|
Back
to Studies page
Introduction
The transfer of the Palestinians has begun. Piling their furniture
and personal belongings into a truck, the last residents of Yanoun
abandoned their West Bank village on October 18, 2002. "Our life
here is more bitter than hell," said one villager, lamenting years
of attacks, recently intensified, from Zionist settlers living
nearby. Over the past months, rampaging bands had smashed windows,
destroyed water tanks, burned the village's electric generator,
stolen sheep, beaten villagers and shot at workers in the fields.(1)
The Zionist government implicitly endorsed this act of ethnic
cleansing, failing to return the Palestinians to their homes, or
even to condemn the settlers' aggression verbally. To the contrary,
in Yanoun as elsewhere, the police and army have sided openly with
the marauding settlers. Five village men subsequently returned to
the village with the help of peace activists, but it is unclear how
long they will be able to hold out.(2)
"Transfer," the euphemism referring to expulsion of Palestinians
from Palestine, enjoys more legitimacy today than it has since 1948,
the year of the state of “Israel's” creation and the first
Arab-Israeli war. For many decades, Jewish Israelis declined to
speak publicly about the underside of the 1948 war: “Israel's”
responsibility for creating 750,000 Palestinian refugees, whose
descendants have yet to be repatriated or compensated. In the early
1980s, Rabbi Meir Kahane, the far-right leader of the Kach Party,
broke the taboo by promoting the eviction of Palestinians from the
so called ”Israel” and the Occupied Territories, but in 1988 his
party was banned as racist and anti-democratic. The idea of evicting
the Palestinians found new life in Rehevam Ze'evi's Moledet Party.
Ze'evi, a product of the mainstream Labor Party, explicitly cited
the war of 1948 as a precedent for his agenda. Ironically, Ze'evi's
version of Zionist history agreed with that advanced by “Israel's”
"new historians," who during the same period compiled detailed
evidence of Israel's responsibility for the Palestinian refugee
problem. Ze'evi celebrated this history, while the "new historians"
offered a more critical appraisal, yet both found themselves accused
of distorting "authentic" Zionist history.
In the wake of the 1993 Oslo accords, however, concern over the fate
of the Jewish state brought transfer into the Israeli mainstream.
Especially since the outbreak of the current intifada,
moments of Palestinian dispossession -- 1948 in particular -- have
been openly invoked as models for quelling Palestinian resistance.
At no point since the establishment of the state has there been so
ambient an understanding of the Zionist movement's role in evicting
the Palestinians. Two years into the intifada, with the
Zionist army unable to defeat the Palestinian uprising decisively,
the call to "let the army win" has morphed into the demand to
"finish the job" begun 55 years ago. The eviction of the
Palestinians is no longer a Zionist heresy but rather the truth of
Zionism; ethnic cleansing is the openly declared history and
potential future of the state. To use a phrase coined by new
historian Ilan Pappé, the "demons of the nakba (the Arabic
word referring to the Palestinian dispossession of 1948)," have
returned to haunt Israel. These "demons" have even seduced the first
new historian who exposed them: Benny Morris recently sang the
praises of transfer in the Guardian.
