Etzion Bloc Expansion: Israeli Overreaching
December 17, 2011
Recently Israel announced the establishment of two new settlement areas just south of the Palestinian city of Bethlehem that may threaten to scuttle the hopes of the world community for a viable two-state solution. As part of a strategic encirclement of Bethlehem, and further by cutting a wedge between Bethlehem and Hebron, they would effectively disrupt the contiguity of the southern West Bank.
The first of these areas, Givat Hadagan, is only a few hundred yards south of the Deheisha refugee camp and the Bethlehem suburb of al-Khadr. It had been an unauthorized settlement, a collection of trailer homes forming the campus of a religious Zionist yeshiva. Now with state approval, some 40 single-family homes are to be built there. The second is a newly designated farm, called Givat Eitam, which is to be established east of Givat Hadagan and just south of the Bethlehem suburb of Irtas.
Both settlements represent expansions of the Etzion Bloc, a settled district east of the 1949 Armistice Line. In the various proposals that have been put forth for the border of the West Bank, the Etzion Bloc is among the areas most often slated for inclusion in Israel through a land swap.
According to a report in Haaretz, the settlements were authorized by the Israeli Defense Forces and approved by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Yet for a government that says it wants a two-state solution, to proceed with this action calls into serious question its choices, as to whether such a change to the facts on the ground can in fact provide for a two-state solution that is viable. This action may be perceived as Israeli capitulation to extreme rightist elements whose purpose is to make a Palestinian state untenable.
Recently Israel announced the establishment of two new settlement areas just south of the Palestinian city of Bethlehem that may threaten to scuttle the hopes of the world community for a viable two-state solution. As part of a strategic encirclement of Bethlehem, and further by cutting a wedge between Bethlehem and Hebron, they would effectively disrupt the contiguity of the southern West Bank.
The first of these areas, Givat Hadagan, is only a few hundred yards south of the Deheisha refugee camp and the Bethlehem suburb of al-Khadr. It had been an unauthorized settlement, a collection of trailer homes forming the campus of a religious Zionist yeshiva. Now with state approval, some 40 single-family homes are to be built there. The second is a newly designated farm, called Givat Eitam, which is to be established east of Givat Hadagan and just south of the Bethlehem suburb of Irtas.
Both settlements represent expansions of the Etzion Bloc, a settled district east of the 1949 Armistice Line. In the various proposals that have been put forth for the border of the West Bank, the Etzion Bloc is among the areas most often slated for inclusion in Israel through a land swap.
According to a report in Haaretz, the settlements were authorized by the Israeli Defense Forces and approved by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Yet for a government that says it wants a two-state solution, to proceed with this action calls into serious question its choices, as to whether such a change to the facts on the ground can in fact provide for a two-state solution that is viable. This action may be perceived as Israeli capitulation to extreme rightist elements whose purpose is to make a Palestinian state untenable.
Citizens Proposal Border, Route 60, and the New Settlements
Further Fragmentation of the West Bank and the Problem with Ill-advised Expansion
To fully grasp the problem of these settlements, one must look at the Etzion Bloc and its geographical relationship to the rest of the West Bank. The Etzion Bloc with its eleven Jewish communities occupies land southwest of Bethlehem, from Beitar Ilit to Efrat and south as far as Migdal Oz. While it is heavily settled with Jews and boasts a history of Jewish presence prior to 1948, this area will be of concern to Palestinians because it straddles Route 60, the main north–south trunk road connecting the Palestinian cities of Bethlehem and Hebron.
Contiguity in the West Bank requires that Route 60 be open to Palestinian traffic. Unless this artery is preserved, Palestinians living in Hebron and surrounding communities who wish to travel north to Bethlehem will be forced to take a roundabout route through the hills to the east.
Therefore, if the Etzion Bloc becomes part of Israel, another road within Palestine should be built to replace it. A ready solution to preserve Palestinian access and contiguity would be to build a bypass road just east of Efrat. It would intersect Route 60 just south of Bethlehem at al-Khadr, and rejoin Route 60 at Mu’askar al-‘Arub, below the southernmost point of the Etzion Bloc at Migdal Oz. Palestinians could then use the bypass road to travel between Bethlehem to Hebron without entering any agreed upon Israeli territory.
However, these new settlements will effectively eliminate that option by blocking what would have been the route of the bypass road and thus cutting off Palestinian access to Route 60 south of Bethlehem. They change the character of the Etzion Bloc from a relatively uncontroversial slice of territory near the 1949 lines to a contentious and intrusive wedge extending deep into the West Bank. The good people of the Etzion Bloc should not be drawn into such contention by this ill-advised expansion.
The issue of contiguity raised by these settlements is not unique to the Etzion bloc. In the north, the proliferation of settlements has created similar wedges of Israeli land protruding deep into the West Bank: a line of settlements extending west to east along Route 5 from Elkanah to Ariel, and another from Alfe Menashe to Immanuel. These fingers of land, if allowed to stand in a final agreement, would likewise be incompatible with the contiguity of a future Palestine.
Consider also the effect of these settlements on Bethlehem, an important Palestinian city. Urban areas need room to expand through the natural growth of their suburbs. Yet Bethlehem is constrained to the north by Jerusalem and its suburbs of Gilo and Har Homa and to the west by the settlement of Har Gilo. Now the Jewish salient created by these new settlements will obstruct Bethlehem’s expansion to the south.
Leadership by the International Community
The United States, as part of the Quartet, has laid out a road map for Israel and Palestine to arrive at a durable peace. It requires that the Palestinians be given a viable state, and a viable state is characterized by territorial contiguity. President George W. Bush spoke of this principle at a joint press conference with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on May 26, 2005:
|
A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and
a state of scattered territories will not work... This is the position
of the United States today; it will be the position of the United States
at the time of final status negotiations.
|
Regardless of any Israeli affirmation of this principle, it seems
clear that, with its authorization of these new settlements, Israel is
at the very least complicit in purposeful works to reduce the territory
of a future Palestine to “a state of scattered territories,” as natural
access routes may be severed by wedges of Israeli land.
No durable peace is possible in a state without contiguity. If the Palestinians were to accept an agreement that offers them a state where their basic needs for access and living space will go unmet, in times to come, seething resentment and a smoldering sense of injustice could become a cause for reigniting the conflict.
Therefore, it is time for the United States to reassert the principles of the road map and for the Quartet to exercise more muscular persuasion. The international community needs to remind the Israelis of what is in their long-term security interests, which is to live at peace with their Palestinian counterparts as good neighbors.
Israel’s continued recalcitrance comes from pandering to the settler movement and its self-absorbed drive to expand Jewish control of the West Bank at the expense of the Palestinians. The settler movement, in this act, does not “wish” to live in good neighborly relations or even to regard Palestinians as human beings equal to themselves. Instead, they treat them with the disdain comparable to how 19th-century colonial powers treated indigenous peoples. Yet all over the world, history shows that such mistreatment leads only to rivers of blood.
Preventing such a tragic outcome would require the Israeli Defense Forces to put the welfare of the nation first and stand up against the settler movement. On December 13 a mob of settlers attacked a West Bank military base, throwing rocks, burning tires, and vandalizing military vehicles; one officer was wounded. The next day, a prominent settler activist called on IDF soldiers to sabotage army equipment. Meanwhile, “price tag” attacks have continued to vandalize mosques and Arab property, not only on the West Bank but also within Israel. Yet despite tough words by Prime Minister Netanyahu branding these settlers as “terrorists,” typically they are not arrested, or, if they are, they get no more than a slap on the wrist. How can Israel continue to pander to the settler movement by approving additional settlements after seeing settlers attack the much respected IDF and deface property within its own borders??
We appeal to the conscience of Israel and Judaism, reminding Israelis of the Golden Rule as stated long ago by Rabbi Hillel: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah” (Shab. 31a). Peace and security for Israel should be based on the principles of justice and mercy, not lawlessness and disregard for the well-being of its Arab neighbors. These contentious settlements foster hate; they do not support peace.
No durable peace is possible in a state without contiguity. If the Palestinians were to accept an agreement that offers them a state where their basic needs for access and living space will go unmet, in times to come, seething resentment and a smoldering sense of injustice could become a cause for reigniting the conflict.
Therefore, it is time for the United States to reassert the principles of the road map and for the Quartet to exercise more muscular persuasion. The international community needs to remind the Israelis of what is in their long-term security interests, which is to live at peace with their Palestinian counterparts as good neighbors.
Israel’s continued recalcitrance comes from pandering to the settler movement and its self-absorbed drive to expand Jewish control of the West Bank at the expense of the Palestinians. The settler movement, in this act, does not “wish” to live in good neighborly relations or even to regard Palestinians as human beings equal to themselves. Instead, they treat them with the disdain comparable to how 19th-century colonial powers treated indigenous peoples. Yet all over the world, history shows that such mistreatment leads only to rivers of blood.
Preventing such a tragic outcome would require the Israeli Defense Forces to put the welfare of the nation first and stand up against the settler movement. On December 13 a mob of settlers attacked a West Bank military base, throwing rocks, burning tires, and vandalizing military vehicles; one officer was wounded. The next day, a prominent settler activist called on IDF soldiers to sabotage army equipment. Meanwhile, “price tag” attacks have continued to vandalize mosques and Arab property, not only on the West Bank but also within Israel. Yet despite tough words by Prime Minister Netanyahu branding these settlers as “terrorists,” typically they are not arrested, or, if they are, they get no more than a slap on the wrist. How can Israel continue to pander to the settler movement by approving additional settlements after seeing settlers attack the much respected IDF and deface property within its own borders??
We appeal to the conscience of Israel and Judaism, reminding Israelis of the Golden Rule as stated long ago by Rabbi Hillel: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah” (Shab. 31a). Peace and security for Israel should be based on the principles of justice and mercy, not lawlessness and disregard for the well-being of its Arab neighbors. These contentious settlements foster hate; they do not support peace.
