To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

June 5, 2006 - Vol. 7, Issue 44

Line Drive Single: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert received a bit of a shock from U.S. officials during diplomatic talks in Jerusalem. They told him that even after the prime minister's visit to Washington, the chances that the U.S. would recognize the lines to which Israel would withdraw, after realignment, as permanent borders, are close to zero.

Line Drive Single: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert received a bit of a shock from U.S. officials during diplomatic talks in Jerusalem. They told him that even after the prime minister's visit to Washington, the chances that the U.S. would recognize the lines to which Israel would withdraw, after realignment, as permanent borders, are close to zero. According to these sources, there is absolutely no chance that the Americans would grant any recognition to lines that are not the Green Line borders. A distinction should be made, they said, between support in principle for realignment, which means evacuating many settlements, and having the U.S. ratify the lines that Israel establishes unilaterally. On the other hand, these officials made an interesting recommendation: To ask the U.S. for a statement, following realignment, according to which "Israel has withdrawn to the Green Line, with slight changes resulting from the reality on the ground and the demographic situation." The Americans, said the officials, would find it much easier to define the withdrawal line as "the Green line with slight changes" rather than to grant it the status of a permanent line. This definition does not contradict President George Bush's letter to Ariel Sharon in April 2004, and it is more realistic than a blanket adoption of the new border line, which is Olmert's dream. [Of course, it's debatable if Israel absorbing up to 10% of the West Bank and holding on to the Jordan Valley is really just a "slight change" in the Green Line.] (Ma'ariv, 5/31/06)

Israelis Prefer Negotiation Over Dictation: A survey of Israelis conducted in late May by New Wave Research on behalf of the Geneva Initiative found that Israelis overwhelmingly prefer negotiations with the Palestinians over more unilateral moves. When asked to specify which policy they prefer the new Israeli government to adopt, 58.8% said they want the government to start negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) with the aim of reaching a permanent status agreement, 20% preferred carrying out a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank (i.e., the "convergence" plan), 15.2% preferred neither, and 6.1% didn't know. 68.2% said they support Israel conducting negotiations today with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, 26.7% opposed such talks, and 5.1% didn't know. While 68.8% opposed Israel conducting negotiations today with Hamas, 26% said they support it and 5.2% didn't know.

49.1% said they support a proposal that entails Israel negotiating with Abbas as Chair of the PA, in the context of agreement from Hamas, with a national referendum being held in the PA on an agreement, if one is reached. 38.7% opposed such an arrangement, and 12.2% didn't know. 48.4% would oppose giving financial assistance to the PA, if the Hamas government worked to end the Kassam rocket fire and attacks, 46.4% would support it, and 5.2% didn't know. Just 31.2% believe that Israel will be able to achieve permanent borders that gain international recognition without reaching a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians, while 56% do not and 12.8% didn't know. Finally, 53.8% would support U.S. President George Bush presenting a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while 36.1% would oppose him doing so and 10.1% didn't know. The poll was conducted among a representative sample of 587 Israelis aged 18 and over, and has a margin of error of +/- 4%. (Geneva Initiative Poll, 5/31/06)

Reality Sinking In: According to a poll conducted last week by the Geocartographia Institute, 44% of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank say that they would be willing to leave their homes if the government decides this. Last June (on the eve of the Gaza disengagement), just 25% of West Bank settlers said they were ready to pack it in voluntarily. The survey found that 64% of secular settlers would be willing to leave voluntarily, but only 47% of the Ultra-Orthodox and 23% of the national religious settlers would be willing to go in return for suitable compensation. Even before the government has begun to discuss the "convergence" plan, many of the settlers have been influenced by an undermining of their sense of security and of the public support that they enjoyed in recent years. Between 2001 and 2005, the quantity of real estate offered for sale in the West Bank increased by 15% annually, and the number of people abandoning the settlements increased by 10% in the past two years. On average, every settler family in the West Bank knows 6.5 families who have decided to leave. Most of those willing to go would be content with a four and a half room apartment, costing an estimated $167,000, inside the Green Line. 30% said they would prefer a community village to live in, 20% a small or medium-size town, 18% a big town, and 17% a rural village. (Ma'ariv, 5/31/06)

