Seven words uttered by President Bush in Brussels have not been paid the attention theydeserve.
He called for the establishment of “a democratic Palestinian state with territorialcontiguity” in the West Bank , and then added: “A state on scattered territories will notwork.”
It is worthwhile to ponder these words. Who did he point the finger at? Why did he say this inBrussels , of all places?
Nobody warns of a danger without a reason. If Bush said what he said, it means that hebelieves 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 ofthe whole settlement enterprise planned and set up by him. The lay-out of the settlements onthe West Bank map is designed to cut the territory up from North to South and from West to East, inorder to forestall any possibility of establishing a really viable and contiguousPalestinian state, a state like any other.
If the settlement blocs that have been created are annexed to Israel , the Palestinianterritory will be sliced up into a number of enclaves – perhaps four, perhaps six. The GazaStrip, an isolated ghetto by itself, will be another enclave. Each enclave will be surroundedby settlements and military installations, and all of them will be cut off from the worldoutside.
The American intelligence agencies are familiar with this picture, of course. They cansee it with their satellites. But that did not deter President Bush from promising Sharon lastyear that Israeli “population centers” in the West Bank will be annexed to Israel . These“population centers” are the very same settlement blocs that were defined by the US in the pastas “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 fromthe financial benefits accorded to Israel .
So why did the second Bush suddenly make a declaration whose practical meaning is thatsome of these settlement blocs must be dismantled? And why did he make it in Brussels ?
It is clear that he wanted to gain favor with his European hosts. The European Unionopposes the annexation of West Bank territory to Israel . Bush said what he said in order toreduce 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 thedisengagement plan, a decision that was hailed by the media as “historic”. With all thehullabaloo, 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 isnothing but a “security fence”. It does indeed have a certain security function, and Israelipublic opinion accepts it as such. But by now, informed people must know that this wall isintended as the future border of Israel . Therefore, this week all government spokespersonstook 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 spokeabout the annexation of 3-4% of the West Bank to Israel , in return for the transfer of 1% ofIsraeli territory to the Palestinian state. Seven percent of the territory of the FederalRepublic of Germany is much more than the whole state of Saxony . Seven percent of the territoryof the United States of America is more than the whole giant state of Texas . (Imagine: Mexicoconquers Texas , builds a wall between it and the rest of the US and fills it with Mexicansettlements.)
But the percentage game is misleading. It is not only the size of the territory that isimportant, but also its location.
In this respect, the controversy between Israel and the US remains. It concerns mainlytwo places, where the path of the wall causes the dismemberment of the West Bank . If the wall isto include the settlement town of Ariel , it will send a finger deep into the West Bank . Thisfinger will connect with a second one, coming from the opposite direction – the two fingerstogether will cut through the whole width of the West Bank south of Nablus . Another finger willextend from Jerusalem to the enlarged Ma’aleh Adumim settlement bloc, also cuttingpractically the full width of the West Bank .
The Americans do not yet agree. So Sharon is using one of his typical methods: in those twoplaces he leaves a gap in the wall. He will build there in due course, after using a futureopportunity to wrap President Bush – so to say – around his little finger.
But the percentage account is also wrong in another respect. Nowadays one speaks onlyabout 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 encirclementof the West Bank and cut it off from the Jordan valley and the Dead Sea shore. That is a big slice ofterritory, about 20% of the West Bank , and would cut the West Bank off from any contact with theworld. Sharon knows that he cannot build this wall at the moment, because of the opposition ofthe US and the whole world. Also, there is no budget for it. Therefore, he is leaving it for thefuture.
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 looksreally nice. But this, too, contains a trick: Sharon does not intend to build this part of thewall in the near future. He is postponing it for another time – and then he will propose adifferent path altogether, including a finger thrust deeply into Palestinian territory, soas 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% of theterritory that has been approved by the government decision. All this area between the walland the Green Line – the territory already annexed in practice – is being filled with newsettlements. 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 ofsettlements near the Green Line. It was occupied by the Arabs in the 1948 war and re-conqueredby 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 originalfew 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 (Labor) Minister for Housing, Yitzhak Herzog,promises to build big housing projects from Har Homa to Ma’aleh Adumim, while another one isgoing 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 stripas one of the enclaves in “a state of scattered territories”. (The Gaza Strip constitutes only6% of the occupied territories.)
The Labor party is a full partner in this scheme.
As far as Sharon is concerned, the disengagement plan plays with the dismantling of somesmall settlements in a remote corner of the occupied territories for the fulfillment of hisgrand design to take over most of the West Bank .
Now President Bush has declared that he does not accept this design. His European hostssmiled politely. Perhaps they believed him, and then, maybe they did not.