Giv’at Hamatos
August 12, 2011, revised October 16, 2011
Since the beginning of August, the media have reported several Israeli proposals for new housing construction in disputed areas of Jerusalem. An August 8 press report of 4,300 new housing units lists slated for development in “occupied East Jerusalem” [1] was quickly followed by news of planned construction at Har Homa, Gilo, Ramat Shlomo, and Pisgat Ze’ev. If the Citizens Proposal is any guide, some of these construction projects are likely to fall within Israeli territory as part of a mutually agreed settlement, but not necessarily all of them. Only a mutually agreed upon border between Israel and Palestine will still the voices of protest over new construction projects, because then both sides will know clearly on which side of the border they sit.
In a dramatic development, Israel announced on October 14 that the planning process for 2,160 new housing units in Giv’at HaMatos has been completed. The significance of this obstacle to arriving at a negotiated settlement deserves serious attention by the diplomatic community. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has condemned the proposal as “unacceptable,” EU spokesperson Catherine Ashton contends that “these initiatives run contrary to the current EU and Quartet efforts to bring about the resumption of peace negotiations,” and chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat announced that “Israel’s plan to build 2,610 housing units… between Bethlehem and Jerusalem makes a mockery of efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace.” [2] We agree. Such unilateral moves are counter-productive and only delay the resumption of serious talks to settle on a border.
Since the beginning of August, the media have reported several Israeli proposals for new housing construction in disputed areas of Jerusalem. An August 8 press report of 4,300 new housing units lists slated for development in “occupied East Jerusalem” [1] was quickly followed by news of planned construction at Har Homa, Gilo, Ramat Shlomo, and Pisgat Ze’ev. If the Citizens Proposal is any guide, some of these construction projects are likely to fall within Israeli territory as part of a mutually agreed settlement, but not necessarily all of them. Only a mutually agreed upon border between Israel and Palestine will still the voices of protest over new construction projects, because then both sides will know clearly on which side of the border they sit.
In a dramatic development, Israel announced on October 14 that the planning process for 2,160 new housing units in Giv’at HaMatos has been completed. The significance of this obstacle to arriving at a negotiated settlement deserves serious attention by the diplomatic community. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has condemned the proposal as “unacceptable,” EU spokesperson Catherine Ashton contends that “these initiatives run contrary to the current EU and Quartet efforts to bring about the resumption of peace negotiations,” and chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat announced that “Israel’s plan to build 2,610 housing units… between Bethlehem and Jerusalem makes a mockery of efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace.” [2] We agree. Such unilateral moves are counter-productive and only delay the resumption of serious talks to settle on a border.
|
Although it is only a few hundred meters from West Jerusalem, Gilo, and Har Homa, the salient geographic fact about Giv’at HaMatos is that it its construction would directly obstruct the entrance to the Palestinian town of Beit Safafa, completely isolating it. Geographically speaking Beit Safafa is a suburb of Bethlehem, but the construction of Giv’at HaMatos would strangle its relationship with its urban hub, as well as with neighboring Beit Jala. This plan hems in Beit Safafa on every side, making it a near-island surrounded by Gilo to the south and west, Jerusalem to the north, and with its eastern perimeter blocked by Giv’at HaMatos. There are few proposed settlements that would be such a direct affront to an adjacent Palestinian community as Giv’at HaMatos would be to Beit Safafa.
|
Currently, Giv’at HaMatos is largely vacant land. In the 1980s it was the site of a trailer park, containing temporary homes for Ethiopian refugees. The trailers are largely gone, leaving behind a hardscrabble hill. It is permitted for construction, but significant construction has not yet begun. This means that placing Giv’at HaMatos within Palestine will not displace an appreciable number of Israelis. The border in the Citizens Proposal is drawn to place Beit Safafa under Palestinian sovereignty. We envision that a Palestinian Giv’at HaMatos will provide room for Beit Safafa’s natural growth and give that community broad access to its urban hub in Bethlehem.
The Israeli developers who plan to build these housing units in Giv’at HaMatos may have gone to considerable expense to gain legal title to the land, divide it into parcels, and obtain the necessary construction permits; in some cases they may have purchased land from former Palestinian owners. A negotiated agreement could include a fund to reimburse private interests for loss of such lands. There will no doubt be many similar claims made by Palestinians for loss of their private land that is allocated to Israel, and they too will deserve compensation from such a fund.
