Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Uri Avnery : Politics of Settlements:

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Israel to seize more Palestinian land This will further diminish the viability of a Palestinian state By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank Thursday 03 March
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Israel to seize more Palestinian land
      This will further diminish the viability of a Palestinian state
      By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
      Thursday 03 March 2005, 19:46 Makka Time, 16:46 GMT
      http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A5337C8C-B448-40BC-9DC7-
      E1A6BC5920E2.htm


      The Israeli government has ordered the confiscation of large swathes
      of Palestinian land in the West Bank.


      The area to be seized encompasses more than 10sq km of land in the
      southern West Bank, especially in the Hebron region.



      According to the confiscation orders, which were published on
      Wednesday, the Israeli army will expropriate the land extending from
      the village of al-Burj to southern Yatta.



      This covers hundreds of acres of farmland, including numerous olive
      groves, and will further diminish the size of any prospective
      Palestinian state in the West Bank.



      Israel has already annexed more than a 100sq km of West Bank land,
      ostensibly to build a gigantic separation wall which snakes through
      Palestinian towns and villages, reducing some of them to virtual
      detention camps.



      Land grabs



      Moreover, dozens of other Jewish settlements in the heart of the
      West Bank, such as Ma'ali Adomim near Jerusalem and Ariel, south of
      Nablus, continue to expand at the expense of Palestinian territory.



      "They (the Israelis) act as if there is an unwritten understanding
      between the US and Israel whereby US officials make statements
      opposing settlement expansion while Israel keeps up the 'good work'"

      Abd al-Hadi Hantash,
      Palestinian analyst

      Palestinian analysts say these land-grabs fly in the face of
      international efforts to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.



      According to Abd al-Hadi Hantash, who has been monitoring Israeli
      settlement activities for the past 25 years, the purpose of the
      latest seizure is to "make any prospective Palestinian state as
      small as possible and as unviable as possible".



      "Israel believes that President [George] Bush is not really serious
      about a viable Palestinian state, they think that he is just
      bamboozling the Arabs.

      "This is how they interpret American reluctance to force Israel to
      halt the land confiscation and settlement expansion."



      Separation barrier



      He added: "They (the Israelis) act as if there is an unwritten
      understanding between the US and Israel whereby US officials make
      statements opposing settlement expansion while Israel keeps up
      the 'good work'."



      Israel says the wall is necessary
      to stop attacks on Israeli civilians


      A spokesman for the Israeli government told Aljazeera.net: "The
      expropriation is necessary to build the separation fence to prevent
      terror attacks on Israeli citizens - this is not a permanent
      confiscation, it is only a temporary security measure."



      However, the confiscation orders, handed over to landowners in the
      Hebron area, do not state that the confiscation is temporary.



      "From the very first day of the occupation in 1967, successive
      Israeli governments always claimed that the recurrent confiscations
      were temporary security measures. Then we ended up having more than
      230 settlements, swallowing up over 55% of the West Bank," Hantash
      said.


      Aljazeera

      ===

      Uri Avnery : Politics of Settlements:
      Friday, March 04 2005
      http://ummahnews.com/story.php?sid=20050304045959537


      "For years now I have been warning that this is the intention of
      Ariel Sharon, the basis of the whole settlement enterprise planned
      and set up by him.."


      Why did Bush suddenly make a declaration whose practical meaning is
      that some of these settlement blocs must be dismantled? And why did
      he make it in Brussels? He wanted to gain favour with his European
      hosts. The European Union opposes the annexation of West Bank
      territory to Israel. Bush said what he said in order to reduce his
      differences with Europe

      Seven words uttered by President Bush in Brussels have not been paid
      the attention they deserve.

      He called for the establishment of "a democratic Palestinian state
      with territorial contiguity" in the West Bank, and then added: "A
      state on scattered territories will not work."

      It is worthwhile to ponder these words. Who did he point the finger
      at? Why did he say this in Brussels, of all places?

      Nobody warns of a danger without a reason. If Bush said what he
      said, it means that he believes that someone is causing this danger.

      Just who might that be?

      For years now I have been warning that this is the intention of
      Ariel Sharon, the basis of the whole settlement enterprise planned
      and set up by him. The lay-out of the settlements on the West Bank
      map is designed to cut the territory up from north to south and from
      west to east, in order to forestall any possibility of establishing
      a really viable and contiguous Palestinian state, a state like any
      other.

      If the settlement blocs that have been created are annexed to
      Israel, the Palestinian territory will be sliced up into a number of
      enclaves — perhaps four, perhaps six. The Gaza Strip, an isolated
      ghetto by itself, will be another enclave. Each enclave will be
      surrounded by settlements and military installations, and all of
      them will be cut off from the world outside.

      The American intelligence agencies are familiar with this picture,
      of course. They can see it with their satellites. But that did not
      deter President Bush from promising Sharon last year that
      Israeli "population centres" in the West Bank will be annexed to
      Israel.

      These "population centres" are the very same settlement blocs that
      were defined by the US in the past as "illegal" and "an obstacle to
      peace". During the presidency of the first President Bush, the
      American administration even decided to deduct the costs of new
      settlement projects from the financial benefits accorded to Israel.

      So why did the second Bush suddenly make a declaration whose
      practical meaning is that some of these settlement blocs must be
      dismantled? And why did he make it in Brussels?