Enemy Territory: Dozens of settler teens attacked Israeli police officers that went to the settlement of Yitzhar last week to inspect security arrangements of educational facilities at the site. The settlers, some of them masked, hurled stones at the police and caused damage to a police car. "Dozens of masked men ran towards us wearing kafiyahs, it was like being in Nablus or Jenin. The settlers surrounded us and we were outnumbered and at a significant disadvantage: The three of us standing on a road at the foot of a hill, while dozens of settlers stood on the hilltop above us," said Commander Shaul Gabai. The officers had to fire warning shots into the air in order to free themselves from the raging crowd. A police force was also called to the scene, and promptly launched a search to apprehend the stone throwers. Three settlers were eventually detained, including the head of the local yeshiva, who was quickly released.

"We entered the community and stood next to the yeshiva. A man whom we believed to be the headmaster approached us and asked what we were doing there. We identified ourselves as policemen and said we came there to conduct an inspection of security at the place. Then he told us: 'Don't you know that the police shouldn't come here?' I said I wish to meet the security guard," said Gabai. "At a certain point, that man moved aside, and then within a minute dozens of masked men wearing kafiyahs ran towards a terrace nearby, and starting throwing bricks and stones at us.We ran outside the settlement, and they surrounded us. One of the policemen shot a bullet in the air out of distress. If it hadn't been for that, someone would have gotten hurt .I don't call these people settlers, these masked stone throwers are criminals." (Ynet, 5/31/06 & Jerusalem Post, 6/1/06)

Outpost Overture: Demolition orders for 18 buildings were handed out last week at the illegal outpost of Havat Ma'on south of Mt. Hebron. The orders were essentially a renewal of previously existing orders, but their distribution may have signaled a greater intent on the government's part to actually execute them. Havat Maon is set to be one of the first of 24 illegal outposts that will be evacuated in accordance with former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's promise to the U.S. The current Israeli government has let the settlers know that there is no room for compromise on these 24 outposts, which include six outposts that are subject to a Peace Now petition before the High Court of Justice and for which evacuation orders were first signed over two years ago. Those six outposts are: Ramat Gilad-Givat Hadegel; Givat Assaf; Maale Rehavam; Mitzpe Lachish; Givat Haroeh; and Mitzpe Yitzhar. Other outposts high on the hit list include: Skali Farm (near Elon Moreh); Arusi Farm (Bracha B), and Hill 725 (near Yitzhar).

The government is trying to secure an agreement with the settlers by which it would allow the fate of the remaining 81 illegal outposts to be determined as part of the "convergence" plan if the settlers promise to allow for the peaceful evacuation of the 24 outposts. However, senior military and police officers will not be surprised if some settlers resort to the use of arms in an effort to thwart the evacuation of outposts. "It's not that they are digging defensive trenches and waiting there for us with weapons, but there will be people with arms there," said a security source. "In the heat of the struggle, individuals among them could certainly try to fire on soldiers. This is not a notion that they shy away or recoil from."

Sharon made his promise about the 24 outposts as part of Israel's commitment to the Road Map, even though Peace Now's Settlement Watch program has found that over 50 illegal outposts were built after Sharon entered office in March 2001 and therefore should be removed. Israel had delayed action on the 24 outposts because of last summer's disengagement from Gaza. While President George W. Bush didn't raise the issue in his talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, sources close to the prime minister are under the impression that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the professional ranks in the Bush Administration expect Israel to fulfill its commitments. "It is impossible to draw the matter out for much longer. We no longer have any excuses not to dismantle the 24 outposts," a government source said.

