By Uri Avnery, 3.6.06
SHEIKH MUHAMMAD Hassan Abu-Tir has something every politician
craves: instant recognizability. His long beard dyed bright orange with henna
is very conspicuous indeed. Actually it is a religious symbol: the prophet, for
whom he is named, used to dye his beard the same way.
The red-bearded Sheikh
is better known in Israel than any other senior Hamas leader. In the most
popular satirical show on Israeli TV, "A Wonderful Land", he is
already impersonated by a famous humorist, who succeeds in imitating his style
and body language, with his intelligent smile, and brought him into our living
rooms. For many Israelis, this impersonation has almost turned him into a
likable figure, even if he himself does not like it at all. (Something similar
has happened to Yasser Arafat, too. A marionette representing him in a very
popular TV show portrayed him as a likable, mildly humorous figure, very
different from the demonic image that the official Israeli propaganda
endeavored to establish.)
This week, Abu-Tir was
in the news for a much more serious reason. When I met him at his home, an
ominous threat was hovering over him: expulsion. The Interior Minister in the
Olmert government informed him and three of his colleagues, all Hamas members
of the Palestinian parliament, that within one month they would have to choose:
either to resign from all their positions in the Palestinian Authority or be
deprived of their status as "permanent residents" in Jerusalem. That
would lead to their expulsion to the occupied West Bank.
HOW WAS that possible?
After the 1967
"Six-day War", when the Israeli government was in a hurry to annex
East Jerusalem, it drew up new borders for the city, well beyond the
neighborhoods of the city itself. The intention was to annex a maximum of land
with a minimum of Palestinian inhabitants. Because of this, a map of the city
looks like a pre-historic monster, or an American "gerrymander".
Yet, in spite of all the
efforts and tricks, there was no way to avoid including a sizable Palestinian
population in the "unified" city, amounting now to a quarter of a
million human beings. The village of Sur-Baher, where Abu-Tir is living, is
situated a short distance from the city, but was annexed along with the rest.
When the annexation took
place, there arose, of course, the question of the fate of these inhabitants.
If it had been possible to drive them out, it would surely have been done, but
under the circumstances that would not have been acceptable. The natural thing
would have been to give them Israeli citizenship, as was done in 1949 when a
number of Arab villages, which were not conquered by the Israeli army, were
turned over to Israel by King Abdallah of Jordan in the armistice agreement.
But the Israeli leaders
were appalled by the idea of adding another large bloc of Palestinians to the
already considerable number of Arabs in Israel, amounting to about 20% of Israeli citizens. They found a tricky
way out: the Palestinians in East Jerusalem were given the status of "permanent
residents" in Israel, but remained citizens of Jordan. That way they could
not take part in Israeli elections, but enjoyed many other privileges (like
paying Israeli taxes and social security contributions.)
The government knew, of
course, that the Arabs would find it difficult to object to this ploy. If they
had demanded Israeli citizenship, that would have meant recognizing Israeli
sovereignty over East Jerusalem - something no state in the world has yet done.
Not giving citizenship
to the "annexed" Arabs also served another purpose. In the course of
the 1948 war, the whole population of West Jerusalem had to flee to the East of
the city. They left behind them all their property, including all the beautiful
homes of the Talbiyeh quarter and the land on which the Knesset, the Prime
Minister's office, the Giv'at Ram campus of the Hebrew University and the
Israel Museum now stand. If the owners of these properties, who now live in
East Jerusalem, had been granted citizenship, they could have demanded them
back. That would not have been an automatic process, but the pressure on the
government would have been intense. It was safer to make them "permanent
residents" only.
ONE OF the differences between a "citizen" and
a "permanent resident" is that it is almost impossible to revoke
citizenship, but quite easy to annul the status of a "permanent
resident". The Minister of the Interior is empowered to do this by a
simple executive decision. The victim can, of course, appeal to the Supreme
Court, but the chances of success are slim.
The action of Interior
Minister Ronnie Bar-On is a bad omen. If he succeeds, this will constitute a
danger to all the 250 thousand Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Their status as
permanent residents could be revoked, under some security pretext or other. In
Israel, security can be used to justify almost everything. Innocent Israelis
can always be convinced that some measure is necessary in order to protect
their lives from the murderous terrorists.
The abuse of the term
"permanent resident" is obvious. A "permanent resident" is
usually an immigrant who comes to Israel and is not able - or does not want -
to become a citizen. To apply this term to families who have lived in Jerusalem
since it was conquered by the Caliph Omar some 1300 years ago is a political
and linguistic rape.
It violates
international law, which says that East Jerusalem is an occupied territory
whose inhabitants are "protected persons" who cannot be expelled from
their homes. It also violates the Oslo agreement, which says that the question
of Jerusalem is to be decided upon in the final status negotiations, which have
not even started. Oslo specifically grants the Palestinian residents of
Jerusalem the right to vote for and be elected to the Palestinian parliament.
Abu-Tir has been elected by the voters of the city as their deputy.
The demand that he
choose between resignation from parliament and expulsion from the city is a
crass violation of a written agreement - by the same Israeli government that
demands that Hamas accept all written agreements with Israel. There seems to be
no limit to the cynicism of Olmert & Co.
Moreover, when the Oslo
agreement was signed, Shimon Peres also gave a written commitment on behalf of
the Government of Israel that no Palestinian institution in Jerusalem would be
harmed. When Ehud Olmert was still the mayor of Jerusalem, he violated this
commitment by closing the "Orient House". Now he is violating it
again.
PERHAPS IT is worthwhile
to compare the two protagonists of this affair: Ronnie Bar-On and Muhammad
Abu-Tir.
Bar-On was born in
Tel-Aviv, two months after the official founding of the State of Israel. I am
not sure whether his family came to Palestine one or two generations earlier.
He was always a very right-wing person, a Herut-Likud-man from youth. He is
known for his rudeness. In the Knesset and in his frequent appearances on TV
talk-shows he often behaves like a real oral hooligan.
He became famous mainly
because of the scandal that bears his name. When the position of Attorney
General, a very powerful office in Israel, became vacant, Binyamin Netanyahu
appointed Bar-On. At once rumors started, alleging that this had been done in
collusion with Shas leader Aryeh Deri, who was awaiting trial and was
eventually sent to prison. A public storm broke out, and Netanyahu was forced
to remove him after only a few days in office.
As a politician, Bar-On
is a complete opportunist. His right-wing views did not prevent him from
jumping on the bandwagon when Sharon set up Kadima. Because of this jump, he is
now Interior Minister. He never made any sacrifice for his views.
Abu-Tir was born in
1951, the son of a family that is deeply rooted in the country. He was
sentenced to prison for life and spent (with interruptions) 25 years - almost
half his life - in prison. First he was a Fatah member, but in prison he became
a pious Muslim and joined Hamas.
He is admired by the
people around him, an amiable person with a lively sense of humor. It's easy to
talk with him and he speaks perfect Hebrew. He has a lot of influence in his
party.
I MET HIM first during the stormy demonstration in a-Ram,
under a shower of tear gas. We agreed then that we should meet in quieter
surroundings. A few days ago I visited him at his home. We exchanged views and
agreed to make the fact of our meeting public, thus turning it into a political
act. I asked him to find out whether conditions are ripe for a wider meeting of
Israeli peace organizations and the Hamas leadership.
To me, the meeting
brought back old memories. 32 years ago I established the first contacts with
the emissaries of Yasser Arafat, who was then considered an arch-terrorist, the
leader of a terrorist organization whose charter called for the elimination of
the State of Israel. These contacts led in 1982 to my meeting with Arafat in
besieged Beirut. It was his first meeting with an Israeli, but the circle
widened rapidly and prepared the ground on both sides for the Oslo agreement
and the Two-State Solution.
I believe that now it is
the job of the Israeli peace movements to do the same again: build the first
bridge between Israelis and Hamas and pave the way for a dialogue between the
Government of Israel and the Government of Palestine. (By the way, consistency
demands that those who insist on talking about the "Hamas government"
should also use the term "Kadima government".)
In such a process, which
demands a change in the minds of millions on both sides, the first contacts are
very important. The establishment and its numerous servants in the media
naturally try to ignore and conceal them, the public treats them with hostility
and a lack of understanding, until it gets used to the idea. But it is an
essential task.
More than half the
population in the Palestinian territories voted for Hamas. Hamas is an existing
fact. It will play a major role in any conceivable scenario. The majority of
Israelis long for an end to the conflict, and so do the majority of
Palestinians. Both governments must, in the end, accept this reality.
Our task is to help them
cross this bridge.