Israel Negotiates New Agreements While It Violates Old Ones

by Rachelle Marshall

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators resumed talks on Feb. 16 with all the formalities that accompany this by now familiar ritual. And as usual the charade of two equal parties meeting across the table was in stark contrast to reality. With a powerful military, a thriving economy, and the full support of the U.S., Israel has every advantage in the negotiating process. The same advantages also enable Israel to ignore the spirit and even the letter of any agreement that results.

The latest negotiations were hardly underway when the Netanyahu government took another major step to ensure Israel’s permanent sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, despite the fact that the Oslo agreement called for no changes to be made on the ground until both sides reach an agreement on the city’s future. Over the strong objections of Palestinian leaders, the European Union, and even President Clinton, the Israeli government voted on Feb. 26 to go ahead with construction of 6,500 housing units, to be known as Har Homa, on Mount Abu Ghneim, the last open space near Jerusalem. The decision had more to do with politics than with housing. “We will make it clear once and for all that Jerusalem is the capital of all the Jewish people,” Police Minister Avigdor Kahalani said just before the vote.

Several weeks earlier PLO Executive Committee member Faisal Husseini had accused Israel of intending to “surround Jerusalem by a wall of settlements, dividing East Jerusalem into small Palestinian islands in an Israeli sea, and then stretching fingers of settlements into these Palestinian islands.” He was referring to the fact that on completion of Har Homa, Arab neighborhoods will be surrounded by housing for 200,000 Israelis and completely cut off from the West Bank. Har Homa will also impinge on nearby Bethlehem. Because the huge new settlement will require a network of bypass roads, hundreds of acres of Palestinian land adjoining the city will be confiscated. Not surprisingly, Yehezkel Landau, co-director of the Center for Jewish-Arab Coexistence in Ramle, warned in the Jerusalem Post last November that Har Homa “will spark an explosion that threatens to kill this peace process.”

The development on Mount Abu Ghneim is in line with past Israeli policy of steadily encroaching on Arab East Jerusalem in order to turn the once almost nonexistent Jewish population in that part of the city into a majority. Since 1967, when Israel annexed the area, 39,000 housing units have been built for Jews and none for Palestinians. In an effort to achieve ethnic cleansing, the government continues to demolish Palestinian homes, refuses to grant building permits to Palestinians, and withdraws Jerusalem IDs from Palestinians who travel abroad. The cabinet recently approved completion of a four-lane highway that will encircle the eastern half of Jerusalem and its environs, enclosing a dozen Palestinian villages in what the government is expected to annex as an extension of “Greater Jerusalem.”

The decision on Har Homa is also consistent with Israel’s practice of violating its agreements with the Palestinians. When Israel agreed in late January to complete its long-delayed withdrawals from additional West Bank territory by mid-1998, the Palestinians assumed that both sides would negotiate the extent of these withdrawals. Instead, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has insisted that only Israel will decide how much land will be included and indicated he will use such decisions as a means of discouraging Palestinian protests. Settler spokesman Noam Arnon was quoted in the Jan. 24 issue of Palestine Report as saying Netanyahu had promised he would give up no more than 10 percent of the West Bank.

Although the issue of settlements is still to be negotiated, Israel continues to seize Palestinian land for new Jewish housing and infrastructure. In late January Israeli soldiers forcibly ejected a Bedouin community from a site east of Jerusalem that they had occupied since being driven from the Negev in the 1950s. Their land will be used for the expansion of Ma’ale Adumin, the largest settlement on the West Bank. The Bedouin were trucked to a rocky hillside next to a garbage dump, with no room for their flocks to graze and only tents supplied by the U.N. for shelter. A week after signing the Hebron withdrawal agreement, Israel demolished several Palestinian homes in the Hebron district in order to expand nearby settlements, and began new construction in the Jordan Valley.

Israel seemingly makes no effort to defuse the resentment and mistrust that its actions arouse among Palestinians. The government announcement on Har Homa followed by one day the killing by Israeli undercover agents of an unarmed 56-year- old resident of the West Bank village of Hizme, on the West Bank, and the serious wounding of his two brothers.

Mohamad Abad al-Aziz Hilu was shot and then beaten to death by the agents when he pleaded with them to release his son-in-law, Hamzi Mubarak. The Israelis had seized Mubarak and pinned him to the ground when he asked what they were doing in the village. Mubarak’s uncles were also shot when they approached the scene. Witnesses said the attacks by the undercover unit were unprovoked, and that it was only after Hilawi’s death was announced that youths threw stones at Israeli army vehicles.

Such incidents, by adding to the fear and suspicion engendered by the occupation, will undoubtedly complicate the talks that resumed in February. Nevertheless, negotiators intend to tackle several crucial issues, including release of more than 3,000 Palestinians still in Israeli jails, a free passage for Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank, and the opening of a Gaza seaport and airport. All of these actions would have been carried out months ago had Israel lived up to its obligations under Oslo and subsequent agreements. The Palestinians are also demanding that Israel pay to the Palestinian Authority some $1.32 billion (U.S.) that the Israeli government has collected over the years in the form of taxes from Palestinian merchants, insurance fees, and social security deductions from the wages of Palestinian workers in Israel.