      It is clear that he wanted to gain favour with his European hosts.
      The European Union opposes the annexation of West Bank territory to
      Israel. Bush said what he said in order to reduce his differences
      with Europe.

      So he said it. And what is happening on the ground in the meantime?

      Last Sunday the Israeli government decided for the second time to
      implement the disengagement plan, a decision that was hailed by the
      media as "historic". With all the hullabaloo, hardly any attention
      was paid to a second resolution adopted at the same meeting: to
      continue building the wall in the West Bank.

      At first sight, that is a routine decision. After all, the
      government argues that this is nothing but a "security fence". It
      does indeed have a certain security function, and Israeli public
      opinion accepts it as such. But by now, informed people must know
      that this wall is intended as the future border of Israel.
      Therefore, this week all government spokespersons took pains to
      stress that the new path of the wall cuts off only 7-8% of the West
      Bank.

      The word "only" deserves attention. President Bill Clinton's last
      peace plan spoke about the annexation of 3-4 percent of the West
      Bank to Israel, in return for the transfer of 1 percent of Israeli
      territory to the Palestinian state. Seven percent of the territory
      of the Federal Republic of Germany is much more than the whole state
      of Saxony. Seven percent of the territory of the United States of
      America is more than the whole giant state of Texas. (Imagine:
      Mexico conquers Texas, builds a wall between it and the rest of the
      US and fills it with Mexican settlements.)

      But the percentage game is misleading. It is not only the size of
      the territory that is important, but also its location.

      In this respect, the controversy between Israel and the US remains.
      It concerns mainly two places, where the path of the wall causes the
      dismemberment of the West Bank. If the wall is to include the
      settlement town of Ariel, it will send a finger deep into the West
      Bank. This finger will connect with a second one, coming from the
      opposite direction — the two fingers together will cut through the
      whole width of the West Bank south of Nablus. Another finger will
      extend from Jerusalem to the enlarged Ma'aleh Adumim settlement
      bloc, also cutting practically the full width of the West Bank.

      The Americans do not yet agree. So Sharon is using one of his
      typical methods: in those two places he leaves a gap in the wall. He
      will build there in due course, after using a future opportunity to
      wrap President Bush — so to say — around his little finger.

      But the percentage account is also wrong in another respect.
      Nowadays one speaks only about the wall that will separate the West
      Bank from Israel proper. Nobody is talking now of the "eastern"
      wall.

      It is no secret that Sharon plans to build this wall in order to
      complete the encirclement of the West Bank and cut it off from the
      Jordan valley and the Dead Sea shore. That is a big slice of
      territory, about 20 percent of the West Bank, and would cut the West
      Bank off from any contact with the world. Sharon knows that he
      cannot build this wall at the moment, because of the opposition of
      the US and the whole world. Also, there is no budget for it.
      Therefore, he is leaving it for the future.

      The government decision does formally include the southern border of
      the West Bank, where the planned path of the wall runs almost
      completely along the Green Line. That looks really nice. But this,
      too, contains a trick: Sharon does not intend to build this part of
      the wall in the near future. He is postponing it for another time —
      and then he will propose a different path altogether, including a
      finger thrust deeply into Palestinian territory, so as to annex the
      South Hebron settlement bloc, up to Kiryat Arba.

      By way of deception shalt thou build settlements.

      In the meantime, Sharon is keeping himself occupied with building on
      the 7 percent of the territory that has been approved by the
      government decision. All this area between the wall and the Green
      Line — the territory already annexed in practice — is being filled
      with new settlements. Among others:

      * A new town called Gevaoth that is to be built west of Bethlehem,
      in what is called the "Etzion Bloc". That is a mendacious name: the
      original Etzion Bloc consisted of a small group of settlements near
      the Green Line. It was occupied by the Arabs in the 1948 war and re-
      conquered by Israel in 1967, when the former settlements were also
      re-built. But then a whole new town (Efrata) was added to the east,
      and beyond that a number of new settlements, until the original few
      settlements had expanded into a massive settlement bloc almost
      surrounding Bethlehem. Now Sharon is going to fill it with even more
      settlers.

      * A big new settlement called "North Tsufim" that is to be built
      north of Qalqilia. This, too, will reach the proportions of a town.

      * Giant housing projects, that will be set up in order to connect
      the Ma'aleh Adumim bloc to Jerusalem, and just about reach the
      Jordan river.

      * Also in the Jerusalem area, the new (Labour) minister for housing,
      Yitzhak Herzog, promises to build big housing projects from Har Homa
      to Ma'aleh Adumim, while another one is going to be built east of A-
      Ram. The aim is to cut Jerusalem off completely from the West Bank.

      All this is happening while Israel and the world are waxing lyrical
      about the "disengagement" plan — which, in essence, is nothing but a
      plan to consolidate the Gaza strip as one of the enclaves in "a
      state of scattered territories". (The Gaza Strip constitutes only 6
      percent of the occupied territories.)

      The Labour Party is a full partner in this scheme.

      As far as Sharon is concerned, the disengagement plan plays with the
      dismantling of some small settlements in a remote corner of the
      occupied territories for the fulfilment of his grand design to take
      over most of the West Bank.

      Now President Bush has declared that he does not accept this design.
      His European hosts smiled politely. Perhaps they believed him, and
      then, maybe they did not.

      -Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist. He served three
      terms in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of
      Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc)

      Source: The Palestine Chronicle - www.palestinechronicle.com

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.