Top
"Miracle Solution"
As unapologetic awareness of transfer has increased, the notion of
transfer itself has grown more expansive. When Rehavam Ze'evi first
advanced the idea in the 1980s, he advocated the displacement of
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Today, the notion of
transfer has ramified into a variety of forms, including those that
target Palestinians with “Israeli” citizenship. Politicians on the
Zionist left, center and right agree that the "transfer of
citizenship" offers a solution to the "demographic problem" within
the pre-1967 borders of “Israel”. As Minister of Infrastructure Effi
Eitam said, "As far as Arabs are concerned, if you don't give them
the right to vote, you don't have a demographic problem."(3)
Yet focusing attention on outlandish statements by right-wing
politicians distorts the extent to which a wide array of Israeli
Jews supports disenfranchising the Palestinians. A substantial
portion of the Zionist public agrees that the very presence of
Palestinians in “Israel” and the West Bank constitutes a threat to
the future of the Jewish state. In a March 2002 poll administered by
Tel Aviv University, 46 percent of Zionist Jews supported the
transfer of Palestinians from the West Bank and 31 percent advocated
the same treatment for Palestinian citizens of “Israel”; 60 percent
said they supported "encouraging" Palestinian Israelis to leave
“Israel”; and a full 80 percent objected to the inclusion of
Palestinian Israelis in decisions of national importance.(4) Many
believe that these numbers underestimate public support for transfer
since many Zionist Jews are embarrassed to admit support for an
unethical policy. "The results of the poll unfortunately reflect the
reality I encounter almost every day," reports Member of Knesset
Yuli Edelstein, "I hear it everywhere, and not just at funerals. The
public is in a state of such distress and dread that any miracle
solutions suggested are immediately welcomed warmly."(5)
The impending war in Iraq could create the conditions for such a
"miracle solution," yet “Israel's” existing war against the
Palestinians already has made transfer a reality. Thousands of
Palestinians in the West Bank have already been "silently
transferred" as were the residents of Yanoun. Within “Israel”
itself, racial discrimination is effectively transferring
Palestinian Israelis out of the public sphere. As bombing attacks
have turned Zionist cities into a front in the fighting, urban space
has become a frontier from which Palestinian Israelis are often
excluded. On posters and billboards, in taxi cabs and living rooms,
and on radio and television, ethnic cleansing is advocated not only
for suppressing Palestinian resistance in the Occupied Territories
but also for neutralizing the calls of Palestinian citizens of
“Israel” for equality. Even if mass deportations never occur, the
discussion of transfer itself constitutes a weight on “Israel's”
Palestinian citizens, reminding them at every turn that they are but
temporary residents in their own land.
Top
Under Cover of War
While force has always been a prerequisite for Zionist settlement,
regional wars were necessary for Zionists to realize their fantasy
of living in "a land without a people." The 1948 War was only the
first step in the process. On the eve of the 1956 Sinai campaign,
the Zionist army drafted plans for the expulsion of Palestinian
from the area of north-central “Israel” known as the Little
Triangle.(6) In the 1960s, Ariel Sharon, then a colonel, ordered his
subordinates to investigate how many buses would be required to
transfer 300,000 Palestinians out of northern “Israel” in the event
of war.(7) Advance planning bore fruit during the 1967 war, when
200,000-300,000 Palestinians fled and were expelled from the West
Bank, some transported in buses marked "Free Passage to Amman."
Others, specifically those in the Latrun area, left on their own
power after being threatened, according to Uzi Narkiss, the head of
Central Command in 1967: "We came in the morning and said,
'Everybody go to Ramallah…. Afterward, we leveled the villages and
today we have Canada Park there."(8) Now, 35 years after the
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the threat of two overlapping
wars -- the intifada and Iraq -- hangs over the Palestinians.
During the past two years, the Zionist government has taken
advantage of Palestinian militancy to justify the displacement of
Palestinians within the West Bank and Gaza. Home demolitions,
missile strikes, individual deportations and revocation of residency
and citizenship have on occasion given way to the displacement of
entire neighborhoods. The most infamous example is Jenin, where
entire quarters were razed during Operation Defensive Shield in
April 2002. In Hebron, Palestinian residents and merchants have been
removed from a quarter of the market in order to make room for
Jewish settlers. According to Shlomo Lecker, lawyer for the
displaced residents, this has been done on the pretext of security
needs, although the only incident to mar the tranquility of the
quarter was an arson attack perpetrated by the same settlers that
now occupy the area. The largest planned population transfer to date
targets the hills of the Yatta region, south of Hebron, where the
Zionist government is trying to expel 750 families from their homes.
While the state claims the land for military training zones, Zionist
negotiators' maps reveal that “Israel” plans to annex the hills of
the Yatta region into a future settlement. The expulsions aim to
create a stretch of "empty" land linking the settlement of Kiryat
Arba to “Israel” at the southern tip of the West Bank.
The Yatta expulsions are still tied up in court, but the army is
reportedly crafting plans for forced evacuations that will not be
subject to judicial review. These will be justified by declaring
entire areas to be "closed military zones," thereby permitting the
immediate expulsion of the residents "for their own safety."(9) A
less elegant option proposes "creating waves of refugees inside the
territories,"(10) presumably by repeating the tactics employed
during Operation Defensive Shield. In the course of rooting out
"hotbeds of terrorism," the army ordered Palestinians to leave their
homes in Nablus and the Jenin and Balata refugee camps, then
destroyed entire neighborhoods and sent thousands of Palestinians
fleeing. Sharon could use this tactic to implement his "peace plan,"
which calls for concentrating Palestinians into three separate
enclaves comprising no more than 50 percent of the West Bank.
The impending war in Iraq bodes ill for the Palestinians. In the
long term, with the US mimicking “Israel's” national security policy
in which open aggression passes for legitimate defense, Palestinians
will find themselves in a world in which sovereignty and
self-determination have little meaning. In the short term, the war
promises to diminish international oversight in the Occupied
Territories even further, possibly setting the stage not only for
internal transfer but for mass expulsions as well. In the past, the
US has balked at the prospect of the regional instability that such
a move could invite, yet now, with the US seemingly intent on
reconfiguring the map in the Middle East, the prospect of regional
instability looms regardless of Zionist actions. If King Abdallah of
Jordan totters during the war, or if war breaks out with Syria, the
Zionist government could conclude there will never be another moment
so propitious to settle the conflict with the Palestinians. As Eitam
put it, in a slightly different context, "I can definitely see that
as a consequence of war, not many Arabs will remain here."(11)
Heightened media attention to Palestine, in combination with
international sensitivity to ethnic cleansing, seems to militate
against such a drastic course. The events of the past two years,
however, belie the notion that documentation of Zionist war crimes
is sufficient to provoke international intervention. Despite the
unanimous agreement of human rights organizations that “Israel” has
intentionally targeted civilians, “Israel”, with US support, has
been successful in portraying its actions as a regrettable but
natural consequence of war. As Deputy Defense Minister Weizman Shiri
said after an Israeli raid in Gaza killed fourteen people in October
2002, "If damage was caused to innocent civilians, we can be sorry,
but what can you do? This is war."(12) The Palestinians have
demonstrated their ability to resist Zionist moves, yet there can be
no doubt about “Israel's” overwhelming military power. In another 55
years, will scholars describe the expulsion of the Palestinians from
the remaining 22 percent of historical Palestine as a lamentable yet
understandable product of the twin wars in Israel-Palestine and
Iraq?
Top
Where Is There?
Shortly after the conclusion of the 1948 war, the new Zionist
government briefly considered denying citizenship to Palestinians
living within the state's borders. In the end, the government
decided not to risk international opprobrium by apportioning
citizenship along ethnic lines. Yet as a Jewish state, “Israel” did
not grant its Palestinian citizens full rights, subjecting them
instead to nearly twenty years of military rule. Fifty years later,
there are once again voices clamoring for a pure Jewish state
without Arab citizens.
Transfer as an official political platform dates to 1986, when
Rehevam Ze'evi began drafting plans for the founding of Moledet.
Ze'evi took care to note his differences with Meir Kahane's Kach
Party, which sought the unilateral expulsion of all Palestinians
west of the Jordan River. By contrast, Ze'evi specified that he
sought "transfer by agreement," that is, the exodus of Palestinians
within the framework of negotiations with Arab states. Of course, no
Arab government ever agreed to such an idea, nor did any Arab state
have the authority to terminate Palestinian claims to Palestine. But
the rhetoric of "agreement" served for Ze'evi, as for previous
generations of Zionists, as a convenient cover for the forcible
ejection of Palestinians: "I am not proposing to sit around and wait
until we reach transfer agreements in the framework of peace
agreements," he explained. Meanwhile, the Zionist government ought
to create "conditions of a negative magnet that will bring the Arab
population to prefer to emigrate."(13)
The Oslo accords appeared to represent a defeat for Ze'evi and the
extreme right, yet ironically, less than ten years later many on the
“Israeli” left have accepted a version of his hawkish ideas. For a
short period following the signing of the Declaration of Principles
in 1993, Palestinians and “Israelis” seemed to be inching toward
peace and reconciliation. Palestinian citizens of “Israel” were
optimistic that the agreement would normalize their position within
“Israeli” society. In 1994, Arab political parties for the first
time played a crucial role in supporting Yitzhak Rabin's government,
Palestinian towns were included for the first time in industrial
planning, and budget gaps between Palestinian and Jewish
municipalities began to decrease.
