Friday, December 7, 2012

Much ado about little: The E1 controversy

Much ado about little: The E1 controversy

Elliott Abrams 

Dozens of governments, starting with the American one, have denounced the Israeli announcement soon after the U.N. General Assembly vote last week about more housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

In particular, the Netanyahu government has been criticized for building housing in the area known as E1. This area is between Jerusalem and the city of Maaleh Adumim, with its population of 40,000. The Israeli security argument is simple: It is impossible to have Maaleh Adumim connected to Jerusalem by only one road because that road can all too easily be blocked and communication between the two cities (and beyond to the Jordan Valley and border) cut off. This argument has persuaded all Israeli prime ministers who have faced the question, starting with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.

It can be argued in reply that they insisted on the right to build and intended to do so eventually, but did not — but the same is true today of the Netanyahu government. What the prime minister announced last week was permission to do zoning and planning, not permission to build any apartments.

The argument against any Israeli construction in E1 is that it would make a Palestinian state impossible because that state would lack contiguity. The contiguity argument cuts many ways: I can recall Israeli officials saying that Maaleh Adumim, which had a population of 35,000 back then, had to be contiguous to Israel.

But the Palestinian argument suggests that because roads would need to go east of Maaleh Adumim, or over or under the Jerusalem-Maaleh Adumim road, a state is impossible. That is a hard argument to prove. First, there is, of course, the U.N. vote: The celebrations in Ramallah reflected the U.N. decision that Palestine is already a state now, if not yet a U.N. member. Second, why would the construction of roads that fully permit north-south movement in the West Bank — for example, from Nablus to Bethlehem and Hebron — make mobility and economic activity impossible? That such roads must be available, and must be good enough to carry current and predicted future traffic quickly, is certain, but hardly an impossible challenge.

The argument over E1 is not new, nor is the planning there some sort of right-wing plot that reflects this particular Israeli coalition. Every prime minister from the Left has had precisely the same position, and all new units in the West Bank today must be approved by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. That does not make the Israeli position correct, but puts it in a bit of perspective.

The rest of the perspective is last week’s vote, which the U.S., Israel, and numerous European countries urged the Palestine Liberation Organization not to insist on. Israel had long said it would take drastic steps if the PLO went forward, and had to do something in reaction. It has now announced that it will apply tax funds owed to the Palestinian Authority to debts owed to the Israel Electric Corporation (debts that now amount to 800 million shekels, about $200 million) for electricity supplied, and has announced planning for E1 and construction in the major settlement blocs and Jerusalem.

Construction in the major blocs and in Jerusalem is hardly a surprise, and does not differ from the policy of Israel’s previous government under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Kadima party. The deal reached between the Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004 was to permit construction of additional housing units inside the major blocs and other settlements, but not the construction of new settlements or the physical expansion of existing ones. The current decision fits easily within those terms. The Obama administration has never accepted that agreement between the U.S. and Israel, but I mention it to show that Israel’s reaction to the Palestinian U.N. initiative is hardly excessive or surprising.