Israel: Sharon and Netanyahu --- Compare and Contrast

An article by The Jerusalem Post's Gil Hoffman questions Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's desire for peace and accuses him of being a student of the "Sharon school of thought".

It is a curious accusation. Netanyahu was critical of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's 2004 Engagement Plan. He not only vetoed the Gaza pull-out plan in the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, but also submitted his resignation prior to the approval of the plan by the Parliament.

Recent events, however, have forced a reassessment. Sharon's spokesman Ra'anan Gissin has no doubts. He states that Netanyahu, like Sharon, moved to the center of the political map after becoming prime minister, formed a national-unity government, and is expected to approve a prisoner exchange with the Palestinians. He continues:

Those who claimed to be Sharon's successor failed because the tsunami waves that came after his disappearance were too much for them. The tragedy is that his fiercest critics such as Netanyahu turned out to be his real successors. Netanyahu hasn't formed a Kadima [Party], but he has realigned his own party in the Center to allow himself to make the decisions he has to make regarding the fate of the Palestinians.

Other Sharon advisers, however, have snubbed Netanyahu and do not put the two leaders in the same category. For instance, former Sharon strategist Lior Chorev says:

Netanyahu is now facing the same poison from extremist elements in his party that Sharon did from him, but without the leadership and courage that Sharon had.

The question is whether Netanyahu has the courage to understand that leadership has a price and will 'walk the walk' and not just 'talk the talk.' Bibi hasn't proven yet that he will do what he says. We are waiting to see if he will be a leader or a slave of his Likud.

Sharon's legislative adviser Oren Magnezy sees eye-to-eye with Chorev:

We will only see if [Netanyahu] has really changed if he takes on the settlers and his political base. When I believe he has made the leap into compromise, he will have to apologize to Sharon, but I don't think he has made that leap yet.

Wednesday Debate: "Are Israel and Apartheid South Africa Really Different?"

A debate between Haaretz's Akiva Eldar, who asked on Monday, "Are Israel and apartheid South Africa really different?" and David Newman of The Jerusalem Post, who replied, "Security or Discrimination?":

ELDAR

The day after the murder of the settler Meir Hai about 10 days ago, Major General (reserve) Amos Gilad was asked to comment on the claim by settlers that the attack was able to take place because roadblocks had been lifted on West Bank roads. The security-political coordinator at the Defense Ministry told his radio interviewer that the policy of thinning out internal roadblocks has greatly contributed to the West Bank's impressive economic growth. According to Gilad, who until recently was coordinator of activities in the territories, the improvement of the Palestinians' economic lot has contributed substantially to Israelis' security.

Israel: A Grand Construction Strategy, Step by Step
Power Politics in Palestine: A More Confident Fatah Today?
Israel Inside Line: Lieberman’s “Enough” Declarations
Israel-Palestine: Gideon Levy “The Time for Words is Over”

An army man, who is not suspected of belonging to a human rights organization, thus upsets the simplistic and most accepted formula: restrictions on Arabs means more security for Jews. The Supreme Court ruling last week to lift the ban on Palestinians using Route 443 shows that members of the judiciary also no longer stand at attention when they hear the magic word security. Nonetheless, the judiciary members, like politicians and the media, still find it hard to let go of their paralyzing dependency on this term. This is intentional: If discrimination is not mandated by security considerations stemming from the threat of Palestinian terrorism, how can we diagnose this regime as segregationist? If it is not diagnosed as such, there is no need to treat it.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which appealed against the ban on Route 443, dared suggest the word apartheid and was reprimanded for it. In her ruling, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch wrote that "the great difference between the security means adopted by the State of Israel for defense against terrorist attacks and the unacceptable practices of the policy of apartheid requires that any comparison or use of this grave term be avoided." A similar argument was voiced during the days of Israel's military administration over its Arab citizens, which was lifted in 1966, and which is today considered a dark period in the country's history.

Beinisch herself is a co-author of about a dozen rulings that exposed the malicious use of the segregation regime in an effort to take over Palestinian land. In some cases, most notably one concerning the separation fence near Bil'in, she wrote that the invasive route set by the army was inferior from a security point of view to the route proposed by experts at the Council for Peace and Security. In another case the state admitted that the person in charge of planning the fence did not inform government lawyers that the route had been adjusted to the blueprint for expanding the settlement of Tzofin. Were it not for human rights organizations and conscientious lawyers, who would prevent shortsighted politicians from annexing more and more territory "for security against terrorism"? asked Beinisch.

One of the myths among whites in South Africa was that "blacks want to throw us into the sea." Many of apartheid's practices were formally based on security, mostly those involving restrictions on movement. Thus, for example, at a fairly early stage, black citizens needed permits to move around the country. During the final years of apartheid, when the blacks' struggle intensified as did terrorism, its practices became more severe.

To avoid the rude word apartheid, Beinisch pulled out the well-known argument that apartheid is "a policy of segregation and discrimination based on race and ethnicity, which is based on a series of discriminatory practices designed to achieve the superiority of a certain race and oppress those of other races." Indeed, systematic segregation (apartheid) and discrimination in South Africa were meant to preserve the supremacy of one race over others.

