Threats against four prominent Jerusalemite Palestinian activists are but prelude to what the state of Israel has in mind for the entirety of the occupied city, writes Gabriela Becker* The 20 days and counting that remain for Mohamed Abu Teer, Ahmed Attun, Mohamed Tottah and Khaled Abu Arrafeh, Hamas Jerusalemite activists and newly- named Palestinian Authority (PA) officials, to renounce political affiliations or face expulsion from their homes and city is reminder of the fate of all Jerusalemites under Israeli occupation. Decades of suppression amid the incessant goal of expelling the majority of Palestinians from Jerusalem, Judaising the city and guaranteeing maximum Israeli land control, has today reached an unprecedented level, with international legitimacy meant to provide the final stamp of approval. The near-completed apartheid wall around Jerusalem -- part of the Israeli quest for "final borders," an extension of the Oslo Accords -- is the essence of the closing stage of occupation. The construction of the massive barrier guarantees that at least 100,000 of approximately 250,000 Jerusalemites will find themselves on the "other" or eastern side of the wall. They will thus be in areas that the occupation has previously announced it intends to "put up" as pawns in any future negotiations -- areas such as Kufr Aqab, Shufat Refugee Camp, Ezarya, Abu Dis and parts of Sawahre -- to provide a pretence of "disengagement," "land swapping," and "final settlement" in order to formalise its occupation of the rest of Jerusalem including the massive West Bank settlement blocs of Maale Adumim to the east, Givat Zeev to the north, and Gush Etzion to the south. In other words, the city and its surroundings will continue to be in the hands of the Israeli occupation while all Palestinians -- not solely Jerusalemites -- will be shut out. This policy has moved full force since the 1993 closure that prevented West Bank and Gaza ID holders from accessing Jerusalem. Expulsion in Jerusalem is taking place in a number of forms, many continuous since the occupation of the West Bank in 1967, including land confiscation, house demolitions, unbearable taxation, and ID confiscation. But in the past two years, the occupation's Jerusalem Municipality, the Interior Ministry, and other Israeli governmental and "non-governmental" bodies -- if such distinctions exist -- have merged not only to accelerate the long list of measures but also to increase the range of policies. The apartheid wall and the pending declaration of final borders, providing for the occupation a sweeping means of taking over most of the area, together with added targeting of activists and institutions remind us of the increased determination of the occupation to "transfer" Palestinians into areas that it will brand part of a Palestinian "state" as it implements forced separation, also known as expulsion, also known as apartheid. Recent efforts to widen the pretences for ID confiscation has provided yet another chance for the occupation to put into play a number of public announcements linking activists, parties, the PA, institutions and all Jerusalemites into one. Thus, the Israeli Interior Ministry declaration should be seen as linked both to the immediate expulsion of Jerusalemites from their city, a targeting of those who remain in the city, and the strategic endgame of eliminating Palestinian institutions that provide services and support otherwise unavailable from an alien municipality that thrives on marginalising and impoverishing Palestinians. The Israeli "peace camp," including a number of Israeli human rights groups and journalists, seem to be at the forefront of opposition to the Interior Ministry attack on the Hamas activists, at least according to some media outlets. But the detail of the disagreement reflects that in actuality there is no deep-seated dispute. On the one hand, there is the "peace camp" desire for a consistent Israeli position in favour of the Oslo/PA framework (an integral part of Bantustanisation). In addition, there is the wish to maintain a high profile for Israeli calls for "Palestinian rights," albeit within the context of the current institutions of occupied Jerusalem. Lastly, there is apprehension that the rhetoric around and Western image of the "Jewish state" -- the only "democracy" in the Middle East etc -- is being compromised; that is, exposed. Of course, the issue is not a legal one, just as Israeli courts are not grounded on justice. The Israeli government steers part of the pressure on it towards the judiciary knowing full well that the courts will either approve its measures or ask for symbolic amendments with the policy intact, or, in the worst of cases, maintain a democratic exterior that can be better utilised at a later date. Bringing the issue to Israeli courts may also provide the Israeli government with opportunity to peddle its plans for Jerusalem through additional wings of government, perhaps gaining legitimacy for calls to "give-up" certain Palestinian areas in exchange for setting the final borders of the city. Part of this could include changing the status of the city's inhabitants under the pretence of supporting Palestinian "state/nation" building. These are but some of the dangers attendant to fighting the occupation within its own court system. As an additional example, and in response to the Israeli Interior Ministry's demands, France called for respecting the rights of Palestinians in Jerusalem. In actuality, the message was a reminder to Hamas and the four legislators that either they consent to the conditions put forward by Israel, the West and other countries (including Arab ones) in terms of supporting Oslo (or the roadmap, or the Arab Initiative) or lose the diplomatic perks that guarantee media attention and international pressure, which will remain only if Hamas endlessly concedes to the unacceptable list of conditions put forth by Israel. Perhaps, not acquiescing may be proportional to a dwindling worldwide interest in favour of more willing partners. In this way, we can predict that, far from taking an unconditional position against occupation, ultimatums will come not just from Israeli ministries but from the Israeli "peace camp" and "friendly" states, Western and otherwise, forever moments away from reneging their support and expressing "disappointment". This is reminder of the kind of repulsive racist power relations at the core of occupation and colonisation that deal with Palestinians as "dispensable and replaceable". * The writer is a US researcher based in occupied Jerusalem.
