In recent days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to build thousands more Jewish housing units in a large West Bank settlement, and annex that settlement to Israel. The White House has had nothing to say (as Martin Indyk notes), though liberal Zionists are angered by the plans. J Street said that unilateral annexation of settlements is the “extreme and dangerous” agenda of Israel’s far right.
Netanyahu’s pursuit of his own narrow political agenda is steering Israel toward imminent disaster.
While Peace Now has called for the firing of David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador to Israel, because he is such a cheerleader for the Israeli colonization project.
Here’s another right-wing idea that has bubbled up in recent days (which liberal Zionists have not yet condemned). Earlier this week al-Monitor reported on a plan Benjamin Netanyahu is considering, devised by one of the legislators in his party, to divide Jerusalem so as to transfer the status of 300,000 Palestinians who have permanent residency under Israeli governance into the West Bank, as part of Area B.
Israel would get rid of 300,000 Palestinians, thereby preserving the Jewish majority in the state, and lessening its responsibility to Palestinians who live under its control. What more naked exhibit of apartheid could you want?
In… September… [member of Knesset] Anat Berko presented detailed maps to Netanyahu in which the city was divided into geographic and political regions, differentiated with colors. Digital simulations were also included. According to her plan, almost all the Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would be transferred to Palestinian control. In the first stage, they would be under Palestinian civil rule with Israeli security control, like area B of the West Bank. In the final stage, they would have area A status, that is full Palestinian control. This would decrease Jerusalem’s population by 300,000 Palestinians, leaving some 30,000 Palestinians alongside the more than half a million Jewish residents of the city. The Jewish demographic majority in Jerusalem would grow from the current less than 70% to more than 95%. Israel would be spared the billions of shekels it now pays in National Social Insurance payments and various stipends to the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, who have permanent residency status in Israel.
Jewish Insider emphasized the rebellion from the right. It headlined its excerpt of the report, “Is Netanyahu’s party ready to divide Jerusalem?” Again, quoting Ben Caspit of al-Monitor:
The plan and the meeting with the prime minister were revealed Sept. 30. A storm erupted at the Likud ministers’ first weekly gathering following the meeting, with members asking Netanyahu whether the news of it was true and whether he supports the plan for partitioning Jerusalem. Netanyahu hurriedly backtracked from the plan. He confirmed that Berko had, indeed, submitted “some papers” to him, but claimed that he does not support the plan and that it goes against the principles of the Likud.
But what about the left? Is there any objection to the plan on that basis? None, apparently. Haneen Zoabi, the besieged Palestinian member of Knesset, said at the Jerusalem Fund yesterday in Washington that Israel has gone so far right that it is unrecognizable to those who remember it ten years ago. Plans that were extremist ten years ago are now in the center: for instance, the idea of transferring Palestinian citizens of Israel to a Palestinian sovereign/entity/bantustan in the West Bank.
The whole of Israeli society has shifted since the second intifada… more and more toward the right wing. Today you cannot talk about any meaningful differences between the right and the center within the Israeli politics regarding the Palestinian issue…. When [Avigdor] Lieberman talked about transfer in 2003 if you remember, he talked about transfer from the back of the Knesset, from the last line… and no one listened to him and they tried to silence him. “Don’t talk about transfer, it’s embarrassing us.” Now Lieberman with the transfer has moved from the back of the Knesset to the center of the middle of the Knesset…
The concept of transfer or of land swap that Netanyahu is now debating with Trump administration is a concept which is so, yanni, normal within the Israeli discourse. What was not normal, what was so embarrassing, so extremist ten years ago is now in the center. Now the settlers dominate the government.
When will the American media begin to catch up with this understanding, and reflect the truth of Palestinian conditions? (And let’s hope that liberal Zionists decry the transfer of 300,000 Palestinians, and continue the fracturing of the Israel lobby.)
