August 16, 2006
A friend of mine and I were talking over this topic the other day. It concerns a major and almost untold project involving the silent annexation of Eastern Jerusalem by the Zionist state. The project has been titled "E1", named after the urban land bridge that would connect East Jerusalem with the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, and concerns the major West Bank settlement of Ma'ale Adumim. This is a settlement that Israel has repeatedly refused to dismantle. During the farce that was the Gaza "pullout", the Israelis got enough of the media diversion they needed in order to underhandedly speed up this project of settlement expansion and outrightly illegal land acquisition. The basis of such a project is racist: it seeks to "Judaize" East Jerusalem, which, according to many Zionists, should never be given up by Israel, and should be the "Eternal Capital" of Israel. One can see why such a construction project is opposing the terms of peace and this process.
The International Crisis Group, an excellent resource and group, has been monitoring the situation closely, and has published a press release about a report it has made on this issue. What the report asserts in short is that if the project is allowed to be completed, 200,000 Palestinians will remain in East Jerusalem but isolated from the West Bank, which "will be close to being split in two". One can see how such a project detriments not only Palestinian claims on Jerusalem, but also contiuguity of Palestinian territory and sovereignity over all of the proposed state of Palestine that would be implemented should such a reasonable peace deal be achieved. Robert Malley, on the prospect of this project and how it will affect both Palestinians and Israelis, said, "Current activity around Jerusalem to link up Jewish West Bank settlements to East Jerusalem will not only undermine chances for a viable two-state solution, but create an explosive mix that will imperil the very security Israel states it is trying to guarantee." What he means is that the more Israel digs itself into the West Bank and continues its occupation over an even larger piece of territory, the more Israel is likely to be under threat from militants. Israel, it seems, is a threat to itself: whatever it does in harming the Palestinians even more creates more enemies for itself. Moreover, Israelis living in the expanded piece of territory are more likely to suffer from attacks by Palestinian militants... not that they want to attack in the first place. I believe that Israel's military occupation and oppression is what causes such attacks to begin with.
The detailed report by the International Crisis Group is very revealing. It speaks quite much about this project that plans to isolate Palestinians from the West Bank in order to maintain a quota in Jerusalem that would have limited growth capability. This, as I have mentioned, is racist in the sense that it keeps the "Jewishness" of the city as a whole, instead of giving up East Jerusalem to the Palestinian state. The irony is that the Palestinians have compromised too much to Israel's illegitimate existence by having the PLO recognizing Zionist (I don't believe it to be Jewish, because Jews are one thing and Zionists another, though I mentioned "Judaizing" because it's what the "Jewish state" wants) sovereignity over 78% of historic Palestine. The points regarding the expansion are as I have pointed out, as follows:
- The separation barrier, once completed, would create a broad Jerusalem area encompassing virtually all of municipal Jerusalem as expanded and annexed in 1967 as well as major settlements to its north, east, and south. This new "Jerusalem envelope", as the area inside the barrier euphemistically has been called, incorporates large settlement blocks and buffer zones, encompasses over 4 per cent of the West Bank, absorbs many Palestinians outside of municipal Jerusalem and excludes over 50,000 within, often cutting Palestinians off from their agricultural land.
- Expansion of the large Ma'ale Adumim settlement to the east of Jerusalem and linking it to the city through the E1, a planned built-up urban land bridge, would go close to cutting the West Bank in two.
- New Jewish neighbourhoods/settlements at the perimeter of the municipal boundaries would create a Jewish belt around Arab East Jerusalem, cutting it off from the West Bank and constricting Palestinian growth within the city.
These are pretty much the same points I have been emphasizing over the course of this post. PASSIA has also published some carefully-studied maps of this developing situation. This one shows us the notorious E-1 project that connects East Jerusalem with Ma'ale Adumim, the major settlement. However, take note that these roads are usually apartheid in nature in that they mainly serve for Jewish Israelis, not Palestinian Arabs. However, the project itself works for a Greater Jerusalem (map). From the map, one can see how dangerous such a project can prove for Palestinian economic and agricultural development. By effectively taking a sufficient 4+% percent of the West Bank, Israel can disconinue Palestinian territorial sovereignity, thus making it difficult for such development to occur, and thus violate Palestinian sovereignity to begin with. Note how easier, though, it would be for a person to go from, say, Bethlehem to Ramallah if Israel just gave up its claims on East Jerusalem. But Israel would never do so.
