Every
Israeli government since 1967 has worked to settle Jews across the
green line in Jerusalem, building huge neighborhoods and settlements
to the north, east and south of Arab East Jerusalem. The objective,
a noble one from the Jewish point of view, is to fortify and
aggrandize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Unfortunately,
the strategy selected for this enterprise has been faulty, most
recently bordering on pure folly of the sort once described by
historian Barbara Tuchman in her landmark The March of
Folly.
The
point of departure for the expansion of Jewish Jerusalem was the
decision, in June 1967, to enlarge the city by annexing not only the
Old City and (what came to be called) the Holy Basin, from the City
of David to the Mount of Olives, but all the rural villages on the
hills surrounding the city, and a long finger of territory reaching
north to encompass the airfield at Atarot/Kalandia, just south of
Ramallah-Al Bireh. At the time the logic seemed sound: Israeli
security planners were certain the superpowers would soon demand
massive withdrawals from the territories conquered a few weeks
earlier in the Six-Day War, and the region would revert back to a
reality of prolonged hostility; Jerusalem needed an airfield for
re-supply in case of 1948-style siege, and a protective range of
hills to its east, north and south to avoid the pre-June 1967
situation of Jordanian Arab Legion snipers shooting at Israelis from
these hills.
No one
took into account that the US and USSR would not demand an immediate
withdrawal and that the Jordanian option would be replaced by that
of a demilitarized Palestinian state that sought Jerusalem as its
capital. Within a few years, Israeli thinking proved to be totally
anachronistic, but nobody ever bothered to reconsider the direction
chosen.
Next, in
an obvious act of folly, Israel built Jewish neighborhoods precisely
on those newly annexed parts of the city that were supposed to form
a protective belt. Hence, in the recent intifada, while Palestinian
snipers did not shoot at Ramat Rachel, they were able easily to fire
at Gilo.
But the
principle act of folly was the total lack of thought given to the
fate of Jerusalem's Arab residents and its Muslim holy places. Now
more than 200,000 strong, the Arab residents of the city are
increasingly cut off from the rest of the West Bank by Jewish
neighborhoods. To compound the folly, the Sharon government is
routing the fence/wall along the annexation borders rather than the
demographic borders, thereby further detaching this Palestinian
population from the rest of Palestine and embittering Palestinians
on both sides. The fence/wall is needed for the security of Jews;
its current path is counterproductive to that
objective.
Two
aspects of current government policy are worthy of mention because
they show how different things could be. First, at the northern end
of the Jerusalem "finger" the fence is being built south of Kafr
Aqab and the Atarot/Kalandiya landing strip, both within the city's
expanded municipal borders. In effect, Israel is giving up on a
portion of "united Jerusalem, eternal capital of Israel". Yet no one
objects, because that slogan has long been understood to be a can of
worms of contradictions. Why not move the fence elsewhere in
accordance with demographic, security and, yes, political
logic?
Secondly,
the E1 construction project, which has attracted heavy pressure from
Washington, is part of the paradox of Maale Adummim. That settlement
town of 30,000 residents will be part of Israel; even the Geneva
Accord recognizes that reality. But from the start it was clear that
attaching it to Jerusalem would be problematic because it cuts the
West Bank in two and seals off yet another area where Arab Jerusalem
could still be attached to the West Bank as part of a final status
agreement. This is a topic par excellence for creative negotiations
between Israelis and Palestinians; its solution could be a major
confidence builder. The Sharon government prefers to establish its
own facts on the ground, however erroneously.
Israel
does not want the Arab residents of Jerusalem as full-fledged
citizens because of demographic fears. The Arab residents refuse to
cooperate with the municipality for reasons, largely misplaced, of
Palestinian nationalism. By voting and running for municipal office
they probably could have thwarted many of the Israeli acts that have
made their lives so difficult, but here the PLO's mistakes equal
those of Israel.
Israeli
strategic planners have no idea what to do with the city's Arab
residents, some one-third of Jerusalemites. So they ignore them in
terms of municipal development and services. Until lately this
situation was somehow tolerable, in that Palestinians were able to
move back and forth fairly easily between the city and the West Bank
for purposes of work, education, health care, commerce, etc., while
Palestinian Jerusalemites enjoyed relatively generous Israeli social
security and health benefits.
