Coteret

Lisa Goldman is a freelance journalist and blogger. Her articles have been published in Time Out Tel Aviv, Ynet, the Forward, Haaretz, the Jewish Quarterly, Corriere Della Sera, the Guardian and the Columbia Journalism Review. She is the author of City Guide: Tel Aviv and lives in the city. Cross-posted from her personal blog.

Editor’s note: Lisa’s full photo set from the May 7 2010 demonstration at An Nabi Salih can be viewed here. Another set, by Philip Touitou, the photographer pictured at the end of the post can be viewed here.

—–

On Friday afternoons in Nabi Salih, it starts like this. A few Israeli and foreign activists arrive at the village around noon, gathering at the home of Bassam Tamimi. His door is open, so there is no need to knock. Inside, villagers and visitors socialize, use the washroom and help themselves from the huge spread of homemade food laid out on the kitchen table. Bassam’s children run between the guests’ legs; and Sameeh, a neighbour from Jaffa, picks one of them up and tickles him. The atmosphere is relaxed, jovial and friendly. Most of these people see one another every Friday, under the same circumstances.

Bassam’s mother (or perhaps mother-in-law) sits on one of the chairs, her legs pulled up in a near-squat, observing the visitors through half-blind eyes. She looks like a Palestinian grandmother out of central casting, with her long white veil, embroidered traditional dress, deeply wrinkled face and thin, arthritic hands. I greet her by clasping one of them and muttering something in mangled Arabic. She responds by telling me to eat — a word I understand because the Arabic and Hebrew roots are the same (AKL), and also because that’s what grandmothers tend to do, the world over — urge you to eat.

After we have eaten and drunk our tea, Bassam says, “So, shall we start?”

Village boys and some older men congregate at the top of the village’s main road. Some carry Palestinian flags. They start to walk down the path, clapping their hands and chanting rhythmically. There are a couple of Palestinian news cameramen, looking prepared for trouble with their gas masks, flack vests and helmets – and a sprinkling of non-Palestinian freelance photojournalists. Some of them have gas masks, too. The non-Palestinians – maybe 10 Israelis and a handful of Europeans – walk on the sides, observing but not participating. The photojournalists and cameramen walk backwards down the hill as they photograph and film the demonstrators. There are no reporters for the Israeli media.

The goal of the march is to reach the spring across the road, maybe 300 meters away, next to the religious settlement of Halamish, a settlement that was created in the late 1970s on expropriated Nabi Salih agricultural land. The cluster of stone village houses is divided by a smooth, new blacktop road from the rows of identical white settlement houses. The villagers continued, for years after Halamish’s cookie-cutter houses were erected, to cultivate the fields next to the settlement. Until one day, a few months ago, the settlers decided to expropriate the spring that is located on that land. Gideon Levy explains that the settlers say they want to use the spring for a spa. They planted an Israeli flag next to it, then used threats of violence to prevent the Nabi Salih villagers from cultivating the farmland upon which the spring was located.

Halamish, as seen from Nabi Salih

For the army, the goal is not to mediate or to serve justice. The goal is to keep things quiet. So, rather than adjudicating between the residents of Halamish and Nabi Salih — e.g., by telling the settlers to take their flag away from the spring and stop preventing the villagers from farming their land – the army declared the area a closed military zone. They did not tell the settlers to take down the flag or to stop threatening the Palestinians who wanted to continue cultivating their fields. Instead, the army prevented the Nabi Salih farmers from reaching their land, because that would make the settlers angry, and when the settlers get angry they get violent, and if there was violence the peace would be disturbed. That is why, on Friday afternoons for the past five months, the villagers have been marching toward the spring. And that is why, each Friday afternoon, the army prevents them from doing so. This is the story of how the army stops the villagers from reaching the spring.

Two minutes into the demonstration, with a violent abruptness that never fails to shock, a caravan of noisy armoured vehicles roars into the village. The back doors slam open even before the vehicles screech to a halt. Border police, dressed in full riot gear, leap out of the back, race forward and shoot tear gas in loud volleys. They also lob sound grenades that explode upon impact with a fearsome bang that makes the village sound like a battlefield.

The demonstrators are still well inside their own village. They are not carrying any weapons – not even stones. The group include small children; one has Down’s Syndrome. Everyone scatters to get away from the tear gas. I am standing a few meters away, behind a stone wall that surrounds a private house, which has become a target for several tear gas canisters all at once. The familiar bitter taste and prickling sinuses remind of how disgusting tear gas is; and I back away to avoid getting a full dose from the next barrage. But too late. Pop! Pop! Pop! Ping! One of the canisters lands right near me and I’m groping in my bag for a scarf and a bottle of water.

A young man standing just inside the doorway of the house looks at me and says, in Arabic-accented English, “Get in!”