In Israel, on the other hand, institutional discrimination is meant to preserve the supremacy of a group of Jewish settlers over Palestinian Arabs. As far as discriminatory practices are concerned, it's hard to find differences between white rule in South Africa and Israeli rule in the territories; for example, separate areas and separate laws for Jews and Palestinians.

Last Wednesday, Israeli policemen blocked the main road linking Nablus and Tul Karm. Dozens of taxis with Palestinian workers on their way home from another day on the job in the settlements were told to park on the side of the road. Cars with yellow license plates passed by. There was no roadblock for security inspections; it was just the memorial ceremony for Rabbi Meir Hai. Just as long as they do not say that there is apartheid.

NEWMAN

If an outside observer needs to be convinced of just how absurd and intractable the Israel-Palestine conflict has become, he/she only needs to reflect on last week's High Court ruling concerning the right of travel for Palestinians on Route 443, linking Jerusalem to Modi'in.

Take a step back and think about it - the court had to remind the country, which prides itself on being the only democracy in the Middle East, that in a democratic society, everyone has the right of access to public facilities, not least the major transportation arteries.

For its part, the Defense Ministry argued that it was necessary to keep Palestinians from using this route due to the security risk involved. It was the classic argument - in the name of security, everything is permissible, even when it comes to blatant discrimination. Even the court ruling did not totally prohibit road closures, and allowed one section of 443 to remain closed to Palestinian cars.

Interestingly, no such argument was used to ban settlers from using roads on the West Bank. Security is only about security for the Jewish citizens of the country, never for the Arabs or Palestinians, many of whom have suffered violence at the hands of some settlers - such as the burning of mosques, the destruction of orchards and even the murder of innocent civilians - from the Jewish underground in the 1980s, to Baruch Goldstein in Hebron in 1994, to the recent activities of Ya'acov Teitel.

If anyone from the outside suggests that such policies smell of something called apartheid, we immediately reject such a comparison and write long letters and articles explaining why the system of discrimination against the black population in South Africa bears no relationship to the situation of the Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank. But for the first time in a High Court discussion, the term apartheid was used by one of the appellants on behalf of the Palestinians to describe the situation by which one ethnic group is forbidden from driving on a road exclusively reserved for the Jewish population.

CALL IT security, call it discrimination, call it apartheid - it is stupid and shortsighted. It reflects, yet again, the fact that after 42 years of occupation of the West Bank, Israel is controlled by, rather than in control of, the situation. We continue to live in fear, unable to maintain a secure environment for our citizens. So we resort to incremental, half-baked solutions such as the building of concrete walls in the middle of cities and along both sides of Route 443, the prevention of free access and travel to citizens of one group, and the confiscation and destruction of olive groves and orchards in those places where we argue there is a security risk.

The one thing we prove time after time is that the mighty IDF may be good at defending its external borders (and even this is not necessarily the case any more), but it is hopeless when it comes to controlling another people who want nothing more than their own political and sovereign rights.

The construction of roads is part of a wider system of regional and physical planning which has always been governed by political and security dictates. During the country's first decades, the establishment of civilian settlements along its borders was seen as an integral part of its defense policy and, as such, could override any objections raised by planning, economic or environmental lobbies.

I OFTEN drive from the Negev to Jerusalem via the West Bank, using roads which have been constructed and expanded in recent years to enable ease of access for the Jewish settlers and travelers, while the roads leading into Hebron, Bethlehem, Jenin and other Palestinian cities have been transformed into minor roads in poor condition, although they serve the needs of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. We drive along empty highways, while they drive along narrow, overcrowded and dangerous side roads - and we do all this in the name of security, so that we can bypass the cities which we ostensibly control but are afraid to enter, and so that we can have ease of access to every small settlement and hilltop outpost without having to encounter our neighbors who are excluded from large parts of the territory.

While Palestinians are able to drive freely on all roads in Areas A and B (as defined in the Oslo Accords), there are more than 300 kilometers of roads in Area C (under Israeli control) on which they either are forbidden to travel or must have special authorization. Any car with Palestinian license plates can be prevented from travelling on these roads, especially those defined as "sterile" by the Israeli authorities.

Within the Green Line, too, roads are used as a powerful political tool. The construction of the new road to Arad and parts of the Route 6 extension in the South have enabled the removal of some 15 unrecognized Beduin villages on the grounds of "public need."

PLANNING IS a powerful tool of territorial and land control which can be, and in the case of Israel is, used to ensure that the political objectives of the state are achieved. And where there is no reason to build settlements along borders or construct bypass roads and highways for exclusive use, there is always the Jewish National Fund, which designates areas for afforestation - especially in close proximity to the Green Line - so as to close them to any form of alternative development, even if other communities require space to meet the residential needs of their rapidly growing populations.

Security is important to all of us. None of us wants to be blown up by a roadside bomb, a Katyusha rocket or a suicide bomber, just as no Palestinian wants to see IDF tanks and soldiers in their backyard or ripping up their orchards. But to prevent the normal civilian rights and privileges of hundreds of thousands of innocent people from building homes or travelling along roads is a cynical manipulation of the security agenda - and it is this which brings our democracy into disrepute.