The U.S. administration has issued a stiff warning to Israel not to build in the area known as E-1, which lies between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim. Any change in the status quo in E-1 would be “extremely damaging,” even “corrosive,” the message said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed in the past to finally build the controversial E-1 housing project – as have several premiers before him, though none has done so due to American pressure. He opened his recent election campaign with a visit to Ma’aleh Adumim in which he declared: “I will link Jerusalem to Ma’aleh Adumim via the Mevasseret Adumim neighborhood, E-1. I want to see one continuous string of built-up Jewish neighborhoods.”
He has also warned in the past that failure to build in E-1 would allow the Palestinians to create territorial contiguity around Jerusalem.
Just before his government was installed this spring, the media reported that Netanyahu had reached an agreement with his largest coalition partner, Yisrael Beiteinu, to unfreeze construction in E-1. However, that clause was ultimately not included in the coalition agreement.
The plans for E-1 call for building 3,500 housing units, along with commercial areas and tourism sites, to create a single urban expanse stretching from Jerusalem to Ma’aleh Adumim and strengthen Israel’s hold on East Jerusalem, which would then be completely surrounded by Jewish neighborhoods.
The United States has always vehemently opposed this plan, fearing it would deprive a future Palestinian state of territorial contiguity, cut the West Bank in two and sever East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank – all of which would thwart any hope of signing a final-status agreement and establishing a Palestinian state.
President Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, vigorously opposed building in E-1 during the terms of prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. Sharon did approve construction of a police station in E-1, and under Olmert, infrastructure work in the area continued. But neither ever approved construction of either the residential units or the commercial buildings, for fear of a confrontation with the United States.
Four years ago, after resigning from Sharon’s government, Netanyahu attacked him for giving in to American pressure on E-1. “A sovereign government must build in its eternal capital,” he said. “Sharon set a precedent that will lead to the division of Jerusalem.”
The Obama’s administration – which opposes all construction in East Jerusalem, even of a few houses – would be even more outraged by a large-scale project such as E-1.
It is demanding a moratorium on Jewish building in East Jerusalem until an agreement is reached on the city’s legal status, arguing that the cumulative effect of even small-scale projects would destroy any chance of a peace agreement and arouse fierce opposition in the Arab world, especially among East Jerusalem Arabs. Small projects include the construction of 20 apartments in the Shepherd Hotel in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood or plans to build new Jewish housing in Silwan.
At Sunday’s cabinet meeting, however, Netanyahu rejected this American stance. “United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Our sovereignty in it is not subject to appeal, and among other things, this means that Jerusalem residents can buy apartments anywhere in the city,” he said. “We cannot accept the idea that Jews should not have the right to live and buy anywhere in Jerusalem.”
Next week, three senior American officials will visit Israel: special envoy George Mitchell, National Security Advisor James Jones and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Mitchell will continue his efforts to reach agreement on a settlement freeze, including in East Jerusalem, while the other two will focus on the Iranian threat.
The United States views East Jerusalem as no different than an illegal West Bank outpost with regard to its demand for a freeze on settlement construction, American sources have informed both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
This clarification came in the context of a growing crisis in U.S.-Israel relations over the planned construction of some 20 apartments for Jews in the Shepherd Hotel, in East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. The U.S. has demanded that the project be halted, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the cabinet meeting Sunday that “Israel will not agree to edicts of this kind in East Jerusalem.”
“United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel, and our sovereignty over the city is not subject to appeal,” he continued. “Our policy is that Jerusalem residents can purchase apartments anywhere in the city. This has been the policy of all Israeli governments. There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city’s east. This is the policy of an open city.”
Saying that Israel could not accept Jews being forbidden to live in anywhere in Jerusalem, Netanyahu added: “I can imagine what would happen if someone proposed that Jews could not live or buy in certain neighborhoods of London, New York, Paris or Rome. A huge international outcry would surely ensue. It is even more impossible to agree to such an edict in East Jerusalem.”
