By Marney Blom
The land of Israel is beautiful, diverse and very tiny. Just slightly larger than the state New Jersey, the Jewish homeland today not only faces a housing shortage, but the prospect of a diminished landscape and shrunken borders as a result of a final peace agreement.
But does giving away Israeli land actually guarantee an end to the conflict in the Middle East?
Last November I witnessed first hand how effective “land for peace” can be in drawing the Zionist state closer to a secure and lasting peace.
While reporting in the Israeli border town of Sderot, I was repeatedly interrupted by incoming rockets fired from Hamas operatives situated in the Gaza Strip. It was difficult to film my “stand up” – the point in the report when the journalist speaks to the camera. Each time I got into position, another “ceva adom” or “code red” sounded, causing a quick 15 second dash for cover.
By November 14, 2012, Israel launched Operation Pillar of Cloud, a military effort to put an end to the constant barrage of rockets fired from the Gaza Strip. In the process Israel hoped to eliminate the 1500 terror sites, 1000 underground rocket launchers, 140 smuggling tunnels, long range rocket launchers and the manufacturing of underground weapons in the Gaza strip – land Israel gave up for peace.
Yet, remarkably, the Israeli government not only continues to include “land for peace” in future proposals for a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians, but leading Israeli policy advisers have suggested the unilateral reshaping of Israel’s borders along the Clinton Parameters, even before the Palestinians agree to resume peace talks with the Israelis.
“If the Palestinians don’t want to reach a reasonable agreement, Israel should not wait for them,” said Maj. Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin, the director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv. “We have to shape our borders by ourself.”
The Clinton Parameters, proposed in 2000, were in essence guidelines for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by then U.S. President Bill Clinton. This Permanent Status Agreement suggests that Israel gives up 95 percent or approximately 5,000 square kilometers of the West Bank – biblical Samaria and Judea.
Despite talk of dividing up the land, the mayor of Ma’ale Adumim – Israel’s third largest settlement – is preparing for expansion.† His thriving community of 39,000 is in need of additional affordable housing.
“One of the problems of Ma’ale Adumim [is] that we cannot build on our land,” reflected Mayor Benny Kashriel. “All the plans are ready to sell the land to builders to build apartments, the only thing that we need now is the permission of our Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister is [being restrained] by the American government.”
Although positioned in so called “occupied territory,” land won by Israel during the 1967 war, the mayor of this eastern gateway to Jerusalem – tagged as illegal by the international community – is convinced that Ma’ale Adumim will remain on the map of Israel if and when final border lines of a future peace agreement are drawn.
“The European countries and America have to think a little bit differently,” added Kashriel. “A strong Israel will bring peace. A weak Israel will bring war.”
Marney Blom is news director for the Acts News Network.
Copyright 2013 © Acts News Network, Inc.