Micah Leshem
25.5.11
Netanyahu’s recent expressions of policy in the US are a clear turning point in Israel’s public stance. Netanyahu has picked the ripe fruit nurtured by 40 years of Israeli settlement policy. Israel’s settlement policy is the cornerstone of all Israeli political aspirations – and designed to incorporate the West Bank into a Greater Israel. To that end, the strategic rationale of Israel’s settlement policy has always been to establish “facts on the ground”, meaning that the settled territory will not, and cannot, be returned to the Palestinians - as N stated to Obama’s face: “it will not happen”. Years ago the policy was stated (in Hebrew, for home consumption only) as creating “Hishukim”. This is the term coined, its literal translation is ‘bands or hoops’ but in context it was a new invention, meaning ‘manacle’ or ‘shackle’ but differing in substance from those in that it is self-binding. In other words, if we build enough settlements in a large enough area and populate them with enough Jews, a time will come when we will be ‘bound’ to maintain, defend and expand them (the doublespeak term coined for the latter is “Natural Growth”). And so the time has come to tell the world that there can be no going back, Israel has chained itself to its settlements and Netanyahu has revealed to the world that we threw away the key.
No country can be expected to move 10-15% of its population out of their homes, villages and towns. This is the proportion of Israel’s Jewish population settled in the West Bank. Many of them are unwitting settlers, because Israeli school books, road maps, and all geographic and graphic representations of our country, even tourist advertising, have been expunged of all reference to the 1967 borders which can serve to reveal the extent of the settlement effort. This censorship was designed to, and has completely succeeded, in erasing any distinction between pre- 1967 Israel and what the world recognizes as occupied territory. Any Israeli below 50 years of age, who has no private memory of pre-’67 Israel, has no inkling of whether her Jerusalem home is in occupied territory or not, nor does she care, the issue has been removed from Israeli mainstream discourse.
Greater Israel can no longer be contested, not even by the President of The United States. N has now made it evident to foreigners too that Israel cannot return the territories it has occupied, and that the settlement momentum will continue. Implicit in N’s statements is the fact that even if a Government in Israel wanted to return the territories, eg in a peace deal, it could not. Rabin’s assassination clearly demonstrated that already 16 years ago no Israeli leader could be allowed to negotiate the West Bank. A significant proportion of Israelis enthused over the consequent cessation of the peace process, and today it would be a majority.
Over 40 years, we have successfully, willingly, deviously and surreptitiously, bound ourselves to a policy of colonial expansion. Israel will extend from the Mediterranean in the west, to the Jordan River Rift Valley in the east. For N, there never was any intention to negotiate peace, his vision is clearer than of all his predecessors. He has produced a plethora of preconditions designed put off, shackle, and humiliate any negotiating partner. They ranged from the unconscionable during negotiations (accelerated settlement expansion, Palestinian home demolitions, expulsions, and discriminatory and restrictive laws and regulations) to the ludicrous (not merely to recognize Israel (which they have), but to do so as a State for Jews). In addition, N has stated to an enthusiastic US congress that Jerusalem is not negotiable, neither the majority of settlements, neither the Jordan Valley, and the Palestinian State will not armed. Thus the starting point for negotiations is for a Palestinian state of 4 reservations communicating by corridors and surrounded by Israel controlling all access. These preconditions torpedo negotiations, and others are freely added, the latest being that negotiation is not possible with the Palestinians because they include the Hamas because it does not recognize Israel. If Hamas were as formidable as Hezbollah, Israel would negotiate, as it did with Hezbollah, and with the Palestinian Fatah before that.
A new precondition N seems to be nurturing is the release of Hamas’ Israeli soldier prisoner, Shalit. Again the double-speak - N actually opposes the deal on offer. Patently, Hamas leadership cannot compromise on the conditions they set. They know that the moment he is freed they will all be killed by Israeli drones, like their leader Sheikh Yassin, blown up in his wheelchair with a score of other casualties by a guided missile, some years after a deal for his release from Israeli prison. As long as they have Shalit, Israel is “hooped” not to kill them. That stalemate has lasted for 5 years, suits both sides, and will persist until we discover his whereabouts and mount a rescue operation.
In sum, Israel’s policy, defined by N’s stated wish for peace belied by his impossible preconditions, is now almost explicit. It is to complete the annexation of the entire West Bank. Greater Israel has been part of the Likud Party manifesto for the past 60 years or so, and N is its current leader. The Palestinians do not really figure. There has been one compromise to that manifesto – Israel no longer covets the territory of the State of Jordan. Instead, that has been repeatedly and officially ceded by Israel’s leadership to the Palestinians. That is where many will be required to go in Israel’s final settlement.
rh |
