Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 1999, pages 6-8
Two Views
Barak Will Have To Sacrifice Most of the West Bank Settlements
By Alon Ben-Meir
For the last 30 years successive Israeli governments, led by either Likud or the Labor party, have fallen prisoners to their own creations—the settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and on the Golan Heights. Prime Minister Barak must waste no time in disabusing the settlers of the notion that there can be peace without major territorial concessions requiring them to make the greater sacrifice.
With the formation of a broad-based coalition government, and backed by a majority of 75 members out of 120 in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset), Barak appears ready to resume the peace negotiations on all fronts. The question is: Will he treat the settlers like his predecessors did—as a monolithic political force opposing territorial concessions—and thereby make it impossible to achieve any agreement with the Palestinians and the Syrians? Or will he use his popular mandate to begin immediately to prepare the Israeli public to face the inevitable and make the settlers part of the solution?
Most Israelis understand that the establishment of a Palestinian state is only a matter of time and consequently, many of the existing 144 settlements will have to be relinquished. Although the majority of the settlers are obviously attached to their homes, fewer than 40,000 of the 175,000 settlers have a strong affinity to the land transcending the socio-economic advantages of living there. But this minority sees their presence in the land of their ancestors as a fulfillment of a Messianic mission. Thus, they view the yielding of even a single inch of land to the Palestinians as a betrayal of the covenant with God that governs the relations between His people and the promised land. It is useful in this context to recall that populated by this minority, most of the settlements were “political” in nature—they were built from 1977-1993 under Likud-led governments in isolated outposts near densely populated Palestinians areas, with the express purpose of altering the demographic balance in the West Bank.
Any solution to the problem of the settlements in the West Bank has also to be viewed in the context of the soon-to-be-established Palestinian state, and will, of necessity require some territorial link. Otherwise, not only would a security nightmare be created for the Israelis, but conditions for both the remaining settlers and the Palestinians would become unlivable.
It is hoped that by making the National Religious Party, a strong advocate of expanding Jewish settlements, a part of his coalition government, Barak is planning to include the settlers as part of the solution rather than to cater to any effort by them, as they have so often made, to obstruct any future agreement with the Palestinians.
The settlers can stay in the West Bank, provided they relocate to one of the three blocks of settlements closest to the 1967 borders—Gush Etzion, South of Jerusalem, Maaleh Adomim, East of Jerusalem, and Ariel, near Tel-Aviv, all three of which are likely to remain under Israeli control. Settlers who refuse will have to live under Palestinian rule. Under such a formula the Palestinians will control a contiguous land mass representing roughly 85 percent of the West Bank, whereas the majority of the settlers will live on the remaining 15 percent to be incorporated into Israel proper.
As Israel and Syria gear up to resume peace negotiations, it is becoming clearer every passing day that full withdrawal from the Golan is the prerequisite for peace between Israel and Syria; in other words, full withdrawal includes the evacuation of Israeli settlers from the Golan. Here too, even under the best of circumstances, relinquishing the Golan will cause a national trauma of the type that the Israelis have never experienced.
But the question is: Should Israel forfeit an historic opportunity for a comprehensive peace so that the Golan residents remain, thereby subjecting the whole nation to a perpetual state of war? As painful and heartbreaking as their sacrifice will be, the Golan settlers, like their West Bank counterparts, need to view their withdrawal in the context of other alternatives, and there are none.
This said, the removal of the settlers, a probability almost inconceivable only a few years ago, is now treated by a majority of Israelis with resignation. Knowing that he will make major territorial concessions to Syria for peace, an overwhelming majority of the Israelis including many settlers, voted for Barak. Equally revealing, Avigdor Kahalani’s Third Way, the only political party advocating the retention of the Golan in any agreement with Syria, lost in the recent elections all four of its Knesset seats, sending a clear message about Israeli public sentiment on withdrawal from the Golan.
As pioneers who have toiled on the land and suffered much hardship, the Golan and West Bank settlers have already played a critical role in convincing the Syrians and the Palestinians that only a genuine peace could end further Israeli entrenchment into their territories. By heeding the call of peace, the settlers can now play an even more constructive role in healing the wounds of two peoples who have battered each other for two generations.
The infrastructure, industry, orchards, and housing the settlers will inevitably leave behind offer a great opportunity for them to make humanitarian gestures. Israel must not destroy any of these living structures in the manner it destroyed the city of Yamit, after the evacuation of the Sinai, and the city of Qunetra following the Israeli-Syrian disengagement agreement of 1974.
For longer than a generation, Israel has invested billions in the Golan and the West Bank. Destroying the settlements neither recovers anything nor lessens the pain of a single departing settler. Rather, it will be seen by the Arab nations as a senseless act of blind hatred and as such breed only more hatred while stifling the desire in the hearts of millions of Arabs to embrace Israel as a neighbor.
Whatever Syria and the Palestinian authority will be required to deliver by the negotiated peace agreement, the settlers must insist that their government leave these living “monuments” intact To the Syrians and the Palestinians who were displaced during decades of hostilities. This generous act will be the settlers’ legacy and their greatest contribution to the peace of reconciliation.
Alon Ben-Meir is professor of international relations at the New School University for Social Research in New York City.
The New Israeli Government Resumes the Slow Crawl Toward Peace
By Rachelle Marshall
We are still waiting for positive developments...but I hope somehow that there will be a breakthrough before long and we can start again. That is where we are at the moment.
—The late King Hussein, in a December 1996 interview with Israeli writer Avi Shlaim, New York Review of Books, July 15, 1999.
The time has come to build an open and brave peace that will ensure the future and the security of our peoples, our children, and our grandchildren.”—Prime Minister Ehud Barak in a speech before the Knesset, July 6, 1999.
A magician’s skill lies in his ability to convince an audience that he is doing one thing while in fact he is doing another. Israeli leaders have been masters of the art from the beginning.
In 1948 David Ben-Gurion successfully portrayed Israel as a weak, beleaguered nation struggling to defend its very existence while at the same time its powerful army was fighting to capture more Arab territory. Menachem Begin, a former terrorist leader who launched the bloody 1982 invasion of Lebanon, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace, as was Yitzhak Rabin, who for years refused to talk with Palestinian leaders, then, after reluctantly signing the Oslo agreement, delayed implementing it while he rapidly expanded West Bank settlements. Rabin’s successor, Shimon Peres, sealed the borders of the West Bank and Gaza and turned both territories into giant detention camps, yet he, too, is hailed as a man of peace.
Ehud Barak’s election has raised hopes that Israel and the Palestinians will once more resume the road to peace, but the records of past Israeli leaders indicate that the road will be filled with obstacles. Barak is not likely to break ranks. Throughout his career he has given unswerving support to the government in power, and as a career soldier repeatedly helped implement Israel’s policy of responding to Arab resistance with overwhelming force. During his rise to become Israel’s top military commander he was a member of a commando hit squad and once even entered Beirut disguised as a woman in pursuit of one of his victims—whom he assassinated, along with the man’s wife.
Nevertheless, Barak’s government differs significantly from former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s. The coalition includes the ultraOrthodox but pro-peace Shas and United Torah Judaism parties, with their combined 22 seats, rather than the hard-line Likud.
The small Center Party, made up largely of former Likud members, will also be part of the coalition along with the party of Russian immigrants and the dovish Meretz. Barak’s foreign minister, David Levy, favors an exchange of land for peace.
No Arab was named to a cabinet post, however, even though Arabs overwhelmingly supported Barak’s election. Knesset member Ahmed Tibi angrily called the omission “a slap in the face...we did not expect.”
What worries some propeace observers is that the government will include the five-member National Religious Party, which represents settlers who oppose any dismantling of settlements. Also worrisome is the fact that Barak left Likud out of the new government only after extended negotiations with Likud chairman Ariel Sharon, and then only because of Sharon’s refusal to join.
The two men disagreed over two issues: Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, which Likud opposes, and construction of more Jewish housing in East Jerusalem, which Likud favors. Only a week before pulling out of the talks Sharon had told Likud members that he and Barak were close to agreement on a number of the issues to be negotiated in final status talks with the Palestinians, including the future of Jerusalem and West Bank settlements.
“It’s very clear that we’ll have influence over the central issues,” Sharon said at one point. As late as the last week in June Israeli political analysts were predicting that Sharon would be the new finance minister.
Sharon also hinted that Barak had promised to carry out decisions made by the Netanyahu government, which Barak’s spokesman denied. Barak himself has said he will review “all prior authorized decisions,” a statement that still leaves open the question of whether he will allow work to continue on any of the projects actually begun under Netanyahu.
According to Barak’s guidelines, his government will build no new settlements and will no longer subsidize the purchase of settlement housing. Like Rabin, however, he will allow for their “natural growth.” Rabin and Peres adhered to that policy but managed to increase the number of Jewish settlers by 31 percent.
Barak will have to decide almost immediately whether to continue work on two projects in East Jerusalem which, if they go forward, could torpedo peace talks with the Palestinians. One is the construction of 132 apartments for Jews in Ras al-Amoud, where bulldozers began clearing land the day of Barak’s inauguration, and the other is the 6,000-unit Har Homa settlement on Jabal Abu Ghneim.
The prime minister will also have to declare himself on the previous government’s lastminute proposal to take land from five Palestinian villages in order to double the size of Ma’ale Adumin, a settlement of 25,000 people just outside of Jerusalem. The plan would give Ma’ale Adumin an area larger than Tel Aviv and complete the isolation of Palestinian communities from the city. Barak favors annexing large West Bank settlements to Israel but he is likely to put the proposal on hold. Palestinian officials insist that all settlement activity be halted before peace talks can proceed.
During the final days of the Netanyahu government there were disturbing signs that Barak’s rhetoric may differ from the former prime minister’s more than his actions. In a June interview Barak said he hoped to make “the peace of the brave with Syria,” and he has also pledged to withdraw Israeli troops from Lebanon within a year.
But on June 24, only a few days after he said those words, Barak remained noticeably silent when Israel launched its heaviest bombing raid since 1996 against Lebanon. The attack destroyed power plants, bridges, and other facilities throughout the country, including Syrian-held territory, and blacked out Beirut for a week. At least nine Lebanese civilians were killed and 45 wounded.
