In the Middle East hardly anything is what it seems, and never more so than in the case of the Israeli premier’s seeming new willingness to work toward a Palestinian state in the face of vehement opposition from Jewish extremists.
A newly released report suggests Palestinians have already outnumbered Jews in the area and so with the demographic bomb already upon him, Ariel Sharon has been forced to cast aside his long held ideology so as to keep the Jewish state...well... Jewish.
Israeli religious right-wingers, blinkered as to the over-riding big picture, are on the warpath due to Sharon’s stated intention of dismantling Jewish settlements in Gaza and in the northern West Bank, and have made threats against the life of not only Sharon but also the members of his Cabinet.
Only one third of the illegal colonists, targeted for either voluntary or forcible removal, have agreed to accept the generous relocation package on offer. Many among the remaining two-thirds warn they are ready to take on the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) next July in hand-to-hand combat; others threaten to commit suicide.
During a video broadcast on Israeli television last Wednesday, fanatical rabbis, representing some 30 opposition groups, threatened to storm Islam’s third holiest shrine — the golden-domed Al-Aqsa — with over 1,000,000 of their followers.
For months Israeli intelligence has warned that Al-Aqsa could be vulnerable to missile attacks or bombs. A prominent imam has described the situation as “a ticking bomb”. He is right. It is generally believed that Sharon’s controversial visit to the site in September 2000, accompanied by hundreds of armed men, was the trigger, which unleashed the second intifadah.
But while Jewish extremists accuse Sharon of frittering away lands they consider holy, in the light of recent realities, Palestinians wonder whether Sharon isn’t giving with the one hand while taking away with the other, and question his motives toward Jerusalem.
Such doubts were prompted by the recent announcement concerning the final route of Israel’s apartheid wall it loves to call “a separation fence”. This not only snakes around East Jerusalem, the intended capital of Palestine, but also takes in the largest Jewish West Bank settlement Maale Adumim, as well as huge swathes of Palestinian land, including one of Bethlehem’s most revered sites.
The Israelis say “the fence” is a temporary structure designed to keep out “the terror” and suggest it may be removed when final-status peace talks reach fruition. Palestinians remain doubtful. A recent report suggesting Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has signed off on the proposed construction of 3,500 new Jewish homes between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim adds fuel to such skepticism.
A report last Sunday in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz reveals major illegal construction around Maale Adumim and other large settlements has been underway since mid-2004 but only came to public notice when aerial photographs, commissioned by the Israeli Defense Ministry, were published.
The above revelations run contrary to the “land for peace” principle, to which successive Israeli governments have committed, and also the newly revived “road map”.
A further blow to Palestinian ambitions and rights vis-à-vis East Jerusalem is being dealt by one of the biggest Jerusalem landowners — the Greek Orthodox Church — who is accused of secretly selling Jerusalem property to agenda-led Jewish organizations so as to bolster the Jewish presence in the city. The leak has led to demonstrations and calls for the ousting of Patriarch Eireneos, described by some as “a collaborator”. The church says it is investigating.
So, just how viable will any future Palestinian state be if the vision of Jerusalem as its capital cannot be fulfilled? The future of East Jerusalem has long been a sticking point during peace negotiations. It is overwhelmingly Palestinian to this day and represents much more than expensive real estate not only to the average Palestinian but also to most Arabs and Muslims throughout the world.
Palestinians see themselves as the guardians of this historic and religious heartland.
Even if Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could see his way clear to compromise over the right of return or is tempted to concede traditional Palestinian territories, it is doubtful he could sell his people a state without Jerusalem at its core.
In this case, the Jerusalem issue should be brought to the fore of any future discussions and not left until last as it invariably has been in the past. And given the sensitivity and emotiveness of both sides over this issue, the international community must do everything it can to ensure equity and justice.
During a recent interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Abbas displayed his famous pragmatic spirit when he announced: “We don’t want to divide Jerusalem. We could even imagine there being a joint city administration.” If the Israelis were to take a similar stance, there is little doubt a solution could be worked through.
Now that the stage is set for peace in the region as never before with Arab leaders, led by Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdallah, taking a lead role, and militant Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, willing to engage in the legitimate political process, it would be a tragedy if the road to peace were to be hijacked by Jewish extremists.
The ball is in Sharon’s hands as never before. How hard will he be prepared to crack the whip on dissenters from his disengagement policy?
How eager will he be to embrace the olive branch being held out to him by the Palestinian leadership, militant groups and the Arab world in general? Does he still wish for the disappearance of over four million Palestinians into the ether, or is he ready to accept them as good neighbors?
If Jerusalem is the key, then all must pray he finally turns the lock no matter the obstacles including “the terror” on his own side of the wall.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs and welcomes feedback.