Asked to comment on these remarks, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was in New Delhi, said the administration is trying to reach an agreement with Israel on settlements, and “the negotiations are intense,” the Associated Press reported.
Later Sunday, Netanyahu met with his advisors to discuss Israel’s response to Washington’s demand.
“I was surprised by the American demand,” a source present at the meeting quoted him as saying. “In my conversation with [U.S. President Barack] Obama in Washington, I told him I could not accept any restrictions on our sovereignty in Jerusalem. I told him Jerusalem is not a settlement, and there is nothing to discuss about a freeze there.”
“In my previous term [as premier], I built thousands of apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem, defying the entire world,” Netanyahu added. “Therefore, it is clear that I will not capitulate in this case – especially when we are talking about a mere 20 apartments.”
Other ministers also criticized the American stance at the cabinet meeting. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, for instance, termed it “puzzling,” while Interior Minister and Shas Chairman Eli Yishai declared that “no agency in the world can stop construction in Jerusalem.”
And Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin told the ministers that the PA and its security services are engaged in widespread efforts to keep Palestinians from selling land in Jerusalem to Jews. He also said that Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi of Qatar has allocated $21 million to Hamas activists to buy buildings and establish infrastructure in Jerusalem.
Washington’s objections to the Shepherd Hotel project were first voiced by senior State Department officials at a meeting with Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren last Thursday, in response to a request by PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The officials complained that the construction would change the neighborhood’s demographic balance and harm its Palestinian residents.
Oren responded that the land in question was privately owned, having been purchased in 1985 by American Jewish tycoon Irving Moskowitz, and the project has received all the necessary permits from the Jerusalem municipality.
Also Sunday, Abbas’ bureau chief, Rafiq Husseini, said he hoped the U.S. would not back down on its demand for a complete settlement freeze, including in East Jerusalem.
In an interview with the Nazareth-based radio station A-Shams, Husseini said, “from our standpoint, there is no room for a compromise [on this issue], and we expect the American administration to stick to the determined stance that envoy [George] Mitchell expressed as far back as 2001. Any compromise that enables continued construction … will do nothing whatsoever to advance the diplomatic process.”
Mairav Zonszein, Antony Loewenstein & Joseph Dana | Mondoweiss
18 July 2009
The occupation can seem predictably mundane from a distance. To most Israelis the settlement project is seen as a problem, but a problem happening “over there” and utterly removed from their lives. Rampaging settlers are viewed occasionally on television. Violent Palestinians are seen to resist for no apparent reason. The international community and Barack Obama are protesting the illegal outposts and ongoing colonial project in the West Bank with polls suggesting that many Israelis are opposed to this apparently unfair pressure.
They should spend a day in the West Bank.
For the last three months, Israeli Ta’ayush activists have been accompanying Palestinian farmers from Safa to their lands just below the settlement of Bat Ayin. Since a child from the settlement was murdered in April, settlers have been consistently attacking Palestinians when they attempt to work in their fields, as well as burning the fields themselves – all under the nose of the IDF, which has done nothing to prevent the crimes or punish them.
The scenes from Safa in this period have been grim. If it is not the settlers aggressively driving out the local farmers, it is the army, which acts in complete disregard of Israeli Supreme Court rulings. After weeks of confrontations and brutal arrests, the army seemed to realize that we would not go away, and they would have to change their tactics.
Two weeks ago the army issued a 45-day closed military zone order on the agricultural land of Safa for all Israelis and internationals, asserting that our services would not be needed any longer, as they would ensure the Palestinians could work their land with the army’s protection. In these two weeks, Ta’ayush decided to respect the order and see if the army would indeed deliver on what it promised. However, during this time, the settlers infiltrated the agricultural land of Safa and cut down fruit trees and burned crop fields. Thus, despite the area being a closed military zone for all Israelis, somehow the settlers managed to get past the IDF and commit crimes.
This morning we went back to Safa. As Palestinian Ta’ayush activist Issa Slevi told us later, “The soldiers are settlers but in uniform. They both symbolize the occupation.”
After a local family gave us a sugary glass of tea under a blackberry tree, a large group of Ta’ayush activists and internationals from the International Solidarity Movement and Palestine Solidarity Project walked through the village of Safa towards the fields. The town itself is dusty, with some homes half-finished while other structures have circular staircases on the outside. “I Love Hamas” was sprayed in English on a wall. Children pointed and waved while the women stood together and smiled. Some men led the procession of around 50 people, including the Palestinians. Accredited journalists, from Reuters and Lebanese media, followed. One even held a gas mask, expecting tear-gas.
It was Saturday and the settlers on the nearby hill were virtually invisible. Their houses and caravans sat illegally nearby. A number of IDF soldiers soon appeared on a horizon and approached from the other end of the dirt track. A confrontation was inevitable. The aim was to accompany the Palestinian farmers to their land in the gorge to protect against settler attacks. In the past, activists were physically assaulted and beaten with batons by the IDF so we expected the worst. We didn’t predict two hours of heated debate and political discussion.
The soldiers announced that the Palestinians were allowed to pass on their own and tend their fields. The farmers were highly skeptical because settlers would likely attack them. Some activists pushed the IDF to join the Palestinians but they were denied access. Minor scuffles ensued. Supreme Court orders were produced to explain a 2006 ruling that refused the military being able to impose a “closed military zone” to prevent Palestinians working their fields. The IDF regularly breaks the law of its own country, let alone international law. Activists see it every week.
Unlike previous encounters, the IDF commander seemed like a reasonable man, urging restraint from his men and trying to avoid contact. It was a fruitless task, as the soldiers seemed incapable or unwilling to understand the Palestinian hesitance to farm on their own. One old Palestinian farmer, the owner of the area, arrived. He rode down the path on a donkey, alighted, and walked with a stick. He was highly agitated and screamed at the soldiers. He lifted his shirt after a while to show bruise marks caused by settlers.
Eventually Palestinians decided to pass, both men and women, while a number of activists sat down in front of the soldiers. Others milled around. Video cameras and cameras were in abundance, possible explaining the less aggressive approach of the soldiers. This didn’t stop them from arresting 10 people, who were all detained briefly and released soon after. The activists – who did not resist arrest – knew that if brought before a judge, the army would have been found to have acted illegally. This explains why so often the army releases them before it can happen.
The location of the encounter was actually beautiful. A gorge sat at the bottom of a valley, with green fields and olive groves dotting the landscape.
As we waited and sat under a tree to find some shade, an IDF soldier approached us “to talk about the issues.” He was an American Jew around 30 who had made “aliya” to Israel in 1997. He was not a religious fanatic but argued rationally, despite the confused nature of his argument. He initially acknowledged the Palestinians were under occupation then later said the land was “disputed” and had been given by Jordan. He said the IDF was a “humanitarian model” to the world.
We asked if he’d read the recent Breaking the Silence report on alleged atrocities in Gaza. He said he had not but criticized the soldiers for staying anonymous. When challenged about the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas, he replied that it was not illegal to do so. In fact, it is illegal to use the destructive weapon for anything other than flares and certainly not in civilian areas. Countless human rights groups have accused Israel of using the weapon during its war against Gaza in December and January.
The soldier said he saw himself as protecting the settlers, Palestinians and activists, though we reminded him that the IDF usually only protects the settlers and covers their crimes. We agreed that the potential for confrontation between all parties was high. But why remove the peaceful non-violent leftists? The settlers were the most violent party in Safa. Why doesn’t his unit bar them from entering the gorge and allow us to farm with the Palestinians? He dismissed this question outright. Although he didn’t reside in a settlement, he mumbled something defensive when challenged why the Israelis hadn’t prevented the burning of the fields in the last days and weeks.