Why is that? To help us answer this question, Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions published this article, detailing in it every single aspect of E-1 and why it is strategically and racially important for a pariah state like Israel. He writes,A Palestinian state can just as easily be a prison as a legitimate state that addresses the national aspirations of its people. The crucial issue is viability. Israel is a small country, but it is three times larger than the Palestinian areas. The entire Occupied Areas - the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza - make up only 22% of Israel/Palestine. That means that even if all of the territories Israel conquered in 1967 were relinquished, it would still comprise a full 78% of the country. Would the Palestinian areas constitute a viable state? Barely. Just the size of the American state of Delaware (but with three times the population before refugees return), it would at least have a coherent territory, borders with Israel, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, a capital in Jerusalem, a port on the Mediterranean, an airport in Gaza, a viable economy (based on Holy Land tourism, agriculture and hi-tech) and access to the water of the Jordan River. An accepted member of the international community enjoying trade with its neighbors - and enjoying as well the support of a far-flung, highly educated and affluent diaspora - a small Palestinian state would have a shot at viability.
This is what Israel seeks to prevent. Ever since becoming the head of the Ministerial Committee on Settlements in the Begin government back in 1977, Ariel Sharon has been completely up-front about his intention of securing the entire Land of Israel for the Jewish people. "Security" has nothing to do with Israel's expansionist policies. Successive Israeli governments did not establish 200 settlements because of security. Nor did they build a massive infrastructure of Israeli-only highways that link the settlement blocs irreversibly into Israel for security reasons. Nor can the route of the Separation Barrier, nor the policy of expropriating Palestinian land and systematically demolishing Palestinian homes be explained by "security." They all derive from one central goal: to claim the entire country for Israel. Period. Obviously. The smokescreen of "security", which is pretty much the same mumbo jumbo used by the martial lawmakers in the Republican neoconservative party after their emplacement of the "Patriot" Act. However, what we are seeing is a simple land grab. Israel seeks to establish a "beachhead" in Jerusalem, and from there can take all of Palestine. Chaim Weizmann, one of the founders of the State of Israel, claimed that the Zionists would occupy all of Palestine in due time. Perhaps his words are still being implemented. To tell you the truth, I admit: the Israelis do as well as talk, not like some cronies like Arafat. However, that doesn't make me like Israel more or less (in fact, I consider Israel as an enemy to peace and myself). The imprisonment of the West Bank will be completed, even with the already implemented security zone east of the West Bank town of Jericho (see this map regarding the Jerusalem issue). However, Halper assures us that Israelcannot "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 40-70% of the Occupied Territories, completely surrounded and controlled by Israel. Such a Palestinian state would cover only 10-15% 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 3500 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. As a key element of an Israeli "Greater Jerusalem," the E-1 plan removes any viability from a Palestinian state. It cuts the West Bank in half, allowing Israel to control Palestinian movement from one part of their country to another, while isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of Palestinian territory. Since 40% of the Palestinian economy revolves around Jerusalem and its tourist-based economy, the E-1 plan effectively cuts the economic heart out of any Palestinian state, rendering it nothing more than a set of non-viable Indian reservations. Definitely, E-1 is going to prove to be a dangerous obstacle to peace... that is, it and its many corridors and settlement blocs. Israel is blinded by its own Zionist goal, while the Palestinians are left in even more desperation. A compromise to Jerusalem would mean an end to a Palestinian state. The plan implemented by the International Crisis Group is the best, in my opinion. Israel should halt all such projects and dismantle Ma'ale Adumim, or give up its sovereignity to a Palestinian state in which both Jews and Arabs live together. The damned bridge itself, E-1, should be torn down, and a new road be established if the settlers want free travel between Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumim in a way that would not hinder Palestinian daily life and economy. Also, the wall has to be torn down: it has turned the West Bank into a huge prison, all the while keeping Palestinians under inhuman conditions. Also, Israel should give up its sovereignity over East Jerusalem. If it wants its "eternal capital" so bad, they should give up a small portion of it to the Arabs, because they are part of Jerusalem as well, whether you like it or not (my aunt's husband is a Jerusalemite himself). If all else fails, I believe that Jerusalem should return to its pre-1948 stance as a mandated enclave, secured and operated by the U.N. or some other force. Sure, it will come in the way of both Israel and Palestine, but what can you expect for peaceful resolution? Hamas has to scream at the top of its lungs and ensure that this project cease to exist or ever function, and work to establishing a peace deal that satisfies BOTH the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Salaam, from
Saracen
|
