Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 1998, pages 7, 95-96

Special Report

Netanyahu’s New Jerusalem Calls for Ethnic Cleansing and Urban Sprawl

By Rachelle Marshall

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is often said to be walking a tightrope, but if so he is in no danger of failing. As the June 24 deadline set by the Clinton administration for Israel’s acceptance of its redeployment plan came and went Netanyahu coolly ignored it, safely assuming there would be no “or else” from Washington. Instead there was only a plea from Secretary of State Madeline Albright that the two sides resume negotiations by the end of July.

With time running short until the Knesset recessed for the summer, Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai and Palestinian negotiator Abu Mazen did meet on July 19, but Palestinian officials said afterwards that no progress had been made. Netanyahu stood by his demands that Israel retain a veto over construction in a quarter of the land to be returned to the Palestinians, that the Palestinian National Council meet to draft a new charter, and that the Palestinians turn over alleged terrorists to Israel. As usual, the Israelis appealed to the United States to help “close the gaps” between the two sides—which means pressuring the Palestinians to make further concessions—but for once the Clinton administration refused. “We cannot make the decisions that they have to make for themselves,” White House spokesman Michael McCurry said.

Because Netanyahu is known for his deviousness there has been a widespread assumption that his rejection of a U.S. proposal heavily weighted in Israel’s favor was part of a strategy to implement Oslo but at a slower pace, in order to retain his right-wing support. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times was one of those who bought this theory. After Israeli President Ezer Weizman denounced Netanyahu as a liar who is obstructing the peace process, Friedman wrote on July 11, “What he was essentially saying was that Mr. Netanyahu seems incapable of playing the historic role that many, including myself, have hoped he would: that is, to advance the peace process, albeit in his own more cautious fashion... but still, at the end of the day, make the tough, necessary compromises.”

Friedman’s hope, shared for too long by the Clinton administration, was based on wishful thinking. Ever since Netanyahu first appeared on the Israeli political scene he has made unequivocally clear his opposition to the return of land to the Palestinians. His statements over the years, and his actions since taking office in 1996, provide abundant evidence that his intransigence is not caused by the need to appease others but is rooted in his own fanatic convictions.

The strength of these convictions, together with a Palestinian leadership weakened by charges of corruption, a supportive U.S. Congress, and an administration driven by domestic politics, have enabled Netanyahu to emerge as the one strong player in the three-sided negotiating process that for two years has produced nothing but acrimony. Netanyahu’s gamble that there would be no reprisals from the United States, and that Arab opposition would have a negligible effect has paid off. Despite urging from Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, Arab leaders have declined to call a summit meeting to protest Israel’s actions, reportedly because of their displeasure with Arafat’s willingness to make concessions to Israel. In what may have been a rebuke to Arafat, nearly a dozen Arab countries gave a royal welcome to Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin when he visited them in June.

It is within Israel that Netanyahu is being seriously challenged. Although so far he has managed to stall the peace process without incurring any costs to his political career he is under increasing pressure from the Labor Party and some members of his own coalition to accept the American proposal on troop withdrawal, as the Palestinians have done. Unless he can persuade Arafat to accept Israel’s demands, or at least agree to a compromise, Netanyahu may soon have to choose between accepting a proposal he once rejected or calling new elections.

Meanwhile, as the peace process languishes, the Israelis are driving stake after stake through its heart to ensure there will never be a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. In defiance of international law as well as world opinion, the Israeli Cabinet voted on June 21 to add 24 square miles of territory to Jerusalem and turn it into an umbrella municipality that will encompass areas to the south and west as well as a number of West Bank settlements. Connecting roads and tunnels will make the newly annexed settlements an integral part of Jerusalem. The government also plans to build thousands of new apartments within the city.

Environmentalists fear that once the new municipality takes over state-owned land between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, existing forest preserves and parks will be cemented over to become part of what one urban planner calls “a big urban megalopolis.” It will also be a source of new tax revenue for the city. But Netanyahu’s principal aim is to achieve a Judaized Jerusalem. When he announced his proposal to the Cabinet he said the plan was designed to “strengthen, fortify and base our hold and sovereignty in Jerusalem.” Calling the project a major turning point in the city’s status, he said “The first thing we are doing is to link together greater Jerusalem. The second thing is strengthening the Jewish majority in Jerusalem.”

His government is already well along in its campaign to drive Palestinians out of a city that was once the center of their society. The Israelis have confiscated hundreds of I.D. cards, encouraged settlers to take over Palestinian-owned houses in East Jerusalem, refused building permits to Palestinians, and demolished Palestinian homes that are built without them. At least 1,000 additional Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem are currently scheduled for demolition, according to B’Tselem.

Netanyahu’s intention to turn one of the world’s most hauntingly beautiful cities into a center of urban sprawl is almost breathtaking in its arrogance. Even more so is his unapologetic dismissal of the Oslo agreement, which stipulates that no changes may be made in the status of Jerusalem or the settlements until final negotiations are held. In addition to changing the face of Jerusalem, Israel is building thousands of new housing units in the West Bank and has begun work on 13 new settlements. Allison Hodgkins, a Jerusalem affairs analyst, predicts that by the year 2020 the city of Bethlehem will be “completely engulfed” by settlements.