Normal – that’s the watchword. During our 2015, July/August Interfaith Peace-Builders delegation’s first meeting here in Palestine, the phrase “a normal life,” and the general idea of “normalcy” was repeated by those speaking to us at the Youth Center in the al-Bustan neighborhood of Silwan. Our guide for the day spoke of just wanting a normal life. His village of Silwan suffers regular home demolitions which systematically displace Palestinians as part of this ongoing Israeli public policy. It’s also known for its high rate minors (children) being illegally apprehended by heavily armed soldiers, often in the dead of night, and taken into administrative detention.
Muslim, a 15 year old boy from Silwan, spoke to us about being arrested 15 times – presumably for throwing stones – since he was 9 years old. For Muslim and hundreds of other minors subject to administrative detention, being arrested often means being beaten, deported out of your hometown or village, being separated for extended periods from your family, being afforded no legal representation, having no formal charge lodged against you, etc… One of Muslim’s arrests had him jailed for 8 days, forcing him to miss a good amount of school while he was confined to a prison cell. When asked by a member of our delegation what the jail was like, he replied, “4 walls. No sun. No air.” This is the current “normal” in Silwan and many other Palestinian villages and refugee camps.
Our delegation’s next meeting, via Skype, was with an American Friends Service Committee youth group in Gaza. Throughout the discussion with these young adults from Gaza (which is quite literally the world’s largest open air prison), the desire for a “normal life” was specifically mentioned again. Despite being periodically assaulted over the last 6-7 years (2008-09 Operation Cast Lead, 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense, 2014 Operation Protective Edge, etc…), leveling their infrastructure, killing thousands, including hundreds of children, creating mass unemployment, etc., these kids keep moving forward. This is their “normal” since the illegal blockade of collective punishment was imposed on Gaza by Israel in 2007. These youth somehow remain vital and actually retain a sense of humor in their talk with our delegation. It is near miraculous.
In solidarity circles, the term “normalization” is oft used and is a big term in the Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions movement. Our meeting with one of the main leaders of this movement, Omar Barghouti, touched on this normalization concept. There are many interpretations and shades of what this concept means, but in a general way, it means if one tries to simply make the occupation more comfortable to live under, as opposed to resisting it, one “normalizes” the occupation. Situation normal… SNAFU.
When we met with Nomika Zion (Other Voices) in Sderot, she told us that in most all of Israeli society, “[T]he occupation is second nature… [This] means you don’t see it anymore.” This is another way of saying that it has become normalized. And she meant this in the most negative sense. She also directly referred to the situation between Sderot and Gaza as “abnormal.” Since the illegal blockade of Gaza, Sderot is one of the Israeli towns close enough to the Gaza border to consistently receive their retaliatory rocket fire. Nomika’s two references to normality were extremely tame compared to other criticisms she had for Israeli action, policy and society. For someone who has lived under the threat of rocket attacks from Gaza to still be so honestly self-critical of her own society’s behavior and policy is brave and illuminating. She is a living lesson.
When Benjamin Netanyahu and countless other politicians and pundits refer to Israel as “the only Democracy in the Middle East,” they are trying to convince the West that we share a similar standard of democratic “normalcy.” And when seen through the prism of other colonial enterprises historically, Israel’s illegal occupation and systematic abuse of International Law can appear, in away, normal. But in another much more profound way, when seen up close and in detail, it’s gruesomely abnormal. They’ve transformed a perverse abnormality into their own, relatively unique, normalcy.
Israel’s normalization of the abnormal is mirrored in the U.S. by the alarming rate of our cops killing our own innocent, unarmed black civilians. The situation in the states is not as bad as in Israel, but the parallels are clear. And this is not to minimize what is happening to black men and women in the U.S. It feels like it’s getting noticeably worse by the week. Reading about another U.S. police officer killing another unarmed black civilian in our newspapers back home is becoming way too normal.
Last March in Haaretz, Anshel Pfeffer wrote this of Israelis’ relationship to their own country: “Deep down, they know normalcy is an illusion.” But it’s not an illusion. It’s a choice. They’re choosing supremacy over normalcy.
So what’s the “normal” bottom line? I see both Israel and the U.S. espousing a desire for creating a normal situation for the Palestinians and Israelis, while actively working against one. Their conception of “normal” for the Palestinians seems unfortunately, and thoroughly, linked to their own control and repression of another people. On the other hand, everything I’ve heard and seen here from the Palestinians themselves during our delegation points to their conception of “normal” as containing true universal and equal human rights. Something much closer to what true democratic (and hopefully still, American) ideals represent. It’s about freedom, equality and justice. Got Normal?