He seemed a little conflicted about his role in the territories, despite his arrogant air. He defended the killing of civilians – “you know what Colin Powell said during the invasion of Panama? In war, there’s always collateral damage” – but he was open to alternative views. We joked that it would take a while doing drugs in India to get over his conscience after the things he’d seen and done in the West Bank.
It was a strange discussion, though largely friendly and slightly accusatory. A case-study of the soldier would probably reveal a deep-seated need to defend his actions. He constantly talked about “protecting Israeli democracy” though his main job is protecting the settlement project. Palestinians despise their presence, even if violent resistance is relatively uncommon these days.
We disagreed amongst ourselves to the importance of engagement with IDF soldiers. Joseph wasn’t convinced of the necessity, believing the actions of the man spoke far louder than words. Ultimately, he defended the occupation. Antony was more circumspect and wondered if such encounters could contribute to a slow, changing attitude within the soldiers. Joseph argued that things were desperate when even the seemingly decent Israelis were finding ways to defend the situation.
After we left Safa, we briefly visited Issa Slevi’s home in Beit Umar, a long-time believer in non-violent action, in a room with a high ceiling. As we drank hibiscus juice and then piping, hot tea, he told us about the reality of constant IDF harassment of towns and fields. “The media presents the Palestinians as murderers and terrorists and the Israelis as victims”, he said. “The whole world identifies with the Israelis.”
Slevi spoke of a time when his hope for a resolution in the early 1990s had inspired him to distribute flowers to soldiers. But today he was despondent about Fatah – “an Oslo puppet regime” – and damned the “peace process” of the 1990s. It has produced nothing more than settlements and settler violence. He compared the situation in Palestine to the Jim Crow period in the US, “when there were signs that were for ‘dogs only.’ Today, the situation is the same for the Palestinians but there are no signs.”
Despite all the abuse and violence, Slevi was fundamentally opposed to violence. He never spoke to settlers. He wanted a country where both peoples could interact and mingle freely, regardless of religion and political affiliation.
The day was relatively normal in an utterly foreign reality.
AT-TUWANI: On the morning of 17 July, a Palestinian family from the village of At-Tuwani discovered that their newly constructed house was destroyed during the previous night. In addition, the family discovered an olive tree located near the new house cut in half. The family believes that Israel settlers from the Ma’on settlement and Havot Ma’on outpost are responsible for the vandalism. Despite being threatened by both settlers and officers from the Israel military District Coordinator (DCO), the family plans to rebuild the house.
On 16 July Palestinian residents of At-Tuwani began construction on six new small houses on land owned by the village. During the construction, Israeli settlers from Havot Ma’on outpost shouted at Palestinians working on the houses. Officers from the DCO told Palestinian land owners that the construction was illegal and threatened to arrest the workers. In addition, an officer told one At-Tuwani resident that everything he owned would be destroyed if he did not stop building. Despite these risks, Palestinians say that they plan to continue construction to assert their right to build on their own land.
While the Israeli army restricts Palestinian building, Ma’on and Carmel settlements and Avigail and Havot Ma’on outposts in the area continue to expand. Members of Christian Peacemaker Teams have documented continuous settlement expansion since 2004.
The Israeli settlement known as Maale Adumim sits fortress-like atop a red stone plateau. In the Bible, the road to the plateau was known as the “steep red road.”
As the largest Israeli settlement in the Palestinian-administered areas of the West Bank, Maale Adumim is home to 40,000 people. Bulldozers are clearing lots for new houses on its outskirts. Its population is growing by the week and, in recent years, it has grown faster than any other settlement.
On the edge of the settlement’s industrial zone, there is a factory operated by a company called Soda-Club. The steel gate is painted blue and green to match the company’s curvy, modern-looking logo. A camera records the movements of anyone approaching the gate. The plant produces tabletop devices that add carbonation to flat water, like the ones used in many German kitchens. And for those who prefer a sweeter taste, there’s also syrup coming out of Maale Adumim.