International Concern

The prime minister’s latest move has aroused international concern. On July 7 the General Assembly voted 124 to 4 over Israel’s protests to grant additional privileges to the Palestinian observer mission, with only the Marshall Islands and Micronesia dissenting along with Israel and the United States. A more significant vote took place in the Security Council six days later, when all 15 members approved a statement calling Israel’s decision on Jerusalem “a serious and damaging development,” and urging Israel not to proceed. Only a threatened U.S. veto prevented the Council from adopting a resolution demanding that Israel rescind the decision. Such a resolution would have had the force of international law, which the July 13 statement does not have. In opposing the resolution, U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson hauled out the tired argument that it would hinder U.S. efforts to revive the peace process. But on the same day, State Department spokesman James P. Rubin for the first time explicitly accused Israel of holding up the talks. “The ball is not in the Palestinian court as I’ve seen it suggested,” he said. “The ball is in the court of the Israelis.” Rubin was obviously speaking for Secretary Albright, the only member of the Clinton administration who has dared to criticize Israel.

The European Union has not yet announced a decision on whether to withdraw free trade privileges from Israel, but the fact that the Israelis’ largest single trading partner is considering such a move indicates the Europeans’ growing irritation at Israel’s obstruction of the peace process. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency recently revealed a secret EU report accusing Israel of falsely labeling goods from the occupied territories and elsewhere as made in Israel, and of interfering with trade between Europe and the Palestinians. The report specifically charges Israel with delaying the shipments of Palestinian products until perishables become damaged, and forcing Palestinian merchants to obtain hard-to-get Israeli licenses or pay a heavy fine. Even those Palestinians with a license must deal through Israeli agents, who then charge additional fees.

In accusing Israel of sabotaging Palestinian trade with Europe, the report throws light on the exploitative nature of Israel’s occupation. As Sara Roy* and others have pointed out, Israel has plundered the resources of the occupied territories, destroyed existing economic structures, and prohibited the establishment of local financial institutions and industries. As a result, the West Bank and Gaza may be the last of the traditional colonies: a source of cheap labor, and a captive market, ruled over by an occupying army.

The situation has only worsened since 1993. In the last five years Israel has carved up the West Bank with roads that bypass Palestinian towns and deprive local merchants of business. In Jericho, for instance, the historic Hisham Palace hotel stands empty while a new highway leads directly to the construction site of a huge entertainment center that will include hotels, golf courses, and a casino. The center, which religious Jews would never allow in Israel, is reminiscent of Sun Cities, the gambling and porno parlor complex that white South Africans established in a neighboring Bantustan during the apartheid era. The Palestine Authority gave its permission for the project, but many Palestinians object that the low-paying jobs it will produce won’t compensate for the possible social costs and loss of business to local residents. As is true of almost all West Bank industry, the main beneficiaries will be Israeli and other outside investors.

Another indication of the Europeans’ dissatisfaction with Israel’s stalling tactics and U.S. inaction was the warm welcome Syrian President Hafez al-Assad received when he arrived in France on July 17. The man Congress condemns as an instigator of terrorism was greeted at Elys³e Palace by a red carpet and a military band in full regalia. After two days of “very positive” talks with Assad, French President Jacques Chirac declared that France was determined not to let the peace process collapse. “We want to combine our efforts, France and Syria, to achieve our objective,” he said. Chirac had earlier joined Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in calling for a new international conference to revive the peace process.

Assad’s mission was bolstered by a public letter that originated in France and was published in the July 16 issue of the New York Review of Books accusing the Israeli government of a “policy of contempt, of outright lies and provocations,” and charging that Netanyahu has “increased the risks of war.” According to David Ball, professor of French and comparative literature at Smith College, the statement was formulated by friends of Israel who hoped to steer Israel back to the spirit and letter of the Oslo agreement. But the signers “are well aware,” Ball wrote in an accompanying note, “that it is only in the United States that really important pressure on the Israeli government can be developed.” More than a thousand academics, scientists, writers and artists, including 14 Nobel Laureates, signed the letter, which concludes with an appeal for “mutual recognition and the sharing of the land between the two peoples.”

According to a news analysis in the Los Angeles Times of July 11, foreign leaders now consider U.S. policy to be dangerously erratic—a response to domestic pressures rather than real world situations. A senior European diplomat cited Senator Alfonse D’Amato of New York as an example of congressional irresponsibility when it comes to setting foreign policy. When the diplomat pointed out to him that the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act sponsored by D’Amato might contravene international law, the senator responded, “To hell with international law. You’re either with us or against us and I only hope for your sake you make the right decision.”

While D’Amato and his congressional colleagues miss no chance to demonstrate their allegiance to Israel, the Palestinians’ plight becomes more desperate every day. They are not only losing their homes and their land but face daily harassment and often physical danger from soldiers and militant settlers backed up by a government that regards Palestinians as unwanted trespassers. In June joyriding Israeli teenagers from a hostel near Hebron clubbed to death with a plank extended from their car window a 47-year old father of 10 as he walked home from work, a soldier in Gaza shot to death a Palestinian who passed too close to a Jewish settlement, and two Palestinians were stabbed by Jewish assailants in Jerusalem. On July 2, after Israeli troops in Gaza tried to stop Palestinian trucks from using a main road, Palestinian soldiers rushed to the scene and an armed standoff developed that could have exploded into serious violence. Only after intervention by Egyptian Ambassador Muhammed Basyouni and U.S. peace envoy Dennis Ross (who was reached at a vacation cottage by telephone) did Israel agree to re-open the road.

The fact that Palestinians and Israelis are once more engaged in peace talks is no cause for celebration as long as Israel proceeds with land seizures and the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem. The Palestinians may have tactical reasons for resuming negotiations without evidence that Israel is prepared to exchange land for peace, but Arafat and his colleagues should never stop calling attention to the brutalities Israel is inflicting on the Palestinian people. The world may now be more likely to listen. More than a hundred countries meeting in Rome recently agreed to establish an international court to prosecute crimes against humanity. Although American officials had worked for years toward this goal, in the end the U.S. joined Israel and only five other countries in voting no. The reason for the U.S. switch was the certainty if such a court ever came into being, Israel would be called to account.

*The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995).