coalition and has contributed to The Washington Post , Religion News Service , World , and Christianity Today . He has taught courses on mission and ministry at Wheaton College and has lectured on Christianity and culture at Oxford University. He is a founding editor of The Gospel Project, has served as publisher for the Christian Standard Bible, and is currently a fellow for The Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics. He is the author of multiple books, including The Thrill of Orthodoxy , The Multi-Directional Leader , Rethink Your Self , This Is Our Time , and Gospel Centered Teaching . His podcast is Reconstructing Faith . He and his wife, Corina, have three children. You can follow him on Twitter or Facebook , or receive his columns via email .

A Sickness in Pursuing Health

Does the Pursuit of Godliness Lead to Self-Righteousness?

Defy the Decay Rate for Worship in the Church

Remember the 4 ‘Alls’ of the Great Commission

Is Your Church Countercultural?

Other Blogs

ILMA ARTS STUDIO

Where visual & literary arts thrives.

PRAY ALWAYS AND NEVER GIVE UP Poem Devotional

November 7________________________________________ One day Jesus told his disciples a story to show that they should always pray and never give up. – Luke 18:1(NLT) PRAY ALWAYS AND NEVER GIVE UP A poem and essay by ILMA Are you weighed down with life’s demands? Pray that you will seek him and follow his commands When you pray, you keep your focus on Jesus When you don’t, you keep your focus on yourself. The enemy will distract you from praying He knows it is a weapon in winning over him Never give up and be preoccupied with things Make God first and you will have victory over sin. ________________________________________ I love to pray since I was seven years old. It meant spending time with Jesus for me. It gave me comfort during those times when I had no one else to run to. I always made sure I found time to be with a God who was always there for me and faithful to provide for all my needs. Because the enemy knew how much I loved Jesus, he stole a decade of my life through strongholds and weaknesses passed on through many generations in my family. Those dark periods in my life focused on reaching my ambitions and proving to everyone that I had worth. I stopped praying and got derailed with selfish dreams and quest to fulfill my unmet needs. Jesus said that we must always pray and never give up. ________________________________________ PRAYER Lord, help me to stay intimate with you always. REFLECTION What do you think will happen if you stop praying and give up on God? For more testimonials about God’s word, please go to YouTube and type ILMA’s poem devotional or go to www.ilmaarts.com posts. To receive emails of my poem devotionals, email me at [email protected]

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life

Essay Samples on Never Give Up

Never quit or give up: personal story of not stopping.

It was a bright Saturday morning at the fields I was seven years old and all that was going through my head was “just quit, you’re not good” and I think “just go home and watch tv.” The thoughts just kept continuing and now I...

• Never Give Up
• Personal Growth and Development

Negative Habits That Make People Lose Faith And Motivation

The hardest part of giving up is always that there is a fine line between the axis of surrender and success. We are all at the end of the spectrum; When you finally escape and reach your destination; And when you stop, just a little...

Never Give Up in 'I Have Lived a Thousand Years'

Have you ever given up on something that you could have done? It is important to not give up because after giving up you will not be able to succeed at what you are trying to do. During the Holocaust, many Jews were faced with...

Never Give Up On Your Dreams

Once upon a time in the middle of winter, when the sky was overcast with shadows and ground was covered with snow, there lived a girl who was very fond of theatre. She took a theater class in her childhood, but she has remembered every...

Never Give Up: Why People Sould Not Stop Pursuing Their Dreams

The writer Paulo Cohelo once said, “Never give up on a dream. Just try to see the signs that take you to them”. Every person in this world has a dream that they would love to reach. We make resolutions every New Year, but people...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

Why You Should Never Give Up On Your Purpose

One of the proudest accomplishments of my life was earning my college degree, despite the fact that my early adulthood pointed in the opposite direction, beginning with the birth of my son at the age of 20. In early motherhood I lived a life of...

Best topics on Never Give Up

1. Never Quit Or Give Up: Personal Story Of Not Stopping

2. Negative Habits That Make People Lose Faith And Motivation

3. Never Give Up in ‘I Have Lived a Thousand Years’

4. Never Give Up On Your Dreams

5. Never Give Up: Why People Sould Not Stop Pursuing Their Dreams

6. Why You Should Never Give Up On Your Purpose

• Career Goals
• Personality
• Personal Experience

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel

After 50 years of failure to stop violence and terrorism against Palestinians by Jewish ultranationalists, lawlessness has become the law.

Supported by

• Share full article

By Ronen Bergman and Mark Mazzetti

• May 16, 2024 Updated 5:53 a.m. ET

This story is told in three parts. The first documents the unequal system of justice that grew around Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. The second shows how extremists targeted not only Palestinians but also Israeli officials trying to make peace. The third explores how this movement gained control of the state itself. Taken together, they tell the story of how a radical ideology moved from the fringes to the heart of Israeli political power.

By the end of October, it was clear that no one was going to help the villagers of Khirbet Zanuta. A tiny Palestinian community, some 150 people perched on a windswept hill in the West Bank near Hebron, it had long faced threats from the Jewish settlers who had steadily encircled it. But occasional harassment and vandalism, in the days after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, escalated into beatings and murder threats. The villagers made appeal after appeal to the Israeli police and to the ever-present Israeli military, but their calls for protection went largely unheeded, and the attacks continued with no consequences. So one day the villagers packed what they could, loaded their families into trucks and disappeared.

Listen to this article, read by Jonathan Davis

Who bulldozed the village after that is a matter of dispute. The Israeli Army says it was the settlers; a senior Israeli police officer says it was the army. Either way, soon after the villagers left, little remained of Khirbet Zanuta besides the ruins of a clinic and an elementary school. One wall of the clinic, leaning sideways, bore a sign saying that it had been funded by an agency of the European Union providing “humanitarian support for Palestinians at risk of forcible transfer in the West Bank.” Near the school, someone had planted the flag of Israel as another kind of announcement: This is Jewish land now.

Such violence over the decades in places like Khirbet Zanuta is well documented. But protecting the people who carry out that violence is the dark secret of Israeli justice. The long arc of harassment, assault and murder of Palestinians by Jewish settlers is twinned with a shadow history, one of silence, avoidance and abetment by Israeli officials. For many of those officials, it is Palestinian terrorism that most threatens Israel. But in interviews with more than 100 people — current and former officers of the Israeli military, the National Israeli Police and the Shin Bet domestic security service; high-ranking Israeli political officials, including four former prime ministers; Palestinian leaders and activists; Israeli human rights lawyers; American officials charged with supporting the Israeli-Palestinian partnership — we found a different and perhaps even more destabilizing threat. A long history of crime without punishment, many of those officials now say, threatens not only Palestinians living in the occupied territories but also the State of Israel itself.

Many of the people we interviewed, some speaking anonymously, some speaking publicly for the first time, offered an account not only of Jewish violence against Palestinians dating back decades but also of an Israeli state that has systematically and increasingly ignored that violence. It is an account of a sometimes criminal nationalistic movement that has been allowed to operate with impunity and gradually move from the fringes to the mainstream of Israeli society. It is an account of how voices within the government that objected to the condoning of settler violence were silenced and discredited. And it is a blunt account, told for the first time by Israeli officials themselves, of how the occupation came to threaten the integrity of their country’s democracy.

The interviews, along with classified documents written in recent months, reveal a government at war with itself. One document describes a meeting in March, when Maj. Gen. Yehuda Fox, the head of Israel’s Central Command, responsible for the West Bank, gave a withering account of the efforts by Bezalel Smotrich — an ultraright leader and the official in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government with oversight over the West Bank — to undermine law enforcement in the occupied territory. Since Smotrich took office, Fox wrote, the effort to clamp down on illegal settlement construction has dwindled “to the point where it has disappeared.” Moreover, Fox said, Smotrich and his allies were thwarting the very measures to enforce the law that the government had promised Israeli courts it would take.

This is a story, pieced together and told in full for the first time, that leads to the heart of Israel. But it begins in the West Bank, in places like Khirbet Zanuta. From within the village’s empty ruins, there is a clear view across the valley to a tiny Jewish outpost called Meitarim Farm. Built in 2021, the farm has become a base of operations for settler attacks led by Yinon Levi, the farm’s owner. Like so many of the Israeli outposts that have been set up throughout the West Bank in recent years, Meitarim Farm is illegal. It is illegal under international law, which most experts say doesn’t recognize Israeli settlements in occupied land. It is illegal under Israeli law, like most settlements built since the 1990s.

Few efforts are made to stop the building of these outposts or the violence emanating from them. Indeed, one of Levi’s day jobs was running an earthworks company, and he has worked with the Israel Defense Forces to bulldoze at least one Palestinian village in the West Bank. As for the victims of that violence, they face a confounding and defeating system when trying to get relief. Villagers seeking help from the police typically have to file a report in person at an Israeli police station, which in the West Bank are almost exclusively located inside the settlements themselves. After getting through security and to the station, they sometimes wait for hours for an Arabic translator, only to be told they don’t have the right paperwork or sufficient evidence to submit a report. As one senior Israeli military official told us, the police “exhaust Palestinians so they won’t file complaints.”

