TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE ISRAELIS ARE
REALLY
DOING
.
THINK
"BY-PASS" ROADS
MER - WASHINGTON - 7/24/98:
Nowhere else in the modern world is
an Apartheid-style policy of building separated one-race-only "settlements"
combined with legalized "dispossession" of another race taking place with
applause from the "international community".
In the territories known as the West
Bank and Gaza -- still essentially occupied by the Israeli military regardless
of the "autonomy" arrangements -- this process has taken on unique dimensions
and from the point-of-view of many Israelis has been legitimized in recent
years by the agreements signed with the Yasser Arafat regime since the
Oslo Agreement.
Indeed, "By-pass" roads and the policies
associated with them are crucially important aspects of this disengenuous
and deceptive "peace process".
And indeed, one of the most important
aspects of the upcoming new agreement -- one that is in reality being much
pushed by both the Americans and the Israelis (no matter what the public
theatrics of the moment) -- is the further expansion and legitimization
of these "by-pass" roads, and derivatively the further legitimization of
the "settlements" they serve.
Worst of all, the Americans are now
undertaking to even pay for a further expansion and acceleration of the
"By-Pass" Roads; and the Arafat Palestinians don't even seem to understand
what it is that is happening to them, partly based on their own signature.
This interview was conducted last month
with the spokesman for the "Coordinator of Activities in the Territories"
and distributed by a right-wing Israeli news service known as IMRA.
THE ISRAELI VIEW ABOUT "BY PASS ROADS"
IMRA interviewed Shlomo Dror, spokesman
for the Coordinator of Activities in the Territories, in Hebrew, on June
16.
IMRA: Are there security related limits
on Palestinian construction on the roads serving the settlements?
Dror: We restrict construction on the
bypass roads within the framework of the Oslo agreements. Some of the houses
we raze were built next to the bypass roads. Even in the case of private
land we can restrict construction next to the bypass roads.
IMRA: Does Article 27 of the Appendix
of the Interim Agreement ["The Palestinian side shall ensure that no construction
close to the Settlements and military locations will harm, damage or adversely
affect them or the infrastructure serving them."] apply to the roads leading
to the settlements?
Dror: That's true for areas in "B"
or "A" which are next to settlements. In Area C we enforce the agreement.
The principal problem is in Gush Katif where there is considerable construction
near the settlements. There are problematic areas - for example the "Wallerstein
Route" which was illegally built and now crosses in Area B. The Palestinians
are building very close to the road and the road itself is not legal.
IMRA: In terms of regular bypass and
access roads today, the situation is that construction can be limited within
the context of the existing agreements.
Dror: Yes. That's right. And it is
something being kept.
IMRA: So you sit with the Palestinians
and say not to build in these places?
Dror: Yes. In fact we have demolished
houses in Area B. In those cases we have asked the PA to demolish the houses
and when they don't do it we do it ourselves. When there is construction
which hurt Israel's vital security interests then we even demolish in Area
B ourselves.
Under the agreement we have security
responsibility in Area B and if we come to the conclusion that a house
in Area B endangers the security of people driving on a route we will demolish
it. For example, if a route is sniped at from a house in Area B we will
demolish the house. Clearly the Palestinians would object, but they would
object in any case.
IMRA: What about Area A?
Dror: Area A is far away from Jewish
settlements in any case. The only point of friction is the joint patrols
on routes which pass through the cities. But in this case the principle
of not having construction next to the roads doesn't apply anyway as the
routes go through areas which have already been built up in any case.
Besides the use of these routes [by
Israelis] is limited anyway - basically to the joint patrols.
IMRA: Why is the Al Atrash house so
important to Israel that Israel keeps demolishing it? Is it sitting on
such a strategic location?
Dror: He started building the house
around two years ago and an order was issued for him to stop building.
He was told to either demolish the house, let us demolish it or stop construction
and go to court. He went to court and the court set that for the time being
his house not be demolished and he stop building it. Since then, in violation
of the court order, he completed construction and moved into the house.
We were forced to go to the court because he finished the construction
and moved in. The court instructed us to demolish the house. And we did
it.
IMRA: Why the focus on this house?
Dror: The Al-Atrash family has agricultural
land. It is permitted, under an Ottoman law, to erect one building which
serves agricultural needs in the location. They already exercised this
right and built one house on the land. And now they want to build another
one. If we permit them then the people in Maon, who we prevent from bringing
in caravans to their agricultural land where the murder recently took place,
as well as Israelis at scores of other locations where there is Israeli
agricultural land, will demand equal treatment.
So this slices both ways. We don't
publicize every time we stop caravans from being placed on agricultural
lands or the construction of buildings there - but it is going on. They
are trying all the time and we are stopping them all the time. If we let
the Al-Atrash family get away with it then I would expect that, under law,
we would find ourselves unable to stop Israeli construction on agricultural
lands.
Now keep in mind that this isn't a
family being thrown out onto the street. They have a house on the land.
They want to build a second one. It isn't like other demolitions which
take place of buildings on bypass roads, state lands, archeological sites.
For example, Nebe Samuel is an archeological site and we demolish new houses
illegally built on the site. The same goes for an houses illegally
built in the middle of wadis which block the flow of water.
Keep in mind that its not as if we
are demolishing all of them. In the last year over 750 illegal houses were
built within communities and we did not demolish them. There are
also houses built outside of planned areas and here we also try to show
consideration. For example a security road for Dolev was set out on state
land and we found that there was a house next to the planned route which
had been illegally built ten years ago and it has a vineyard. Since it
was already in place for ten years we let it be and didn't touch the house
or the vineyard. So now the Dolev security road runs next to the property.
I'll give you another example. We are
now working on the plan to expand Maaleh Adumim. The expansion is on state
land but we see from aerial photographs that in the last 10-15 years there
was Palestinian construction. Though the construction took place illegally
on state land we decided to remove them from the expansion plans and leave
the Palestinian houses in place. Legally we could have cleared out the
illegal construction. If it were a matter of someone using land for a year
or two we would include the land, but when you are talking about someone
who is using the land for years then out of consideration for the Palestinians
we leave them the land.
If we let the Al Atrash family get
away with this then we can expect a challenge by the Israelis in Maon and
they will argue in court for equal treatment and this will be the beginning
of anarchy.