Now the
critical mass of the fence/wall and ongoing settlement of Jews on
every flank of the Arab city is liable to turn Arab East Jerusalem
into a powder keg. At the state political level Israeli construction
is, deliberately, foreclosing any option of attaching the Arab city
to a Palestinian state as its capital. At the personal level the
fence/wall is cutting off more than 200,000 Palestinians from the
rest of Palestine, and vice versa. At the religious level, every
step Israel takes to isolate Jerusalem from the West Bank also
isolates the Haram Al Sharif (Temple Mount) mosques from Muslim
believers, to the detriment of any future chance for peaceful
coexistence with the Muslim world.
The last
intifada began in Jerusalem. I fear the next one will also erupt
there, and then focus heavily on the city.- Published 13/6/2005 (c)
bitterlemons.org
Yossi
Alpher is coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet
publications. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for
Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, and a former senior
adviser to PM Ehud Barak.
|
A
PALESTINIAN VIEW
Behind
the smokescreen |
|
by
Ghassan Khatib |
While
the Israeli plan for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is creating
plenty of excitement and lots of attention among the Israeli and
international publics, the Palestinians are worried that, among
other things, that plan is serving as a smokescreen to cover up
dramatic changes and developments in the West Bank, especially in
and around Jerusalem.
The
reason for this is that, while talking about vacating settlements
with less than 2,000 housing units in Gaza, Israel has been busy
constructing, this year alone, something like 6,400 housing units in
illegal settlements in the West Bank, mostly centered on Jerusalem.
A
further expression of Israeli attempts to achieve certain objectives
in Jerusalem is the crazy and illegal idea of building this ugly
wall separating one neighborhood from another in this "unified city
of Jerusalem". This wall separates houses from houses, people and
children from their schools and hospitals and in general makes life
miserable without achieving any of the security, demographic or
political objectives of the occupation. The continuing acquisition
of land in Jerusalem and continuing depriving people of their basic
right of urban development only serve to create further frustration,
anger and hostility between two peoples who desire to live in one
city.
If there
is any illusion in Israel or elsewhere that peace and two states are
possible while Jerusalem is still occupied, it should be made clear
that this is not the case. Jerusalem is the soul of the Palestinian
homeland, not only for religious, historical and spiritual reasons,
but also because it is geographically central and plays a
significant economic role due to the importance of tourism.
The
continuation of the illegal Judaization of the city through efforts
to alter its demographic balance and nature and suppressing its
Palestinian citizens in order to force them out, is only backfiring.
The harder Israel pushes, the closer the attachment of Palestinians
to their capital and the greater the determination of Palestinians
to make all and any effort toward ending the Israeli occupation of
that important part of their country.
This
Israeli government has lost any sense of propriety in its attempts
to be "victorious" where all previous governments have failed, i.e.,
with regard to the control of East Jerusalem. It has reached a point
where the Israeli government and the prime minister's office even
appear to have been part of illegal deals, aimed at appropriating
properties in the occupied part of the city.
After 38
years of occupation and unceasing efforts to make occupied East
Jerusalem a part of Israel and of the so-called unified Jerusalem,
Israel must realize that this is doomed to failure. East Jerusalem
was, is and will remain a Palestinian Arab city as much as Ramallah,
Jenin or Gaza City. Israel must come to terms with international
legality, which considers the city to be under a belligerent
military occupation.
Thus,
Israel has two options as far Jerusalem as is concerned to arrive at
a peaceful settlement: either it gives up its occupation of the
eastern part of the city, or it allows for a unified Jerusalem to be
the capital of both Palestine and Israel with free access for both
peoples.- Published 13/6/2005
(c) bitterlemons.org
Ghassan
Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet
publications. He is the Palestinian Authority minister of planning
and has been a political analyst and media contact for many years.
|
AN
ISRAELI
VIEW
A
city imprisoned together |
|
by
Shaul Arieli |
The
route of the barrier being completed around Jerusalem reflects
primarily the policy of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The essence of
this policy is the attempt to determine the final borders of the
state of Israel by means of an act of settlement disguised as a
security move and based on the argument that there is no Palestinian
"partner" for a substantial political peace process. The outcome of
this policy is liable to be tragic: absent the capacity to ensure
the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem--a sine
qua non for ending the conflict and resolving all claims--Sharon's
policy prevents any possibility of reaching a solution and
perpetuates the confrontation and the violence.