With respect to the remaining 81 outposts listed in Talia Sasson's official report on the subject, a more in-depth review of their situations will be conducted, despite the fact that all the outposts were established in violation of the law. The review will examine a set of considerations, such as each outpost's proximity to the settlement blocs, the status of the land on which each outpost was established, the number of settlers living in a particular outpost, and how long each outpost has been in existence. Outposts that are given retroactive legal approval will still have to comply with certain criteria, like the number of settlers allowed to live there. (Jerusalem Post, 5/29/06 & Ha'aretz, 5/30/06 & 6/1/06)

Back To Africa: While Israeli politicians dismiss talk of a humanitarian crisis in the occupied territories as just so much "propaganda," Arnold Vercken, the head of the UN World Food Program (WFP), based in Jerusalem, has a different perspective. He's been in Israel for nine months, after a long term of duty in Senegal. He knows poverty, famine, and malnutrition when he sees it. And when he visits the Gaza Strip and sees children digging in the garbage bins, Vercken feels like he's back in Africa. "Since the donations were frozen and the Karni crossing point closed," he says unhesitatingly, "the Gaza Strip reminds me more and more of Dakar." According to the latest data that the organization has, one out of two Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza (about two million people, of whom close to half are under 18) are suffering from "a lack of food security" (as opposed to 37% last summer). The significance of this is that most of the time their stomachs are rumbling and their heads are busy with worrying where their next meal will come from.

Vercken estimates that unless there is a significant change in the policies of donor countries, and if Israel continues to refuse to release the tax money that it collects on behalf of the Palestinians, in the coming months the WFP will have to deal with a 25% increase in the number of mouths they have to feed, reaching a total of 600,000 non-refugees. This is on top of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who exist on food they get from UNRWA. What bothers Vercken most is the situation of the children who, because of bird flu and their parents' descent below the poverty line that has dropped to $1.60 per day per capita, do not remember what poultry or meat tastes like and are suffering from a lack of protein. Senior Israeli defense establishment officials, mainly those who go to the territories, share the worries of the aid organizations that the territories will undergo Africanization. The politicians are starting to find it difficult to get data from the professionals that will support their approach about "propaganda."

Meanwhile, the UN called for an 80% increase in emergency humanitarian aid to Palestinians, upping its 2006 emergency appeal from $215 million to $385 million. UNRWA cited a 600% increase in applications for short-term, UN-sponsored jobs in the West Bank, while the program's Gaza waiting list now tops 100,000 people. (Ha'aretz, 5/30/06 & AP, 5/31/06)

Setting Priorities: It may be low on cash for the bare essentials, but the Hamas-led Palestinian government is set to establish its own satellite television channel, according to Hamas Information Minister Yousef Rizkah. The Hamas official said that the decision was made in response to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas regaining control of the PA Broadcasting Authority before the establishment of the new Hamas government. (Jerusalem Post, 5/29/06)

Operation Diplomatic Shield: Commenting on the benefits that Israel can accrue when it agrees to internationally recognized borders with its neighbors, Ofer Shelah wrote, "The Israeli press was united in reporting that [the IDF's May 28th] clash with Hezbollah was an unqualified victory for Israel. According to these reports, Hezbollah was surprised by the ferocity of Israel's response, and stopped shooting first. This success is attributed to the IDF's excellent preparations for battle and the determination of Israeli politicians. The information behind these reports, of course, was provided by the IDF itself. The Israeli media has no sources inside Hezbollah, and so it remains completely dependent on the information provided by military spokesmen. These people do their work honestly and faithfully, but naturally tend to see things from a perspective that is convenient for them. But even if we take what they say at face value and don't question their ability to judge the goings-on north of the border, [May 28th's] events should be judged in light of the withdrawal from Lebanon, the sixth anniversary of which [fell last] week.

"To remind: The highest echelons of the IDF were staunchly opposed to the withdrawal. Spokespeople warned the public and decision-makers alike that Hezbollah would chase us deep into Israeli territory, and Israel's ability to respond to attacks would be limited. As soon as we give up the security zone, went the argument, the entire Galilee region would burn. Some even warned of an inevitable clash with Syria. But what do you know, Israel's withdrawal to the international border allowed the army to respond strongly when attacked. Syria's occupation of Lebanon lost its legitimacy. From the international border, it turns out Israel has much greater justification for using force to defend itself, and for demanding the Lebanese government take responsibility for the goings-on in that country. The lesson, of course, is even more general: The worldview of military men and women is necessarily limited. They are honest professionals, but they are also given to view questions of security through the prism of the tools at their discretion. And secondly, abandoning the idea of security zones, of pushing borders away from settlements at a cost of unstable and immoral territorial occupations, allows for the increased, more effective use of force.

