The following article originally appeared in NRG, the website of the Israeli daily newspaper Maariv:
Who among us who continue to follow the current affairs in this country, are again wondering, with the opening of the current round of talks, what does Israel really want? I found myself too, at the dawn of Jewish New Year and the start of the peace talks in Washington D.C, asking the same question.
On the one hand, the best political commentators argue that Netanyahu’s opening positions are “two states for two peoples.” On the other hand, earlier in the same week when Netanyahu traveled to the White House, the COGAT announced in the Turkel Committee that the guiding principle of Israel’s policy in the Palestinian territories is “differentiation” between Gaza and the West Bank, creating a dynamic that will inevitably lead to the creation of two completely separate territories.
What, then, does Israel want? Two states for two peoples? Three states for two peoples? How many countries, exactly, to how many people?
A common argument is that Israel has maintained a rigid policy toward the Gaza Strip in order to weaken Hamas, which seized power in 2007. But a quick investigation shows that long before the abduction of Gilad Shalit, and long before Hamas came to power, Israel has done everything possible to separate the civilian populations in Gaza and the West Bank. In fact, it gained momentum as early as 2000. Outstanding examples include the prohibition on the transfer of students between the West Bank and Gaza and the refusal to update the registered address of Palestinian residents that moved from Gaza to the West Bank.
Since 2000, security authorities prevented residents of the Gaza Strip to travel to school in the West Bank. This is a sweeping prohibition that does not address the question whether there is security information that can be used as an argument to restrict travel for an individual student. Furthermore, Israel refuses to allow passage from Gaza to the West Bank, even without crossing through Israel. Thus, hundreds of students from Gaza are prevented from learning vital subjects such as medicine, physiotherapy, health systems management, treatment and occupational therapy communication disabilities, who are not offered at universities in Gaza.
Make no mistake: the students do not want to study in Israel. The requests are submitted by Palestinian residents of Gaza who want to enter a Palestinian territory – the West Bank – in order to learn there in institutions that were established especially for them. So is there a territorial unity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip or not? Are they expected, according to the vision of those leading the peace talks, to unite in some way? Will they remain separate?
The refusal to change the registered address of Palestinian residents already living in the West Bank but whose address is still listed in Gaza is another way in which the policy of separation is implemented. While the Palestinian Authority has a duty to register addresses in the Population Register and inform Israel about changes, in practice, between the years 1995 to 2000, Israel ignored most notices on the change of address and did not record the changes. Beginning in 2000, with the outbreak of the second intifada, Israel has sweepingly refused to register changes from Gaza to the West Bank, and starting in 2003, Israel has begun to ban Palestinians from living in the West Bank if their registered address is Gaza – even if they lived there for years. Residents of the West Bank, even those whose homes, families, work and world are there for many years faced at once the threat of being expelled, and many of them were transferred to the Gaza Strip against their will.
While talking about the “train between Gaza and Ramallah,” and engaging in negotiations on a two-state solution, in reality there is a disconnection between Gaza and the West which is deeper than the split in Palestinian leadership. No doubt the Palestinian division is one of the main reasons for the separation between Gaza and the West. But Israel’s policy – to prevent the passage from Gaza to the West Bank of people against whom there is no “security reasons,” and on the other hand to encourage reverse movement from the West Bank to Gaza damages the fabric of civilian life – family ties, commerce, education, and more of a future Palestinian state that will be established in the end.
The “separation” policy raises questions about the real political horizon of Israel, and whether a two-state solution is included in it. We have to ask, our government and ourselves, what is the current policy regarding Gaza and the West Bank and what will have to change in order to reach the desired solutions. Is the face of Israel into two states? If so, the “separation policy” is certainly a stumbling block towards achieving this goal. Could it be that Lieberman, who called to completely sever Gaza from Israel and the West Bank, expresses, loudly, the vision of government?
Nirit Ben-Ari is spokesperson for Gisha, an Israeli NGO advocating for the freedom of movement
