Safe (For Whom?) Passage
By Uri Avnery
Translation of the unabridged version of an article published in
Hebrew in Ma'ariv, October 4, 1999
Something peculiar happened to the two words "safe passage".
When this term was coined in the Oslo agreements, the intention
was that the passage will be "safe" for the Palestinians. Now it
seems that Barak and his people mean that it will be "safe" for
Israel.
Let us remind those that have forgotten (or who never knew): The
"safe passage" was already a part of the Cairo agreement (1994), and
was mentioned again in Annex 1 of the Interim Agreement (1995). Even
in the original Declaration of Principles (1993), it was said that
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitute "a single territorial
unit, whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period"
(Article IV). In order to implement this principle, several safe
passages were agreed upon set out precisely on the map attached to
the agreement. They were to be opened already in May 1994. Like
dozens of other articles, this one too was violated by the
governments of Rabin, Peres and Netanyahu.
From the wording and context of the article, it is quite clear
that it refers to passages where the Palestinians will move freely
between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in order to implement the
principle that they are a single unit, in spite of the geographical
division. The agreements do not state that the passages will be
exterritorial, because they do not deal with Palestinian
sovereignty, but it is obvious that this was meant in practice.
Now, after a slight delay of five years and five months, Barak
offers to respect the obligation. Respect in a peculiar way. Because
the offer is far from the implementation of the original agreement.
First of all, only one single passage is offered. For a
Palestinian, it will be easier to fly from Gaza to Rome, using the
new international airport, then to travel by land from Gaza to
Nablus. And, more importantly, the "safe" passage will be extremely
unsafe for him: he will not be sure that he will be allowed to use
it at all, and he will not be sure that he will not be arrested on
the way. Every trip will be subject to bureaucratic harassment, in
the best case, and constitute a wager on his freedom, in the worst
case.
The Israeli officers who are conducting the negotiations (if one
can call this diktat negotiations) want to make sure that
every single phase of the passage will be under complete Israeli
control. For the sake of security.
This is a bad omen for the future. The former Chief of Staff, who
is the present Prime Minister, has put all the matters concerning
peace with the Palestinians into the hands of a group of army,
Mossad and Shin-Bet officers. This week it was reported that the
Shin-Bet agrees to the setting up of a Palestinian state. This is,
too, the opinion of the army and the Mossad, and therefore also of
Ehud Barak. But when they say "state", what do they mean?
As far as territory is concerned, they mean to tear away large
chunks of land for the so-called "settlement blocs", including the
settlements and hill-top outposts that are being built these very
days under the auspices of the army. But in the remaining territory
- some 15% of Mandatory Palestine - they do not want a real state to
be created. They want an entity that will be completely cut off from
the surrounding countries. The air and sea ports, the border
passages to Egypt and Jordan, the passages between the separate
parts of the state itself - all will be under total Israeli control.
No person and no goods will pass without an Israeli permit. No
Palestinian will come home without Israeli consent. No Palestinian
will serve in the Palestinian Police and bear arms without Israeli
confirmation. All this under the pretext of "security" - a pretext
that justifies practically everything. Even when a Palestinian
breathes he may endanger security - after all, who knows whether he
does not take away air from a settler?
In international parlance, such an entity is called "Bantustan" -
after the "homelands" set up by the racist white regime in South
Africa for the blacks (who belonged to the Bantu tribes). The
territories enjoyed nominal autonomy, even some trappings of
sovereignty, but in reality they where completely under the control
of the white overlords.
The dream of creating a Palestinian Bantustan is, of course,
ludicrous. No Palestinian will accept such a state. The Palestinians
are no Bantus (and even the Bantus did eventually destroy the
apartheid regime). The whole plan is based on an abysmal contempt of
the intelligence officers for the Palestinian people and its leaders
- a contempt that has already brought on us disaster in the past.
The same logic that has already compelled successive Israeli
governments against their will to recognize the existence of the
Palestinian people and negotiate with Yassir Aarafat, will also bury
the idea of the Bantustan. Barak and his people, too, will learn
from experience. Pity for the time wasted and all that will happen
on the way.