And yet in November, with no protection from the police or the military, the former residents of Khirbet Zanuta and five nearby villages chose to test whether justice was still possible by appealing directly to Israel’s Supreme Court. In a petition, lawyers for the villagers, from Haqel, an Israeli human rights organization, argued that days after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, a raiding party that included settlers and Israeli soldiers assaulted village residents, threatened murder and destroyed property throughout the village. They stated that the raid was part of “a mass transfer of ancient Palestinian communities,” one in which settlers working hand in hand with soldiers are taking advantage of the current war in Gaza to achieve the longer-standing goal of “cleansing” parts of the West Bank, aided by the “sweeping and unprecedented disregard” of the state and its “de facto consent to the massive acts of deportation.”

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and the relief the villagers are seeking — that the law be enforced — might seem modest. But our reporting reveals the degree to which decades of history are stacked against them: After 50 years of crime without punishment, in many ways the violent settlers and the state have become one.

Separate and Unequal

The devastating Hamas attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, the ongoing crisis of Israeli hostages and the grinding Israeli invasion and bombardment of the Gaza Strip that followed may have refocused the world’s attention on Israel’s ongoing inability to address the question of Palestinian autonomy. But it is in the West Bank where the corrosive long-term effects of the occupation on Israeli law and democracy are most apparent.

A sample of three dozen cases in the months since Oct. 7 shows the startling degree to which the legal system has decayed. In all the cases, involving misdeeds as diverse as stealing livestock and assault and arson, not a single suspect was charged with a crime; in one case, a settler shot a Palestinian in the stomach while an Israel Defense Forces soldier looked on, yet the police questioned the shooter for only 20 minutes, and never as a criminal suspect, according to an internal Israeli military memo. During our review of the cases, we listened to recordings of Israeli human rights activists calling the police to report various crimes against Palestinians. In some of the recordings, the police refused to come to the scene, claiming they didn’t know where the villages were; in one case, they mocked the activists as “anarchists.” A spokesman for the Israeli National Police declined to respond to repeated queries about our findings.

The violence and impunity that these cases demonstrate existed long before Oct. 7. In nearly every month before October, the rate of violent incidents was higher than during the same month in the previous year. And Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights group, looking at more than 1,600 cases of settler violence in the West Bank between 2005 and 2023, found that just 3 percent ended in a conviction. Ami Ayalon, the head of Shin Bet from 1996 to 2000 — speaking out now because of his concern about Israel’s systemic failure to enforce the law — says this singular lack of consequences reflects the indifference of the Israeli leadership going back years. “The cabinet, the prime minister,” he says, “they signal to the Shin Bet that if a Jew is killed, that’s terrible. If an Arab is killed, that’s not good, but it’s not the end of the world.”

Ayalon’s assessment was echoed by many other officials we interviewed. Mark Schwartz, a retired American three-star general, was the top military official working at the United States Embassy in Jerusalem from 2019 to 2021, overseeing international support efforts for the partnership between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. “There’s no accountability,” he says now of the long history of settler crimes and heavy-handed Israeli operations in the West Bank. “These things eat away at trust and ultimately the stability and security of Israel and the Palestinian territories. It’s undeniable.”

How did a young nation turn so quickly on its own democratic ideals, and at what price? Any meaningful answer to these questions has to take into account how a half-century of lawless behavior that went largely unpunished propelled a radical form of ultranationalism to the center of Israeli politics. This is the history that is told here in three parts. In Part I, we describe the origins of a religious movement that established Jewish settlements in the newly won territories of Gaza and the West Bank during the 1970s. In Part II, we recount how the most extreme elements of the settler movement began targeting not only Palestinians but also Israeli leaders who tried to make peace with them. And in Part III, we show how the most established members of Israel’s ultraright, unpunished for their crimes, gained political power in Israel, even as a more radical generation of settlers vowed to eliminate the Israeli state altogether.

Many Israelis who moved to the West Bank did so for reasons other than ideology, and among the settlers, there is a large majority who aren’t involved in violence or other illegal acts against Palestinians. And many within the Israeli government fought to expand the rule of law into the territories, with some success. But they also faced harsh pushback, with sometimes grave personal consequences. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s efforts in the 1990s, on the heels of the First Intifada, to make peace with Yasir Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, gave rise to a new generation of Jewish terrorists, and they ultimately cost him his life.

The disagreement over how to handle the occupied territories and their residents has bred a complex and sometimes opaque system of law enforcement. At its heart are two separate and unequal systems of justice: one for Jews and another for Palestinians.

The West Bank is under the command of the I.D.F., which means that Palestinians are subject to a military law that gives the I.D.F. and the Shin Bet considerable authority. They can hold suspects for extended periods without trial or access to either a lawyer or the evidence against them. They can wiretap, conduct secret surveillance, hack into databases and gather intelligence on any Arab living in the occupied territory with few restrictions. Palestinians are subject to military — not civilian — courts, which are far more punitive when it comes to accusations of terrorism and less transparent to outside scrutiny. (In a statement, the I.D.F. said, “The use of administrative detention measures is only carried out in situations where the security authorities have reliable and credible information indicating a real danger posed by the detainee to the region’s security, and in the absence of other alternatives to remove the risk.” It declined to respond to multiple specific queries, in some cases saying “the events are too old to address.”)

According to a senior Israeli defense official, since Oct. 7, some 7,000 settler reservists were called back by the I.D.F., put in uniform, armed and ordered to protect the settlements. They were given specific orders: Do not leave the settlements, do not cover your faces, do not initiate unauthorized roadblocks. But in reality many of them have left the settlements in uniform, wearing masks, setting up roadblocks and harassing Palestinians.

All West Bank settlers are in theory subject to the same military law that applies to Palestinian residents. But in practice, they are treated according to the civil law of the State of Israel, which formally applies only to territory within the state’s borders. This means that Shin Bet might probe two similar acts of terrorism in the West Bank — one committed by Jewish settlers and one committed by Palestinians — and use wholly different investigative tools.

In this system, even the question of what behavior is being investigated as an act of terror is different for Jews and Arabs. For a Palestinian, the simple admission of identifying with Hamas counts as an act of terrorism that permits Israeli authorities to use severe interrogation methods and long detention. Moreover, most acts of violence by Arabs against Jews are categorized as a “terror” attack — giving Shin Bet and other services license to use the harshest methods at their disposal.

The job of investigating Jewish terrorism falls to a division of Shin Bet called the Department for Counterintelligence and Prevention of Subversion in the Jewish Sector, known more commonly as the Jewish Department. It is dwarfed both in size and prestige by Shin Bet’s Arab Department, the division charged mostly with combating Palestinian terrorism. And in the event, most incidents of settler violence — torching vehicles, cutting down olive groves — fall under the jurisdiction of the police, who tend to ignore them. When the Jewish Department investigates more serious terrorist threats, it is often stymied from the outset, and even its successes have sometimes been undermined by judges and politicians sympathetic to the settler cause. This system, with its gaps and obstructions, allowed the founders of groups advocating extreme violence during the 1970s and 1980s to act without consequences, and today it has built a protective cocoon around their ideological descendants.

Some of these people now run Israel. In 2022, just 18 months after losing the prime ministership, Benjamin Netanyahu regained power by forming an alliance with ultraright leaders of both the Religious Zionism Party and the Jewish Power party. It was an act of political desperation on Netanyahu’s part, and it ushered into power some truly radical figures, people — like Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir — who had spent decades pledging to wrest the West Bank and Gaza from Arab hands . Just two months earlier, according to news reports at the time, Netanyahu refused to share a stage with Ben-Gvir, who had been convicted multiple times for supporting terrorist organizations and, in front of television cameras in 1995, vaguely threatened the life of Rabin, who was murdered weeks later by an Israeli student named Yigal Amir.

Now Ben-Gvir was Israel’s national security minister and Smotrich was Israel’s finance minister, charged additionally with overseeing much of the Israeli government’s activities in the West Bank. In December 2022, a day before the new government was sworn in, Netanyahu issued a list of goals and priorities for his new cabinet, including a clear statement that the nationalistic ideology of his new allies was now the government’s guiding star. “The Jewish people,” it said, “have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the land of Israel.”

Two months after that, two Israeli settlers were murdered in an attack by Hamas gunmen near Huwara, a village in the West Bank. The widespread calls for revenge, common after Palestinian terror attacks, were now coming from within Netanyahu’s new government. Smotrich declared that “the village of Huwara needs to be wiped out.”

And, he added, “I think the State of Israel needs to do it.”

Birth of a Movement

With its overwhelming victory in the Arab-​Israeli War of 1967, Israel more than doubled the amount of land it controlled, seizing new territory in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Now it faced a choice: Would the new land become part of Israel or be bargained away as part of a future Palestinian state? To a cadre of young Israelis imbued with messianic zeal, the answer was obvious. The acquisition of the territories animated a religious political movement — Gush Emunim, or “Bloc of the Faithful” — that was determined to settle the newly conquered lands.

Gush Emunim followers believed that the coming of the messiah would be hastened if, rather than studying holy books from morning to night, Jews settled the newly occupied territories. This was the land of “Greater Israel,” they believed, and there was a pioneer spirit among the early settlers. They saw themselves as direct descendants of the earliest Zionists, who built farms and kibbutzim near Palestinian villages during the first part of the 20th century, when the land was under British control. But while the Zionism of the earlier period was largely secular and socialist, the new settlers believed they were advancing God’s agenda.

The legality of that agenda was an open question. The Geneva Conventions, to which Israel was a signatory, forbade occupying powers to deport or transfer “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” But the status of the territory was, in the view of many within and outside the Israeli government, more complex. The settlers sought to create what some of them called “facts on the ground.” This put them into conflict with both the Palestinians and, at least putatively, the Israeli authorities responsible for preventing the spread of illegal settlements.

Whether or not the government would prove flexible on these matters became clear in April 1975 at Ein Yabrud, an abandoned Jordanian military base near Ofra, in the West Bank. A group of workers had been making the short commute from Israel most days for months to work on rebuilding the base, and one evening they decided to stay. They were aiming to establish a Jewish foothold in Judea and Samaria, the Israeli designation for the territories that make up the West Bank, and they had found a back door that required only the slightest push. Their leader met that same night with Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defense minister, who told the I.D.F. to stand down. Peres would treat the nascent settlement not as a community but as a “work camp” — and the I.D.F. would do nothing to hinder their work.

Peres’s maneuver was partly a sign of the weakness of Israel’s ruling Labor party, which had dominated Israeli politics since the country’s founding. The residual trauma of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — when Israel was caught completely by surprise by Egyptian and Syrian forces before eventually beating back the invading armies — had shaken citizens’ belief in their leaders, and movements like Gush Emunim, directly challenging the authority of the Israeli state, had gained momentum amid Labor’s decline. This, in turn, energized Israel’s political right.

By the late 1970s, the settlers, bolstered in part by growing political support, were expanding in number. Carmi Gillon, who joined Shin Bet in 1972 and rose by the mid-1990s to become its director, recalls the evolving internal debates. Whose responsibility was it to deal with settlers? Should Israel’s vaunted domestic security service enforce the law in the face of clearly illegal acts of settlement? “When we realized that Gush Emunim had the backing of so many politicians, we knew we shouldn’t touch them,” he said in his first interview for this article in 2016.

One leader of the ultraright movement would prove hard to ignore, however. Meir Kahane, an ultraright rabbi from Flatbush, Brooklyn, had founded the militant Jewish Defense League in 1968 in New York. He made no secret of his belief that violence was sometimes necessary to fulfill his dream of Greater Israel, and he even spoke of plans to buy .22 caliber rifles for Jews to defend themselves. “Our campaign motto will be, ‘Every Jew a .22,’” he declared. In 1971, he received a suspended sentence on bomb-making charges, and at the age of 39 he moved to Israel to start a new life. From a hotel on Zion Square in Jerusalem, he started a school and a political party, what would become Kach, and drew followers with his fiery rhetoric.

Kahane said he wanted to rewrite the stereotype of Jews as victims, and he argued, in often vivid terms, that Zionism and democracy are in fundamental tension. “Zionism came into being to create a Jewish state,” Kahane said in an interview with The Times in 1985, five years before he was assassinated by a gunman in New York. “Zionism declares that there is going to be a Jewish state with a majority of Jews, come what may. Democracy says, ‘No, if the Arabs are the majority then they have the right to decide their own fate.’ So Zionism and democracy are at odds. I say clearly that I stand with Zionism.”

A Buried Report

In 1977, the Likud party led a coalition that, for the first time in Israeli history, secured a right-wing majority in the country’s Parliament, the Knesset. The party was headed by Menachem Begin, a veteran of the Irgun, a paramilitary organization that carried out attacks against Arabs and British authorities in Mandatory Palestine, the British colonial entity that preceded the creation of Israel. Likud — Hebrew for “the alliance” — was itself an amalgam of several political parties. Kach itself was still on the outside and would always remain so. But its radical ideas and ambitions were moving closer to the mainstream.

Likud’s victory came 10 years after the war that brought Israel vast amounts of new land, but the issue of what to do with the occupied territories had yet to be resolved. As the new prime minister, Begin knew that addressing that question would mean addressing the settlements. Could there be a legal basis for taking the land? Something that would allow the settlements to expand with the full support of the state?

It was Plia Albeck, then a largely unknown bureaucrat in the Israeli Justice Ministry, who found Begin’s answer. Searching through the regulations of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled Palestine in the years preceding the British Mandate, she lit upon the Ottoman Land Code of 1858, a major effort at land reform. Among other provisions, the law enabled the sultan to seize any land that had not been cultivated by its owners for a number of years and that was not “within shouting distance” of the last house in the village. It did little to address the provisions of the Geneva Convention, but it was, for her department, precedent enough. Soon Albeck was riding in an army helicopter, mapping the West Bank and identifying plots of land that might meet the criteria of the Ottoman law. The Israeli state had replaced the sultan, but the effect was the same. Albeck’s creative legal interpretation led to the creation of more than 100 new Jewish settlements, which she referred to as “my children.”

At the same time, Begin was quietly brokering a peace deal with President Anwar Sadat of Egypt in the United States at Camp David. The pact they eventually negotiated gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt and promised greater autonomy to Palestinians in the occupied territories in return for normalized relations with Israel. It would eventually win the two leaders a joint Nobel Peace Prize. But Gush Emunim and other right-wing groups saw the accords as a shocking reversal. From this well of anger sprang a new campaign of intimidation. Rabbi Moshe Levinger, one of the leaders of Gush Emunim and the founder of the settlement in the heart of Hebron, declared the movement’s purposes on Israeli television. The Arabs, he said, “must not be allowed to raise their heads.”

Leading this effort would be a militarized offshoot of Gush Emunim called the Jewish Underground. The first taste of what was to come arrived on June 2, 1980. Car bombs exploded as part of a complex assassination plot against prominent Palestinian political figures in the West Bank. The attack blew the legs off Bassam Shaka, the mayor of Nablus; Karim Khalaf, the mayor of Ramallah, was forced to have his foot amputated. Kahane, who in the days before the attack said at a news conference that the Israeli government should form a “Jewish terrorist group” that would “throw bombs and grenades to kill Arabs,” applauded the attacks, as did Rabbi Haim Druckman, a leader of Gush Emunim then serving in the Knesset, and many others within and outside the movement. Brig. Gen. Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, then the top I.D.F. commander in the West Bank, noting the injuries suffered by the Palestinian mayors under his watch, said simply, “It’s a shame they didn’t hit them a bit higher.” An investigation began, but it would be years before it achieved any results. Ben-Eliezer went on to become a leader of the Labor party and defense minister.

The threat that the unchecked attacks posed to the institutions and guardrails of Jewish democracy wasn’t lost on some members of the Israeli elite. As the violence spread, a group of professors at Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University in Jerusalem sent a letter to Yitzhak Zamir, Israel’s attorney general. They were concerned, they wrote, that illegal “private policing activity” against the Palestinians living in the occupied territories presented a “threat to the rule of law in the country.” The professors saw possible collusion between the settlers and the authorities. “There is a suspicion that similar crimes are not being handled in the same manner and some criminals are receiving preferential treatment over others,” the signatories to the letter said. “This suspicion requires fundamental examination.”

The letter shook Zamir, who knew some of the professors well. He was also well aware that evidence of selective law enforcement — one law for the Palestinians and another for the settlers — would rebut the Israeli government’s claim that the law was enforced equally and could become both a domestic scandal and an international one. Zamir asked Judith Karp, then Israel’s deputy attorney general for special duties, to lead a committee looking into the issue. Karp was responsible for handling the most delicate issues facing the Justice Ministry, but this would require even greater discretion than usual.

As her team investigated, Karp says, “it very quickly became clear to me that what was described in the letter was nothing compared to the actual reality on the ground.” She and her investigative committee found case after case of trespassing, extortion, assault and murder, even as the military authorities and the police did nothing or performed notional investigations that went nowhere. “The police and the I.D.F. in both action and inaction were really cooperating with the settler vandals,” Karp says. “They operated as if they had no interest in investigating when there were complaints, and generally did everything they could to deter the Palestinians from even submitting them.”

In May 1982, Karp and her committee submitted a 33-page report, determining that dozens of offenses were investigated insufficiently. The committee also noted that, in their research, the police had provided them with information that was incomplete, contradictory and in part false. They concluded that nearly half the investigations opened against settlers were closed without the police conducting even a rudimentary investigation. In the few cases in which they did investigate, the committee found “profound flaws.” In some cases, the police witnessed the crimes and did nothing. In others, soldiers were willing to testify against the settlers, but their testimonies and other evidence were buried.

It soon became clear to Karp that the government was going to bury the report. “We were very naïve,” she now recalls. Zamir had been assured, she says, that the cabinet would discuss the grave findings and had in fact demanded total confidentiality. The minister of the interior at the time, Yosef Burg, invited Karp to his home for what she recalls him describing as “a personal conversation.” Burg, a leader of the pro-settler National Religious Party, had by then served as a government minister in one office or another for more than 30 years. Karp assumed he wanted to learn more about her work, which could in theory have important repercussions for the religious right. “But, to my astonishment,” she says, “he simply began to scold me in harsh language about what we were doing. I understood that he wanted us to drop it.”

Karp announced she was quitting the investigative committee. “The situation we discovered was one of complete helplessness,” she says. When the existence of the report (but not its contents) leaked to the public, Burg denied having ever seen such an investigation. When the full contents of the report were finally made public in 1984, a spokesman for the Justice Ministry said only that the committee had been dissolved and that the ministry was no longer monitoring the problem.

A Wave of Violence

On April 11, 1982, a uniformed I.D.F. soldier named Alan Harry Goodman shot his way into the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem, one of the most sacred sites for Muslims around the world. Carrying an M16 rifle, standard issue in the Israeli Army, he killed two Arabs and wounded many more. When investigators searched Goodman’s apartment, they found fliers for Kach, but a spokesman for the group said that it did not condone the attack. Prime Minister Begin condemned the attack, but he also chastised Islamic leaders calling for a general strike in response, which he saw as an attempt to “exploit the tragedy.”

The next year, masked Jewish Underground terrorists opened fire on students at the Islamic College in Hebron, killing three people and injuring 33 more. Israeli authorities condemned the massacre but were less clear about who would be held to account. Gen. Ori Orr, commander of Israeli forces in the region, said on the radio that all avenues would be pursued. But, he added, “we don’t have any description, and we don’t know who we are looking for.”

The Jewish Department found itself continually behind in its efforts to address the onslaught. In April 1984, it had a major breakthrough: Its agents foiled a Jewish Underground plan to blow up five buses full of Palestinians, and they arrested around two dozen Jewish Underground members who had also played roles in the Islamic College attack and the bombings of the Palestinian mayors in 1980. But only after weeks of interrogating the suspects did Shin Bet learn that the Jewish Underground had been developing a scheme to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque. The planning involved dozens of intelligence-gathering trips to the Temple Mount and an assessment of the exact amount of explosives that would be needed and where to place them. The goal was nothing less than to drag the entire Middle East into a war, which the Jewish Underground saw as a precondition for the coming of the messiah.

Carmi Gillon, who was head of Shin Bet’s Jewish Department at the time, says the fact that Shin Bet hadn’t learned about a plot involving so many people and such ambitious planning earlier was an “egregious intelligence failure.” And it was not the Shin Bet, he notes, who prevented the plot from coming to fruition. It was the Jewish Underground itself. “Fortunately for all of us, they decided to forgo the plan because they felt the Jewish people were not yet ready.”

“You have to understand why all this is important now,” Ami Ayalon said, leaning in for emphasis. The sun shining into the backyard of the former Shin Bet director was gleaming off his bald scalp, illuminating a face that looked as if it were sculpted by a dull kitchen knife. “We are not discussing Jewish terrorism. We are discussing the failure of Israel.”

Ayalon was protective of his former service, insisting that Shin Bet, despite some failures, usually has the intelligence and resources to deter and prosecute right-wing terrorism in Israel. And, he said, they usually have the will. “The question is why they are not doing anything about it,” he said. “And the answer is very simple. They cannot confront our courts. And the legal community finds it almost impossible to face the political community, which is supported by the street. So everything starts with the street.”

By the early 1980s, the settler movement had begun to gain some traction within the Knesset, but it remained far from the mainstream. When Kahane himself was elected to the Knesset in 1984, the members of the other parties, including Likud, would turn and leave the room when he stood up to deliver speeches. One issue was that the continual expansion of the settlements was becoming an irritant in U.S.-Israel relations. During a 1982 trip by Begin to Washington, the prime minister had a closed-door meeting with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to discuss Israel’s invasion of Lebanon that year, an effort to force out the P.L.O. that had been heavy with civilian casualties. According to The Times’s coverage of the session, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, then in his second term, had an angry exchange with Begin about the West Bank, telling him that Israel was losing support in this country because of the settlements policy.

But Israeli officials came to understand that the Americans were generally content to vent their anger about the issue without taking more forceful action — like restricting military aid to Israel, which was then, as now, central to the country’s security arrangements. After the Jewish Underground plotters of the bombings targeting the West Bank mayors and other attacks were finally brought to trial in 1984, they were found guilty and given sentences ranging from a few months to life in prison. The plotters showed little remorse, though, and a public campaign swelled to have them pardoned. Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir also made the case for pardoning them, saying they were “excellent, good people who have erred in their path and actions.” Clemency, Shamir suggested, would prevent a recurrence of Jewish terrorism.

In the end, President Chaim Herzog, against the recommendations of Shin Bet and the Justice Ministry, signed an extraordinary series of pardons and commutations for the plotters. They were released and greeted as heroes by the settler community, and some rose to prominent positions in government and the Israeli media. One of them, Uzi Sharbav, now a leader in the settlement movement, was a speaker at a recent conference promoting the return of settlers to Gaza.

In fact, nearly all the Jews involved in terror attacks against Arabs over the past decades have received substantial reductions in prison time. Gillon, the head of the Jewish Department when some of these people were arrested, recalls the “profound sense of injustice” that he felt when they were released. But even more important, he says, was “the question of what message the pardons convey to the public and to anyone who ever thinks about carrying out acts of terror against Arabs.”

Operational Failures

In 1987, a series of conflicts in Gaza led to a sustained Palestinian uprising throughout the occupied territories and Israel. The First Intifada, as it became known, was driven by anger over the occupation, which was then entering its third decade. It would simmer for the next six years, as Palestinians attacked Israelis with stones and Molotov cocktails and launched a series of strikes and boycotts. Israel deployed thousands of soldiers to quell the uprising.

In the occupied territories, reprisal attacks between settlers and Palestinians were an increasing problem. The Gush Emunim movement had spread and fractured into different groups, making it difficult for Shin Bet to embed enough informants with the settlers. But the service had one key informant — a man given the code name Shaul. He was a trusted figure among the settlers and rose to become a close assistant to Rabbi Moshe Levinger, the Gush Emunim leader who founded the settlement in Hebron.

Levinger had been questioned many times under suspicion of having a role in multiple violent attacks, but Shaul told Shin Bet operatives that they were seeing only a fraction of the whole picture. He told them about raids past and planned; about the settlers tearing through Arab villages, vandalizing homes, burning dozens of cars. The operatives ordered him to participate in these raids to strengthen his cover. One newspaper photographer in Hebron in 1985 captured Shaul smashing the wall of an Arab marketplace with a sledgehammer. As was standard policy, Shin Bet had ordered him to participate in any activity that didn’t involve harm to human life, but figuring out which of the activities wouldn’t cross that line became increasingly difficult. “The majority of the activists were lunatics, riffraff, and it was very difficult to be sure they wouldn’t hurt people and would harm only property,” Shaul said. (Shaul, whose true identity remains secret, provided these quotes in a 2015 interview with Bergman for the Israeli Hebrew-language paper Yedioth Ahronoth. Some of his account is published here for the first time.)

In September 1988, Rabbi Levinger, Shaul’s patron, was driving through Hebron when, he later said in court, Palestinians began throwing stones at his car and surrounding him. Levinger flashed a pistol and began firing wildly at nearby shops. Investigators said he killed a 42-year-old shopkeeper, Khayed Salah, who had been closing the steel shutter of his shoe store, and injured a second man. Levinger claimed self-defense, but he was hardly remorseful. “I know that I am innocent,” he said at the trial, “and that I didn’t have the honor of killing the Arab.”

Prosecutors cut a deal with Levinger. He was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, sentenced to five months in prison and released after only three.

Shin Bet faced the classic intelligence agency’s dilemma: how and when to let its informants participate in the very violent acts the service was supposed to be stopping. There was some logic in Shin Bet’s approach with Shaul, but it certainly didn’t help deter acts of terror in the West Bank, especially with little police presence in the occupied territories and a powerful interest group ensuring that whoever was charged for the violence was released with a light sentence.

Over his many years as a Shin Bet mole, Shaul said, he saw numerous intelligence and operational failures by the agency. One of the worst, he said, was the December 1993 murder of three Palestinians in an act of vengeance after the murder of a settler leader and his son. Driving home from a day of work in Israel, the three Palestinians, who had no connection to the deaths of the settlers, were pulled from their car and killed near the West Bank town Tarqumiyah.

Shaul recalled how one settler activist proudly told him that he and two friends committed the murders. He contacted his Shin Bet handlers to tell them what he had heard. “And suddenly I saw they were losing interest,” Shaul said. It was only later that he learned why: Two of the shooters were Shin Bet informants. The service didn’t want to blow their cover, or worse, to suffer the scandal that two of its operatives were involved in a murder and a cover-up.

In a statement, Shin Bet said that Shaul’s version of events is “rife with incorrect details” but refused to specify which details were incorrect. Neither the state prosecutor nor the attorney general responded to requests for comment, which included Shaul’s full version of events and additional evidence gathered over the years.

