Prof Tanya Reinhart
Looking at the columns of the liberal media in Israel, one cannot avoid the conclusion
that nothing has changed: Again (so we are told) we have a government committed to peace,
working ("even against its will") to carry out the vision of Oslo, despite the
objections of the right wing, and with the support of Labor and left. It is fully agreed
that Netanyahu is building new settlements and pushing the Palestinians out of the center
of the West Bank, only as an unavoidable token of compensation to the right-wing, for the
drastic steps Netanyahu has taken in the peace process. "Netanyahu has never wanted
to build in Har-Homa, but was forced to do that" says Deddi Zucker of the left-wing
Meretz, in his vote-of-nonconfidence speech in the parliament. This is precisely what they
said also about Rabin, in whose time the Har-Homa plan was conceived and approved (in May
1995).
Because in Israel, we confiscate, expel and settle only for the sake
of peace.
In September 96, it appeared that Netanyahu will not be able to
control the territories, and to keep portraying the occupation as the road to peace. The
match was his acts on the tunnel beneath the Aqsa Mosque, and the occupied territories
seemed on the verge of a new Palestinian uprising. A wave of anger at Israel and
solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinians swept the world. The Israeli doves were
seriously worried. But in a few days, Arafat has managed to crash the uprising and
Netanyahu proved that his control of Arafat and the territories is just as solid as that
of Rabin and Peres. Now it was possible to turn to the nuisance of Hebron, which Israel
has been planning for about two years - to transfer the police job to Arafat's security
forces, and thus release Israeli soldiers for other missions.
Since Israel wanted this, anyway, Arafat could present it as a
courageous demand in return for his cooperation, and, thus, market himself as a winner.
The "crisis" was over. "The peace process has
won". The Gulf companies returned to business with Israel, and the Israeli doves
realized that Netanyahu can do the job of keeping things quiet as well as Peres. With a
slight sigh, the peace-camp placed itself behind Netanyahu: The government is corrupt, but
the peace process goes on! The Palestinian state is a sure fact to come, so we can move
away from this topic now! This is the common theme in the columns of the doves.
But compared to 'Har-Homa', the Aqsa tunnel is a marginal issue of a
symbolic nature. The tunnel can be easily closed again, if the Palestinians ever get any
rights over Jerusalem. But the new settlement is an irreversible act which eliminates
their chances to ever get such rights.
Although in the Israeli maps, the whole center of the West Bank is
defined as Jerusalem, Jabel Abu R'neim-the Palestinian land on which Har-Homa is to be
built - is the land reserves of the Beit-Lehem region, and much of the land was
confiscated from Beit-Saxur owners.
(Other parts of this land were appropriated over the years by
Israeli business speculants, like David Mir, who took advantage of the owners fleeing
away. The government paid Mir the modest sum of 60 million dollars for his share of the
land, a transaction which is being called, mysteriously, 'confiscation'.[1])
Building in this new area is not just one more new settlement
(disguised as a new neighborhood of Jerusalem). This is the only unsettled stretch of land
between the south of the West-bank and the Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem - the
only area where it was possible, in principle, to keep a territorial link between them. If
it is built now, then the south is completely separated from Jerusalem with a thick belt
of Jewish residence. This is the final link in the plan prepared by the Rabin government
to dissociate Jerusalem and the center of the West bank, from its south. Once this
happens, the Palestinians loose access to the center, and whether they will be allowed to
visit Jerusalem in the future, will depend solely on Israel's mercy.
This is a serious matter. That's why the previous government did not
hurry to carry out its plan. Before Israel starts building, it is necessary to guarantee
that Arafat's headquarters can indeed control the territories, and crash any uprising,
since Israel cannot do that without Arafat. It takes at least 30 thousand 'policemen' and
a spy in every house to oppress the Palestinians struggle for independence. The Israeli
army just does not have the 30 thousand soldiers needed to replace, daily, Arafat's
policemen. To make sure that Arafat can indeed do that, one has to supply him, along with
the usual threats and pressures, also with another fictitious victory. This is where
Clinton enters the picture.
While the Palestinian opposition organizations demand that Arafat
stops negotiation with Israel as long as it keeps expanding settlements, the Chief was
brought to Washington. The headlines declared: "USA denounces the decision to build
Har-Homa!" But what does the body of the text say?[2]. What Clinton told Israel was
"I would have preferred that this decision was not taken". As for Arafat,
Clinton clarified that "USA cannot prevent Israel from building in Har-Homa". On
the other hand, the USA "will look gravely at any violent uprising that could risk
the peace process". In other words, it is permitted to deplore, and even carry some
protest-rituals against Israel's acts, but it is forbidden to do anything that may
threaten to stop them. As always in the language of power, it isthe victim who is accused
of 'violence'.
In return for his cooperation, Chief Arafat was given honors: dinner
with Allbright, interviews, and a bunch of nice words like "half recognition of a
state". For Arafat, this is enough. He agreed, as expected. He will keep his promise
even after the USA vetoed the security-council decision to denounce Israel. When it will
be clear that his security services are ready to deliver what he promised, Israel will
start building. The peace-camp will continue to tell us that all, in fact, is fine. Why
should we bother to think of what we are doing to the Palestinians? Why should we think of
what would happen when, one day, Arafat and his secret services will be called to pay for
their deeds?.
