A new Palestinian threat
Proposed new Palestinian city is not good news for Israel
First, the plan for the new city calls for the Palestinians to take control over land in Area C, under full Israeli jurisdiction, which would enable the completion of a four-lane access road from the proposed new city to Bir Zeit. This road might cut across route 465, which links Ateret and Neveh Tzuf to Route 60; it might also pass under 465. As one proponent of the new city admitted, "Israel simply dare not put aside security concerns, given the bitter recent history". How then is the new Palestinian city a good thing, if it is already clear that its only possible access route is a security impossibility for Israel?
Also, the new city is slated to rise on hilltops from which Israel's coastal plain is clearly visible all the way to the sea, as the city's website brightly points out. The distance of the new proposed city from Israel's seacoast is a mere 40 km, which also happens to be the current Palestinian low-tech rocket range, such that the Palestinian city if allowed to be built can easily be (ab)used as a launching pad for rockets right onto the entirety of hyper-populated Tel Aviv and Gush Dan.
If the new city were to become a rocket launching center, it would not be the first time that Palestinian cities have sinned against Israel in precisely this respect. What would be a first is that two million Israelis would be affected - rather than a "mere" 20,000 as in Sderot. And when the affected population is a hundred-fold as large, the cost of civilian defense measures is also 100 times as large as in Sderot - so astronomical as to be simply unaffordable; even the fortifications for tiny Sderot were barely affordable despite massive efforts by the American Jewish community.
Foolish people
The only potentially challenging argument put forth to persuade us that the new Palestinian city is "potentially good for Israel" is that "channeling Palestinian energies for building is a positive step," as some have argued. Their rationale is that dedicating so much money to the establishment of a city ups the Palestinian interest in maintaining political stability. Factually, however, this is simply wrong.
As proudly reported on the website of the ultra-left Geneva Initiative, pro-Palestinian diplomats and financial bodies are now working feverishly to offer a concoction they have termed "Palestinian Political Risk Insurance" (PPRI). This bizarre financial vehicle would actually protect Palestinians against "losses resulting from ... (their own) political violence". Under conditions in which so many foolish people are actually helping Palestinians to not-care about causing wars with Israel, will Israel and its supporters abroad act in kind and be so foolish as to support the idea of yet another Palestinian city looming darkly over the children of Tel-Aviv? Many responsible people in Israel hope very much that the answer is no.
Susie Dym is spokesperson for Mattot Arim, an Israeli grassroots organization working toward peace-for-peace since 1992 www.mattotarim.org
