Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Israel’s announcement, last week, of a radical expansion of Har Homa (an already massive settlement community between Jerusalem and Bethlehem) makes a mockery of the so-called “peace process”.
The episode has further served to reinforce the belief that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no interest in reaching a just peace with the Palestinians. This leopard has not changed his spots. Netanyahu remains a wily (and not always honest) manipulator, who at his core is a hard-line ideologue. At the same time, the Har Homa announcement serves as an uncomfortable reminder of U.S. impotence and the role this weakness has historically played in enabling Israel’s bad behavior.
I remember all too well a decade and a half ago when Jabal Abul Ghnaim was a lovely green hill on the northern outskirts of Bethlehem. It was Arab land, seized by Israel in 1967 and then annexed to what the Israelis refer to as Greater Jerusalem. After becoming Prime Minister in 1996, as part of a series of provocative acts designed to, in his words, “make a clean break” ending the Oslo peace process, thereby showing the Americans and Palestinians who was in charge, Netanyahu announced plans to construct “Har Homa” on that Arab hill. The intent of this new settlement was to continue the process of building an Israeli housing ring around Jerusalem that would assert their control while denying Palestinians access to the Holy City.
The Clinton Administration opposed the Israeli plan, expressing concern that this new settlement was “unhelpful” and “counterproductive”, etc. But words alone would not stop Netanyahu. Bulldozers came and raped and scarred Jabal Abul Ghnaim, leaving it barren with deep gouges where roads and houses would soon be built.
The Palestinians went to the United Nation’s Security Council only to see a resolution of condemnation vetoed by the U.S. A General Assembly resolution of condemnation passed by a 134 to 3 (with Micronesia joining the U.S. and Israel in opposition). But such resolutions have no authority. The Clinton Administration continued to object and Israelis continued to plan and then to build.
That was then. Today, Har Homa is home to 17,000 Israeli settlers. The recently announced Israeli plan to build 1,000 new units will not only add thousands more settlers, it will also greatly expand the settlement’s footprint by 50 percent, extending it to the south and east.
On one level, what was especially disturbing about this Israeli announcement was its timing and apparent intent. Coming as it did while Netanyahu was in the U.S., having just shared a podium with Vice-President Joseph Biden, it could only be seen as yet another direct challenge both to the Obama Administration, itself, as well as to U.S. efforts to restart peace talks. The announcement was also aimed at the Palestinians telling them, in effect, what they, the Israelis, thought of the Palestinian insistence on a settlement freeze. In addition, the Israelis appear to be making it clear to the Palestinians, that it was Israel who would define and control the terms of any final peace arrangement – as they stake claim to more and more of the occupied territories.
Given Netanyahu’s history in this regard, both in the ’90’s and his more recent behavior, the Obama Administration’s response has been more than disappointing. Echoing the timid and failed rebukes of the past, President Obama termed the Israeli plan “unhelpful” and left it Secretary of state Clinton to call it “counterproductive”.
More disturbing still were Clinton’s words upon ending a seven hour discussion with the Israeli Prime Minister in which she reiterated the U.S.’s “unshakable” commitment to Israel’s security, and went on to describe the peace agreement the U.S. seeks as one that “reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements”. In that last statement the Secretary ratified the infamous 2004 Bush letter of assurances to then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This has placed the U.S. in the role of negotiating away fundamental Palestinian rights, and, on the issue of settlements, of “giving away the store” to the Israelis.
The only conclusion that one can make from all of this is that those settlements that Israel built over the last 43 years, in defiance of international law – which have been described by successive American administrations as “illegal”, “an obstacle to peace”, “unhelpful”, “counterproductive” and more recently as “illegitimate”- have now become “subsequent developments” that will be accommodated by “agreed land swaps”.
So Jabal Abul Ghnaim is no more, and will be no more, despite international condemnation and U.S. “regrets”. The once green Arab hill has been replaced by “subsequent developments”. Given of the timidity of the U.S. response to the extension of Har Homa, in all likelihood, that too will be built, and someday soon be a reality that Palestinians will be told they must accept.
Dr. James J. Zogby is the author of Arab Voices: What They Are Saying to Us, and Why it Matters (Palgrave Macmillan, October 2010) and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community.