The bombing was in retaliation for Hezbollah’s rocketing of northern Israel, which killed two Israelis. The rocket attack was in response to the shelling of a village by Israeli-backed forces that killed a woman and her grandson. Israeli analysts said “it strained credulity” that Barak was not briefed on the bombing beforehand.
Barak was similarly silent on June 22, when Israeli police fired rubber bullets at scores of Israeli Arabs who were protesting the demolition of Arab homes in Lod. Azmi Bishara, an Israeli Arab member of the Knesset who had briefly run for prime minister in the recent election, but then withdrew to avoid drawing first-ballot Arab votes away from Barak, said police chased him behind a car and shot him deliberately, even though he was obviously not throwing stones and was wearing a suit. When Dr. Ziad Muhareb came to Bishara’s aid, police shot him too, wounding him seriously in the face.
Members of the city’s Arab community have become increasingly angry because they are not permitted to buy or build houses in Lod and are forced to live in slums, while the government builds new houses for thousands of immigrants from Russia. Mahmoud Muhareb, a spokesman for the citizens’ committee of Lod and a professor at Bethlehem University, also cited the fact that, unlike Jewish residents, Arabs in Lod have no government-financed parks or youth centers, and their schools are crowded and unsafe. He said the police fired without warning at the crowd.
An Israeli radio commentator pointed out that Israeli police never use rubber bullets against Jewish protestors, no matter how violent they become. Whether or not the police will become more evenhanded under Barak will soon become evident.
Shimon Peres went to Lod after the shooting and persuaded the mayor to suspend the house demolitions until after the new government is established. If the demolitions are resumed, there are certain to be renewed protests, but next time the police may be acting under different orders. The newly appointed Internal Security Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, is not a career policeman but an expert in social policy who reportedly wants to improve relations between Israeli Arabs and Jews.
Barak has promised to pursue negotiations with Syria and with the Palestinians simultaneously, but he is likely to make faster progress with Syria. Return of the Golan Heights is a less emotional issue with most Israelis than the status of Jerusalem or the settlements. Peace with Syria could also lead to the end of Israel’s occupation of Lebanon, where scores of Israeli soldiers die each year. Most Israelis want the troops to return home, and a poll taken last December showed that 40 percent of Israelis would even accept unconditional withdrawal.
Barak’s policies regarding the West Bank and Gaza are still not easy to predict. In the past he has talked of “separation,” and he recently proposed building an elevated bridge between northern Gaza and the southern tip of the West Bank, with no exits other than at the two terminals. The bridge would allow the Palestinians “safe passage” from one territory to the other, as promised by Oslo, while assuring that no Palestinian traveler would set foot in Israel.
If Israel does make peace with Syria and Lebanon, the return of Palestinians who were forced from their homes by the Israelis in 1948 will become an even more crucial issue. The 300,000 Palestinians now living in squalid camps in Lebanon constitute 8 percent of Lebanon’s population but are treated as outcasts. Because the Lebanese government denies them citizenship and even the right to work, most of the residents are destitute and suffer from a range of social problems. Consequently the camps are the source of sporadic violence.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud has said he will press hard for the refugees’ right to return to Israel. There is no chance, however, that the Israelis will agree.
Nor will the United States urge them to do so if the pro-Israel lobby has its way. Last March 81 senators signed a letter drawn up by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee opposing any exertion of pressure on Israel by the United States. The looming presidential election makes it less likely than ever that the Clinton administration will make demands on Israel.
Israel’s exemption from the obligation to respect universally accepted human rights was illustrated yet again on July 1, when a reporter asked President Clinton to compare his views on the Palestinian and Kosovo refugees. Clinton answered that he “would like it if the Palestinian people were free to live wherever they liked, wherever they want to live.” His seemingly unexceptionable statement was immediately denied by White House and State Department officials, who said Clinton did not mean what he appeared to mean.
In Israel the remark “set off a firestorm of debate,” according to The New York Times. Outgoing Defense Minister Moshe Arens said the return of the refugees “will mean the end of the state of Israel,” and a spokesman for Barak said Clinton’s statement was “unacceptable.”
As peace talks get underway the only certainty is that the climate at the negotiating table will be friendlier than in the past three years. But the reservoir of good will that Barak starts out with in Israel and America could make it even harder for the Palestinians to achieve their objectives, since they can no longer count on the sympathetic support from abroad that Netanyahu’s politics of confrontation aroused.
This time it is Barak who will be given the benefit of the doubt. Even if the negotiations end with the creation of a Palestinian “state” in one form or another the benefits may be minimal.
A Palestinian cynic recently suggested that rather than settle for a state composed of bits and pieces of land inaccessible to one another, the Palestinians should simply set up a Web site and call it Palestine. A more serious alternative is for Palestinians and their supporters in Israel and elsewhere to continue to work for a just peace no matter how long it takes, and meanwhile refuse to settle for anything less.
Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance editor living in Stanford, CA. A member of the International Jewish Peace Union, she writes frequently on the Middle East.
