Gus, post this article to the War thread if you don't mind. The writer must also be a monster like us<gggggggg>
antiwar.com
Building Settlements, Killing Peace
Cease Fire as Spin
In a perfectly calculated spin, Prime Minister Sharon unilaterally
declared "cease fire" last Tuesday (22.5). He did not announce it in the
press conference that day, but made it known indirectly several hours
later, giving even more bubble-gum for the columnists to chew: Did he
forget to mention it (as his assistants say)? Or did he actually imply it
(as his other assistants say)? And then: Will the Israeli army indeed
cease the fire? (It did not.) And if not, is it government policy or
military initiative? (see my "State of the Army" for an answer.) And
further: Why don’t the Palestinian cease fire "too"? (Why should they?
To suit Sharon’s spin?) All this cud will be chewed for days now,
representing the Palestinians once again as aggressors who rejected the
cease fire offered so magnanimously by Sharon, the pure Israeli dove.
What is Sharon spinning away? Not Israeli war
crimes in the territories. These – like the
bombardment by F-16 aeroplanes of the old
prison of Nablus last week (attacking prisons is
a war crime) – are easily washed away by
US-controlled international media. The "cease
fire" spin is meant to divert attention from the
clearest recommendation of the Mitchell Report:
"The Government of Israel should freeze all
settlement activity, including the "natural
growth" of existing settlements."
But the Government of Israel will not freeze all
settlement activity. Even though the Palestinians
have already endorsed the Mitchell Report.
Even though Europe endorsed it. Even though
the Bush administration hesitantly endorsed it.
Even though 62% of the Israelis, according to a
recent poll by Israel’s largest daily Yedioth
Achronoth (4.5), support freezing all settlement
activity in return for a cease fire. The
Government of Israel will not freeze settlement
activity, because settlement activity is
Occupation, and the Government of Israel is not
willing to end the Occupation – in spite of the
whole world, including its own electorate.
THE SETTLEMENTS ARE THE
OCCUPATION
One must realise that the settlements are not
just an appendix to the Israeli Occupation: they
are the Occupation itself. They rob the
Palestinians of every vital resource and freedom
necessary for their life, both as individuals and
as a nation. Many people – even those who
have been to the occupied territories and seen
the settlements – fail to comprehend it. A
settlement is never just a fortified group of
red-roofed villa’s on the top of an occupied hill.
Only in the first instance do settlements mean
confiscated land – sometimes free, sometimes
agricultural, sometimes inhabited land whose
Palestinian population was deported. A
settlements also means Israeli soldiers who join
forces with murderous settlers in harassing the
Palestinians. It also means checkpoints, and a
road – preferably several roads – connecting it
with other settlements and with Israel itself. A
road, again, is not just land: it is an ever growing
"security belt" on both sides of it, belts of
Palestinian fields and buildings swept by Israeli
bulldozers "to prevent terrorist attacks" on the
road. The function of those ever-expanding
"by-pass roads" is not so much to serve the
settlers (Israeli governments are not interested in
drivers: roads in Israel are on a Third World
level), but to cut off Palestinian towns and
villages from one another, to cantonise the
territories and split the Palestinians into minimal
separate units that can be manipulated one by
one, or even against one another – the good old
"divide and rule."
Beyond land and contiguity, settlements are
meant to steal Palestinian water: from the very
beginning, the settlements were located in
strategic sites above aquifers. At present, Israel
uses about 80% of the water of the Territories,
leaving just 20% to their Palestinian inhabitants.
Pictures of thirsty Palestinians and drained olive
trees next to Jewish settlers indulging in
swimming pools are well-known; but only this
week did Israel’s comptroller expose the fact
that the national water company had never
imposed excess-use charges on the settlers,
estimated at $18 million.
And then, last but not least, there is the political
significance: by moving Israeli citizens into the
territories, Israeli governments increase the
number of citizens who have a vested interest
(real estate etc.) in keeping, expanding and
strengthening the settlements.
Text-only printable
version of this
article
Ran HaCohen was
born in the
Netherlands in 1964
and has grown up in
Israel. He has B.A. in
Computer Science,
M.A. in Comparative
Literature and he
presently works on his
PhD thesis. He lives
in Tel-Aviv, teaches in
the Department of
Comparative Literature
in Tel-Aviv University.
He also works as
literary translator (from
German, English and
Dutch), and as a
literary critic for the
Israeli daily Yedioth
Achronoth. His work
has been published
widely in Israel. His
column appears
monthly at
Antiwar.com.
Archived columns
Building Settlements,
Killing Peace
5/26/01
The State of the Army,
Part 1
5/8/01
Israeli Left Sells Out
Peace
4/13/01
Barak's Legacy
3/23/01
THE FALLACY INDUSTRY
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its
own civilian population into the territory it occupies", says Article 49
of the Geneva Convention. Obviously, the settlements are illegal. Even
though, the settlements have not stopped for a single day during the
last 30 years or so. Contrary to common belief, Labour governments
have consistently been more effective than right-wing ones in building
settlements: Peres’ and his Labour party have always been much more
ingenious and convincing than Likud in selling the settlements to the
world. And, again contrary to common belief and to the hopes of
supporters of peace, the most intensive expansion has been taking
place since 1993, during the Oslo process: the number of settlers has
doubled these years. In other words, the number of new settlers during
these 7 years equals the number of settlers in all 25 previous
Occupation years. If this was not Israel’s very reason for signing these
agreements (I personally believe it was), it is certainly their most
cynical abuse.
It is fascinating to follow the ingenuity of Israel’s propaganda machine
in inventing ever more fallacies to justify the existence and restless
expansion of the settlements. Let us skip fundamentalist claims about
the Occupied Territories being "the Land of Israel" or outdated
arguments such like "security reasons" (sounds more like a macabre
joke nowadays), and concentrate on more recent and sophisticated
casuistic.