Shaul said he also gave numerous reports to his handlers about the activities of yet another Brooklyn-born follower of Meir Kahane and the Jewish Defense League: Dr. Baruch Goldstein. He earned his medical degree at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx and in 1983 immigrated to Israel, where he worked first as a physician in the I.D.F., then as an emergency doctor at Kiryat Arba, a settlement near Hebron.

In the years that passed, he gained the attention of Shin Bet with his eliminationist views, calling Arabs “latter-day Nazis” and making a point to visit the Jewish terrorist Ami Popper in prison, where he was serving a sentence for the 1990 murder of seven Palestinians in the Tel Aviv suburb Rishon LeZion. Shaul said he regarded Goldstein at the time as a “charismatic and highly dangerous figure” and repeatedly urged the Shin Bet to monitor him. “They told me it was none of my business,” he said.

‘Clean Hands’

On Feb. 24, 1994, Goldstein abruptly fired his personal driver. According to Shaul, Goldstein told the driver that he knew he was a Shin Bet informer. Terrified at having been found out, the driver fled the West Bank immediately. Now Goldstein was moving unobserved.

That evening marked the beginning of Purim, the festive commemoration of the victory of the Jews over Haman the Agagite, a court official in the Persian Empire and the nemesis of the Jews in the Old Testament’s Book of Esther. Right-wing Israelis have often drawn parallels between Haman and Arabs — enemies who seek the annihilation of Jews. Goldstein woke early the next day and put on his I.D.F. uniform, and at 5:20 a.m. he entered the Cave of the Patriarchs, an ancient complex in Hebron that serves as a place of worship for both Jews and Muslims. Goldstein carried with him his I.D.F.-issued Galil rifle. It was also the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and on that morning hundreds of Muslims crowded the hall in prayer. Goldstein faced the worshipers and began shooting , firing 108 rounds before he was dragged down and beaten to death. The massacre killed 29 Muslim worshipers and injured more than 100.

The killings shocked Israel, and the government responded with a crackdown on extremism. Kach and Kahane Chai, the two political organizations most closely affiliated with the Kahanist movement, were outlawed and labeled terrorist groups, as was any other party that called for “the establishment of a theocracy in the biblical Land of Israel and the violent expulsion of Arabs from that land.” Rabin, in an address to the Knesset, spoke directly to the followers of Goldstein and Kahane, who he said were the product of a malicious foreign influence on Israel. “You are not part of the community of Israel,” he said. “You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law.”

Following the massacre, a state commission of inquiry was appointed, headed by Judge Meir Shamgar, the president of the Supreme Court. The commission’s report, made public in June 1994, strongly criticized the security arrangements at the Cave of the Patriarchs and examined law-enforcement practices regarding settlers and the extreme right in general. A secret appendix to the report, containing material deemed too sensitive for public consumption, included a December 1992 letter from the Israeli commissioner of police, essentially admitting that the police could not enforce the law. “The situation in the districts is extremely bleak,” he wrote, using the administrative nomenclature for the occupied territories. “The ability of the police to function is far from the required minimum. This is as a result of the lack of essential resources.”

In its conclusions, the commission, tracing the lines of the previous decade’s Karp report, confirmed claims that human rights organizations had made for years but that had been ignored by the Israeli establishment. The commission found that Israeli law enforcement was “ineffective in handling complaints,” that it delayed the filing of indictments and that restraining orders against “chronic” criminals among the “hard core” of the settlers were rarely issued.

The I.D.F. refused to allow Goldstein to be buried in the Jewish cemetery in Hebron. He was buried instead in the Kiryat Arba settlement, in a park named for Meir Kahane, and his gravesite has become an enduring place of pilgrimage for Jews who wanted to celebrate, as his epitaph reads, the “saint” who died for Israel with “clean hands and a pure heart.”

A Curse of Death

One ultranationalist settler who went regularly to Goldstein’s grave was a teenage radical named Itamar Ben-Gvir, who would sometimes gather other followers there on Purim to celebrate the slain killer. Purim revelers often dress in costume, and on one such occasion, caught on video, Ben-Gvir even wore a Goldstein costume, complete with a fake beard and a stethoscope. By then, Ben-Gvir had already come to the attention of the Jewish Department, and investigators interrogated him several times. The military declined to enlist him into the service expected of most Israeli citizens.

After the massacre at the Cave of the Patriarchs, a new generation of Kahanists directed their anger squarely at Rabin for his signing of the Oslo agreement and for depriving them, in their view, of their birthright. “From my standpoint, Goldstein’s action was a wake-up call,” says Hezi Kalo, a longtime senior Shin Bet official who oversaw the division that included the Jewish Department at that time. “I realized that this was going to be a very big story, that the diplomatic moves by the Rabin government would simply not pass by without the shedding of blood.”

The government of Israel was finally paying attention to the threat, and parts of the government acted to deal with it. Shin Bet increased the size of the Jewish Department, and it began to issue a new kind of warning: Jewish terrorists no longer threatened only Arabs. They threatened Jews.

The warnings noted that rabbis in West Bank settlements, along with some politicians on the right, were now openly advocating violence against Israeli public officials, especially Rabin. Extremist rabbis issued rulings of Jewish law against Rabin — imposing a curse of death, a Pulsa Dinura , and providing justification for killing him, a din rodef .

Carmi Gillon by then had moved on from running the Jewish Department and now had the top job at Shin Bet. “Discussing and acknowledging such halakhic laws was tantamount to a license to kill,” he says now, looking back. He was particularly concerned about Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, who were stoking the fury of the right-wing rabbis and settler leaders in their battles with Rabin.

Shin Bet wanted to prosecute rabbis who approved the religiously motivated death sentences against Rabin, but the state attorney’s office refused. “They didn’t give enough importance back then to the link between incitement and legitimacy for terrorism,” says one former prosecutor who worked in the state attorney’s office in the mid-1990s.

Shin Bet issued warning after warning in 1995. “This was no longer a matter of mere incitement, but rather concrete information on the intention to kill top political figures, including Rabin,” Kalo now recalls. In October of that year, Ben-Gvir spoke to Israeli television cameras holding up a Cadillac hood ornament, which he boasted he had broken off the prime minister’s official car during chaotic anti-Oslo demonstrations in front of the Knesset. “We got to his car,” he said, “and we’ll get to him, too.” The following month, Rabin was dead.

Conspiracies

Yigal Amir, the man who shot and killed Rabin in Tel Aviv after a rally in support of the Oslo Accords on Nov. 4, 1995, was not unknown to the Jewish Department. A 25-year-old studying law, computer science and the Torah at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, he had been radicalized by Rabin’s efforts to make peace with Palestinian leaders and had connections to Avishai Raviv, the leader of Eyal, a new far-right group loosely affiliated with the Kach movement. In fact, Raviv was a Shin Bet informant, code-named Champagne. He had heard Amir talking about the justice of the din rodef judgments, but he did not identify him to his handlers as an immediate danger. “No one took Yigal seriously,” he said later in a court proceeding. “It’s common in our circles to talk about attacking public figures.”

Lior Akerman was the first Shin Bet investigator to interrogate Amir at the detention center where he was being held after the assassination. There was of course no question about his guilt. But there was the broader question of conspiracy. Did Amir have accomplices? Did they have further plans? Akerman now recalls asking Amir how he could reconcile his belief in God with his decision to murder the prime minister of Israel. Amir, he says, told him that rabbis had justified harming the prime minister in order to protect Israel.

Amir was smug, Akerman recalls, and he did not respond directly to the question of accomplices. “‘Listen,” he said, according to Akerman, “I succeeded . I was able to do something that many people wanted but no one dared to do. I fired a gun that many Jews held, but I squeezed the trigger because no one else had the courage to do it.”

The Shin Bet investigators demanded to know the identities of the rabbis. Amir was coy at first, but eventually the interrogators drew enough out of him to identify at least two of them. Kalo, the head of the division that oversaw the Jewish Department, went to the attorney general to argue that the rabbis should be detained immediately and prosecuted for incitement to murder. But the attorney general disagreed, saying the rabbis’ encouragement was protected speech and couldn’t be directly linked to the murder. No rabbis were arrested.

Days later, however, the police brought Raviv — the Shin Bet operative known as Champagne — into custody in a Tel Aviv Magistrate Court, on charges that he had conspired to kill Rabin, but he was released shortly after. Raviv’s role as an informant later came to light, and in 1999, he was arrested for his failure to act on previous knowledge of the assassination. He was acquitted on all charges, but he has since become a fixture of extremist conspiracy theories that pose his failure to ring the alarm as evidence that the murder of the prime minister was due not to the violent rhetoric of the settler right, or the death sentences from the rabbis, or the incitement by the leaders of the opposition, but to the all-too-successful efforts of a Shin Bet agent provocateur. A more complicated and insidious conspiracy theory, but no less false, was that it was Shin Bet itself that assassinated Rabin or allowed the assassination to happen.

