FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Deporting Hamas Members of Parliament

by JONATHAN COOK

The policy of “hitnatkut”, or unilateral disengagement, developed by Ariel Sharon needed a swift facelift following the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza last year. And Israel’s prime minister-designate, Ehud Olmert, has found it in the related concept of “hitkansut”, variously translated as “convergence”, “consolidation” and “ingathering”.

After all, Olmert could hardly campaign convincingly for a West Bank disengagement when it was clear Jewish settlers and soldiers would continue occupying a significant proportion of Palestinian land at the withdrawal’s end. So convergence is usefully, and misleadingly, supplanting disengagement.

Many critics of Israel assume convergence is simply jargon disguising the government’s intention illegally to annex swaths of West Bank territory. The grand land theft will be sold to the world as a painful withdrawal of Jewish settlers, even if the great majority (probably 80 per cent) are left in place and only the most remote settlements are dismantled.

But events this week suggest that the principle of hitkansut will have a far wider application than just to the West Bank settlement blocs, with results even more sinister than many had anticipated. Olmert’s consolidation, it is becoming clear, will embrace Palestinians too.

The shape of things to come was hinted at this week in the wake of Monday’s suicide bombing in Tel Aviv by the small militant group Islamic Jihad. Rather than approving the usual indiscriminate military strikes against Palestinian population centres that characterised the Sharon era, Olmert pursued a low-key, but no less disturbing, response.

He revoked the rights of three Hamas MPs and a Palestinian cabinet minister, Mahmoud Abu Tir, to reside in Jerusalem. The intention is to deport them to the West Bank, behind the separation wall Israel is hastily completing, where they will lose all the rights they currently enjoy to live and work inside Jerusalem and Israel.

Apparently Israel is considering extending this punishment to other members of Hamas in Jerusalem and possibly anyone working for the Palestinian Authority.

Once upon a time, back in the 1970s and 1980s, Israel would regularly dump hundreds of Palestinian political activists at a time across the border in Lebanon. Now the border will be, more conveniently, much closer to hand: just a stone’s throw from the centre of Jerusalem.

What are the grounds for the deportations? The official reason is the failure of Hamas to denounce the suicide bombing. Olmert told an emergency meeting of the cabinet: “Any member of a government involved in terrorism should not be granted any immunity in the form of his Israeli residency identification.”

Let’s ignore Olmert’s gratuitous extension of the meaning of the word “terrorism”, and concentrate instead on the extent of his chutzpah. Israel occupied East Jerusalem during the Six-Day war of 1967 and later annexed the Palestinian half of the city and its inhabitants to Israel in violation of international law.

Now Olmert, the former mayor of Jerusalem and a man well-versed in underhand manoeuvres in the holy city, is expelling Palestinians from East Jerusalem on the grounds that he doesn’t like their politics.

Foreign minister Tzipi Livni observed that Israel had the right to revoke the residency of whomever it deemed disloyal to Israel. In other words, Olmert and his cronies are behaving as though Palestinian residency in Jerusalem is a right conferred by Israel ­ as though Palestinians are immigrants rather than the city’s indigenous inhabitants living under an illegal and increasingly vicious occupation.

Of course, Israel’s approach towards East Jerusalem and its residents is not new, though the degree of brazen cheek in Israel’s singling out of Palestinian public figures for this treatment, and Olmert’s happy courting of publicity over the abuse of their rights, is.

Despite the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel, Palestinians living there do not have Israeli citizenship. Instead, they are classified as “permanent residents”, without voting rights or Israeli passports. Theoretically, their residency offers them rights of free movement inside Jerusalem and Israel, unlike West Bankers who since Oslo have been confined by curfews, checkpoints and now the wall.

But in practice, as the deportations prove, “permanent residency” is not necessarily so permanent. Israel has for some time been narrowing the terms of who qualifies for residency in Jerusalem: Palestinians who study or work abroad often find they are not entitled to return to the city; the recent revoking of family unification means many spouses and children of East Jerusalem residents are facing deportation; and the arbitrary route of the wall across East Jerusalem is putting some residents on the wrong side, making it all but impossible for them to reach jobs, shops, schools and hospitals in the city centre.

The reason for these measures and others by Israel ­ such as planning rules that make it almost impossible for East Jerusalemites to build homes to cope with their natural population growth; and the abuse of their rights to vote in Palestinian elections ­ is clear.

The hope is that under such relentless pressure most Palestinians will leave Jeruslem and seek residence in the West Bank, where they will have even less rights to withstand Israeli abuses and where they will pose far less of a demographic threat to an expanded Israeli state’s “Jewishness”.

But this week’s deportation of Palestinian MPs who refuse to toe the Israeli line reveals yet another layer of Israel’s plan. What Olmert hopes to achieve with “hitkansut” is not only consolidating the inclusion of Jewish settlers inside the expanded borders of the new Jewish state but also consolidating the exclusion of Palestinians who currently enjoy residency in territory coveted by Israel: namely East Jerusalem. While Olmert will be busy “ingathering” the settlers, he will also be busy “outgathering” Palestinians from Jerusalem.

However, unlike Olmert’s plans for the consolidation of Jews, who will be gathered into a single, expanded Jewish state, Israel clearly has different vision of consolidation for the Palestinians ­ despite Sharon’s weasly words to the United Nations last year about wanting to create a Palestinian state on the land left after the limited withdrawal from the West Bank.

Given the nature of the Jewish settlement blocs left after “hitkansut” ­ their fingers penetrating deep into the West Bank at strategic points ­ Palestinian land will be separated into a series of ghettoes, isolated and cut off one from the next.

In Olmert’s consolidation plan, Jerusalem will be turned into a ghetto comprising only those Palestinians prepared to have no contact with or offer no support to the rest of their people, including their own elected representatives.

The West Bank, meanwhile, will be consolidated into a series of small ghettoes, based on the main cities, filled with Palestinians whose rights can be trampled on by Israel at will. And finally Gaza will be consolidated into yet another ghetto, disconnected from Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Palestinian politics, whether of the Fatah or Hamas variety, will be meaningless in such an environment. It is not hard to predict the response: the year-long Hamas ceasefire will be strained beyond breaking point. Terrorism ­ human bombs or home-made Qassam rockets ­ will be the only answer for Palestinians who want to resist the arm’s-length occupation. That may suit Israel, offering it yet more excuses ­ in reply to the “terror” ­ to further “consolidate” the Palestinian population into smaller, more tightly controlled ghettoes.

At the same Israeli cabinet meeting at which the deportations of the Hamas MPs were agreed, ministers discussed changing the classification of the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians’ government, from a “hostile entity” to the harsher status of an “enemy entity”. The move was rejected for the time being.

One senior official told the Israeli media why: “There are international legal implications in such a declaration, including closing off the border crossings, that we don’t want to do yet.” Not yet. But soon, when the infrastructure of imprisonment is complete.

JONATHAN COOK is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. He is the author of the forthcoming “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State” published by Pluto Press, and available in the United States from the University of Michigan Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

 

 

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

February 09, 2016
Andrew Levine
Hillary Says the Darndest Things
Paul Street
Kill King Capital
Ben Burgis
Lesser Evil Voting and Hillary Clinton’s War on the Poor
Paul Craig Roberts
Are the Payroll Jobs Reports Merely Propaganda Statements?
Fran Quigley
How Corporations Killed Medicine
Ted Rall
How Bernie Can Pay for His Agenda: Slash the Military
Neve Gordon
Israeli Labor Party Adopts the Apartheid Mantra
Kristin Kolb
The Greatest Bear Rainforest Agreement? A Love Affair, Deferred
Joseph Natoli
Politics and Techno-Consciousness
Hrishikesh Joshi
Selective Attention to Diversity: the Case of Cruz and Rubio
Stavros Mavroudeas
Why Syriza is Sinking in Greece
David Macaray
Attention Peyton Manning: Leave Football and Concentrate on Pizza
Arvin Paranjpe
Opening Your Heart
Kathleen Wallace
Boys, Hell, and the Politics of Vagina Voting
Brian Foley
Interview With a Bernie Broad: We Need to Start Focusing on Positions and Stop Relying on Sexism
February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail