Any attempt to understand the peculiarities of the Oslo II map and
the division of the region into Areas "A," "B" and "C" have to take
account of the location of Israeli settlements and the
unwillingness of the Israeli negotiators to consider the
possibility of settlement evacuation - partial or total - in what
was still perceived as no more than a transitional stage on the
path to Palestinian statehood.
The Israeli negotiators were unwilling, at the time, to deal with
the issue of settlements for two paradoxical reasons. In the first
place, any attempt to evacuate even a single outpost at this stage
of the process would have resulted in vehement, probably violent,
opposition from within Israel.
Secondly, the settlements continued to constitute a powerful
bargaining ploy for Israel in the final stages of territorial
negotiations. The more the settlements, the stronger case Israel
would have made for keeping control of certain parts of the West
Bank, especially those areas within which the major settlement
concentrations are to be found and which are also in close
proximity to the Green Line, thus allowing for possible boundary
redemarcation. Both the Rabin and Peres governments refused to
discuss the possibility of compensation for those few settlers who
publicly expressed a desire to relocate back within sovereign
Israel. Despite the fact that initial settler relocation may have
created an important precedent for the Labor governments through
which other settlers could be influenced to follow their example,
the time was not yet ripe - as far as Israel was concerned - for
this to take place. Any settlement evacuation, however voluntary,
at that stage would have weakened the Israeli negotiation stance in
the final phase.
Borders and Settlements
The question of future borders of a Palestinian state are closely
tied up with the settlement problematic. During the century-long
conflict, the changing geographical and settlement realities have
played a major role in influencing the eventual demarcation of
boundaries and the creation of political maps. This was as true of
the role of pre-State Jewish agricultural settlements in
determining the lines of battle set out by the Haganah in 1948-49,
as it appears to partially be in the case of the West Bank
settlements. In a region in which the political map and boundaries
have changed on numerous occasions in only 70 years, facts on the
ground have often proved to be influential in determining the
ultimate territorial demarcation of the respective Israeli and
Palestinian political entities.
When the Gush Emunim movement set about creating their settlements
some 20 years ago, their avowed aim was to create a series of
irreversible facts which would prevent any future negotiations to
include the return of any part of the occupied territories to their
Palestinian residents. The initial reaction to the Oslo I and Oslo
II agreements was to suggest that the settlers had failed to meet
their objectives. Territory was to be handed over to the
Palestinian National Authority and, as such, had not proved to be
an irreversible feature. It was seen as running contrary to the
thesis of Meron Benvenisti, proving that everything was reversible
if given the political will. And yet, at the same time, the central
role played by the settlements in demarcating the shape and size of
Areas "A," "B" and "C" have provided evidence to the contrary. The
geographical discontinuity, the creation of numerous exclaves and
bypass roads, the lack of compact territories for both Israelis and
Palestinians, can only be understood by recourse to the settlement
realities. All of Area "C," 56 consisting of nearly 70 percent of
the West Bank, contains each and every Israeli settlement, large or
small. The settlements determined the map of Oslo II.
All the proposals put forward by various Israeli groups and
political movements aimed at translating the Oslo accords into a
final territorial agreement prioritized the issue of settlement. In
the past, additional factors had featured in the Israeli
territorial discourse, most notably the question of those
micro-territories perceived as having strategic significance, as
well as the issue of the water aquifer.2 Achieving amenable mutual
solutions to these latter two issues is no longer seen as being
insurmountable, leaving the settlement issue as the single most
problematic factor which would have been faced by the negotiators
in a final stage of discussions.
Territorial Proposals
The linkage between settlements and boundaries was central to all
territorial proposals of the past year. The Alpher proposal
suggested that by annexing "only" 11 percent of the West Bank,
Israel could avoid the need to evacuate approximately 65 percent of
the settlements. The former Green Line boundary would be
redemarcated, moving to the east, but retaining a clear line of
separation between two political territories. Other variations were
proposed by political groups like the centrist Third Way and the
religious-dovish Netivot Shalom. All focused on the single issue of
settlement as the main factor in redrawing future boundaries.
And just prior to the elections, it was announced that Peres had
reached an agreement with settler moderate [sic] Yoel Ben Nun, by
which any future territorial arrangement between Israel and the
Palestinians would not necessitate the removal of a single Israeli
settlement.
The proposals all had one theme in common: How to retain the
maximum amount of Israeli settlements by annexing as small a
territory as possible.4 It is an Israeli discourse played out by
those who, so it would appear, are prepared to back the peace
process and the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state, but
at the same time are not prepared to face the internal strife and
violence which will result from settlement evacuation. As such, for
as long as a single settlement remains in situ, the settlers will
have been "successful" in creating the facts which would have
changed the spatial realities of the region - even if they had not
succeeded in retaining control over the whole of the region.
The point to make is that the creation of new facts on the ground -
be they Israeli or Palestinian facts - do have a role to play in
determining political and territorial boundaries of the future. The
1949-1967 boundary was never recognized as an international
boundary and, as such, was subject to change. It became a de facto
boundary as a result of the role it played until 1967 in separating
peoples, armies and territories. And, despite all Israeli
government assertions to the contrary, it has continued to play a
major role as an administrative line, a line along which curfews
are imposed and territories sealed, a line beyond which most
Israelis no longer travel, behind which Palestinian civilians are
cut off from their sources of employment and which separates
Israeli civilian law from the rules of the military
occupation.
It is therefore quite logical that the Palestinian claim to the
whole of the West Bank should be determined by the one boundary
that existed ¬however short the period of time was. It is
something which is recognizable and which, more than any other
territorial demarcator, symbolizes the area of occupation. For many
Palestinians it is not enough - for many Israelis it is too much
and, as such, it could be forcefully argued that it constitutes an
optimal line of territorial compromise.
But there is a chance to draw a better line, one which maximizes
the degree of separation to an extent which was not met by the
1948-49 realities. This means accepting a quid pro quo in which an
equal amount of territory annexed by Israel - be it for security,
settlement or other purposes - be exchanged for land in other parts
of the region. This could mean extending the Palestinian territory
northward into the Wadi Ara region or southward into the Dahariyah
and Sussiyah regions. These areas, while not altogether empty of
population, are more sparsely inhabited than the center of the
country and, as such, have greater potential for future development
and repopulation of refugees.
The fact that such a scenario is unacceptable to any Israeli
negotiator is, of course, due to the fact that Israel- as dominant
power in the peace process¬- sets the negotiating agenda. For
Israel, the "Green Line" represents maximum concession, one which
in their view cannot be met owing to the settlement realities. For
Israel, the territory to be conceded can only be less than that
encompassed by the "Green Line." For Palestinians, however,
anything less than the whole area is equally unthinkable. Thus the
options are clear: Either the default boundary which existed until
1967 with all that means for settlement evacuation, or alternately
a quid pro quo based on the principle of territorial reciprocity
and exchange.
Separation and Sharing
Territorial post-modernists would have us believe that boundaries
are a feature of the past. In their view, ethno-territorial
conflicts must be solved by sharing space, granting
multi-identities and citizenship - in short, a binational state on
a single territory. Unfortunately, recent history has taught us
that the modern state cannot fU'1ction effectively if it has to
share space between two sovereign entities. The existence of
exclaves, safe passages, bypass roads, territorial corridors,
"cross" citizenship and the like are the instant recipe for
political instability and short-term disaster. The post-modern
discourse is irrelevant to those societies still undergoing
ethno-territorial conflict. Palestinians and Israelis, Bosnian
Serbs, Croats and Muslims, as well as Cypriot Greeks and Turks, all
desire separate, exclusive and compact territories. Decades of
violence, hatred and mutual mistrust do not facilitate the sharing
of space just because there is a piece of paper labeled a "peace
agreement," They desire to have the "other" group out of sight and
mind. Group exclusivity gives rise to spatial exclusivity and
residential segregation. As has already been proved in the short
history of the Oslo agreements, the current stage of conflict
resolution requires territorial separation rather than shared
spaces. It may, indeed, be an unfortunate comment on the ability of
Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians, to live together, but it
reflects the very real animosities, mutual suspicions and, in many
cases, hatred, held by each for the other. And in order to achieve
that objective, boundaries have to be demarcated as a means by
which official sanction is afforded the notion of separation.
