Trending Topics:

Palestinian ghettos, created by violence, have been Israeli plan since ’67 — Amira Hass

on 25 Comments

Naftali Bennett, the new darling of Israeli politics, has made the annexation of the 60+ percent of the West Bank known as “Area C” the centerpiece of his campaign. Haaretz’s Amira Hass today puts his proposal in historical context:

When Habayit Hayehudi party leader and rising political star Naftali Bennett calls for annexing Area C, the part of the West Bank under full Israeli security and civil control, he is following the logic of every single Israeli government: maximize the territory, minimize the Arabs.

Bennett can propose annexation because every governing coalition since the Six-Day War – whether it was led by the Likud or Labor… laid the spiritual and policy groundwork for him.

As I have said a million times and will say another million times: Area C is a tremendous success of Israeli policy and its implementers, the army and the Civil Administration. It is part of a farsighted, well-executed, perfectly thought-out policy…. Bennett is probably decent/honest enough to acknowledge the debt he owes to the previous generations of Israeli politicians and military officials who warmed the country up for his annexation plan, ensuring its acceptance would be as effortless as a knife cutting butter in the sun.

… In other words, the aim – unfolded with the advent of time – has been to concentrate the Palestinians in reserves, after most of their land had been robbed of them. And if they desert and move abroad, it’s of their own free will…

This is the real Israeli historical compromise. It is not with the Palestinians, but with the dictates of reality and among the various Zionist ideological currents. The crowded, offensive reservations –  the creation of which is violence, pure and simple – are a compromise between the craving to eject the Palestinians from their land and the recognition that regional and international conditions do not permit it.

About Henry Norr

Other posts by .

Posted In:

25 Responses

  1. seafoid
    January 21, 2013, 10:49 am

    “other words, the aim – unfolded with the advent of time – has been to concentrate the Palestinians in reserves, after most of their land had been robbed of them. And if they desert and move abroad, it’s of their own free will…”

    But they won’t leave. Even if they live in abject poverty controlled to the nearest cent by Israel. Because they know Israel is just another historical contingency.
    And the only answer to historical contingency is sumud.

    If poverty and pauperisation worked as policy there wouldn’t be a 50/50 population split today.

    The bots do not understand that the land means to their neighbours. They’ll never leave it. Ahla Filisteen is their Yad va Shem – THE name, THE place. That light. The scent of those trees. That accent.

    • James Canning
      January 21, 2013, 4:39 pm

      Christian leaders in the West Bank say the Israeli occupation has been disastrous for their communities.

  2. gingershot
    January 21, 2013, 11:36 am

    Relentless low motion ethnic cleansing, with periods of exuberance

    Amira Hass nails it – I’ve never heard of such a good description of the incremental ‘Area C’ plan in overview

  3. HarryLaw
    January 21, 2013, 12:39 pm

    Amira Hass has it exactly right, it has been the Israeli plan all along, from both the right and left of Israeli politics, the question is why, when this was so obvious, from the continuing Israeli settlements building not only from 1967, but from day one of the Oslo accords, when Israel was supposed to stop all settlement activity, the Palestinian leadership have been, and continue to be inept, they must dig their heels in and use all legal means [the ICC] to try and stop the ethnic cleansing, it will be tough as all resistance to a ruthless stronger power will be, it may not even work,but I cannot see why not, the sooner we know the better, the alternative, to appeal to outside powers the US/EU to do something they have manifestly failed to do in 45 years, is to put hope before experience, anyone who threatens another with serious consequences if the injured party makes use of the legal system, as US/ Israel have, should be treated with utter contempt.

  4. James Canning
    January 21, 2013, 2:12 pm

    There is no question but that the idea is to encourage non-Jews to leave the West Bank. By whatever means can be employed.

    • seafoid
      January 21, 2013, 5:20 pm

      How many Palestinians have actually left ? If they were rational capitalist actors wouldn’t they all leave the refugee camps and go to Silicon Valley or Wall St ? I think that is what the bots expected.

      • James Canning
        January 21, 2013, 6:31 pm

        I think the majority of Christian Palestinians have left the West Bank. Maybe someone has the numbers? I will look for them.

      • Walid
        January 22, 2013, 2:02 am

        How many Christians left? Hard to get accurate numbers but there are now 500,000 in the diaspora. There are about 150,000 Christians left on the WB, about 3,000 in Gaza and about 130,000 inside Israel proper. Before 1967, 30,000 lived in Jerusalem and today there are about 10,000 left. Iraq is another sad story for Christians; a decade ago, there were 1.5 milion Christians and thanks to America for bringing democracy to that country, there are now less than 250,000.

        Getting back to Palestinian Christians, the following Bob Simon 60 Minutes segment (discussed here a few times) provides a good summary of what’s happening to the Christians there. The fun part of the video is watching Simon take to task Israel’s star hasbarist, Michael Oren, that would have you believe that the Christian exodus is due to Islamic fundamentalism:

      • seafoid
        January 22, 2013, 4:49 am

        That is right about the Christians. Beit Sahour, Beit Jala and Bethlehem especially. And in that sense the pauperisation was effective. But not for the whole population. So you have demographic parity. I think the bots thought all the Palestinians would leave. In their mythology they all turned up because of economics as well.

