Between Separation and Internal Colonialism by Oren Yiftachel, Ben Gurion University 1:01pm Wed Jul 31 '02 (Article was rejected for publication by Ha'aretz) There is an immense difference between the establishment of Jewish settlements before the founding of the State of Israel, at which time the Hebrew-Jewish community was literally fighting for survival, and the establishment of internal ethnic settlements sanctioned by a recognized State which enjoys full sovereignty over its territory. print article Between Separation and Internal Colonialism "Legally enforcing residential exclusion between Arabs and Jews will continue erode the fabric of Israeli society." By: Oren Yiftachel A fierce public debate took place on the proposed ‘Druckman law’, moved by MK Haim Druckman of the National Religious Party in an attempt to override a previous High Court ruling on the Kaadan vs Katzir case, which banned the allocation of State land for Jewish use only. The debate thankfully led to the withdrawal of the proposed racist law a week after the government’s initial approval of the same bill. But make no mistake: no one expects that land will be distributed equally or fairly in Israel at any time in the foreseeable future. Most of the politicians were convinced that the law "was not needed at present" and the failure to pass it will not jeopardize the continued existence of exclusively Jewish localities. And indeed, barely a week passed, and the government decided on 21 July, 2002, to approve 14 new Jewish settlements, mainly in the Galilee and Negev, supposedly to “protect state land from continuing Arab invasion”. Support for Jews-only localities has come from some unexpected quarters. The former president of the Association for Citizen's Rights in Israel(!) Prof. Ruth Gavison (Ha'aretz, July 17) has argued for securing the right of secular Jewish localities to keep their character, and added that this "requires legal means to prevent penetration by Arabs…” According to Gavison, such legal instruments stem from the State's "legitimate interest" in "strengthening Jewish presence to establish control over the territory." The solution, in her view, is "settlement and housing plans which allow for diverse solutions that satisfy the needs of all sectors (Arabs and Jews)." Gavison is of course not alone: for decades, many in the Israeli academia, led by professors such as Arnon Soffer and Rafi Yisraeli, have either fully supported Israel’s discriminatory land and planning policies. The vast majority of the state’s self-defined ‘liberal’ and ‘leftists’ academicians have remained silent in the face of these policies, which have resulted in the establishment of over 700 Jewish settlements, and not even one for the country’s Palestinian-Arab citizens (barring new Bedouin towns built for their coerced concentration). Despite her support for building new Arab localities, Gavison's approach is problematic for a number of reasons. First, her espousal of continued Jewish settlement promotes the continuation of internal Jewish colonialism. This position assumes that the presence of Arabs in the landscape is "a problem", thereby turning the state Arab citizens into ‘born enemies’. This perception has sustained five decades of Judaisation policy, usually by cynically using Arab land expropriated for ‘public purposes’. There is an immense difference between the establishment of Jewish settlements before the founding of the State of Israel, at which time the Hebrew-Jewish community was literally fighting for survival, and the establishment of internal ethnic settlements sanctioned by a recognized State which enjoys full sovereignty over its territory. The continuing policy of building settlements for Jews-only acts as if the state has not been established as yet, allowing Israeli planners to ignore their legal and professional obligation to treat all citizens equally. Geographers distinguish between “defensive segregation” of an endangered minority and "aggressive segregation," which seeks to consolidate the control and expansion of the ruling group. Katzir (the Jewish locality built between large Arab towns in order to ‘Judaize’ the region) like many other settlement, is an example of aggressive segregation, which undermines the foundations of equal and shared citizenship. Katzir has refused to allow Arab citizens to purchase state land in its boundaries, and hence undermined one of the basic tenets of common citizenship. In defiance of the High Court decision to ban such Jewish exclusivity over two years ago, no Arabs have been allowed into Katzir. Gavison and her supporters want to perpetuate this process of forced exclusion by entrenching it in law. Secondly, Gavison avoids the geographical context of the issue. Under existing arrangements (even without Druckman's law) Arabs are prevented from acquiring housing in an area amounting to 80% of Israel. The forbidden areas include land controlled by regional councils, which includes moshavim, kibbutzim, and small localities, which do not accept Arabs. Gavison is calling for a perpetuation of this "hidden apartheid" on State land, with slight improvements that would expand the range of options for Arab settlement. Is it possible to imagine that another country would ban Jews from living on the bulk of its territory? Would people not cry anti-Semitism, and rightly so? Thirdly, the support of legalized exclusive settlement of secular-Jews (who are commonly of high income groups) places Israeli planning on a slippery slope: this principle can quickly lead to the exclusion of other Jewish groups that "don't fit" into the secular community's way of life, like religious, Russians, Ethiopians, traditional Sephardim, or the poor. It is but a short step from this to de jure recognition of ethnic and class-based ghettos, the gradual disappearance of a shared public space, and the erosion of common citizenship. Finally and critically, while it is widely believed that exclusively Jewish settlement consolidate Israel's hold on the land; there is no factual evidence for this view. On the contrary, Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Galilee over the past several decades has fuelled ethnic tensions and thereby eroded the legitimacy of the Israeli rule. Moreover, the settlements have never stopped Arab use of state land, neither halted terror. Quite the opposite, they often became easy targets for such attacks. The only way to strengthen Israel's control over its territory is to grant equal citizenship, uphold the High Court Katzir ruling, and guard the land by means of the armed forces, not through a geographic aggression by one group of citizens towards another. The above does not deny cultural groups the right to establish for themselves a secure way of life. In a multicultural society such as Israel, most residents will in any case choose to live amongst those who resemble them. But cultural pluralism must be achieved voluntarily without launching new waves of geographic aggression, and without legalizing exclusion, which build destructive walls between segments of the population. Such wall may, in the short-term, succeed in oppressing and excluding marginalized minorities, but in the long-term, they are likely to erode the very fabric that holds society together, sending it into escalating cycles of crises and conflicts. ----------------- Professor Oren Yiftachel teaches geography and public policy at Ben Gurion University in Beer Sheva. (translated by Edeet Ravel) www.geog.bgu.ac.il/members/yiftachel/yif... add your comments Source file

What the fuck is your problem, screwball? by confused 11:23pm Wed Jul 31 '02 print comment You commies are so against jews living in Arab areas, what the hell is the problem with saying arabians cannot live in jewish areas, what cognitive dissonance. What would make sense to say is that Arabians may move into jewish towns, and that Mecca must be opened up for massive jewish settlement. There atre many jewish refugees, specifically jews living west of the green line in Israel and Islam could show great thoughtfulness by opening up their borders for jewish refugees to come. add your comments

The demographic answer by ben yavnieli 6:37pm Thu Aug 8 '02 benyavnieli@hotmail.com print comment I agree that discrimnation and agressive actions are not useful for the long term. But when we look at the future and the popultion graphs, it is inevitable that the majority of israel will be not jewish, or not zionist. what then? two options for the jewish ( israeli? ) nation: the first is intensive " alia " and settlements in the negev and galille ( therefore the government's decision is appropriate ).The second and more important is to find out our main values between ourselves and than reach to a cultural agreement with our minorities citizens. it will provibe a long term sollution, not only with the arabs but also with ourself... add your comments