By Adam Hanieh
RAMALLAH — On September 15, the Israeli government announced the lifting of the internal closure on Palestinian towns in the West Bank. This decision means Palestinians can now travel between towns but are still prohibited from resuming jobs inside Israel and from entering Jerusalem.
On the same day, the Israeli Finance Ministry released US$35 million to the Palestinian Authority. The figure represents half of the amount illegally held by Israel from the collection of taxes on Palestinian imports, income and other fees.
According to the 1994 Paris economic agreement, Israel must hand over taxes no more than six days after their collection.
Simultaneously with these apparently positive steps, three Israeli families moved into the Palestinian area of Ras al Amud in East Jerusalem. The move provoked enormous controversy, and hundreds of Israeli police deployed around the settlers in the heart of this Arab area.
The move was funded by the Israeli millionaire Irving Moskowitz, who also financed the construction of the tunnel under the Al Aqsa mosque in September last year — a move that led to the deaths of more than 80 Palestinians in the most widespread protests since the signing of the Oslo Accords.
The Israeli settlers claim that they purchased the Palestinian houses legally. The Israeli cabinet had secretly approved the move in a meeting last week, during US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's visit to the region.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu announced following the widespread protest, "The move was not good for Jerusalem or Israel. [The government] are the ones who should be making the decisions."
The claim that the settlers have legal property rights to the Ras Al Amud houses reveals much about the use of "law" in Israeli society. All Israeli commentary on this issue failed to mention the "legal" right of Palestinians to land and property seized since 1948. This includes 70% of West Jerusalem which was owned by Arabs prior to the 1948 war.
The inability of left Zionist opponents of the Ras Al Amud settlement to resolve this contradiction has led to weak criticisms focused on the "inappropriate timing" and "the dangerous effects on the peace process".
Rumours of war
Meanwhile, the Israeli media in the last few days have embarked on a fervent campaign warning of imminent war with the Palestinians. Hebrew radio and newspapers claim that the collapse of the peace process means a strong likelihood of Palestinian "guerilla warfare".
All Israeli Defence Force reservists have been placed on alert, and the major topic at last week's meeting of the IDF Planning Board concerned a plan to enter the towns currently under Palestinian control.
However, English and Arabic newspapers have been more restrained in their commentary — indicating that perhaps talk of war is meant for the consumption of Israeli citizens only. The majority of non-Hebrew media have talked of the possibility of low-level skirmishes and rioting but not of full-scale confrontation.
One issue that most commentators agree is crucial in determining the course of the next month is the future of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. The inability of Arafat to control the Palestinian population is cited by IDF and Israeli government sources as a likely rationale for reoccupying Area A towns.
The question of Arafat's successor has been a favourite topic of discussion amongst Palestinian and Israeli circles.
Two possible candidates for the job are Jibril Rajoub and Abu Mazen. Rajoub is head of Preventive Security in the West Bank and has a certain level of respect amongst Palestinians for his role during the intifada and his strong criticisms of Israeli policies.
However, Rajoub is also responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses of the Palestinian Authority and is widely suspected of collaborating with Israeli stone companies in procuring land for quarries.
Abu Mazen, often said to be number two in the PLO, was a prime architect of the Oslo agreement. He was instrumental in many of the economic accords between Israel and the Palestinians, and with Israeli Labour Knesset member Yossi Beilin drew up a proposal for the division of the occupied territories called the Beilin-Mazen Plan. This plan was widely criticised as a recipe for the "cantonisation" of the West Bank.
Mazen is an extremely wealthy businessman and, because of his business dealings, is not held in wide regard by the Palestinian population. He is a favoured candidate of the United States.
The unpredictability of the situation if Arafat falls is heightened by the presence of numerous security forces and large networks based on family ties and personal loyalties. Despite the Oslo Accords, many Palestinians have access to weapons hidden in case of the outbreak of violence.
Final status negotiations
A full-scale war or reoccupation of Palestinian areas is unlikely at present. The current situation remains strongly in favour of the Israeli government as it continues its policies of house demolition, settlement expansion and road construction in the occupied territories.
Instead of war, a likely course is an agreement to move towards accelerated final status negotiations.
That this is the course most favoured by the US was revealed in the "Clinton/Albright six-month initiative" on June 26. This plan was designed by Nimrod Novik, an adviser to Shimon Peres, and PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat with the knowledge of Danny Neveh, a top Netanyahu official.
It was originally meant to form the basis for Albright's September visit to the region.
The basic thrust of the plan was to begin final status negotiations immediately with an aim to reach an agreement at the end of six months. All further redeployment would be put off until the end of the six months.
It also called for a halt to the construction of the Har Homa settlement at Jabal Abu Ghneim, no new settlement building and no "significant expansion of existing settlements".
The plan had Palestinian support and looked likely to gain Israeli support but for the bombings in Jerusalem. After those events, an amended plan was revealed which adds two significant points.
The first of these rewords the agreement regarding settlement expansion, calling on Israel to refrain from "meaningful" construction in settlements. The Israeli commitment would not need to be declared explicitly but would be contained in a letter from the US to Arafat.
This leaves wide space for settlement construction. because the boundaries of settlements are not easily defined and are determined by the Israelis.
The second addition is a commitment from the US to fund the PA until the year 2003 at an amount to be determined.
Netanyahu has declared his support for such an approach by formally repudiating the policy of interim steps and cancelling the commitment to three further withdrawals by mid-1998.
The likely outcome of accelerated final status negotiations can be predicted. Palestinians would enter such negotiations with 3% of the territory under their control.
Large areas have been cleared of a Palestinian presence through the demolition of more than 500 houses and a 40% increase in the settler population over the last four years. Gaza and the West Bank remain completely separated, and the vast majority of Palestinians are confined to six towns surrounded by settlements and the Israeli military.
The most important city in Palestinian economic, social, political and religious life, Jerusalem, is surrounded by a ring of settlements; Palestinians are now the demographic minority in both East and West Jerusalem. The Palestinian population remains demobilised and politically unorganised.
To begin negotiations without completion of the interim agreements, with such an unequal balance of forces and with no strategy for popular mobilisation can only lead to a Palestinian stamp of approval for apartheid.