It is too early at this stage to know exactly what the Likud
government has in store for renewed settlement policy throughout
the West Bank (and perhaps even in the Gush Qatif region in the
Gaza Strip). Early indications would suggest that there will be a
powerful lobby on the part of the settlement movement to undertake
rapid settlement expansion ¬not only the consolidation of
existing communities and townships as has been the case during the
past ten years, including the period of the Rabin government - but
also the establishment of new communities in, as yet, uncolonized
locations. Beyond the international strife that this will create
for Israel, including the worsening of relations with the USA,
expansion of the settlement network will, once again, be
responsible for the creation of new facts on the ground and new
geographical realities.
The current situation is, in reality, a dream situation for the
Likud government. They are inheriting a transitional stage in which
Israel has absolved itself of the direct responsibility for the
welfare of virtually all the Palestinian residents of the West Bank
and Gaza, while at the same time retaining control of most of the
territory. They have created new territorial ghettos which will be
unable to survive in the long-term. It is highly probable that a
renewed settlement policy on the part of the Likud government will
attempt to transform this transitional stage into a permanent stage
by creating new settlements in much of Areas "c." Such activity
will take place on the margins of the main settlement
concentrations, particularly in the west of the region, in an
attempt to further expand the territorial contiguity of the area
which will be claimed by Israel in future negotiations - if and
when they are ever to take place.
Endnotes
1. See: A. Kellerman, Society and Settlement (SUNY Press: Albany,
1993); D. Newman, "Civilian and Military Presence as Strategies of
Territorial Control: the Arab-Israel Conflict," Political Geography
Quarterly, 8(3), 1989, pp. 215-227.
2. C. Falah and D. Newman, "The Spatial Manifestation of Threat:
Israelis and Palestinians Seek a 'Cood' Border," Political
Geography Quarterly, 14(8), 1995, pp. 689-706; D. Newman, "Towards
Peace in the Middle East: the Formation of State Territories in
Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip," Geography, 1994, pp.
263-268.
3. Y. Alpher, Borders and Settlements. Jaffee Center for Strategic
Studies, Tel Aviv University.
4. D. Newman, "Territorial Discontinuity and Palestinian Autonomy:
Implementing the Oslo II Agreement," Boundary and Security
Bulletin, 3(4),1995-96, pp. 75-85; "Shared Spaces - Separate
Spaces: the Israeli-Palestine Peace Process," Geojournal, 1996, Vol
39(4).
5. D. Newman, "Boundaries in Flux: the Green Line Boundary between
Israel and the West Bank," Boundary and Territory Briefing, 1 (7),
1995, p. 52.
6. B. Morris, The Border Wars (Clarendon Press: Oxford,
1992).
7. G. Falah, "The 1948 Israeli-Palestinian War and Its Aftermath:
the Transformation and De-Signification of Palestine's Cultural
Landscape," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol
86(2), pp. 256-285.
8. S. Reichmann, "Partition and Transfer: Crystallization of the
Settlement Map of Israel Following the War of Independence,
1948-1950," in R. Kark (ed.), The Land That Became Israel (New
Haven: Yale University Press), 1990.
9. M. Brawer, "The 'Green Line': Functions and Impacts of an
Israeli-Arab Superimposed Boundary," in Carl Grundy-Warr (ed.),
International Boundaries and Boundary Conflict Resolution
(International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham, 1990), pp.
63-74.