At the same time, however, Oslo forced “Israeli Jews” to confront
the question of Israel's national identity. The permanent state of
emergency that justified the co-presence of democracy and ethnocracy
threatened to evaporate. The hope for peace, combined with
“Israel's” neo-liberal economic realignment, convinced Israeli Jews
to grant Palestinians greater personal rights, yet Jews never
relinquished their conception of “Israel” as a Jewish state. Labor's
1992 campaign slogan, "Us Here, Them There, Peace with Rabin,"
summed up the Israeli understanding of Oslo. The slogan bore a
striking resemblance to that of Moledet in 1988, "We Are Here, They
Are There and Peace in Israel." As Ze'evi himself commented at the
time, "The only difference [between me and Rabin] is 'Where is
there?'"
Exactly where Palestinian fit into the Oslo landscape was at first
unclear, but by the end of the 1990s, they had become a primary
target of “Israeli” demographers. Maintaining a Jewish state
necessitated a Jewish majority, and since the West Bank and Gaza
were slated to pass to some form of Palestinian self-rule, the
"demographic debate" increasingly addressed “Israel” proper. In the
words of Arnon Sofer, professor at the University of Haifa, "You
should remember that on the same day as the “Israel” Defense Forces
is investing efforts and succeeding in eliminating one terrorist or
another, on that very same day, as on every day of the year, within
the territories of “western Israel”, about 400 children are being
born, some of whom will become new suicide terrorists!"(14) A
December 2000 report published by the Institute of Policy and
Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya indicates that
in the clash between demography and democracy, the former has
clearly won out.(15) The institute regularly brings together top
figures in the security, academic, media and business establishments
to generate policy recommendations for Zionists political
leadership; both Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon have availed themselves
of its expertise. The final report of the conference reflects the
Zionist establishment's acceptance of transfer as a policy option,
recommending that Palestinian living within the 1948 terrtories be
given the choice either to confirm their second-class status in the
Jewish state or to abandon their Israeli citizenship. At the same
time, the report recommended that "Israelis who permanently reside
abroad should be allowed to participate in Israeli elections by
absentee ballot." Pairing Palestinian residing in their own homes
with Israeli Jews living in a foreign country further suggests how
Palestinian are seen as strangers in the own land.
The report of the mainstream Herzliya Conference closely mirrors
Moledet's "peace plan." In the spring of 2002, Benny Elon -- who
took over as head of the party following Ze'evi's assassination --
launched a campaign based on "transfer of rights." Palestinian
citizens who refused to declare their loyalty to “Israel” as a
Jewish state would be stripped of their citizenship and issued
citizenship in another country. Should Palestinian rebel against
these terms -- for instance, by demanding equality with Jews in
“Israel” -- they would be expelled to "their" state. Unlike Elon's
plan, the Herzliya participants endorsed a Palestinian state in the
West Bank, yet both plans recommend that Palestinian Israelis be
given the choice to leave “Israel” or accept permanent second-class
status.
