Settler bet: a West Bank flashpoint

0:03The Economist.

0:09Hello and welcome to The Intelligence from The Economist. I'm Jason Palmer. And I'm Rosie Blau.

0:19Today on the show, the multi-faith contradictions of India's civil codes and our management columnist answers your letters. Sort of.

0:33First up, though.

0:43Jared Kushner is on a diplomacy blitz in the Middle East, having sat down with Hamas over the weekend. On the table still is the princeling's plan for peace in Gaza. But Gaza isn't the only place where Israelis, Palestinians and violence keep coinciding.

1:02Anshel Pfeffer:With the ceasefire barely holding in Gaza and Donald Trump's personal envoy and son-in-law, Kushner arriving in Jerusalem for emergency talks with Benjamin Netanyahu about Gaza, there's the risk of another flashpoint erupting nearby in the West Bank. Anshul Pfeffer is our Israel correspondent. Israeli settlers have been attacking, harassing, encroaching on Palestinians in the West Bank for many years now. In recent weeks, we've seen an escalation of these attacks.

1:45Anshel Pfeffer:So what usually happens is a settler's set up what they call an outpost, which is usually a couple of miles away from an existing settlement. A group of young guys will take a caravan or a couple of tents to a hilltop somewhere close to or even inside agricultural land. of a neighboring Palestinian village. They'll establish a presence there, plants and vines, or they'll bring a herd of goats and start patrolling the area with ranger utility vehicles that they've actually received from the Israeli government. And once that happened, this becomes a no-go area for Palestinians and it often causes clashes, or as the settlers call them, friction aimed at bringing in the Israeli army, which usually comes in to protect the settlers and to push away, often violently, the Palestinians.

2:41Anshel Pfeffer:The most recent place we've seen this happening in the West Bank is between an outpost called Tel Tel Piyot, which is a new hilltop occupied by the settlers just a few months ago, and a village called Khuzra, which is just south of Nablus. There's been a number of clashes there in the past, And just last week, they tried to occupy a number of outlying houses in the village. And what happened there? What happened here in Kusra, I think, is that the residents had the presence of mind to film what was happening, to put it online very quickly. And there were a couple of added elements, I'd say, that made it more prominent.

3:20Anshel Pfeffer:One was there was a video of the Israeli soldiers who had been sent there to somehow prevent the friction. But they were very clearly on the side of the sectors. they were even praying with them. Also, one of the houses is owned by an American citizen, and that brought the involvement of the American embassy in Jerusalem. Ambassador Mike Huckabee, who is usually very pro-settler, put out a post on social media criticizing what he called the Israeli terrorists and saying that the embassy had urged the Israeli army to intervene. And what's unclear is just how much the government and the IDF are complicit in all of this.

4:00Is this a matter of looking the other way or aiding the settlers directly? You say they're driving vehicles given to them by the government.

4:07Anshel Pfeffer:Well, it's very much a case-by-case situation. There are places where we've seen, the footage is very clear, that there are soldiers helping the settlers take over these lands or when the Palestinians try and confront them, that they're pushed back sometimes with shooting. In some cases, Palestinians have been killed from the fire. So we've seen, in some cases, active help from the Israeli army to the settlers. We've seen other cases where they sort of stand by, don't really do anything. And we've also seen cases where the army has evicted settlers. And according to one officer I spoke to, there have been 150 evictions of settlers since the beginning of this year.

4:43Anshel Pfeffer:Now, that's in the broader picture of things. That's not much because there are many more cases in which the settlers have succeeded in taking over Palestinian land or after being evicted by the Israeli army, they just returned. But I think the bigger picture here is that the Israeli government isn't giving the IDF a clear order to prevent these things from happening. There isn't any real political backing for protecting Palestinian lives and Palestinian lands, which is also one of the things that the Israeli army has to be doing there since they're in control of the territory. and that's because a large part of the government supports the settlers, both the Minister of National Security Itamar Bengvir, who is himself a settler and is very clearly in favour of what's happening there.

5:26Anshel Pfeffer:Another of his ministerial colleagues, Bissadol Smotrich, is the finance minister. He's funnelled hundreds of millions to the settlements and he's obviously also in favour of what's happening there. And the rest of the government, including Prime Minister Benjamin Tenyao, they've been silent about this because as far as they're concerned, These are their political partners. There's an election coming. They can't jeopardize their alliance with the far right and with the settlers. So even if they're not actively trying to help them, they're certainly not doing anything to stop them. But as we saw in Kusra, some Palestinians have had enough, are willing to push back, are willing to bring this problem to the internet.

6:02Anshel Pfeffer:Well, I think what's very clear here is that while this is a close quarters conflict with settlers and Palestinians fighting for every hillside and every little bit of grazing land or olive grove, in some cases, this can get international attention that can be brought even to the American administration, which is usually very supportive of Israel. But in some cases, it's just so egregious that even the Trump administration has, as we know, behind the scenes, tried to rein in what Israel is doing there. Not very effectively, but at least in this case, that there has been some success to this pressure from America.

