Tourists Now in Their Land of Birth

Analysis by Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler

HEBRON, Occupied West Bank, Jul 23, 2010 (IPS) - Beyond the pernicious well-documented aspects of the Israeli Occupation, all sorts of niggling fragments of Israeli control over Palestinian life, and individual petty cases of nastiness leave new Israeli talk of "gestures" towards peace hollow.

No more confidence-building measures, no more easing up on the Palestinians until they demonstrate to us that they are genuine about peace, is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strident position.

But when is a gesture a genuine confidence-building measure? And when does Israeli talk of "gestures" in fact mask blatant Israeli insensitivity, total lack of responsibility of occupier vis-à-vis occupied?

In Israel's lexicon of the Occupation, its cloak of "gestures" is generally presented from under an all-encompassing umbrella -- "Israel's security needs". These often have more to do with serving Israel's own interests as the power in place, or of the interests of its settlers.

Gestures have little to do with easing the plight of the Palestinians. And, usually have zero effect on easing the occupation.

In the occupied town of Hebron, the Israeli army recently sealed up the windows of several Palestinian homes. The openly declared purpose was to protect the settlers against would-be Palestinian sharpshooters.
The precautionary measure was taken to enable the settlers to take a shorter route by foot to the Cave of the Patriarchs or the Al-Khalili Mosque, a site holy to both Jews and Muslims.

In a mirror image to the "convenience" of the settlers, the army is also making it more difficult for the Palestinians to gain access to their homes.

"The army stands to attention to serve the settlers, and the government stands behind the military," says historian Zeev Sternhell, a prominent voice opposing the Occupation.

Were the Netanyahu government to instruct the military governor in Hebron to remove the bricked-up windows that the army itself had just put in place, would the prime minister call that a 'gesture'?

Or, take the case of Dr. Imad Hamada, 43, a Palestinian expert in nanotechnology, born in occupied East Jerusalem. His family traces its origins in the city several generations back.

Between 1989 and 2007, Dr. Hamada studied electrical engineering in the U.S. and then worked in Silicon Valley to pay for his studies and to gain experience.

While there, he and his family were granted U.S. citizenship. They frequently came back on family visits to Jerusalem.

Recently, Hamada was offered employment in Israel, both by an Israeli company and by a U.S. company with a branch in Israel.

Both companies have since changed their minds. The reason: Israel's Interior Ministry informed Dr. Hamada that he was no longer eligible to live in Jerusalem. Officially, he is now designated "a tourist" in the place of his birth.

The Hamadas are battling this Kafkaesque limbo in Israeli courts.

Would a move by the Netanyahu government to revoke this long-standing artificial policy created by Israel itself, and allow thousands of Palestinians to reclaim their right to work and live permanently in the city, be considered a 'gesture'?

In the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood in East Jerusalem several Palestinian families have been forcibly moved out from homes in which they've lived for decades. Rights to the properties were acquired in disputed circumstances by Jewish settler organisations.

Now, the settler groups are indicating that building expansion will start soon to increase the number of Jewish families in the disputed buildings. The U.S. has made plain that such actions are not conducive to peace.

Were Netanyahu to block such building activities in the heart of Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, so as to carry favour with Washington, would that be considered a 'gesture'?

In the Jordan valley, part of the occupied West Bank, the Israeli authorities are carrying out the quiet transfer of dozens of Palestinian farmers and their families.

Representatives of the Israeli women's group Machsom (Checkpoint) Watch report that on Jul. 1, "fifteen families were expelled from their encampments after 16 other families had already been handed evacuation orders during previous weeks."

According to Israeli human rights activists, the Israeli military has declared large tracts of private land in the area "firing zones".

The Palestinians residents have been expelled under what Machsom Watch calls "the false and self-righteous guise of concern for their welfare, lest they be harmed by the military exercises."

Notably, however, these new declared "firing zones" are to be found solely on Palestinian land, never on land that has been allocated to Israeli settlers in the area.

Would suspension of this policy of dispossessing Palestinian farmers also be claimed as 'a gesture'?

According to Gideon Levy in his weekly column Twilight Zone in Haaretz, the purpose is more nefarious: "Methodically, for years, Israel has been trying to remove Palestinians from the area Netanyahu insists must remain an Israeli 'security zone', even in the context of any peace accord."

In fact, last week on Israeli television, Prime Minister Netanyahu went so far as to say that he would soon proclaim "the entire Jordan Valley a designated military site."

Writes Levy: "In a week when the prime minister was making more promises about a 'package of gestures' to the Palestinians, this is how he's hoodwinking the U.S. Remote from the public eye, a Jordan Valley cleansed now of Palestinians will one day be more easily annexed to Israel." (END)

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian