In 1967, when the IDF first marched into the West Bank, there were already forces in Israeli society that wanted to annex the territory permanently. While leaders in the Labor party made sporadic attempts to relinquish it (first to Jordan, and then to the PLO) in return for peace, Likud’s platform has been always been to establish a Jewish state in “the whole land of Israel”. It is increasingly clear that the disengagement plan does not represent a change in that policy. Rather, it has provided an effective smokescreen for expansionism. Two articles today provide a good summary of Israel’s territorial end-game.
Steven Gutkin of the Associated Press opens with:
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - in spectacular fashion and with both overt and tacit support from Washington - is fast imposing a blueprint for Israel’s permanent borders that would extend beyond the 1967 frontiers the Palestinians say should frame their future state.
Two parliamentary votes this week cleared the final hurdles to Sharon’s plan to vacate the Gaza Strip and four West Bank settlements this summer. The government also plans to expand the West Bank’s largest Jewish settlement, vowing to encompass it and others on the Israeli side of a massive separation barrier.
Many Israelis hope that Sharon’s “disengagement” plan - quitting some Palestinian land and building the barrier in the West Bank - will be the beginning of the end of Israel’s occupation of land captured in the 1967 Mideast war and possibly pave the way for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Sharon has leveraged this hope to build domestic support. The leaders of the Labor Party, as well as many peace activists, interpret disengagement as a change in Likud’s expansionist policy. On this basis, they have supported Sharon through the process. Rolling out the disengagement plan in 2003 saved him from being indicted on corruption charges; and without the assistance of Labor in forming a coalition, his government would have fallen in December of last year.
Sharon has also used the perception of disengagement as a peace initiative to gain international forebearance with regard to West Bank expansion.
Citing fierce domestic opposition to disengagement, Israel has quietly asked the United States to refrain from criticizing it about settlement expansion or any other issue until after the pullouts are complete this summer, Israeli officials confirmed.
That request - and the apparent U.S. acquiescence to it - highlights the enormous importance both nations are placing on the withdrawal plan.
Sharon’s political troubles and the settlers’ threats have amplified the disengagement into a grand drama, and the consensus is that nothing more can or should be asked from Israel at this time.
But Sharon’s real problem is not how to remove the settlers in Gaza. It is how to keep the territory captured in 1967, while neutralizing the Palestinians who live there.
His solution is to isolate the major Palestinian population centers - to literally wall them in - and extend de facto Israeli control from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Jeff Halper, the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, writes in Middle East Times:
Israel cannot “digest” the 3.6 million Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories. Giving them citizenship would nullify Israel as a Jewish state; not giving them citizenship yet keeping them forever under occupation would constitute outright apartheid. What to do? The answer is clear: establish a tiny Palestinian state of, say, five or six cantons (Sharon’s term) on 40 to 70 percent of the Occupied Territories, completely surrounded and controlled by Israel.
Such a Palestinian state would cover only 10 to 15 percent of the entire country and would have no meaningful sovereignty and viability: no coherent territory, no freedom of movement, no control of borders, no capital in Jerusalem, no economic viability, no control of water, no control of airspace or communications, no military - not even the right as a sovereign state to enter into alliances without Israeli permission.
And since the Palestinians will never agree to this, Israel must “create facts on the ground” that prejudice negotiations even before they begin. Last week’s announcement that Israel is constructing 3,500 housing units in E-1, a corridor connecting Jerusalem to the West Bank settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim, seals the fate of the Palestinian state.
Looking at the Ma’aleh Adumim tender, the recent report of permit and travel restrictions preventing Israeli Arabs from traveling in the West Bank, and the newly approved route of the separation barrier, I have to agree with Mr. Halper. I recommend reading the article in full - it’s a concise, well-reasoned analysis of the impact of Israel’s policy on the prospect for a Palestinian state.
Israel’s moves are utterly counter-conducive to a negotiated peace. Despite a fair and democratic election in the Palestinian territories - despite the landslide vote for a leader who promised to end violence against Israel - despite Mr. Abbas’s effectiveness in carrying out this promise - the Palestinians still find themselves with no voice in the decisions over their future status or territory.
American complicity in this scenario is morally wrong. It is also strategically wrong if our goal is an end to the conflict. It sends a message to Palestinian society that armed insurrection is the only way to prevent their destruction as a people.
The Jewish left should use Sharon’s upcoming visit to this country as an opportunity to make its dissent from these policies known through lobbying, communication with the media, and public demonstrations. The issue goes beyond ending the military aspects of the occupation (which, after all, is the intent of the disengagement).
The message should be that we will not accept Israel’s right to retain territory in the West Bank, its moves to annex additional territory, or the continued exclusion of the Palestinians from the bargaining table. Territorial decisions may only be made in negotiation with representatives of the Palestinian people, in the context of final status talks. Israel should take immediate steps to begin these negotiations.
Cut in half?
I looked at the map and at Halper’s article, and they don’t seem to match. Halper says the E-1 buildup will cut the West Bank in half; if this is the same bulge shown on the map, although it does cut deeply into the West Bank, it is far from literally bisecting it. It would add to the driving time across the country, but if and when a separate state is created without constant roadblocks, the added driving time would not be all that large as it is a small country anyway. It is obviously not intended for security reasons, but looks more like a compromise with the expansionists than a sabotage attempt. Halpern and you seem to be exaggerating the threat to Palestinian viability.
But maybe I’m missing some facts here - can you explain?
Bisection
Wish I were exaggerating.
Remember that Israel also claims a large swath of land to the west of the Jordan River. This land, too, is heavily settled by Israelis.
A segment of the separation wall, if built as planned, will run along the east side of the proposed Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Under the current plan the Ma’ale Adumim extension of Israeli territory will either connect, or very nearly connect, to the area claimed along the Jordan, effectively bisecting the proposed Palestinian territory.
Andrew Schamess