On the supposedly opposite end of the political spectrum, the
Zionist left has its own version of the Herzliya Center and Elon
plans. Ephraim Sneh, , presented a plan in March 2002 to incorporate
areas of the Little Triangle into a future Palestinian state. Sneh's
plan, like the Herzliya and Elon plans, would effectively transfer
Israel's Palestinian citizens out of “Israel” without actually
removing them from their homes. This suggests that while Zionists
might differ on where to draw “Israel's” final border, the Zionist
right, center and left agree on the need to rid “Israel” of its
Palestinian citizens. Sneh's idea polls well among Zionists,
garnering 50-60 percent support. Palestinian, who were never
consulted about the plan, evince less enthusiasm. In a recent poll,
only 18 percent say they would agree to live in a future Palestinian
state.(16)
Other members of the Knesset have put forward their own transfer
plans. Avigdor Lieberman, head of the parliamentary faction "Israel
is Our Home," has proposed a "political arrangement" in which
Palestinians -- including Palestinian citizens of Israel -- would be
confined to three small enclaves. Calls for "voluntary transfer"
abound as well. MK Michael Kleiner, for instance, has proposed
offering immigration incentives to anyone who moves to an Arab
country and permanently relinquishes Israeli citizenship or
residency. "My proposal, unlike transfer, is not a racist proposal,"
claims Kleiner, "because it is not aimed only at Arabs. Any Jew who
wants to move to Morocco would be eligible for the emigration
incentive."(17) The Knesset legal adviser did not agree, dubbing his
proposal racist and recommending its disqualification.(18) Although
Kleiner's proposal to encourage immigration was new, efforts at
promoting voluntary transfer have been ongoing for years. Moledet
offers scholarships for study abroad to Palestinians who sign an
agreement never to return to “Israel”. Some Palestinians report
receiving phone calls from mysterious organizations, each time with
a different name, offering to facilitate immigration to the US or
elsewhere.
Top
Transfer in the Urban Landscape
Popular Jewish support for ridding “Israel” of its Palestinian
citizens has altered the urban and national landscapes in “Israel”.
The campaign launched by Moledet in February 2002 has greatly
increased the public visibility of the party's message. Surfaces of
all kinds have been drafted in the service of the campaign: walls,
fences, traffic signs, dumpsters and bus stops proclaim "Kahane was
right" and "Expel the Arabs!" In summer 2002, tracks of posters
declaring that "Transfer = Security and Peace" appeared throughout
the country, even in cities such as Haifa that have a reputation for
relative tolerance. A second wave of posters soon joined the first,
announcing that "Jordan Is the Palestinian State." The government
did nothing to remove them, leading Haifa city council member Ayman
Awda to lodge a complaint with the mayor. Since the Attorney General
ruled illegal a previous set of posters that read "No Arabs, No
Attacks," Awda hoped that the recent posters might also be deemed
outside the law. Yet since the Attorney General earlier ruled that
calls for "voluntary transfer" are not illegal,(19) it is difficult
to hold out hope that the government will involve itself in removing
the posters. Showing that opposition in “Israel” is not completely
moribund, some posters have been defaced with "1941," thereby
equating transfer with Hitler's Final Solution. Others have been
creatively vandalized so as to make them read "Palestinian State =
Security and Peace." The lack of any organized effort to remove the
transfer posters, however, has made Zionist public space even more
inhospitable to Palestinians.
The articulation of racial concerns in the language of security is
hardly a new phenomenon in “Israel”, yet recently, urban space has
been racialized to an unprecedented degree. Ambulances have refused
to enter Palestinian villages in “Israel”, forcing the sick to meet
the ambulance in the closest Jewish area. The Zionist Chief of
Staff, Moshe Ya'alon, recently termed the Palestinian threat a
"cancerous" one that requires "chemotherapy," a characterization
subsequently endorsed by Ariel Sharon.(20) Jews defiantly state on
the op-ed pages that, fearing a bombing attack, they leave
restaurants rather than sit next to Arabs.(21) In Jerusalem's Old
City, the International Herald Tribune delivers only to the
Jewish Quarter. Residents of the city's other quarters, who comprise
almost 90 percent of the Old City's population, do not have access
to the paper because, as one IHT representative phrased it,
"we do not control those areas." Arabs are not permitted to enter
the Zionist Ministry of the Interior unless accompanied by a
security escort.(22) Discrimination and incitement against Arabs
accelerated after the arrest of a number of East Jerusalem residents
and Palestinian on charges of planning and carrying out bombings in
late July and early August. "This Is Not New" and "The Truth Is No
Surprise" pronounced the two most popular Zionist dailies in the
wake of the arrests. The Hebrew media's judgment was widely echoed
among Jewish Israelis: "I used to think that Palestinians living in
“Israel” were different than Palestinians in 1967 territories,"
commented one taxi driver, "but they're all the same."