Inside, a middle-aged woman wearing a hijab and a long dress sits nervously on a couch. Her son and daughter, maybe 5 and 7 years old, sit next to her, in silence. The boy is playing a game on his mobile phone, while the girl just sits on her pink plastic chair, looking occasionally at her mother for reassurance. The mother smiles at me and indicates that I should sit down. She brings me a glass of orange juice on a tray, and half an onion to hold up to my nose as an antidote to the tear gas. Every few minutes she gets up and turns on the fan to disperse the gas, which seeps in through the cracks around the windows and doors, but that doesn’t always help.

At one point her son stands up abruptly, goes wordlessly into the kitchen and fetches another onion, slices it in half and returns to the couch, holding half for himself and the other half for his little sister. To distract them, I take their photos and show them their images. The boy smiles a little, but then another volley of tear gas lands outside their front door and he stops smiling.

Outside, the local boys were throwing rocks at the border police, who continued to fire tear gas. Many had wrapped scarves around their faces, partly to ward off the tear gas and partly to disguise their identity so that Israeli security forces, which videotape the demonstrations, would not be able to target them for arrest during the night-time raids. The IDF raids the village several times a week, arresting teenage stone throwers and keeping them in detention for extended periods.

This is the image that frightens and angers Israelis: a muscular teenage Palestinian, dressed in a T-shirt and jeans, a keffiyeh wrapped around his face and a rock or a slingshot in his hand. It’s a classic shot that has appeared on the front page of Israeli newspapers on many occasions.

And there, at the bottom of the road, is the image that frightens and angers Palestinians: armed soldiers inside their village, eager for action and not very disciplined, shooting tear gas, throwing sound grenades and sometimes adding some plastic or rubber bullets and skunk gas as well.

The Palestinians define these demonstrations as non-violent because they don’t throw stones unless the army shoots first. There are those who argue that demonstrators cannot call themselves non-violent if they are throwing stones – even if the targets are wearing helmets and carrying riot shields. And then there is the argument that if the villagers don’t throw stones in response to the tear gas, then there will be no media coverage at all.

Well, I don’t know. Perhaps if the villagers had all sat down on the road and just allowed themselves to be asphyxiated by tear gas or dragged away to jail, there would have been some media coverage. Or perhaps not. Then again, the stone throwers did not hurt anybody. But on the other hand, the images coming out of that demo – the classic ’scary Palestinian’ shots of boys with keffiyeh-covered faces throwing stones – are the ones that will make the biggest impact on Israelis. Once they see that image, which elicits such primordial responses of fear, they are highly unlikely to ask what the villagers were protesting, or why the army is breaking up a demonstration that is taking place inside the village and not harming anyone, and whether or not the Palestinians have the right to demonstrate – and if not, why not?

Anyway, things quieted down for a few minutes so I left the home in which I’d taken shelter and started walking toward the olive grove at the foot of the road. But then there was another round of tear gas. A voice from the roof above my head said in English, “Hello! Come up here. You can see better.”

The view from Zeynab’s roof.

So I entered the house and walked upstairs, where teenage Zeynab and her sisters, who seemed to range in age from 10-14, had an excellent view of the soldiers and the local rock throwers, three of whom were crouching behind a wall. Cat-and-mouse.

Tear gas outside the house.

Zeynab said quietly, “Something so evil is happening here.” After a few minutes she gestured toward the local boys and called out to them in Arabic, pointing toward the soldiers who were waiting below, in the olive grove. I looked down and saw sunlight glinting on the barrel of a tear gas dispenser as it was aimed directly at us on the roof. “Ya banaat!” I shouted, but there was no way to beat the tear gas. It exploded on the roof. We rushed down the stairs, with the smaller girls retching loudly. One of them slammed the door to the bathroom and sounded as though she were throwing up, while another called out that their living room window had been shattered by the impact. The younger brothers raced into the kitchen, sliced onions and passed them out to all of us. A boy who looked about 8 years old warned me to stop rubbing my eyes, because I would just spread the tear gas deeper.

We sat on cushions in the living room, wiping the mucus and tears with tissues and laughing a little as we recovered. After awhile there was a lull outside, so I said goodbye and left, after photographing one of the girls in front of the shattered living room window. She giggled as she wrapped her brother’s scarf around her face and posed.

Read more…

Israeli-American TV magnate and Democratic mega donor Haim Saban (see Connie Bruck’s recent New Yorker profile here) is unhappy with the Obama administration Israeli policies. Usually restrained, in an interview for Israeli Channel Ten TV News broadcast Thursday (May 13 2010), Saban let his guard down for a moment:

Saban: I had the chance to talk to Hillary about a lot of things including this and I also talked to Rahm Emanuel and Rahm Emanuel for instance told me ‘I am more hawkish than 50 percent of the people in Israel.’ I don’t know where he got that survey but that is what he said. They are not anti-Israelis. Look, they are from the left. The left, left of which there is not much space to the wall, I agree, and this is their ideology.

——

Interview with Haim Saban

Channel Ten TV News, May 13 2010 20:00 [video of Hebrew source here]

Yaacov Eilon (host): The Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban is disappointed by President Obama. Until now he only hinted to that but in a conversation with our correspondent Gil Tamari he opened up a little. Gil, over to you in Los Angeles.

Gil Tamari: Billionaire Haim Saban is the biggest donor to the Democratic Party in the U.S. And even though he donates millions to them he has a lot of resentment towards the Obama administration. In a special interview with us in Los Angeles he calls the state of relations “a disaster.” He calls the Obama administration radical leftists and tells me of tough talks he’s had with Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel.

Tamari: Do you sleep well at night with the Obama administration’s policy?

Saban: First of all that is an understatement. Because I have been living here in the U.S. for nearly 25 years I have become a little American so I don’t say everything like I used to.

Tamari: In a special interview with us a few hours ago here in L.A., Saban, the biggest donor to the Democratic Party, minces no words.

Saban: The situation is a disaster [the word used was the Arabic Harta, which has a coarser connotation], if you want me to put it in simple words.

Tamari: He compares the relations with Obama to the difficult years Israel had with George  Bush Sr.

Saban: We had the days with Bush Sr., with Shamir. We got over it and moved on and we had 16 great years with Clinton and then with Bush, and this too shall pass. Look, I don’t think Obama is anti-Israeli, like people think he is. His goal is to achieve peace, just like our goal is to achieve peace. The way he wants to do it may not be the way some people in Israel would like it, and especially the members of the right.

Tamari: Saban, who donated millions to the Clintons as well, is not at all happy with what he sees. Did you have a chance to talk about this with Hillary?

Saban: I had the chance to talk to Hillary about a lot of things including this and I also talked to Rahm Emanuel and Rahm Emanuel for instance told me ‘I am more hawkish than 50 percent of the people in Israel.’ I don’t know where he got that survey but that is what he said. They are not anti-Israelis. Look, they are from the left. The left, left of which there is not much space to the wall, I agree, and this is their ideology.

Tamari: At this ball tonight, organized by the Israeli leadership organization, an organization that turned the Israelis here from mere émigrés to a political force working for Israel, people sang and danced. But this big party was overshadowed by the state of relations between Israel and the administration. Gil Tamari, Ch. 10 News, LA.

The new front

Ben Caspit, Maariv, May 13 2010 [page 2 with front-page teaser; Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

Israel is threatening to launch a global campaign against Saudi Arabia, in keeping with a decision that was made by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and which has been kept secret until now. The campaign, if launched, will include the use of various means of leverage and lobbies in the United States, Europe and other places around the world, raising the issue of human rights, the status of women and financing terrorism in the US Congress, the European Parliament and other venues, a public relations campaign and even lodging complaints with international courts.

Lieberman’s decision was made in the wake of a conclusion that was drawn by foreign minister officials that Saudi Arabia was the principal force behind the global campaign to delegitimize Israel. Senior political officials said this week in closed conversations that the Saudis have financed a large part of the lawsuits that were filed to international courts, the public debates, the conferences, the slander and hounding of Israel in the United States, Europe and elsewhere. “They’re playing a double game,” said one political official. “The Saudis act as if they are part of the moderate camp and are trying to exploit the West for their own needs, when at the same time they have been financing an orchestrated campaign against Israel’s legitimacy, against Israel’s economy and more. That needs to be ended.”

Lieberman’s plan calls for Israel to convey a strenuous message in the next number of days to the United States that will include information about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the above-cited activities. Israel will demand that the Americans intervene and use their influence and the leverage that they have over the Saudis to pressure Saudi Arabia. In tandem, all Israeli representatives overseas will be briefed, as will all the Jewish organizations, the Jewish lobby and Israeli allies in the US Congress and elsewhere so as to begin to “pester” Saudi Arabia, to place on the public agenda its involvement in financing terrorism, the state of human rights in the kingdom, the status of women and numerous other issues. The possibility of filing lawsuits to either international or foreign courts will also be looked into, among other options.

Not everyone is pleased with this direction. Quite a number of political officials both in the Foreign Ministry and in other capacities, believe that such a course of action by Israel would be gratuitous and would not yield Israel any benefit. The Saudis have their faults, they aren’t Zionists, say the opponents, but they are clearly situated in the moderate camp, they support political negotiations, they stand behind the Arab peace initiative and they are threatened by Iran and radical Islam just like Israel.

Another troubling arena in that context is the Iranian nuclear program. According to foreign reports, Saudi Arabia has already agreed to let Israel use an aerial corridor through Saudi airspace on its way to a possible attack of Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to those reports, that means that Saudi Arabia has agreed to permit Israel combat jets pass through its airspace without responding so as to provide the IAF with the fastest and shortest route possible to distant Iran. If Lieberman’s program sparks a public crisis with the Saudis, that could have an adverse effect on the above-cited aerial corridor. At the current juncture in time, when Israel’s relations with Turkey are at a low, peace with Jordan and Egypt is frozen, Europe is turning a cold shoulder and the crisis with the United States is worsening, Israel ought not to look for yet another front to fight on. This is neither an existential war nor are the Saudis’ actions something that Israel simply can’t ignore. Israel has far more pressing troubles than the Saudis’ hypocrisy. We need to work at finding the common ground between us and our shared interests, and not the things that divide us, say the political officials opposed to Lieberman’s initiative.

That criticism, however, is unlikely to change Lieberman’s decision.

Read more…

Shachar-Mario Mordechai is a poet living in Tel Aviv. He is the 2010 recipient of Tel Aviv Municipality’s nationwide “Poetry By the Way” competition. His poems, translations and reviews have been published by various magazines, literary supplements and online site. His book of poems, “History of the Future,” will be published later this year by Even Hoshen Publishing House. A second book will be published by Am Oved as part of his prize for the Poetry By the Way competition.

If I forget thee

Shachar-Mario Mordechai, Maariv, May 12 2010 [Hebrew original here and bottom of post]

On Iyar 28, 5727 (June 7, 1967), the third day of the Six-Day War, IDF troops entered the Old City of Jerusalem. Within less than a year the Knesset established Iyar 28th as Jerusalem Day. After some three decades, while Binyamin Netanyahu was serving his first term as the prime minister of Israel, the Knesset conferred legal standing on that day: It established that this day would commemorate the connection between the city and the Jewish people and that, as such, it was incumbent upon us to celebrate it as a national holiday.

I am a Jew, and I do not forget Jerusalem (nor do I forget my right hand, and certainly not my left), and I recognize the undeniable connection between my people and the holy city. However, it is beyond me why I am obliged to celebrate (or lament) Jerusalem specifically in the context of 1967. I won’t, as Elie Wiesel put it, say that Jerusalem is above politics, since everything that is connected to Jerusalem — and perhaps to every issue in our world — is political.  And it is not inconceivable that any day chosen to celebrate Jerusalem Day should be imbued with political significance (even our distant neighbours to the east, the Iranians, celebrate Jerusalem Day — though it is a shame that they do not do so in the tradition of Cyrus). But in my opinion it is more than a tad unfair to mark Jerusalem Day — by law — in keeping with the whims of former MK Hanan Porat and the signature of Binyamin Netanyahu.

Where does that legislation put me? I, like many others in Israel today, believe that 1967 sowed the destructive seeds that have the potential capacity to derail Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. I believe that the occupation of another people undermines Israel’s security, its standing among the nations, its character as a just society, the Zionist vision of a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel (and not the entire Land of Israel), and that it also undermines our hold on Jerusalem.

In order to maintain Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic state and in order to have Israel be — even if only partially so — a just society, there is no choice but to disengage from East Jerusalem. When I say East Jerusalem, my intention is a disengagement from the Shuafat refugee camp, Abu Dis, Sur Baher, el-Azariyeh. Certainly not from the Old City. Not from the holy basin. The Old City will be administered jointly so as to ensure that religious freedoms are not infringed upon and so that we will be able to visit the Western Wall whenever we want. And when I say joint administration I am not contradicting the words of the Prophet Micha, who said: “But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the House of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it…for the Law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

That is why I am hard put to celebrate Jerusalem Day on Iyar 28th. Why am I denied the right to celebrate wholeheartedly my connection — as a Jew and an Israeli — to the city? Why Iyar 28th? Why shouldn’t Jerusalem Day be established immediately after the mourning period leading up to Tisha B’Av, so as to commemorate the emergence from mourning over the city’s destruction to celebration over its rebuilding?  And when I say rebuilding I am not referring to Sheikh Jarrah. Just as we make the impossible transition from Memorial Day to Independence Day, why shouldn’t we celebrate Jerusalem Day immediately after Tisha B’Av? I know that Binyamin Netanyahu won’t pick up the gauntlet. But you there, you MKs who are worried about the fate of Jerusalem and the fate of Israel, can anyone hear me?!

Photo: Mati Milstein

Read more…

Turkish gesture

Itamar Eichner, Yediot, May 12 2010 [page 15; Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

Thirty-one countries voted on Monday unanimously to approve Israel’s inclusion in the OECD.  It has now become apparent that this initiative was not thwarted due to a Turkish gesture and heavy American pressure behind the scenes.

According to OECD regulations, it is enough for one country to oppose for the inclusion to be canceled.  Throughout the process, Israel refrained from contacting the Turks, for fear that they would ask for something in return.  And indeed, when the Americans requested their support, the Turks posed demands.  One of them was for Israel to permit trailers donated by Turkey to be transferred to Gaza; the trailers have been waiting at the Ashdod port for months.

The Americans referred the request to Israel, but the latter refused to commit itself and promised to consider the request.  At the same time, the Palestinians and representatives of Arab states applied heavy pressure on Turkey to oppose the initiative.  Israel, which was aware of the pressure, contacted several of the organization’s member states and asked them to clarify to the Turks that [Israel] would look unkindly upon foiling the initiative.  In the end, the Turks voted in favor of Israel.

Yesterday, the Turks conveyed messages, and requested to reconsider the transfer of the trailers to Gaza — which would soften to some degree the criticism they suffered in the Arab world due to their support.  Along with this, the Turks explained, if Israel would permit the trailers to reach the Gaza Strip, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government would be able to assist in preventing the protest cruise of a Turkish Muslim organization to Gaza — a cruise that could develop into a diplomatic incident if seen through.

Read more…

Sfard

Cross-posted with permission from The Middle East Channel.

Recent and related Coteret posts: Nahum Barnea: Under Obama, deceit on settlement expansion is no longer viable | Maariv feature documents “settlement freeze” sham | Makor Rishon: US Ambassador and other officials regularly review details of J’lem construction plans | Yediot’s defense analyst: Settlement construction spree in September dooms negotiations |

—–

Proximity talks between the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership have just begun. It took the Obama administration almost 15 months to obtain the consent of the parties to talk to each other indirectly, through Senator Mitchell’s team. For the 19 year-old peace process (if counted from the Madrid summit) it is doubtful whether this new phase deserves even the modest “small step” label.

Small as it is, securing the diplomatic and political climate which enabled the proximity talks was not an easy step to achieve. It required the administration to put considerable pressure on the parties and, in the case of the demand from the Israeli government to freeze construction in West Bank settlements, some unprecedented arm-twisting. This explains why, though holed like Swiss cheese and scattered with countless inexplicable exceptions, the settlements construction moratorium is seen and presented by the administration as its biggest success so far.

Almost five months after the declaration of the moratorium, it is now clear: the Netanyahu-Barak government is compensating the settlers generously for introducing this (partial) construction freeze. The reward is huge and expensive and it is paid in the most precious currency Israeli leaders have: outpost legalization and planning approval. The settlers, ideological and patient in a manner that only messianic communities are, understand that while the construction moratorium is temporary, legalization of outposts and approval of construction plans will have long-term effects. They see the attraction in this barter for the long run and act accordingly. They play their role in the freeze game: they demonstrate against it, they send their young hooligans to clash with the Israeli army and police, they violate it publicly but they do not declare the current government as their enemy, as they did when the late Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, declared a narrower construction moratorium– one that applied only to state-funded construction in settlements. The planning-and-outpost-legalization-for-temporary-moratorium deal has never been announced publically or ever officially confirmed. We may only infer its existence by reviewing the evidence revealed in the last five months. And the evidence is ample and compelling:

First, in three Israeli High Court petitions brought by Palestinian land-owners, Israeli human rights organizations and peace groups, demanding to enforce demolition orders issued against illegal houses built in four outposts, the government has altered its position significantly after the moratorium was declared. While its pre-moratorium position was that the demolition orders must indeed be carried out but that the court should leave it to the government to choose the timing, its post-moratorium position was that a survey of property rights should be carried out so that it may consider a retroactive legalization of the illegal houses. This new position was presented in the cases of Derech Ha’avot, Rechelim, Haresha and Hayovel–all outposts built illegally (even by Israel’s own definition of what constitutes illegality in the Occupied Territories) and without official governmental approval.

Secondly, in about a dozen other petitions pending in the Israeli High Court of Justice, where demolition orders against illegal construction on private Palestinian land are at stake, and therefore legalization of those buildings is not an option, the government also made a significant position change. Its pre-moratorium position was that demolitions should be carried out according to prioritization that is to yet be set. It took the government more than three years to present before the High Court the demolition enforcement priority principles it adopted. However, shortly afterwards, the moratorium was declared and the government announced that during the moratorium period the priority document is suspended. Why? Because “all energy, resources and manpower is dedicated to the enforcement of the moratorium”. Making sure the settlers do not build in violation of the moratorium, the government told the High Court, makes it impossible for us to deal with old illegal construction.

Read more…

The winking duo

Op-ed, Nahum Barnea, Yediot, May 10-10 [Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

Last Wednesday, MK Danny Danon (Likud) notified me that Netanyahu was going to make a dramatic decision on the matter of the settlement outposts.  I thrive on dramas.  I called the defense minister’s media adviser, Barak Seri, and asked whether a dramatic decision on this issue, which is under the responsibility of the defense minister, was in the offing.  Seri checked and reassured me: The defense minister is safely ensconced at home, there is no discussion, no meeting, no change, nothing to report.

I was reassured.  On Friday afternoon, the defense minister notified the High Court of Justice that the state was considering legalizing the construction in the settlement outposts Hayovel and Haresha, subject to a land survey that would determine whether the land belonged to Arabs or was state owned.  The Prime Minister’s Bureau took the trouble to inform the media that the statement had been given.  “Congratulations,” said Danon, a member of the right wing opposition in the Likud.  Congratulations were also voiced by Shlomit Peretz, a resident of Givat Hayovel, the widow of Maj. Eliraz Peretz who fell in Gaza, and by Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat.

As for the defense minister, he issued a series of announcements intended to clarify that this was groundless.  “There has been no change since the defense minister’s statement to the High Court of Justice this past January,” he determines in his announcements.  “The reports that the settlement outposts Hayovel and Haresha would be legalized are not true… this is misleading.”

What is the truth?  There are countries in which such a gap between the prime minister’s version and the defense minister’s version would dismantle the government.  But Israel is not like all other countries.  Not only is there no dispute between Netanyahu and Barak in this case, it would appear that there is full coordination between them.

This is a game, a great Israeli bluff.  When the High Court of Justice called upon Barak, after endless delays, to announce when he would evacuate the settlement outposts that are illegal according to his own lists, he searched for a good excuse for another postponement.  The excuse that he found was that a survey should be conducted.  The survey would determine which houses in the settlement outposts were located on state land, and which houses were located on private Palestinian land.

There is no survey, but there is a lie.  The Civil Administration knows full well what belongs to whom in the outposts.  Regarding Givat Hayovel, for example, they know that most of the houses were built on state lands, and some of them, including Peretz’s house and the house of Roi Klein, who fell in Lebanon, were built on private Palestinian land.

The settlers of the Givat Hayovel settlement outpost, like the settlers of other outposts, invaded lands that did not belong to them.  The question of whether the lands presently belong to the state or to private owners is secondary.  Either way, they are squatters whom the state has promised, both to the High Court of Justice and to the Americans, to remove.

The trouble is that Netanyahu and Barak are caught up in contradicting commitments: Netanyahu committed himself to the right wing section of his party that it would be all right, in the end everything would be legalized, and Barak made a commitment both to the High Court and to the Obama administration that it would be all right, everything would be removed.  They decided to send another false letter to the High Court of Justice.  Netanyahu explained what he explained to Benny Begin, and Barak explained what he explained to George Mitchell.  They have a division of labor.

The Israeli settlements in the territories have been managed by this method for the past 43 years.  Netanyahu and Barak are no different from [Yigal] Alon, Peres or Sharon.  The problem is that the situation has changed.  The crisis of confidence between Netanyahu and the Obama administration has greatly reduced the government’s room for action.  Netanyahu promised transparency: He would tell the Americans the whole truth.  Barak was sent to Washington to persuade the Americans that the age of deception had ended.  The proof is that when a freeze is declared, the freeze is real, down to the last lot in Ariel.

The transparency stopped when it came to the settlement outposts.  They could not evacuate them as they had promised, and could not honestly tell the Americans that they were unable to do so.  Instead, they winked to everyone, including the High Court of Justice, whose champion Barak purports to be.

Winks have their price.  Mitchell can smile to the cameras in the prime minister’s office or the defense minister’s office, he also knows how to wink when necessary, but his administration exacts the price in other places.  The administration is steadily distancing itself from any step that could block Iran’s nuclear armament.  At the same time, the administration is making it possible, out of malice or weakness, to place Israel’s nuclear ambiguity on the international agenda.

Netanyahu has recently been promoting Bible studies, which is a laudable action.  Perhaps he should return to Genesis chapter 25.  It tells how Esau, Jacob’s weak-willed brother, sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.  The Biblical author states his opinion in one brief sentence: “And he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way. So Esau despised his birthright.”

Read more…

Reuven Rivlin

Ben Dror Yemini, a senior columnist at Maariv, likes to position himself as a “centrist” by regularly and viciously attacking what he considers the “illegitimate left.” Occasionally, he also finds something he considers beyond the pale on his right. He is now positively horrified by a new trend: Right-wing ideologues calling for a one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From his Friday (May 7 2010) column (full text at bottom of post):

Whatever we think of a Palestinian state or any other arrangement, the present situation cannot go on. Tough decisions have to be made. Either separation or granting citizenship. Either separation or one state. Until now the ideological right supported the Whole Land of Israel. One state. But the right has evaded the question of citizenship for the Palestinians. No longer. The emerging trend is not just one state but also citizenship.

What apparently set off Yemini’s alarm bells was a recent statement by Knesset Chairman Reuven Rivlin:

Referring to the possibility that such an agreement [two states] could be reached, Rivlin said: “I would rather [have] Palestinians as citizens of this country over dividing the land up.”

Rivlin is an ideologue, one of the few true disciples of Jabotinsky left in the Likud caucus. Partition is not part of their ideology. Liberalism is, however:

“In every Cabinet where the Prime Minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab, and vice-versa” (Ze’ev Jabotinsky, 1940)

Rivlin is also intellectually honest. When faced with the “tough question” — partition or Apartheid — he does not dodge and answers: ‘Neither. Equality in one state.’