Journalists are not welcome to visit Soda-Club. As marketing director Asaf Snear claims on the telephone, it’s to protect against industrial espionage.
But there’s another reason behind this aversion to media attention: Soda-Club’s products are at the center of a legal dispute with Germany that could significantly intensify the already heated debate over Israel’s settlement policy.
The Hamburg Finance Court must now decide whether Soda-Club devices made in Maale Adumim can be imported into the European Union duty-free, like all other Israeli industrial products. Brussels doesn’t want the company’s products to fall into this category because they are manufactured in Israeli settlements located in the occupied territories.
The real question revolves around whether Maale Adumim is part of Israel. The EU has not formally recognized Israel’s claim to Maale Adumim and other settlements. But, in practice, it has done little to stand in the way of Israeli settlement activities.
But that could now change. The Hamburg court has consulted with the European Court of Justice about obtaining a “preliminary ruling” that would settle the issue in a binding manner for all 27 EU member states. The decision is expected to come down in the coming months. If the court decides that a customs duty can be levied, it will be tantamount to handing down a decision against Israel’s settlement policy. The delicate question at hand is whether Germany and the EU should accept how Israel handles the occupied territories or if they should wield their sharpest sword—economic sanctions.
A ‘Highly Explosive Case’
In formal terms, the judges are merely being asked to reach a decision about €19,155.46. Brita GmbH , a German company, had imported Soda-Club water-carbonating machines and syrup from Maale Adumim. The company also labeled the products as being “Made in Israel” and claimed that they should consequently be exempt from customs duties.
But the main customs office in Hamburg’s harbor refused to allow this policy to continue. German customs agents contacted their Israeli counterparts to find out where exactly the products were made. When the response came, it said that they had been made in an area “under Israeli customs administration.” When the Hamburg agents wrote back, asking whether the products had actually been manufactured in Israeli settlements, they received no response. So the Germans slapped a duty on the products.
Then Brita filed a lawsuit against this decision. The matter quickly made its way to the European Commission, which wants to use the legal dispute over Soda-Club to make an example of Israel. In an internal memo, it has asked EU member states for “support.” The German Foreign Ministry is monitoring the “highly explosive case” with some interest—and a certain amount of sympathy.
The EU is already prepared for confrontation when it comes to Israel’s new nationalist, right-wing government. The 27 EU foreign ministers have temporarily put a planned diplomatic “upgrading” of relations with Israel on hold.
Now Europe hopes to use the customs dispute to apply additional pressure on Israel. The EU is the second-largest market for Israeli goods, after the United States. In 2008, for example, Israeli companies exported €12 billion ($16.8 billion) in goods to Europe. An estimated one-third of these goods are either fully or partially made in the occupied territories. Most apparently reach Europe duty-free, and an Israeli reimbursement fund for exports subject to duties was hardly used at all last year.
In response to EU pressure, Jerusalem signed an agreement in 2005 that requires every Israeli exporter to provide the customs agency with the location and postal code of the factory where any given product was produced. But when Israeli importers deliberately declare an incorrect place of origin, customs agents are powerless to react.
The situation has prompted the British government to urge the other 26 EU member states to agree on a procedure that would allow consumers to see exactly where Israeli goods come from. The proposal makes many Israelis uneasy. Could this mean, they worry, that European governments will soon be telling consumers: “Don’t buy from Jews”?
Given the country’s history, this is understandably a very sensitive issue in Germany. This makes it all the more surprising that the German government has been willing to openly comment on the Soda-Club affair. In response to a parliamentary question from the opposition Green Party, the government has said that there can be no exemption from customs duty for “goods from the occupied territories.”
Meanwhile, the Soda-Club company is doing exactly what many Israelis do when it comes to the Palestinian conflict—ignoring the problem. When asked for Soda-Club’s reaction to people criticizing it for manufacturing its products in a settlement, marketing director Snear says: “Soda-Club is an apolitical company.”