(1) The Political Fallacy: "Sharon will have no coalition if he freezes
settlements." This is simply not true: with his broad coalition
comprising more than 90 of the 120 Knesset members, Sharon could
easily do without the two settlers’ parties. At any rate, if 62% of the
electorate supports freezing the settlements, but a parliament majority
for it cannot be found, something is very rotten in the State of Israel.
Note how political difficulties at home are always met with
understanding when they are on the Israeli side; if Arafat raises the
very same argument, he is urged to suppress his opposition by force.
(2) The "Final Status" Fallacy. "The settlements are an issue to be
solved in the final status negotiations." Indeed, this is what the Oslo
agreements say. But the agreements also say the present "transitional
period" (preceding the final status) will not exceed five years – starting
13th September 1993. Israel does not wish to reach a final status
agreement at all (unlike Barak, who just acted this way, Sharon says it
openly) – so it can expand the settlements forever. Settlers’ leaders
were told by Yizchak Rabin from the very beginning that "there will
never be a final status agreement." This is why Palestinians reject yet
another interim agreement: they have been cheated long enough.
(3) The "Reward for Violence" Fallacy. "Stopping the settlements
would be a reward for terror", Shimon Peres claims. An interesting
argument: I rob your wallet. And then your watch. And then your coat.
At last, you give me a slap in the face. Now I cannot stop robbing your
shirt, and your trousers, and your underwear – or else your slap would
be rewarded. This very gangsters’ logic has recently gained a special
seasoning by Sharon, who actually believes that "expanding the
settlements is a good way to put pressure on the Palestinians to stop
the violence." A homeopathic principle – curing an illness by its very
cause – implemented in totally non-homeopathic overdose.
(4) The "Natural Growth" Fallacy has been convincingly refuted by
data exposed recently in Yedioth Achronoth (11.5). There are 9,844
empty new housing units in the settlements (minimal estimation;
American sources mention 20,000). Every year, 2,000 young settlers
marry. Even in the most unlikely case, if every settler attracts a partner
from outside the territories (in fact, settlers often marry among
themselves), they will need no more than 2,000 units a year. "Natural
growth" has therefore already been satisfied for the next 5 years at
least. These data do not take into account the exodus from the
settlements due to the present Intifada. Journalist Daniel Ben Simon of
Haaretz (15.5) reports of "a gradual trickle of settlers who are sick of
this kind of life. [...] Nearly half of the 15 houses in Dugit [in Gaza
Strip, rh] stand empty. A new neighbourhood in Nisanit looks like a
ghost town. It's the same in Elei Sinai. The government has built
more than 100 cottages with red tiled roofs in Pe'at Sadeh – only 15
families live there and some of them are already planning on leaving.
[...] In the settlements of the Jordan Valley, the situation is just as
bad. Last summer, before the riots, the kindergarten in Naama shut
its doors because there were not enough children of kindergarten age
left in the community. Many of the residents of Fatzael, Netiv
Hagedud and Yafit are making plans to cross the Green Line into
Israel. One inhabitant of Fatzael reports that, in the wake of the
disturbances and in view of the uncertainty about the settlement's
future, Fatzael's population has been reduced by half" – and so on.
The title of Ben Simon’s column says it all: "The fraud of natural
settlement increase."
(5) The "No New Settlements" Fallacy is especially ridiculous. Every
settlement has numerous detached "outposts", "quarters" and
"neighbourhoods." If you are not allowed to build a new city near New
York, found Philadelphia – but claim it is an outpost of New York city.
(6) The "No Territorial Expansion" Fallacy is the latest fraud invented
by Peres. A fraud – because every settlement has been allotted endless
"land reserves", of which only very little is actually in use. Out of more
than 1 million dunum allotted to the settlements according to the
Settlers’ Council (official data has never been released), only 78,786
dunums (7.8%) were in use according to Peace Now’s survey
(Updated March 1999. Source: Ha'aretz 16.2.2000. One dunum is
circa 900 square metres). The largest settlement of Maale Adumim,
located strategically east of Jerusalem in order to cut off the northern
part of West Bank from its southern part, uses less than 7% of its
50,000 dunums. Settlement Itamar uses 483 dunum but has been
allotted more than 6,000 (8%). Thus, without any "territorial
expansion", Shimon Peres can make the settlements 15 times bigger
and theoretically increase settlers number – if he just finds candidates –
from 200,000 today up to 3 million, half of Israel’s population. This is
Peres’ "Road to Peace."
THE SIMPLE TRUTH
All this false casuistic obscures a very simple truth. Israel’s
leadership – Likud and Labour, Sharon and Peres (and Barak; see his
latest version of the "natural growth" fallacy in the New York Times) –
simply do not want to stop the settlements. Not for a year and not for a
day. They use public money to build thousands of empty housing
units, because they want to occupy as much land as they can and push
the Palestinians away. While all this distracting discussion is going on,
and though it committed itself not to build any "new settlements", the
young Sharon government has already built 15 new settlements – an
ambitious match to the 40 or more new settlements founded by Barak.
It is true: there is no partner for peace. On the Israeli side. Sharon is
certainly no partner for peace, Peres is just as bad, Barak was even
worse. When the Israeli Army claims (Haaretz 25.5) that "the conflict
between Israel and the Palestinians will continue for many months,
maybe even years, in its current form, although the number of
casualties is expected to rise and the methods used by both sides are
likely to intensify", it is not a strategic evaluation, but rather Israel’s
operative war plans. Once the "cease fire" spin is exhausted, Israel
(with US backing) will again sell us the fiction about Palestinian
rejectionism – and escalate the bloodshed. And the settlement activity. |