—–

POSTSCRIPT

Dimi Reider has put together a comprehensive review of revisionist thinking on partition, across the Israeli spectrum.

—–

The right-wing march of folly

Excerpt from column, Ben Dror Yemini, Maariv Friday Political Supplement, May 7 2010 [page 6; Hebrew original here]

For a few years it seemed to be trial balloons. The right, especially the ideological right, started to issue statements about the need to annex Judea and Samaria, while granting the Palestinians certain rights. A group identified with the right began at the same time to issue demographic assessments saying that there is actually no demographic threat, and that the Jewish majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River is guaranteed.

Yemini

The years went by and these are trial balloons no more. Israel is accused of apartheid and even right-wing circles are feeling guilty. Even they understand that the present situation, the deadlock, of neither here nor there, can not go on forever. Whatever we think of a Palestinian state or any other arrangement, the present situation cannot go on. Tough decisions have to be made. Either separation or granting citizenship. Either separation or one state. Until now the ideological right supported the Whole Land of Israel. One state. But the right has evaded the question of citizenship for the Palestinians. No longer. The emerging trend is not just one state but also citizenship.Let’s not take these statements lightly. These are not the reckless hilltop dwellers. These are not your petty racists. These are thinking people who are aware of Israel’s status in the world. They are seeing the process of delegitimization. They know it is an industry of lies. They watch disbelievingly “apartheid week” being celebrated not just one week a year but everyday. They understand there is a problem. They understand the old slogans don’t work anymore. They know that a new reality is emerging. It might be irreversible. They know that the partial or mass expulsion of Palestinians, contrary to the incitement of demagogues, will put a final end to Israel’s legitimacy. “A nation dwelling unto itself” has its place in mythology but it doesn’t work on the ground. We are neither Iran nor North Korea nor do we want to be.

Hotovely

So that a trend is evolving. It is not only Uri Elitzur, who may have been the first to say it, and not only MK Tzipi Hotoveli, a lawyer, who understands there is a problem and is therefore willing to grant citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, in stages. Now it is also Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, who has good chances of becoming president. He is no marginal figure. He is not a backbencher. He too has said lately that between disengagement from the territories and annexation that includes granting citizenship, he prefers the latter.

Minister Katz

In a Yediot op-ed Thursday (May 6 2010) defense analyst Alex Fishman warned that the “settlement freeze” was a ticking time bomb that would derail diplomatic negotiations come September. In a feature for the Friday Political Supplement of Yediot’s competition, Maariv, Shalom Yerushalmi provided plenty of evidence for the assertion (full text at bottom.)

Touring the West Bank with Israel’s Transportation Minister, MK Yisrael Katz (Likud), Yerushalmi noted that the settlers he met were surprisingly happy:

They will benefit twofold [from the freeze]. They will have completed the old and will begin the new, this time, with no restrictions. Moreover, during the freeze, exceptions committees were formed which gave permits to all who needed (and after all, everyone needed) and paid compensation to anyone who was hurt. Is there a downside? No wonder that the large demonstrations that the settlers held last December opposite Netanyahu’s residence faded away. The protest tent opposite the Prime Minister’s Office was also dismantled with the same speed it was put up. At this rate, they will yet ask for another construction freeze period.

Katz then explained how this state of affairs was perfectly in line with Israeli government policy:

As far as Katz (55), a graduate of the Or Etzion high school yeshiva, is concerned, there is no problem or anything unusual going on. He believes in expanding the settlements, in connecting them to each other, in creating large blocs. At one of the observation points he went to, he promised to merge Karnei Shomron, Alonei Shilo, Yakir and the other settlements in the area into one large bloc numbering 30,000 settlers. “The Jews will continue to live here forever and ever, even in a peace agreement, no settlement will be removed,” Katz said. “Those who want peace have to compromise over this area.”

And that Netanyahu, even Obama, were on board:

Q: Is Netanyahu pleased with what you’re doing here?

“Yes. We agreed that in every place where there are building starts, they will continue. Everything is being done openly. If people want to hold negotiations with us, they shouldn’t pose preconditions.”

Q: President Obama won’t like to hear your pronouncements.

“An American president was elected. He has a different agenda, but he still views Israel as an ally. He knows that we are the only anchor he can depend on in all his battles against Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. On who else can he rely? On Egypt? Does anyone know what will happen there after Mubarak? On Saudi Arabia, where the terrorists came from who committed the terror attack on the World Trade Center? You need to have a lot of acumen in talking to the Americans, you need a lot of skill. Netanyahu has not removed a single settlement, he will renew construction in September, he will not freeze construction in Jerusalem. I tell you that in the end, the argument will not be over Karnei Shomron or Immanuel, and not even over Jerusalem.”

