The Construction Censure Reflex - Zalman Shoval

by Zalman Shoval

Every time Israel announces a construction plan in one of Jerusalem's neighborhoods beyond the Green Line, we are inundated, almost as a matter of routine, with anguished cries from American and European representatives. For example, the statement issued by U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who said construction plans in Jerusalem do not, allegedly, coincide with Israel's stated goal of the "two-state" solution. Psaki did not bother to explain why building apartments or adding rooms to existing homes in Jewish neighborhoods, which in any possible future diplomatic agreement will be part of Israel anyway -- whether according to agreements between George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon or the "Clinton Parameters" -- conflicts with the "two-state" solution (unless someone believes the planned Palestinian state will stretch into Jewish Jerusalem or at least encircle it in a Arab stranglehold).

These condemnations are not only illogical and contrary to previous understandings, they encourage the Palestinians to maintain their obstinate position regarding any possible future deal. And in light of the current sensitive situation in Jerusalem, they also exacerbate the violence on the ground. A short while after the 1967 Six-Day War, then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan identified the area where the neighborhood of Gilo was to be built. When someone pointed out to him that the land was beyond the Green Line, Dayan looked at the ground and answered: "I don't see any green line here." 

It is not only that Israel does not recognize, in principle or in fact, the line drawn in thick green pencil on the 1949 armistice map demarcating its eastern border, it is that since 1967 it has made the strategic decision to never go back to a situation whereby an enemy can lay siege to Jerusalem from all sides or even sever it from the rest of the country, as almost happened during the War of Independence and could have also happened during the Six-Day War. Israel, through its various governments, made the decision and followed through, and one of the primary means it employed, and continues to employ, is "enveloping" Jerusalem with Jewish neighborhoods and communities in order to break the Palestinian continuity surrounding it. The Palestinians understand this exceedingly well, which is why they object to Israeli construction in these places.

It is strange and upsetting that the Americans, of all people, have taken a position that runs counter to declarations issued by the current president and his predecessors, that they recognize Israel's security needs or, as former President Bill Clinton once said, "We are against the settlements, but not against construction for security purposes." What does this mean then? Givat Hamatos is located in southern Jerusalem, adjacent to Ramat Rachel, and not in the east. This fact becomes evident, incidentally, by simply looking at a map distributed by none other than the Peace Now organization. Abandoning this territory would neglect a large swath of land thrusting into the heart of Jewish Jerusalem. 

Ramat Shlomo in northern Jerusalem is a vital strategic buffer between the Shuafat refugee camp and the neighborhoods of Ramat Eshkol and Sanhedria, and was built, incidentally, on what was a no-man's land, not on land occupied by Jordan prior to 1967.

The Har Homa neighborhood was built on land, 70 percent of which had been owned by Jews since the 1940s. 

These are just some examples, and they join the neighborhoods of Neve Yaakov, East Talpiot, Pisgat Ze'ev and Ramot. A few days ago, World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder sat down for an interview with Israeli journalist Yaakov Ahimeir and criticized Israel's public relations mistakes. Senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office are also in agreement with this criticism. 

While there are more important factors than Israel's external public relations, even when it is done well, there is apparently another reason why we fail to adequately highlight the security aspect of the "Jerusalem envelope." Extreme right-wing circles object, in principle and ideologically, to using the security argument in relation to construction and other initiatives in Judea and Samaria, and in Jerusalem, explaining it is essentially our historical right and does not require pragmatic and even security-related embellishments.

This is a mistake -- and while this historic right doesn't need to be questioned, presenting the fundamental security aspects regarding the various Jerusalem envelope neighborhoods certainly cannot detract from the justness of our position, rather the opposite.

Zalman Shoval

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=10543

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.