Gillon, the head of the service at the time, resigned, and ongoing inquiries, charges and countercharges would continue for years. Until Oct. 7, 2023, the killing of the prime minister was considered the greatest failure in the history of Shin Bet. Kalo tried to sum up what went wrong with Israeli security. “The only answer my friends and I could give for the failure was complacency,” he wrote in his 2021 memoir. “They simply couldn’t believe that such a thing could happen, definitely not at the hands of another Jew.”

The Sasson Report

In 2001, as the Second Intifada unleashed a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, Ariel Sharon took office as prime minister. The struggling peace process had come to a complete halt amid the violence, and Sharon’s rise at first appeared to mark another victory for the settlers. But in 2003, in one of the more surprising reversals in Israeli political history, Sharon announced what he called Israel’s “disengagement” from Gaza, with a plan to remove settlers — forcibly if necessary — over the next two years.

The motivations were complex and the subject of considerable debate. For Sharon, at least, it appeared to be a tactical move. “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process,” his senior adviser Dov Weisglass told Haaretz at the time. “And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.” But Sharon was also facing considerable pressure from President George W. Bush to do something about the ever-expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank, which were a growing impediment to any regional security deals. In July 2004, he asked Talia Sasson, who had recently retired as the head of the special tasks division in the state attorney’s office, to draw up a legal opinion on the subject of “unauthorized outposts” in the West Bank. His instructions were clear: Investigate which Israeli government agencies and authorities were secretly involved in building the outposts. “Sharon never interfered in my work, and neither was he surprised by the conclusions,” Sasson said in an interview two decades later. “After all, he knew better than anyone what the situation was on the ground, and he was expecting only grave conclusions.”

It was a simple enough question: Just how had it happened that hundreds of outposts had been built in the decade since Yitzhak Rabin ordered a halt in most new settlements? But Sasson’s effort to find an answer was met with delays, avoidance and outright lies. Her final report used careful but pointed language: “Not everyone I turned to agreed to talk with me. One claimed he was too busy to meet, while another came to the meeting but refused to meaningfully engage with most of my questions.”

Sasson found that between January 2000 and June 2003, a division of Israel’s Construction and Housing Ministry issued 77 contracts for the establishment of 33 sites in the West Bank, all of which were illegal. In some cases, the ministry even paid for the paving of roads and the construction of buildings at settlements for which the Defense Ministry had issued demolition orders.

Several government ministries concealed the fact that funds were being diverted to the West Bank, reporting them under budgetary clauses such as “miscellaneous general development.” Just as in the case of the Karp Report two decades earlier, Sasson and her Justice Ministry colleagues discovered that the West Bank was being administered under completely separate laws, and those laws, she says, “appeared to me utterly insane.”

Sasson’s report took special note of Avi Maoz, who ran the Construction and Housing Ministry during most of this period. A political activist who early in his career spoke openly of pushing all Arabs out of the West Bank, Maoz helped found a settlement south of Jerusalem during the 1990s and began building a professional alliance with Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and would soon go on to his first term as prime minister. Years later, Maoz would be instrumental in ensuring Netanyahu’s political survival.

“The picture that emerges in the eye of the beholder is severe,” Sasson wrote in her report. “Instead of the government of Israel deciding on the establishment of settlements in the territories of Judea and Samaria, its place has been taken, from the mid-1990s and onward, by others.” The settlers, she wrote, were “the moving force,” but they could not have succeeded without the assistance of “various ministers of construction and housing in the relevant periods, some of them with a blind eye, and some of them with support and encouragement.”

This clandestine network was operating, Sasson wrote, “with massive funding from the State of Israel, without appropriate public transparency, without obligatory criteria. The erection of the unauthorized outposts is being done with violation of the proper procedures and general administrative rules, and in particular, flagrant and ongoing violation of the law.” These violations, Sasson warned, were coming from the government: “It was state and public agencies that broke the law, the rules, the procedures that the state itself had determined.” It was a conflict, she argued, that effectively neutered Israel’s internal checks and balances and posed a grave threat to the nation’s integrity. “The law-enforcement agencies are unable to act against government departments that are themselves breaking the law.”

But, in an echo of Judith Karp’s secret report decades earlier, the Sasson Report, made publicly available in March 2005, had almost no impact. Because she had a mandate directly from the prime minister, Sasson could have believed that her investigation might lead to the dismantling of the illegal outposts that had metastasized throughout the Palestinian territories. But even Sharon, with his high office, found himself powerless against the machine now in place to protect and expand the settlements in the West Bank — the very machine he had helped to build.

All of this was against the backdrop of the Gaza pullout. Sharon, who began overseeing the removal of settlements from Gaza in August 2005, was the third Israeli prime minister to threaten the settler dream of a Greater Israel, and the effort drew bitter opposition not only from the settlers but also from a growing part of the political establishment. Netanyahu, who had served his first term as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, and who previously voted in favor of a pullout, resigned his position as finance minister in Sharon’s cabinet in protest — and in anticipation of another run for the top job.

The settlers themselves took more active measures. In 2005, the Jewish Department of Shin Bet received intelligence about a plot to slow the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza by using 700 liters of gasoline to blow up vehicles on a major highway. Acting on the tip, officers arrested six men in central Israel. One of them was Bezalel Smotrich, the future minister overseeing civilian affairs in the West Bank.

Smotrich, then 25, was detained and questioned for weeks. Yitzhak Ilan, one of the Shin Bet officers present at the interrogation, says he remained “silent as a fish” throughout — “like an experienced criminal.” He was released without charges, Ilan says, in part because Shin Bet knew putting him on trial might expose the service’s agents inside Jewish extremist groups, and in part because they believed Smotrich was likely to receive little punishment in any case. Shin Bet was very comfortable with the courts when we fought Palestinian terrorism and we got the heavy punishments we wanted, he says. With the Jewish terrorists it was exactly the opposite.

When Netanyahu made his triumphant return as prime minister in 2009, he set out to undermine Talia Sasson’s report, which he and his allies saw as an obstacle to accelerating the settlement campaign. He appointed his own investigative committee, led by Judge Edmond Levy of the Supreme Court, who was known to support the settler cause. But the Levy report, completed in 2012, did not undermine the findings in the Sasson Report — in some ways, it reinforced them. Senior Israeli officials, the committee found, were fully aware of what was happening in the territories, and they were simply denying it for the sake of political expediency. The behavior, they wrote, was not befitting of “a country that has proclaimed the rule of law as a goal.” Netanyahu moved on.

A NEW GENERATION

The ascent of a far-right prime minister did little to prevent the virulent, anti-government strain inside the settler movement from spreading. A new generation of Kahanists was taking an even more radical turn, not only against Israeli politicians who might oppose or insufficiently abet them but against the very notion of a democratic Israeli state. A group calling itself Hilltop Youth advocated for the total destruction of the Zionist state. Meir Ettinger, named for his grandfather Meir Kahane, was one of the Hilltop Youth leaders, and he made his grandfather’s views seem moderate.

Their objective was to tear down Israel’s institutions and to establish “Jewish rule”: anointing a king, building a temple in place of the Jerusalem mosques sacred to Muslims worldwide, imposing a religious regime on all Jews. Ehud Olmert, who served as Israeli prime minister from 2006 to 2009, said in an interview that Hilltop Youth “genuinely, deeply, emotionally believe that this is the right thing to do for Israel. This is a salvation. This is the guarantee for Israel’s future.”

A former member of Hilltop Youth, who has asked to remain anonymous because she fears speaking out could endanger her, recalls how she and her friends used an illegal outpost on a hilltop in the West Bank as a base to lob stones at Palestinian cars. “The Palestinians would call the police, and we would know that we have at least 30 minutes before they arrive, if they arrive. And if they do arrive, they won’t arrest anyone. We did this tens of times.” The West Bank police, she says, couldn’t have been less interested in investigating the violence. “When I was young, I thought that I was outsmarting the police because I was clever. Later, I found out that they are either not trying or very stupid.”

The former Hilltop Youth member says she began pulling away from the group as their tactics became more extreme and once Ettinger began speaking openly about murdering Palestinians. She offered to become a police informant, and during a meeting with police intelligence officers in 2015, she described the group’s plans to commit murder — and to harm any Jews that stood in their way. By her account, she told the police about efforts to scout the homes of Palestinians before settling on a target. The police could have begun an investigation, she says, but they weren’t even curious enough to ask her the names of the people plotting the attack.

In 2013, Ettinger and other members of Hilltop Youth formed a secret cell calling itself the Revolt, designed to instigate an insurrection against a government that “prevents us from building the temple, which blocks our way to true and complete redemption.”

During a search of one of the group’s safe houses, Shin Bet investigators discovered the Revolt’s founding documents. “The State of Israel has no right to exist, and therefore we are not bound by the rules of the game,” one declared. The documents called for an end to the State of Israel and made it clear that in the new state that would rise in its place, there would be absolutely no room for non-Jews and for Arabs in particular: “If those non-Jews don’t leave, it will be permissible to kill them, without distinguishing between women, men and children.”

This wasn’t just idle talk. Ettinger and his comrades organized a plan that included timetables and steps to be taken at each stage. One member even composed a training manual with instructions on how to form terror cells and burn down houses. “In order to prevent the residents from escaping,” the manual advised, “you can leave burning tires in the entrance to the house.”

The Revolt carried out an early attack in February 2014, firebombing an uninhabited home in a small Arab village in the West Bank called Silwad, and followed with more arson attacks, the uprooting of olive groves and the destruction of Palestinian granaries. Members of the group torched mosques, monasteries and churches, including the Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes on the banks of the Sea of Galilee. A police officer spotted Ettinger himself attacking a herd of sheep belonging to an Arab shepherd. He stoned a sheep and then slaughtered it in front of the shepherd, the officer later testified. “It was shocking,” he said. “There was a sort of insanity in it.”

Shin Bet defined the Revolt as an organization that aimed “to undermine the stability of the State of Israel through terror and violence, including bodily harm and bloodshed,” according to an internal Shin Bet memo, and sought to place several of its members, including Ettinger, under administrative detention — a measure applied frequently against Arabs.

The state attorney, however, did not approve the request. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) documented 323 incidents of violence by settlers against Palestinians in 2014; Palestinians were injured in 107 of these incidents. By the following year, the Revolt escalated the violence by openly advocating the murder of Arabs.

The Shin Bet and the police identified one of the prominent members of the Revolt, Amiram Ben-Uliel, making him a target of surveillance. But the service failed to prevent the wave of violence that he unleashed. On the night of July 31, 2015, Ben-Uliel set out on a killing spree in a central West Bank village called Duma. Ben-Uliel prepared a bag with two bottles of incendiary liquid, rags, a lighter, a box of matches, gloves and black spray paint. According to the indictment against him, Ben-Uliel sought a home with clear signs of life to ensure that the house he torched was not abandoned. He eventually found the home of Reham and Sa’ad Dawabsheh, a young mother and father. He opened a window and threw a Molotov cocktail into the home. He fled, and in the blaze that followed, the parents suffered injuries that eventually killed them. Their older son, Ahmad, survived the attack, but their 18-month-old toddler, Ali, was burned to death.

It was always clear, says Akerman, the former Shin Bet official, “that those wild groups would move from bullying Arabs to damaging property and trees and eventually would murder people.” He is still furious about how the service has handled Jewish terrorism. “Shin Bet knows how to deal with such groups, using emergency orders, administrative detention and special methods in interrogation until they break,” he says. But although it was perfectly willing to apply those methods to investigating Arab terrorism, the service was more restrained when it came to Jews. “It allowed them to incite, and then they moved on to the next stage and began to torch mosques and churches. Still undeterred, they entered Duma and burned a family.”

Shin Bet at first claimed to have difficulty locating the killers, even though they were all supposed to be under constant surveillance. When Ben-Uliel and other perpetrators were finally arrested, right-wing politicians gave fiery speeches against Shin Bet and met with the families of the perpetrators to show their support. Ben-Uliel was sentenced to life in prison, and Ettinger was finally put in administrative detention, but a fracture was spreading. In December 2015, Hilltop Youth members circulated a video clip showing members of the Revolt ecstatically dancing with rifles and pistols, belting out songs of hatred for Arabs, with one of them stabbing and burning a photograph of the murdered toddler, Ali Dawabsheh. Netanyahu, for his part, denounced the video, which, he said, exposed “the real face of a group that poses danger to Israeli society and security.”

American Friends

The expansion of the settlements had long been an irritant in Israel’s relationship with the United States, with American officials spending years dutifully warning Netanyahu both in public and in private meetings about his support for the enterprise. But the election of Donald Trump in 2016 ended all that. His new administration’s Israel policy was led mostly by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who had a long personal relationship with Netanyahu, a friend of his father’s who had stayed at their family home in New Jersey. Trump, in a broader regional agenda that lined up perfectly with Netanyahu’s own plans, also hoped to scuttle the nuclear deal with Iran that Barack Obama had negotiated and broker diplomatic pacts between Israel and Arab nations that left the matter of a Palestinian state unresolved and off the table.

If there were any questions about the new administration’s position on settlements, they were answered once Trump picked his ambassador to Israel. His choice, David Friedman, was a bankruptcy lawyer who for years had helped run an American nonprofit that raised millions of dollars for Beit El, one of the early Gush Emunim settlements in the West Bank and the place where Bezalel Smotrich was raised and educated. The organization, which was also supported by the Trump family, had helped fund schools and other institutions inside Beit El. On the heels of the Trump transition, Friedman referred to Israel’s “alleged occupation” of Palestinian territories and broke with longstanding U.S. policy by saying “the settlements are part of Israel.”

This didn’t make Friedman a particularly friendly recipient of the warnings regularly delivered by Lt. Gen. Mark Schwartz, the three-star general who in 2019 arrived at the embassy in Jerusalem to coordinate security between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. A career Green Beret who had combat deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq and served as deputy commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, the military task force with authority over U.S. counterterrorism special missions units, Schwartz wasn’t short on Middle East experience.

But he was immediately shocked by the landscape of the West Bank: settlers acting with impunity, a police force that was essentially nonexistent outside the settlements and the Israeli Army fanning the tensions with its own operations. Schwartz recalls how angry he was about what he called the army’s “collective punishment” tactics, including the razing of Palestinian homes, which he viewed as gratuitous and counterproductive. “I said, ‘Guys, this isn’t how professional militaries act.’” As Schwartz saw it, the West Bank was in some ways the American South of the 1960s. But at any moment the situation could become even more volatile, resulting in the next intifada.

Schwartz is diplomatic when recalling his interactions with Friedman, his former boss. He was a “good listener,” Schwartz says, but when he raised concerns about the settlements, Friedman would often deflect by noting “the lack of appreciation by the Palestinian people about what the Americans are doing for them.” Schwartz also discussed his concerns about settler violence directly with Shin Bet and I.D.F. officials, he says, but as far as he could tell, Friedman didn’t follow up with the political leadership. “I never got the sense he went to Netanyahu to discuss it.”

Friedman sees things differently. “I think I had a far broader perspective on acts of violence in Judea and Samaria” than Schwartz, he says now. “And it was clear that the violence coming from Palestinians against Israelis overwhelmingly was more prevalent.” He says he “wasn’t concerned about ‘appreciation’ from the Palestinians; I was concerned by their leadership’s embrace of terror and unwillingness to control violence.” He declined to discuss any conversations he had with Israeli officials.

Weeks after Trump lost the 2020 election, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Israel for a trip that delivered a number of gifts to Netanyahu and the settler cause. He announced new guidelines requiring that goods imported to the United States from parts of the West Bank be labeled “Made in Israel.” And he flew by helicopter to Psagot, a winery in the West Bank, making him the first American secretary of state to visit a settlement. One of the winery’s large shareholders, the Florida-based Falic family, have donated millions to various projects in the settlements.

During his lunchtime visit, Pompeo paused to write a note in the winery’s guest book. “May I not be the last secretary of state to visit this beautiful land,” he wrote.

A Settler Coalition

Benjamin Netanyahu’s determination to become prime minister for an unprecedented sixth term came with a price: an alliance with a movement that he once shunned, but that had been brought into the political mainstream by Israel’s steady drift to the right. Netanyahu, who is now on trial for bribery and other corruption charges, repeatedly failed in his attempts to form a coalition after most of the parties announced that they were no longer willing to join him. He personally involved himself in negotiations to ally Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party and Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionism Party, making them kingmakers for anyone trying to form a coalition government. In November 2022, the bet paid off: With the now-critical support of the extreme right, Netanyahu returned to office.

The two men ushered into power by this arrangement were some of the most extreme figures ever to hold such high positions in an Israeli cabinet. Shin Bet had monitored Ben-Gvir in the years after Yitzhak Rabin’s murder, and he was arrested on multiple charges including inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organization. He won acquittals or dismissals in some of the cases, but he was also convicted several times and served time in prison. During the Second Intifada, he led protests calling for extreme measures against Arabs and harassed Israeli politicians he believed were insufficiently hawkish.

Then Ben-Gvir made a radical change: He went to law school. He also took a job as an aide to Michael Ben-Ari, a Knesset member from the National Union party, which had picked up many followers of the Kach movement. In 2011, after considerable legal wrangling around his criminal record, he was admitted to the bar. He changed his hairstyle and clothing to appear more mainstream and began working from the inside, once saying he represented the “soldiers and civilians who find themselves in legal entanglements due to the security situation in Israel.” Netanyahu made him minister of national security, with authority over the police.

Smotrich also moved into public life after his 2005 arrest by Shin Bet for plotting road blockages to halt the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. He made Shin Bet’s Jewish Department a frequent target of criticism, complaining that it was wasting time and money investigating crimes carried out by Jews, when the real terrorists were Palestinians. His ultraright allies sometimes referred to the Jewish Department as Hamakhlaka Hayehudit — the Hebrew phrase for the Gestapo unit that executed Hitler’s Final Solution.

In 2015, while campaigning for a seat in the Knesset, Smotrich said that “every shekel invested in this department is one less shekel invested in real terrorism and saving lives.” Seven years later, Netanyahu made him both minister of finance and a minister in the Ministry of Defense, in charge of overseeing civilian affairs in the West Bank, and he has steadily pushed to seize authority over the territory from the military. As part of the coalition deal with Netanyahu, Smotrich now has the authority to appoint one of the senior administrative figures in the West Bank, who helps oversee the building of roads and the enforcement of construction laws. The 2022 election also brought Avi Maoz to the Knesset — the former housing-ministry official whom Talia Sasson once marked as a hidden hand of Israeli government support for illegal settlements. Since then, Maoz had joined the far-right Noam party, using it as a platform to advance racist and homophobic policies. And he never forgot, or forgave, Sasson. On “International Anti-Corruption Day” in 2022, Maoz took to the lectern of the Knesset and denounced Sasson’s report of nearly two decades earlier, saying it was written “with a hatred of the settlements and a desire to harm them.” This, he said, was “public corruption of the highest order, for which people like Talia Sasson should be prosecuted.”

Days after assuming his own new position, Ben-Gvir ordered the police to remove Palestinian flags from public spaces in Israel, saying they “incite and encourage terrorism.” Smotrich, for his part, ordered drastic cuts in payments to the Palestinian Authority — a move that led the Shin Bet and the I.D.F. intelligence division to raise concerns that the cuts would interfere with the Palestinian Authority’s own efforts to police and prevent Palestinian terrorism.

Weeks after the new cabinet was sworn in, the Judea and Samaria division of the I.D.F. distributed an instructional video to the soldiers of a ground unit about to be deployed in the West Bank. Titled “Operational Challenge: The Farms,” the video depicts settlers as peaceful farmers living pastoral lives, feeding goats and herding sheep and cows, in dangerous circumstances. The illegal outposts multiplying around the West Bank are “small and isolated places of settlement, each with a handful of residents, a few of them — or none at all — bearing arms, the means of defense meager or nonexistent.”

It is the settlers, according to the video, who are under constant threat of attack, whether it be “penetration of the farm by a terrorist, an attack against a shepherd in the pastures, arson” or “destruction of property” — threats from which the soldiers of the I.D.F. must protect them. The commander of each army company guarding each farm must, the video says, “link up with the person in charge of security and to maintain communications”; soldiers and officers are encouraged to cultivate a close and intimate relationship with the settlers. “The informal,” viewers are told, “is much more important than the formal.”

The video addresses many matters of security, but it never addresses the question of law. When we asked the commander of the division that produced the video, Brig. Gen. Avi Bluth, why the I.D.F. was promoting the military support of settlements that are illegal under Israeli law, he directly asserted that the farms were indeed legal and offered to arrange for us to tour some of them. Later, a spokesman for the army apologized for the general’s remarks, acknowledged that the farms were illegal and announced that the I.D.F. would no longer be promoting the video. This May, Bluth was nonetheless subsequently promoted to head Israel’s Central Command, responsible for all Israeli troops in central Israel and the West Bank.

In August, Bluth will replace Maj. Gen. Yehuda Fox, who during his final months in charge of the West Bank has seen a near-total breakdown of law enforcement in his area of command. In late October, Fox wrote a letter to his boss, the chief of Israel’s military staff, saying that the surge of Jewish terrorism carried out in revenge for the Oct. 7 attacks “could set the West Bank on fire.” The I.D.F. is the highest security authority in the West Bank, but the military’s top commander put the blame squarely on the police — who ultimately answer to Ben-Gvir. Fox said he had established a special task force to deal with Jewish terrorism, but investigating and arresting the perpetrators is “entirely in the hands of the Israeli police.”

And, he wrote, they aren’t doing their jobs.

‘Only One Way Forward’

When the day came early this January for the Supreme Court to hear the case brought by the people of Khirbet Zanuta, the displaced villagers arrived an hour late. They had received entry permits from the District Coordination Office to attend the hearing but were delayed by security forces before reaching the checkpoint separating Israel from the West Bank. Their lawyer, Quamar Mishirqi-Assad, noting that their struggle to attend their own hearing spoke to the essence of their petition, insisted that the hearing couldn’t proceed without them. The judges agreed to wait.

The villagers finally were led into the courtroom, and Mishirqi-Assad began presenting the case. The proceedings were in Hebrew, so most of the villagers were unable to follow the arguments that described the daily terrors inflicted by settlers and the glaring absence of any law-enforcement efforts to stop them.

The lawyers representing the military and the police denied the claims of abuse and failure to enforce the law. When a judge asked what operational steps would be in place if villagers wanted to return, one of the lawyers for the state said they could already — there was no order preventing them from doing so.

The next to speak was Col. Roi Zweig-Lavi, the Central Command’s Operations Directorate officer. He said that many of these incidents involved false claims. In fact, he said, some of the villagers had probably destroyed their own homes, because of an “internal issue.” Now they were blaming the settlers to escape the consequences of their own actions.

Colonel Zweig-Lavi’s own views about the settlements, and his role in protecting them, were well known. In a 2022 speech, he told a group of yeshiva students in the West Bank that “the army and the settlements are one and the same.”

In early May, the court ordered the state to explain why the police failed to stop the attacks and declared that the villagers have a right to return to their homes. The court also ordered the state to provide details for how they would ensure the safe return of the villagers. It is now the state’s turn to decide how it will comply. Or if it will comply.

By the time the Supreme Court issued its rulings, the United States had finally taken action to directly pressure the Netanyahu government about the violent settlers. On Feb. 1, the White House issued an executive order imposing sanctions on four settlers for “engaging in terrorist activity,” among other things, in the West Bank. One of the four was Yinon Levi, the owner of Meitarim Farm near Hebron and the man American and Israeli officials believe orchestrated the campaign of violence and intimidation against the villagers of Khirbet Zanuta. The British government issued its own sanctions shortly after, saying in a statement that Israel’s government had created “an environment of near-total impunity for settler extremists in the West Bank.”

The White House’s move against individual settlers, a first by an American administration, was met with a combination of anger and ridicule by ministers in Netanyahu’s government. Smotrich called the Biden administration’s allegations against Levi and others “utterly specious” and said he would work with Israeli banks to resist complying with the sanctions. One message that circulated in an open Hilltop Youth WhatsApp channel said that Levi and his family would not be abandoned. “The people of Israel are mobilizing for them,” it said.

American officials bristle when confronted with the question of whether the government’s actions are just token measures taken by an embattled American president hemorrhaging support at home for his Israel policy. They won’t end the violence, they say, but they are a signal to the Netanyahu government about the position of the United States: that the West Bank could boil over, and it could soon be the latest front of an expanding regional Middle East war since Oct. 7.

But war might just be the goal. Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, said he believes that many members of the ultraright in Israel “want war.” They “want intifada,” he says, “because it is the ultimate proof that there is no way of making peace with the Palestinians and there is only one way forward — to destroy them.”

Additional reporting by Natan Odenheimer.

Top photograph: A member of a group known as Hilltop Youth, which seeks to tear down Israel’s institutions and establish ‘‘Jewish rule.’’ Photograph by Peter van Agtmael/Magnum, for The New York Times.

Read by Jonathan Davis

Narration produced by Anna Diamond

Engineered by David Mason

Peter van Agtmael is a Magnum photographer who has been covering Israel and Palestinian territories since 2012. He is a mentor in the Arab Documentary Photography Program.

Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv. His latest book is “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations,” published by Random House. More about Ronen Bergman

Mark Mazzetti is an investigative reporter based in Washington, D.C., focusing on national security, intelligence, and foreign affairs. He has written a book about the C.I.A. More about Mark Mazzetti

Our Coverage of the Israel-Hamas War

News and Analysis

The United Nations’ top court is scheduled to hear arguments from South Africa  after the country recently requested that the court issue further constraints on Israel, saying “the very survival” of Palestinians in Gaza was under threat.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that recent gains in getting desperately needed humanitarian aid  to people in the Gaza Strip risked being undone by the fighting in southern Gaza.

The Biden administration has told Congress that it intends to move forward with a plan for the United States to sell more than $1 billion in new weapons to Israel .

PEN America’s Boiling Point: As it cancels events amid criticism of its response to the Israel-Hamas war, PEN America faces questions  about when an organization devoted to free speech for all should take sides.

A Key Weapon: When President Biden threatened to pause some weapons shipments to Israel if it invaded Rafah, the devastating effects of the 2,000-pound Mark 84 bomb  were of particular concern to him.

A Presidential Move: Ronald Reagan also used the power of American arms to influence  Israeli war policy. The comparison underscores how much the politics of Israel have changed in the United States since the 1980s.

Netanyahu’s Concerns: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, under pressure from all sides, is trying to reassure his many domestic, military and diplomatic critics. Here’s a look at what he is confronting .

Advertisement

Luke 18:1 New Living Translation

Parable of the persistent widow.

18  One day Jesus told his disciples a story to show that they should always pray and never give up.

Holy Bible , New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. , Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Bible Gateway Recommends