Why is the word “transfer” (in the headline) placed in quotation marks? Apparently, the editor understands that this is not really a transfer. However, in the article, the term transfer is not placed in quotation marks, indicating that indeed the accusation of transfer is being presented as serious. I would suggest that Mondoweiss decide if this is a “transfer” or a transfer.
Anyway, it’s the old “cursed be you if you do, and cursed be you if you don’t”. The annexation of West Bank territory by Israel in June 1967 is regarded to be illegitimate. However, the proposal to place some of this territory under the rule of the Palestinian Authority is also illegitimate (it’s “transfer” / “apartheid”). So, it would be nice if Mondoweiss could decide if it’s okay to have annexed territory in 1967, or if it’s okay to restore it to Palestinian rule. Surely, it’s one or the other. However, if it was bad to have annexed territory, and it is also bad to return the territory – then someone should explain what the rules of the game are. What would be the policy of Israel that would be okay in the judgment of this website?
Transfer is about moving people (expulsion, in simpler terms). All the proposals that one reads in the news are about changing the border (either changing the Green Line, or undoing some of the annexation of 1967). There is nothing wrong with agreeing on a change of borders. It is dishonest to present a proposal for changing borders as if it’s transfer (i.e. the expulsion of residents). The quotation marks in the headline indicate that someone at Mondoweiss understands the manipulation intended here. There’s no reason for manipulation. Just state your opinion that you oppose the changing of borders, period (although, in honesty, that would mean that Mondoweiss agrees that the Green Line and the annexation of the area of around East Jerusalem are legitimate).
Anyway, I would suggest not getting too excited about the various proposals. There is not going to be any changes in the borders, so let’s not get a heart attack. If there will be negotiations, and if there will be an agreement to end the conflict – there probably will be a change of borders. However, there won’t be negotiations, and there certainly won’t be an end-of-conflict deal.
@Nathan
“Anyway, it’s the old “cursed be you if you do, and cursed be you if you don’t”. The annexation of West Bank territory by Israel in June 1967 is regarded to be illegitimate. However, the proposal to place some of this territory under the rule of the Palestinian Authority is also illegitimate (it’s “transfer” / “apartheid”). So, it would be nice if Mondoweiss could decide if it’s okay to have annexed territory in 1967, or if it’s okay to restore it to Palestinian rule. Surely, it’s one or the other. However, if it was bad to have annexed territory, and it is also bad to return the territory – then someone should explain what the rules of the game are. What would be the policy of Israel that would be okay in the judgment of this website?”
The “website” does not “judge”. Contributors submit comments on articles. The articles offer opinions on issues relating to the I/P conflict.
As for your comment above this is convoluted head spinning nonsense and only a trained psychoanalyst could fathom wtf you are desperately trying to say. That is my opinion not my judgement since I am not a psychoanalyst.
I do agree with you that there is not going to be any change in borders. That presupposes that the 2SS is still an option when patently it is now merely an anachronism. Just waiting for Abbas and Co to exit stage left to begin the unravelling of the status quo farce and the overt Apartheid scenario to enter stage right.
Tick tick.
As a two state solution seems out of reach, rather than ‘withdrawing’ from illegally annexed territories. Instead in the context of the one state reality it becomes withdrawing rights privileges or benefits from noncitizens demoting them from the half step of i.d. cards (hawiye) to the nether world of Palestinian documents.
My gast is flabbered. I am listening to Richard Spencer expounding on his white zionism. He wants the US to be not *just* an ethno-state for white Europeans, he wants to expand ‘white privilege’ and he want a ‘right of return’ to any white europeans who want to go to the US. And he doesn’t self describe as a racist.
bbc radio 5. Interview by Stephen Nolan, approx 15mins. If not a specific podcast, then it starts around 1hr 45mins into the show when it’s available online. Nolan’s a very canny interviewer, so worth listening.