——

No freeze here

Shalom Yerushalmi, Maariv Friday Political Supplement, May 7 2010 [Hebrew original here]

In a week in which indirect peace talks were supposed to get underway, Transport Minister Yisrael Katz went on a tour of Samaria and mainly displayed great proximity to the settlers. At the same opportunity, he stuck a finger in the Palestinians’ eyes. “The construction momentum in Judea and Samaria is the same as when it was at its peak,” Katz announced happily to Likud activists in the settlement of Revava on Tuesday evening. “Thousands of housing units are being built everywhere. I never liked the freeze. Nobody in the security cabinet likes the freeze. It was a mistake. You can’t take people and freeze them. That is no solution. The government will ensure that the construction momentum will resume this September. In any case, I know that as far as I am concerned, there is no freeze.”Katz toured the settlements for an entire day to observe the great construction boom already taking place on the ground, precisely at a time that the state is trying to show the world that it is limiting construction. The freeze, it turns out, was simply an opportunity to unfreeze land and prepare it for construction. The government froze new houses but allowed the settlers to complete houses for which the foundations had been laid. The result on the ground is unimaginable. Thousands of settlers rushed to work on what they had begun, before any new edicts could arrive.

“The rabbis told us not to stop work. To continue to bang with the hammers, even on Yom Kippur,” relates Avi Cohen from Har Bracha, the chairman of the Likud branch in Samaria.

The freeze will end this September. Avi Cohen and his buddies will begin to build foundations. They will benefit twofold. They will have completed the old and will begin the new, this time, with no restrictions. Moreover, during the freeze, exceptions committees were formed which gave permits to all who needed (and after all, everyone needed) and paid compensation to anyone who was hurt. Is there a downside? No wonder that the large demonstrations that the settlers held last December opposite Netanyahu’s residence faded away. The protest tent opposite the Prime Minister’s Office was also dismantled with the same speed it was put up. At this rate, they will yet ask for another construction freeze period.

Sharon style

Everyone in Samaria is smiling. Sometimes openly, sometimes with a wink, usually with satisfaction. Even the claims, perhaps justified, about buildings that had become stuck in the middle, about money that had been lost, about unsuitable trailers in which entire families were crowded, about young couples who could find no place to live, bumpy access roads and all the rest—become lost in the face of this expansion enterprise, which appears to have no end. Minister Katz himself inaugurates roads there costing tens of millions of shekels as if there were no tomorrow, he renovates access roads and builds traffic circles in the style that he appears to have inherited from Ariel Sharon, with whom he worked for a long time in the 1980s.

The percentages always work in the settlers’ favor. On Monday, for example, building inspectors arrived at a Shavei Shomron neighborhood along with directors of the Civil Administration, and demolished six illegal temporary structures. Samaria Regional Council Chairman Gershon Mesika was quick to accuse Defense Minister Ehud Barak, “who wants to show the people in his party that he is doing something.” Barak is the man the settlers hate most at this time, as the person still poking a stick in the wheels of the trucks bringing the trailers, and here and there, stopping construction. “For me, he is a minister in the Palestinian Authority,” one settler woman from Revava told Katz.

In the afternoon, Katz went to Kedumim. Offsetting the six buildings destroyed in Shave Shomron, it immediately turned out that settlement secretary, Hananel Durani, is about to establish a new neighborhood in the   coming days, all legal and aboveboard. Durani, a deputy brigade commander in reserves, welcomed Katz in a eucalyptus grove at the entrance to Kedumim, hung a large map of the settlement on one of the trees and lectured to his guest military style, as if about to leave for a navigation exercise.  “We will build another 400 housing units in Kedumim,” he promised. “In a month, I’ll be bringing in the machines and building the northern neighborhood.”

“How many units,” Katz asked.

“56,” replied Durani.

“Are there foundations?”

“Yes.”

“Did the defense minister sign?”

“He did.”

“Very good, forward.”

He believes in expansion

Read more…

Cross-posted from Promised Land.

Dershowitz

Yesterday, Alan Dershowitz, the attorney for OJ Simpson and IDF occupation, received another honorary doctorate, this time from my very own Tel Aviv University. Dershowitz took the opportunity to declare that “students shouldn’t have the Leftist views of professors imposed upon them,” proving again that The Simpsons got it right on the Harvard’s Professor in their 2006 Halloween special.

Krusty

Trying to return his Krusty the Clown Alarm Clock that squirts acid, Bart stumbles upon the Golem in Krusty’s prop room. The ersatz entertainer goes on to tell Bart of the tale of Rabbi Loew, the “legendary defender of the Jewish people,” who created the Golem to defend his Jewish community. “Like Alan Dershowitz,” says Krusty, “but with a conscience.”

I had the opportunity before to recommend Eyal Niv’s excellent “Truth from Eretz Israel” blog, but back then he only had a Hebrew version. For the past six months, Eyal is posting some of his stuff in English as well, and you should definitely check it out.  Here is what he had to say on Dershowitz’s honorary doctorate. needless to say, I join him in every word.