This proposed housing is within the area that the Citizens Proposal has designated the “women’s border.” The women’s border should be a place where, by the efforts of women peace-builders, Palestinians and Israelis find consensus through discussion and by forming bonds of love and mutual respect. We have been informed by Israeli women that there is already a considerable reservoir of goodwill between the inhabitants of Beit Safafa and nearby Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Pat. However, this goodwill is likely to evaporate if Giv’at HaMatos is built up as an Israeli settlement and Beit Safafa finds itself surrounded on all sides. For the people of Beit Safafa, it would no doubt create anger and animosity towards Israel that would last for a long time to come, even after the peace agreement is signed.
This thorn in the lives of the people of East Jerusalem, especially of Beit Safafa, could become a permanent irritant and point of frustration. Considering the importance of ties between Jerusalem and Bethlehem and the large volume of travel between them, including Christian tourists who wish to visit the holy sites in both cities, creating this irritant to the people who live along that border is surely counterproductive. It will become a cause for greater confrontation and even increase the potential for violence for decades to come.
The residents of Beit Safafa should feel empowered to work out their relationship with Jerusalem without coercion. There is even the possibility that the people of Beit Safafa, if they are polled as to whether they wish to be part of Israel or Palestine, might choose to remain in Israel.
Given these “facts on the ground,” the Palestinians who deserve the right to be a party in adjudicating the future of Beit Safafa also need to be a party to negotiating the future of Giv’at HaMatos. The future of this parcel of land, more than any other settlement in the Jerusalem area, needs to be determined by negotiations. Israel’s unilateral action, therefore, deserves to be vigorously opposed by the international community. We hope that no Israeli will move into Giv’at HaMatos until its future is negotiated as part of an agreed settlement.
The Israeli developers who plan to build these housing units in Giv’at HaMatos may have gone to considerable expense to gain legal title to the land, divide it into parcels, and obtain the necessary construction permits; in some cases they may have purchased land from former Palestinian owners. A negotiated agreement could include a fund to reimburse private interests for loss of such lands. There will no doubt be many similar claims made by Palestinians for loss of their private land that is allocated to Israel, and they too will deserve compensation from such a fund.
This proposed housing is within the area that the Citizens Proposal has designated the “women’s border.” The women’s border should be a place where, by the efforts of women peace-builders, Palestinians and Israelis find consensus through discussion and by forming bonds of love and mutual respect. We have been informed by Israeli women that there is already a considerable reservoir of goodwill between the inhabitants of Beit Safafa and nearby Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Pat. However, this goodwill is likely to evaporate if Giv’at HaMatos is built up as an Israeli settlement and Beit Safafa finds itself surrounded on all sides. For the people of Beit Safafa, it would no doubt create anger and animosity towards Israel that would last for a long time to come, even after the peace agreement is signed.
This thorn in the lives of the people of East Jerusalem, especially of Beit Safafa, could become a permanent irritant and point of frustration. Considering the importance of ties between Jerusalem and Bethlehem and the large volume of travel between them, including Christian tourists who wish to visit the holy sites in both cities, creating this irritant to the people who live along that border is surely counterproductive. It will become a cause for greater confrontation and even increase the potential for violence for decades to come.
The residents of Beit Safafa should feel empowered to work out their relationship with Jerusalem without coercion. There is even the possibility that the people of Beit Safafa, if they are polled as to whether they wish to be part of Israel or Palestine, might choose to remain in Israel.
Given these “facts on the ground,” the Palestinians who deserve the right to be a party in adjudicating the future of Beit Safafa also need to be a party to negotiating the future of Giv’at HaMatos. The future of this parcel of land, more than any other settlement in the Jerusalem area, needs to be determined by negotiations. Israel’s unilateral action, therefore, deserves to be vigorously opposed by the international community. We hope that no Israeli will move into Giv’at HaMatos until its future is negotiated as part of an agreed settlement.
[1] “Israel's new settlement plans irk US and EU,” Al-Jazeera, August 8, 2011,
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ middleeast/2011/08/2011811145657455249.html
[2] Jerusalem Post. Ashton: New J’Lem Construction Hinders EU Peace Efforts. October 17, 2011. http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=241984
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ middleeast/2011/08/2011811145657455249.html
[2] Jerusalem Post. Ashton: New J’Lem Construction Hinders EU Peace Efforts. October 17, 2011. http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=241984
