Looking at the columns of the liberal media in Israel, one cannot
avoid the conclusion that nothing has changed:  Again we have a
government committed to peace, working ("even against its will") to
carry out the vision of Oslo, despite the objections of the right
wing, and with the support of Labor and left.  It is fully agreed
that Netanyahu is building new settlements and pushing the Palestinians
out of the center of the West Bank, only as an unavoidable token of
compensation to the right-wing, for the drastic steps Netanyahu has
taken in the peace process.  "Netanyahu has never wanted to build
in Har-Homa, but was forced to do that" says Deddi Zucker of the left-
wing Meretz, in his vote-of-nonconfidence speech in the parliament.
This is precisely what they said also about Rabin, in whose time the
Har-Homa plan was conceived and approved (in May 1995).  Because in
Israel, we confiscate, expel and settle only for the sake of peace.

In September 96, it appeared that Netanyahu will not be able to control
the territories, and to keep portraying the occupation as the road
to peace. The match was his acts on the tunnel beneath the Aqsa Mosque,
and the occupied territories seemed on the verge of a new Palestinian
uprising. A wave of anger at Israel and solidarity with the struggle
of the Palestinians swept the world.  The Israeli doves were seriously
worried. But in a few days, Arafat has managed to crash the uprising
and Netanyahu proved that his control of Arafat and the territories
is just as solid as that of Rabin and Peres.  Now it was possible
to turn to  the nuisance of Hebron, which Israel has been planning
for about two years - to transfer the police job to Arafat's security
forces, and thus release Israeli soldiers for other missions.  Since
Israel wanted this, anyway, Arafat could present it as a courageous
demand in return for his cooperation, and, thus, market himself as
a winner.

The "crisis" was over.  "The peace process has won".  The Gulf
companies returned to business with Israel, and the Israeli doves
realized that Netanyahu can do the job of keeping things quiet as
well as Peres. With a slight sigh, the peace-camp placed itself behind
Netanyahu:  The government is corrupt, but the peace process goes
on! The Palestinian state is a sure fact to come, so we can move away
from this topic now! -This is the common theme in the columns of the
doves.

But compared to 'Har-Homa', the Aqsa tunnel is a marginal issue of
a symbolic nature.  The tunnel can be easily closed again, if the
Palestinians ever get any rights over Jerusalem. But the new settlement
is an irreversible act which eliminates their chances to ever get
such rights.

Although in the Israeli maps, the whole center of the West Bank is
defined as Jerusalem, Jabel Abu R'neim-the Palestinian land on which
Har-Homa is to be built - is the land reserves of the Beit-Lehem
region, and much of the land was confiscated from Beit-Saxur owners.
(Other parts of this land were appropriated over the years by Israeli
business speculants, like David Mir, who took advantage of the owners
fleeing away. The government paid Mir the modest sum of 60 million
dollars for his share of the land, a transaction which is being called,
mysteriously, 'confiscation'.[1]) Building in this new area is not
just one more new settlement (disguised as a new neighborhood of
Jerusalem). This is the only unsettled stretch of land between the
south of the West-bank and the Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem -
the only area where it was possible, in principle, to keep a
territorial link between them. If it is built now, then the south
is completely separated from Jerusalem with a thick belt of Jewish
residence. This is the final link in the plan prepared by the Rabin
government to dissociate Jerusalem and the center of the West bank,
from its south. Once this happens, the Palestinians loose access to
the center, and whether they will be allowed to visit Jerusalem in
the future, will depend solely on Israel's mercy.

This is a serious matter. That's why the previous government did not
hurry to carry out its plan. Before Israel starts building, it is
necessary to guarantee that Arafat's headquarters can indeed control
the territories,  and crash any uprising, since Israel cannot do that
without Arafat.  It takes at least 30 thousand policemen and a spy
in every house to oppress the Palestinians struggle for independence.
The Israeli army just does not have the 30 thousand soldiers needed
to replace, daily, Arafat's policemen.  To make sure that Arafat can
indeed do that, one has to supply him, along with the usual threats
and pressures, also with another fictitious victory.  This is where
Clinton enters the picture.

While the Palestinian opposition organizations demand that Arafat
stops negotiation with Israel as long as it keeps expanding
settlements, the Chief was brought to Washington.  The headlines
declared: "USA denounces the decision to build Har-Homa!" But what
does the body of the text say? [2].  What Clinton told Israel was
"I would have preferred that this decision was not taken". As for
Arafat, Clinton clarified that "USA cannot prevent Israel from building
in Har-Homa". On the other hand, the USA "will look gravely at any
violent uprising that could risk the peace process".  In other words,
it is permitted to deplore, and even carry some protest-rituals against
Israel's acts, but it is forbidden to do anything that may threaten
to stop them. As always in the language of power, it is the victim
who is accused of 'violence'.

In return for his cooperation, Chief Arafat was given honors: dinner
with Allbright, interviews, and a bunch of nice words like "half
recognition of a state". For Arafat, this is enough.  He agreed, as
expected.  He will keep his promise even after the USA vetoed the
security-council decision to denounce Israel.  When it will be clear
that his security services are ready to deliver what he promised,
Israel will start building.  The peace-camp will continue to tell
us that all, in fact, is fine.  Why should we bother to think of what
we are doing to the Palestinians? Why should we think of what would
happen when, one day, Arafat and his secret services will be called
to pay for their deeds?.

===
(1) Ziv Maor, "Har-Homa- much politics and no less money", Haaretz,
February 23, 1997, Real-estates section.

(2) Haaretz, March 4, 1997.