The
"seam" area approved by the government on October 1, 2003 in effect
delineated the borders of the Jerusalem "corridor" that the
government sought. To the north the government wished to include the
future route of road #45, which is supposed to link the center of
the country to north Jerusalem. To this end it was proposed to
construct a "deep" or secondary fence some 3-4 km.
north of
road #443 (when asked about the purpose of the fence, the government
replied that it was intended to defend road 443 from light-arms
fire). The government assessed that some of the 90,000 Palestinians
entrapped with their 14 villages between the central barrier and the
deep fence and separated from many of their lands would seek their
fortunes elsewhere--much in the way chosen by thousands of residents
of imprisoned Qalqilya--while the remaining Palestinians would be
annexed to Israel. To the south of Jerusalem the path of the barrier
was planned south of the Etzion Bloc and east of road #! 60 and
Efrata, condemning 17,000 Palestinians in five imprisoned villages
to a similar fate.
An
Israel High Court ruling in June 2004, together with international
involvement, forced alterations to this plan. But in changing the
plan in February 2005 the government also approved a new route that
embraces 67 square km. between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim and an
area east of Maaleh Adumim. This expanse (which is 10 times the size
of the populated part of Maaleh Adumim) completes what is termed the
"Jerusalem envelope" and is intended to ensure that Jerusalem does
not remain a border town.
This
plan, co-sponsored by the Jerusalem municipality, seeks to justify
an Israeli demand to annex the area under final status. It would be
realized in two ways: geographically, by establishing an obstacle
that severs Palestinian East Jerusalem from the West Bank, of which
it is the unofficial capital; and demographically, by constructing a
"Jewish urban belt" around Palestinian East Jerusalem--building
1,200 housing units in Geva Binyamin to the north, 3,500 in E1 in
the center, 200 in Kidmat Zion at Abu Dis, 350 at Nof Zion on Jebel
Muqaber, and 13,600 at Nof Yael near Walajeh. The transportation
solutions proposed by Israel--route 80, the "eastern ring" or a
tunnel--could indeed ensure within a decade the passage of
Palestinian traffic between Bethlehem and Ramallah, but would not
preserve East Jerusalem as a political, economic, social and
religious center for West Bank Palestinians.
This
policy is currently generating an outcome completely contrary to
that expected: thousands of Palestinians from the neighborhoods left
outside the wall, who hold Israeli IDs, are making their way back
inside the city and crowding together with the 200,000 Palestinians
already there. This phenomenon reinforces the demographic trend of
relative increase of the Palestinian population of Jerusalem, from
22 percent in 1967 to more than one-third today. The trend hampers
the city's capacity to function, insofar as the Palestinian
residents boycott municipal elections and maintain almost entirely
separate education, health, transportation, commercial and cultural
networks from those of the Jewish population.
In
contrast to the government's plan, the Council for Peace and
Security proposes a security solution based on a demographic
separation barrier (between Jewish and Palestinian neighborhoods),
without attaching additional territories from the West Bank. The
alternative plan reinforces demographic separation as a means of
maintaining the security of Israelis in their neighborhoods in both
West and East Jerusalem. In this way the plan maintains the option
for both sides to return to the negotiating table and realize a
solution based on the Clinton Plan of December 2000.
Following
the initiative of US President George W. Bush and his administration
to oppose the establishment of an eastern barrier and the expansion
of Jewish construction in the eastern city, the ministers of the
government of Israel should also accept the redefinition of the
borders of Jewish Jerusalem. The attempt to include Palestinian
al-Quds within these borders not only imprisons a quarter of a
million Palestinians who live there, but, primarily, precludes any
chance of reaching a permanent solution and regional stabilization.-
Published 13/6/2005 (c)
bitterlemons.org
Colonel
(res.) Shaul Arieli is a senior research associate at the Economic
Research Foundation. He was head of the Negotiations Management
Center under PM Ehud Barak. He is one of the initiators of the
Geneva Accord and serves on the executive committee of the Council
for Peace and Security.
|
A
PALESTINIAN VIEW
No
solution in the cards |
|
an
interview with Samih Al Abed
|
bitterlemons: The
most recent development in Jerusalem is the planned demolitions of
houses in Silwan. What is happening there?