The current round of negotiations is being held at a time when Israeli restrictions on Palestinian trade with the outside world continue to burden a Palestinian economy already crippled by the border closings. Shipments of fruit and other produce are routinely delayed at the crossing into Jordan, the entry of construction materials is held up for long periods by red tape, and on Feb. 5 Israeli Minister of Agriculture Rafael Eitan (known best for referring to Palestinians as “roaches in a bottle”) ordered that no produce from Gaza or the West Bank should be allowed into Israel. Germany and Spain have offered to donate millions of dollars worth of equipment to the new Gaza airport and a number of countries have agreed to accept Palestinian flights, but Israel refuses to allow the donated equipment into Gaza or flights to take off from the airport. The Israelis are demanding full control over management and security at the airport before they will allow it to operate.

In late January, just before the negotiations began, a dozen leading members of the Knesset—half from Labor and half from Likud—announced that after several meetings chaired by Labor member Yossi Beilin and Michael Eitan of Likud, they had agreed on guidelines for an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Forgetting that it takes both sides of a conflict to make peace, The New York Times hailed the guidelines as “new and important,” and other media also treated the announcement as major news.

It is true that a meeting of minds between the two Israeli parties is rare among normally contentious Knesset members, but the Beilin-Eitan guidelines in fact only restate longstanding policies and contribute nothing new to the peace process. They begin by referring to Palestinians as “a national movement of the Arabs of the land of Israel,” an assumption that the entire land is Israel’s by right. Palestinians would be allowed to establish a “self-governing entity,” with Israel retaining the right to “defend itself.” Israel would retain control of the Jordan Valley, no settlements would be dismantled, settlers would be subject only to Israeli rule, and Jerusalem would remain united under Jewish sovereignty, although Palestinians might establish a capital in the suburbs. Israel would annex West Bank territories where most of the 144 Jewish settlements are located, further reducing the size of any future Palestinian state. There was no mention of water, which Netanyahu has pledged will remain solely under Israel’s control. The return of Palestinian refugees would be negotiated in the final stage of talks in the context of Israel’s “overall security considerations.”

The guidelines’ emphasis on Israel’s security and “right to defend itself,” with Israelis having the sole right to define these terms, means that Israel would have ultimate control over any Palestinian entity that is established—a proviso that Palestinians are almost certain to reject. Toufik Ktib of the Arab Democratic Party in Israel said as much when he commented, “It may bring peace between Labor and Likud but it won’t bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians.” Palestinian officials were even harsher in their condemnation. Ahmed Tibi, adviser to President Yasser Arafat, said, “The document ignores almost totally the rights of the Palestinian people, especially with reference to Jerusalem and the right of return.” PLO Executive Committee member Tayseer Khaled dismissed it as “nothing but a compromise agreement to accommodate the expansionist designs of Likud and Labor.”

Although many in the West greeted the Labor-Likud consensus as a promising sign, its real significance may be that it revealed how little difference there is, except on the fringes, between Labor and Likud when it comes to Israel’s return of the occupied territories. An editorial in the moderate Palestinian weekly Jerusalem Times on Jan. 31 commented that “Likud and Labor are two sides of the same coin... but Labor hides behind a mask whereas Likud exposes its real face.” As if to underscore this assertion, The New York Times reported on Feb. 19 that several Labor party members including Ehud Barak, who will probably be the next Labor party leader, were among those clamoring for the immediate construction of Har Homa, regardless of Palestinian opposition. In fact the only real debate within Israeli leadership circles may be over how few concessions Israel can offer the Palestinians without disrupting the peace process and thus risking the loss of foreign investment. Members of both parties are aware that two days after the Hebron agreement was signed the Tel Aviv stock market rose by 3 percent.

Economic considerations may eventually convince a majority of Israelis that a peace settlement acceptable to Palestinians is in Israel’s own best interests, but lasting peace might also bring other benefits. According to a study by the Israeli Women’s Network, 10 percent of all married women in Israel have been beaten by their spouses. As a result, more than 40,000 women are brought to hospital emergency rooms each year. The fact that many Israeli men serve in the occupation forces and become accustomed to subduing other human beings with physical force, suggests at least a partial cause of the widespread domestic violence. The return of Israeli forces from Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza would not only reduce the level of violence in these areas but possibly bring peace to Israeli families as well.

Because the Beilin-Eitan guidelines fail to satisfy even the minimal aspirations of most Palestinians, they are not likely to be the basis of a workable peace agreement. A more realistic document was signed last January by 48 prominent individuals, 12 each from Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians who joined together as the International Alliance for Peace and met in Copenhagen under the auspices of the Danish government. Among the founders of the Alliance are Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University; Hanna Siniora, publisher of the Jerusalem Times; Zahira Kemal of the Fida party; and several members of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

The Copenhagen Declaration calls for a comprehensive peace between Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians based on the principle of land for peace and U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. It condemns terrorism and violence in any form as well as collective punishment and the violation of human rights. The Declaration emphasizes that the final status arrangements must satisfy the needs of all parties concerning Jerusalem, security, allocation of water, and the return of refugees. Above all, a lasting agreement must be based on equality, dignity, and mutual respect.

The aim of the Alliance is to mobilize public opinion and lobby governments in behalf of these principles. At the very least the Copenhagen Declaration is a reminder to the West that there is a counter-consensus that is in far closer touch with reality than are Israeli political leaders. It is a consensus of those in Israel and the Arab world who are convinced there can be no peace and stability in the Middle East without recognition of the Palestinians’ right to an independent state.