        I think there are lots of people in the Diaspora ready to go back when things settle down.

        Palestinian society will need decades to recover from Zionism.

      • James Canning
        January 22, 2013, 1:33 pm

        @Walid – – Great post. Bob Simon’s report on the plight of Palestinian Christians in the West Bank is not to be missed. (CBS News’ 60 Minutes).
        Talgha Benlie, “Why Christians are leaving occcupied Palestine”, on this site July 1, 2012.

  5. James Canning
    January 21, 2013, 2:47 pm

    It seems clear the way forward will be for the UN to recognise Palestine with the “Green Line” as its border with Israel.
    Palestine can consider possible trades of land with Israel.

    • pabelmont
      January 21, 2013, 4:53 pm

      James Canning: Yes, by all means, let the UN (UNGA I suppose) “recognize” the borders of Palestine (and of Israel) as permanently set by the “green line”. But such action has no legal meaning and also no practical meaning since — as matters stand — Israel is beyond the law, protected by the USA’s heavy thumb on the scales of international law and any sort of justice.

      Israel and Palestine, Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria — all can negotiate new boundaries any time they want to. But only if both parties want to. and only if both parties are states protected by the usual inter-state rules. Israel does not recognize those rules, and the UNGA is powerless to affect matters. The UNSC is not powerless but the USA prevents its acting.

      Perhaps we must pray for acts of violence so outrageous that USA public opinion “forces” USA to abandon its hands-off policy. Not that I hope for violence, from any quarter.

      • James Canning
        January 21, 2013, 6:35 pm

        UN recognition obviously would not achieve withdrawal of Israeli soldiers, police, etc etc.
        And I expect Aipac to continue to control to a large degree, the US Congress on matters relating to Israel.
        But international recognition of Green Line as Israel’s border would have merit. Let’s remember the refusal of many countries to ratify the annexation by the Soviet Union of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

  6. Annie Robbins
    January 21, 2013, 4:04 pm

    i mentioned yesterday evening i saw the movie ‘the law in these parts’ last night, which is a fantastic movie for understanding the oppressive legal shinanigans imposed after 67. everyone should watch it. blatantly racist mindframe.

    from haas:

    whether 50,000 Palestinians live there, as democratic, benevolent Bennett claims, while suggesting to naturalize them and grant them Israeli citizenship, or whether the number is around 150,000 (as my colleague Chaim Levinson reminded us earlier this week).

    Don’t worry. Even if there are 300,000 Palestinians living in Area C

    note how bennett’s plan continually references the ‘48,000’ palestinians in area c. which is a lie.

  7. talknic
    January 21, 2013, 6:01 pm

    James Canning “It seems clear the way forward will be for the UN to recognise Palestine with the “Green Line” as its border with Israel”

    It seemed clear when the new state of Israel pleaded for recognition by and was recognized by the boundaries of UNGA res 181

    It seemed clear when Israel recognized its borders with Palestine 22 May 1948

    What IS clear, is that Israel will not stop unless it is forced to stop by military intervention or by complete trade and financial isolation. The Jewish State is without doubt a cancerous growth on non-Israeli territory.

  8. James Canning
    January 21, 2013, 6:50 pm

    @talknic – – No military intervention or trade sanctions needed to be brought to bear on the USSR, for the Soviet Union to agree to get out of the Baltics (“annexed” in the prelude to the Second World War).

    • talknic
      January 22, 2013, 12:21 am

      Russia wasn’t motivated by ziocaine addled religious nuttery.

      Seriously tho, one must look at what pacts had been made with the USSR. Israel has made no pacts in its illegal grab for Palestinian territories.

      • James Canning
        January 22, 2013, 2:21 pm

        Israel is bound by UNSC 242.

  9. James Canning
    January 21, 2013, 6:51 pm

    @talknic – – In case you have forgotten, the USSR planted large numbers of Great Russians in the Baltics, in hopes of fully integrating them into the Soviet Union.

  10. Inanna
    January 22, 2013, 4:19 am

    Just want to make the point (yet again) that minimizing the Palestinian presence and maximising the land for Jews only has actually been a goal since 1947 and earlier, not something that just appeared in 1967. We need to keep remembering 1948 Palestinians, not only 1967.

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 22, 2013, 11:07 am

      Exactly. These zios had, from the beginning, plans for the destruction of Palestine: the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and a genocide of Palestinian culture and identity and a complete theft of Palestinian land. This is not something that was born in Occupied Palestine in the 1960’s. This was borne in the bowels of Europe in the 1800’s.

  11. James Canning
    January 22, 2013, 1:30 pm

    Yes, the question in part is how best to serve the interests of the Palestinians. Arab League clearly saw best thing achievable was to keep the 22% of Palestine not taken by Israel by 1949.

  12. talknic
    January 22, 2013, 8:35 pm
  13. James Canning
    January 23, 2013, 1:22 pm

    No qustion about it. Some Zionists wanted all of Palestine. And more. For Jews.

Leave a Reply