Hammouri: This
will affect roughly 1,000 people. The Israeli municipality is
talking about some 90 houses and all the houses are crowded with
more than seven people per dwelling.
Of
course, this is a political issue and has nothing to do with the
lack or otherwise of building permits. The Israeli authorities want
to get rid of the Palestinian population from Jerusalem. They have
declared that they want to reduce the Palestinian population of East
Jerusalem to 40-50,000. At the moment, Palestinians with blue
Jerusalem ID cards number more than 240,000 people. So they want to
evacuate more than 200,000 people.
They are
using several elements to this end, including house demolitions,
land confiscations and the building of the wall, which in itself
will affect roughly 100-120,000 people.
bitterlemons: How
exactly will the wall do that?
Hammouri: The
people that will be left outside the wall will be considered as
outside the borders of the municipality and then outside the borders
of Israel. Thus they will lose any benefits like national insurance,
and their information will be transferred to the Israeli interior
ministry, which, in turn, will confiscate their IDs. That will leave
them as absentees, and, as absentees, any property they may have in
Jerusalem will eventually be confiscated. It is a program that works
in stages.
bitterlemons: What
about the settlement ring around Jerusalem?
Hammouri: The aim
of all these plans, including the settlements, is to evacuate
Palestinians from Jerusalem and assert complete Israeli control over
the city as a Jewish city. Israel has been trying to do this in
different ways since 1967. Until today it has not succeeded. On the
contrary, the Palestinian population in Jerusalem has been
increasing. But with this new plan, I think they might
succeed.
bitterlemons: How
does that affect the possibilities for a political
solution?
Hammouri: In the
last week, there was a declaration from [Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel] Sharon that Israel will never divide Jerusalem and it will
always be the capital of Israel. Peres, in a similar way, said it
was impossible to have such a city with so many Palestinians,
indirectly suggesting evacuating the population as a result. The
Israelis are trying to create new facts on the ground before any
final agreement to preempt the issue in
negotiations.
bitterlemons: But it
takes two parties to make an agreement. Will the Palestinians ever
agree to a solution without Jerusalem?
Hammouri: Of
course not. But it seems the Israeli authorities are not interested
in a solution. Israel wants to leave Gaza--they have wanted to do
this for a while--it is costly for them. But in the West Bank,
Israel wants the land without the people.
bitterlemons: But in
the long term doesn't this simply prolong the
conflict?
Hammouri: Yes.
And this is what [former Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe] Yaalon said
just a week ago. He said he will not see a peaceful settlement in
the near future or in his lifetime. It seems there is, among the
senior level of the Israeli leadership, a clear decision not to try
to reach a solution in the near future.
bitterlemons: In this
case, what ought a Palestinian strategy be?
Hammouri: The
Palestinian side is trying to implement everything they are asked by
the international community in the hope that the international
community, including the US, might exert pressure on Israel. But,
you feel from Palestinian statements, that they too see no solution
in the near future. Some two months ago, [Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud] Abbas said he hoped the withdrawal from Gaza
would not be the end of the story, and it seems there is doubt
whether or not that indeed will be the case.- Published 13/6/2005 (c)
bitterlemons.org
Ziad
Al Hammouri is the director general of the Jerusalem Center for
Social and Economic Rights.
To
unsubscribe from this bitterlemons HTML email list, simply write to
unsubscribehtml@bitterlemons.org with "unsubscribe" in the subject
line. To subscribe to the text version instead, write to
subscribetext@bitterlemons.org. Editors Ghassan Khatib and Yossi
Alpher can be reached at ghassan@bitterlemons.org and
yossi@bitterlemons.org, respectively.
Bitterlemons.org
is an internet newsletter that presents Palestinian and Israeli
viewpoints on prominent issues of concern. Each edition addresses a
specific issue of controversy. Bitterlemons.org maintains complete
organizational and institutional symmetry between its Palestinian
and Israeli sides.