As the violence has grown more intense, Zionist racist sentiment has
been dissociated from any pretense of concern with security. As a
Palestinian resident of Ma'ilya remarked, "Transfer used to be the
solution to a particular problem, like the demographic problem. Now
the Jews want transfer because they want a pure state. That's what
they say on television: 'We want a clean state.' How is that
supposed to make me feel? That makes me feel dirty." Instances of
the "cleansing" of Palestinians from the Jewish urban fabric are
popping up everywhere. Dozens of Zionist firms have signed a pledge
not to employ Arabs. Offices of Palestinian professionals practicing
in Zionist settlements have been destroyed, in some cases
repeatedly, by arson. Demonstrators in Safad, led by the city's
chief rabbi, have demanded the expulsion of Palestinian college
students, claiming that they "endanger the city's residents not only
in terms of security, but also morally."(23) Flyers have been
distributed in Haifa calling on Jewish citizens to boycott Arab
businesses. In Safad and Upper Nazareth, religious and city
officials have urged the Jewish population not to rent or sell
apartments to Palestinians. An educator in Tel Aviv refused to
administer a matriculation exam to the Palestinian students.(24) The
Arabic press carries regular reports about hate crimes against
Palestinian; the Hebrew press, by contrast, rarely addresses the
issue.
The exclusion of Palestinians from Jewish space sometimes reaches
Jim Crow proportions, with Palestinians denied access to spaces and
businesses on the basis of accent and name. Examples overheard in
casual conversation: A Palestinian couple from the village of Taybe
waited to enter a club in Tel Aviv. As they approached the door, the
security guard engaged them in conversation. When the guard heard
their Palestinian accents, he turned them away, claiming, "We're
having a private party tonight, the club is closed." A Palestinian
woman from Jerusalem, who speaks Hebrew with an Ashkenazi (European
Jewish) accent, tried to make a reservation in a hotel in Tel Aviv.
The receptionist at first told her there were plenty of rooms, but
when she gave her name, the receptionist's response changed: "I'm
sorry, I made a mistake. We have no rooms available that night."
Another Palestinian called to reserve a rental car, but was told
there were none available. Suspecting discrimination, he called a
radio station to complain. The Jewish radio host called the car
company, broadcasting the conversation on the air. She had no
problem reserving a car.
Top
Endnotes
1
Associated Press, October 19, 2002.
2
Palestine Monitor,
October 21, 2002.
3
Ha'aretz, April 9, 2002.
4 The
complete poll can be found at
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/memoranda/memo60.pdf.
5
Ha'aretz, March 19, 2002.
6
Ha'aretz, April 5, 2002.
7
Ha'aretz Musaf, September 2, 1988.
8
Ha'aretz Musaf, October 21, 1988.
9
Kol Ha'ir, July 26, 2002.
10
Ha'aretz, June 19, 2002.
11
Ha'aretz, April 6, 2002.
12
Ha'aretz, October 7, 2002.
13
Ha'aretz, October 8, 2002.
14
Quoted in Ha'aretz, June 28, 2002.
15
The report has been excerpted in the Journal of Palestine Studies
31/3 (Autumn 2002).
16
Arab Association for Human Rights, Weekly Press Review 95, October
9, 2002.
17
Ha'aretz, March 19, 2002.
18
Ha'aretz, 22 November 2001.
19
Ha'aretz, 24 June 2002.
20
Ari Shavit, "My Idea of Winning," Ha'aretz Magazine, August
30, 2002.
21
Ha'aretz, August 22, 2002.
22
Kol Ha'ir, August 30, 2002.
23
Kol Ha'ir, August 16, 2002.
24
Ha'aretz, June 23, 2002.
Top |