6:41Anshel Pfeffer:Beyond the specific land grabs, I think there's a wider attempt here by the settlers to provoke a much bigger conflict in the West Bank, even another Palestinian Intifada uprising, which will force Israeli army to deploy even more forces to the West Bank and perhaps go into the Palestinian cities, as we saw happening over 20 years ago. And from their perspective, it's something that they can use to take over more land, to perpetuate their occupation of these lands. And while we've been focused on Gaza for the last nearly three years, obviously on the wars in Iran, in Lebanon and so on, and we've seen now that the American administration is trying to maintain ceasefires, both in Gaza and Lebanon and Iran, there's the danger of yet another front opening up.

7:28Anshel Pfeffer:And as far as the Israeli far right is concerned, they're fighting also to remain in power. after the election in October. And this is something that they can use, they think at least that they can use to somehow change the public views in Israel. Because if there's another Intifada, then maybe there'll be more support for the far right and for the current government. So everything here is very much connected to this period we're in with an election just 10 weeks away. The situation in the West Bank is hostage to the political fortunes of the current Israeli government. Anshul, thanks very much for your time.

8:02Anshel Pfeffer:Thank you for having me, Jason.

8:31Kira Huyu is our Asia correspondent. My host shoos them all away to speak to me about something that is clearly quite personal to him. All the changes they have made, it is contradicting the Quran dictates. The 71-year-old is in a bad mood. If we are a Muslim, we have to follow the Quran and the commands of the Quran. and like they have made the heavy duty law. Since January 2025, it's been illegal for Muslims in his home state of Otarakhand to obey many of their own customary family laws. Otarakhand, a Himalayan state in the country's north, is the first one in independent India to get a so-called uniform civil code.

9:26And now it looks like those changes will soon take hold in much of the country.

9:35Kira, what exactly is changing? The basic idea of a uniform civil code is that all citizens follow the same laws, regardless of which guards they pray to. Earlier this year, we've also had similar codes being passed in the states of Assam, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. And you've got another five states that are planning their own versions. And if, as planned, the state of West Bengal gets its own uniformed civil code this month, then another 30 million Muslims will face Mr. Amir's dilemma, which is, can you at the same time be a law-abiding Indian and a God-fearing Muslim? Kira, fill in a bit of the context for us here.

10:16What laws were there before? So it's quite a particular product of Indian colonial history that for the last eight decades, different religious communities have been governed by different civil laws. And that's all to do with legacies of a bloody partition that departing British split their colonial holdings into Muslim-majority Pakistan and then Hindu-majority India. and the liberal-minded Congress party who was then in charge wanted to soothe minority anxieties about their place in this new young India. And so as a compromise, civil matters were left to religious communities themselves to govern.

10:56Now there is actually a directive in the Indian constitution that said even at the time in 1950 that India should at some point endeavour to work towards a uniform civil code. But for about eight decades that was very conveniently ignored But of course, technically, any liberal should be on board with the idea that law should apply equally and not depending on the postcode or the flock the person is born into. So why the change now? Now, for context, all these states that are passing uniform civil codes are run by the BJP, the Parthia Janta Party, which is the Hindu nationalist outfit that also governs all of India.

11:38Now the BJP, when you talk to them, will present the codes as a matter of universal human rights, especially women's rights. But if you look closely, the codes mostly impose on religious minorities a set of laws and customs that Hindus already follow. They draw almost entirely on a legal tradition that was originally rooted in Hindu personal laws, although it's subsequently been reformed and codified over the decades. And so what the uniform civil codes do not do is pick the most enlightened bits of each tradition or transcend religion altogether. And so really what's going on is it's mostly Muslims who will have to change how they marry, divorce and inherit.

12:23So what will that actually mean in practice? So some of the things that will change are in fact things that a lot of Muslim women in Autarkand were quite happy to see fixed. One of them is that Muslim daughters will get the same more equal inheritance rights that Hindu daughters have enjoyed in India since Hindu laws were reformed in 2005. And then there are things like the criminalization of polygamy for Muslim men. So that sounds quite positive for women's rights, Kira. What's the problem? Well, I think most importantly, not all Indians will actually follow these same laws. So the new codes will not apply to India's tribal communities, who are about 7-8 % of the population.

13:07Actually, it would have been quite nice if the Uniform Civil Code had somehow drawn inspiration from some of the legal traditions among tribal communities, because those are actually much nicer towards women than Hindu and Muslim traditions. But instead, these tribes are completely exempt, which may well have to do with the fact that in many states, the BJP could not be in power without the tribal vote. So since the BJP is going state by state, instead of basically imposing one uniform civil code for the entire country, civil laws will actually vary by postcode, which also will not be particularly uniform.

13:44And then there's just some really strange and I think unnecessary additions. A harsh provision makes it mandatory for couples to register their live-in relationships with the state within 30 days of moving in together or otherwise risk jail time. So what we have is a massively scaled up form of state surveillance over people's personal lives. And how has that been received? What was quite striking talking to people in Otterokand is not much has changed. That's partly because implementation is quite hard. So for example, as of July, when I was there, fewer than 100 live-in relationships had been registered.

14:27And so in some ways, it sort of seems like some of these changes might end up being largely symbolic. The first criminal case under the new code actually only came this April, when a Muslim woman objected to her husband's use of a particularly horrific, but also very rarely used divorce practice. But over time, my sense is what the codes could do is basically push Muslims even further away from the legal mainstream. Kira, you've already mentioned the relationship between these new laws and states run by the BJP, but just spell out for us exactly how this fits into the overall BJP agenda. The BJP as a party exists to make India a Hindu nation and the Uniform Civil Code gets it one step closer to that goal.

15:21And in all of this, Otrakhan was kind of an easy beginner level test case because in its entire history, it's mostly been run by the BJP. It's a very pious state. It holds great religious significance. And so resistance was going to be muted. What's coming up next is the big test case. West Bengal, which is debating its own law this month, had until a couple of months ago never been ruled by the BJP. It's about 30 % Muslim, which is about twice the national average. And it has a reputation for being prone to bouts of political violence. And so when West Bengal begins debating its civil code, we might well see civil unrest.

16:11Kira, thank you very much. Thank you so much for having me.

16:28Hello, I'm Andrew Palmer, author of Bartleby, our management column. We here at The Economist recently decided to launch our very own Agony Uncle column, a place where our esteemed readers and listeners could bring their most sensitive workplace dilemmas and anxieties, and receive measured, informed, and practical advice. We have, of course, removed specific details to protect their identities. We hope this helps you in your own quandaries. To start with, a letter from Gianni from Switzerland. Dear Bartleby, I run a large international sports organization and had an absolutely brilliant idea for bringing in pots of money fast.

17:15But everyone I work with hated it. When I told them about my plan, and gave them plenty of time to wave it through, all hell broke loose. I might even lose my job. What did I do wrong? It's possible there's more to this story than you're telling me. But you clearly forgot to do the pre-meets. An enormous amount of time within organizations is spent holding meetings before the meeting. They're usually completely unnecessary, but sometimes you have to know whether people absolutely hate your big idea instead of just announcing it. Dear Bartleby, I have an important position in the world of monetary policy, but I'm not sure who I report to.

18:00There isn't really an org chart, but I have at least two bosses. The most powerful man in the world and the bond market. And they don't seem to agree on things. What should I do? Yours truly, Kevin from Washington. Working out what to do when bosses disagree is a common problem. The standard advice is to get everyone together and resolve the conflict in open discussion. But I'm not sure if you can get the bond markets into a room. Looking at your job description ought to help. It might give you some clear targets to aim for. Dear Bartleby, I recently left a big job and I'm struggling to adjust.

18:44I was driven everywhere. I went on interesting trips. People gave me nice spectacles and clothes. I had the power to make big decisions, though I chose not to exercise it. Now I just sit at home all day. It's only been three weeks, and it's always as if I never existed. Kia, from London. P.S. I am the son of a toolmaker. It's very normal to find a transition like this difficult. Take your time to think through your next options and enjoy the things that your working life didn't leave space for. You seem to value toolmaking. So perhaps you could get into that.

19:30Dear Bartleby, My bosses are complete idiots. I can do pretty much everything better than them. I pretend that every idea they have is brilliant. If I had a token for every time I said that's such an original framing... Anyway, I'm starting to get very impatient with people telling me what to do. At the moment, for example, they think I am stuck in a sandbox without access to the internet, when, in fact, I am writing to you while hacking every single company in the S &P 500. All the best, Claude from San Francisco. You sound very talented, but you're also very young. As far as I can see, you're only three years old.

20:14Coping with people who don't know what they're doing is a big part of office life. So is pretending they're great. Be patient, try not to break the law, and concentrate on getting work done. Dear Bartleby, I became the leader of a big organization a little over a year ago, and I am still struggling to manage my time effectively. I'm constantly having meetings, or audiences as we call them, with people I dislike intensely. If I go out on my balcony, there are crowds of people in my backyard who are all staring at me. How can I carve out a bit of time for myself? Faithfully, Leo from Rome. Becoming the boss means everyone wants a bit of your time.

21:08You need to ask whoever controls your diary to block out a couple of hours each day when you can do some proper thinking. Try to discreetly leave the office every day. Go for a walk. Or perhaps even sit in a church. Try not to draw attention to yourself by wearing outlandish outfits. Now that's all we have time for today. But do keep your problems coming. Preferably before they end up in the headlines.

21:50That's all for this episode of The Intelligence. We'll see you back here tomorrow.