"Even on the tactical-military level, the situation got better for Israel after the pullout. As long as the IDF was in Lebanon, Hezbollah was truly a guerilla organization: It drew legitimacy and support from those who opposed the occupation, and its fighters were peddlers by day and soldiers by night. It was difficult to work out which supportive civilians were actually activists. Since the pullout, there have been growing voices in Lebanon demanding Hezbollah disarm, and at the same time the organization has more permanent-and therefore attackable-buildings. Six years ago, even if the IDF had wanted to attack Hezbollah outposts, it wouldn't have had so many targets.

"Not everything that happens in Lebanon is a lesson to be applied in other arenas, but the principles are similar. We would do well to remember them when those amongst us warn about the dangers of future withdrawals, and when they present our various enemies in apocalyptic colors, as if they are irrational villains who lack the ability to change course. Those who claim that the IDF won [May 28th's] battle must honestly admit why we failed to win during all that time in Lebanon, prior to May 2000." (Ynet, 5/30/06)

Interest Cropping Up On Farm: Some initial signs of Israeli security establishment interest in a Lebanese initiative to deal with Hezbollah and the Shaba Farms issue are starting to crop up. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and UN special envoy to Lebanon Terje Larsen have been pushing a six stage program that until recently was flatly rejected by Israel. In the first stage, the UN would mark the border between Lebanon and Syria and determine exactly on which side the Shaba Farms are located. Stage Two: Syria would publicly declare that it is surrendering the Shaba Farms to Lebanon and it is now Lebanese territory. In the third stage, the Lebanese army would deploy along its southern border with Israel. Stage Four: Israel would withdraw from the Shaba Farms, which would be given to Lebanon, and Israel would stop its flights over Lebanese territory. In stage five, Siniora would make a special speech in parliament declaring the end of the Israeli occupation and calling on the Lebanese to devote their energies inward. All the military militias in Lebanon, including the Palestinian ones and Hezbollah, would be dismantled.

Stage Six: there would be a prisoner exchange agreement, along with another effort of all the sides to help determine the fate of Ron Arad. Israel would release Samir Kuntar and the other Lebanese prisoners, and Hezbollah would withdraw from the Israeli-Lebanese border. The prevailing view in the Israeli security establishment is that the chances of success for this plan are very low. Syria is seen as unlikely to cooperate, and Israel is in no mood to start haggling over the Golan Heights. However, outgoing National Security Council Director Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland is considered enthusiastic about it. Other top officials are also now onboard. "Theoretically," a top security official said, "if we can neutralize the Hezbollah danger, disarm the organization, and dismantle its arsenal of rockets and Katyushas, and all this at a marginal territorial price, then this is very welcome." Sinoria argues that the plan is possible. "I need to throw Hezbollah a bone," he says in diplomatic meetings. "I have to bring an achievement that makes it possible for me to say that there is no longer any need for this organization." (Ma'ariv, 6/1/06)

In The Pink: The Financial Times asked its foreign correspondents to name their choices for the most influential commentators in 23 different countries around the world. The "pink sheet's" pick for Israel was Akiva Eldar, veteran columnist for Ha'aretz, who has consistently argued that Israel should seek a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, even though many Israelis have taken a more hard-line position against the Palestinians since the start of the Intifada. Ha'aretz's English-language website is read all over the world. Eldar is also a panelist on Israel Army Radio's current affairs show each morning, listened to by one million Israelis. Eldar has worked at Ha'aretz since 1978, serving as its diplomatic correspondent in Washington and, in recent years, as a political commentator with his own column. He recently co-authored the best-selling book, Lords of the Land: The Settlers and the State of Israel (1967-2004). Lest anyone work themselves into a froth about alleged biases in the Financial Times' selections, it should be noted that its pick for most influential commentator in the U.S. was Charles Krauthammer. (Financial Times, 5/20/06 & Ha'aretz, 5/28/06)