On the
face of it, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert talked a good line about peace and fighting terror in his election campaign and in
his trip to the United States. Olmert's government supposedly represents peace loving and pragmatic Israel. He is
willing to give up a large part of the West Bank in order to obtain security in his unilateral convergence (or
realignment) plan. He is also willing to talk peace with Palestinian partners, if any such can be found, says Olmert.
Actions, however, speak louder than words. The
new settlement of
Maskiot tells us that that Olmert's governments may not be the government a lot of Israelis thought they had voted
for, and Olmert's policies may not be precisely what he sold to the Americans. Maskiot is probably the first new
settlement to be created outside Jerusalem, with full government approval, since the Oslo peace process began. Its
establishment violates two undertakings to the United states: Not to establish new settlements and not to settle settle
evacuees from Gaza in them. True, the
settlement existed as an
army base, and Israel may claim it is only "firming up" an existing settlement. However, that is clearly not the
case.
The new settlement should not really be a surprise to those who have been following Israeli moves and
Olmert's utterances. IN February, while he was still campaigning, he was quoted as saying that Israel would retain
control of the Jordan Valley. Some have chosen to interpret this as meaning that Israel would annex the Jordan Valley,
others believe that Olmert only intends to control the routes leading to the Jordan valley. At the same time, there were
alarming reports that Israel had tightened up
checkpoint entries to the Jordan Valley, refusing entry to Palestinian Arabs who did not live there. Betselem, with
its usual penchant for exaggeration, announced in February that
Israel had
"annexed" the Jordan Valley de facto.
The new settlement was approved by supposedly dovish Defense Minister Amir Peretz. Apparently those
who voted for him didn't get what they voted for, any more than Olmert's voters did. The Labor party in general seems to
acquiesce in the move. Like Olmert, they have always believed the Jordan Valley (actually a mountainous area - the back
of the mountain range) is essential for defense of Israel against the "Eastern Threat." This enlightened strategic
conception was formed about 1948 in connection with the invasion by the Transjordan Legion and Iraqi forces at the time.
It is absurd to think that the generals in the Labor-Kadima strategic brain trust have determined that if one million
Islamist fanatics of the Iranian Pasdaran come pouring over the border, having somehow gotten across all of Iraq
and Jordan, they will be stopped by the thirty families of Maskiot, or that this settlement will somehow be of value in
detecting and stopping nuclear ICBMs aimed at Israel.
It is absurd, but we have to believe it is so. Someone bigger and smarter must know more than we do.
Otherwise, does it make sense to start a new settlement in view of the announced "consolidation" or "realignment" plan?
After investing so much energy in advertising the convergence plan, and putting so much effort into convincing people
that Israel is willing to be reasonable about territorial concessions and to make room for a viable Palestinian state,
does it make any sense to do the opposite? To risk Israel's relations with the US in order to put one settlement of
thirty families on the map? To settle a broad swath of the West Bank, about 20% of the area, and insist that Israel is
not giving it up? Since there are so few Palestinians settled in the Jordan Valley, perhaps the Israeli government
thinks it can gain a decisive majority by putting a few thousand more settlers there. Then the government might announce
that the Jordan valley is a settlement bloc where demographic realities prevent evacuation, like Ariel or the Efrat
area. Can Israeli leaders think they can set the borders of Israel so far to the east that virtually nothing at all is
left of the Palestinian state? Will the UN, the US, the EU, the Arab states simply accept the "facts on the ground?"
Perhaps the Palestinians can never make make peace and perhaps they will never be able to set up a state. But Ehud
Olmert promised in good faith to at least let them try, and to give negotiations a chance. How does the Maskiot
settlement and the closing off of the Jordan Valley fit in with that program? It doesn't of course. It is the wrong
thing to do at the wrong time, if Israel has any real intentions of making peace with the Palestinians.
Curiously, Palestinians and pro-Palestinian groups who are so obsessed with the Security Fence and
with the settlement of Maaleh Edumim, don't seem to care at all about the Jordan Valley. Saeeb Erekat is perhaps the
only Palestinian to raise the matter. The Americans and the EU are mostly silent, and so are the Arab states.
On the other hand, perhaps none of it makes sense. Perhaps the drive to settle is an irrational
compulsion that afflicts the Israeli government, just as some people may be afflicted by compulsive exhibitionism or
kleptomania. Put the Israeli government in Antarctica or on the Moon, and they will start making plans to settle it.
Their friends are embarrassed and ignore the aberration.
What is strange, is that in Israeli society, mentioning the problem of Maskiot seems to bring evoke
an embarrassed silence, or insistence that "it is not relevant." How could it NOT be relevant? In Israeli Jewish society
there are items of national consensus that are so universally accepted-and understood to be unmentionable - that
they are not discussed, like sex in Victorian society. The ruins of Arab villages along the roads are not a subject for
discussion. The "textile plant" near Dimona that makes nuclear weapons as for many years a taboo issue. Maskiot and the
Jordan valley is another such issue it seems.
In any case, when you try to understand the puzzle of Israeli and Palestinian policies, don't ignore
the Jordan Valley piece of the jigsaw. It is a very big piece that almost nobody is talking about.
Ami Isseroff
what's on
PeaceWatch
