Former Defense Department General Counsel Appointed Harvard’s Top Lawyer


Democracy Center Protesters Stage ‘Emergency Rally’ with Pro-Palestine Activists Amid Occupation


Harvard Violated Contract With HGSU in Excluding Some Grad Students, Arbitrator Rules


House Committee on China to Probe Harvard’s Handling of Anti-CCP Protest at HKS


Harvard Republican Club Endorses Donald Trump in 2024 Presidential Election

The Hill of Evil Counsel

The Israeli-Palestinian Har Homa Question

By Adam J. Levitin

Last week, a so-called "friend of Israel," President Clinton, spoke out against Israel's construction of a new residential neighborhood on an unoccupied hill known as Har Homa. The new neighborhood is to provide housing for Jerusalem's rapidly expanding Arab and Jewish population.

What's going on here? An American law, passed under the first Clinton administration, explicitly recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Clinton's statement therefore seems to be nothing less than a direct affront and insult to Israel's sovereignty and right to exist. What other nation in the world is criticized for building a new neighborhood in its capital?

While one may question the political wisdom of the Israeli government's timing, one cannot question Israel's right to build on Har Homa or that it is clearly in Israel's strategic interest to do so.

Israel's plans to build new housing on Har Homa have been widely misrepresented in the media and by Palestinian spokespersons. Israeli construction is neither a violation of the Oslo Accords nor part of a Zionist plot to "Judaize" Jerusalem by preventing Arab growth in the city.

Most people who are happy to express their opinions on the Israeli-Arab conflict are quite willing to accept what is reported about the Oslo Accords in the media without having read them. What is important to know is that neither the Declaration of Principles nor the Interim Agreement place any restrictions on Israel's control of Jerusalem.

All issues concerning Jerusalem were left to the Permanent Status negotiations. In the meantime, the agreements do specifically restrict the Palestinian Authority (PA) from controlling Jerusalem (Interim Agreement, Article XVII). Accordingly, the Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting Association (CAMERA) reported that Israeli building in Jerusalem is no more a violation of the Oslo Accords than the extensive Palestinian building which is taking place throughout PA-controlled areas.

Governments everywhere in the world expropriate land for major construction projects, reimbursing owners for their property. This practice is both legal and widespread.

This is precisely what Israel did with Har Homa: the state purchased the land from its owners--Israeli Jews and Arabs. According to CAMERA, 348 of the 460 acres of land on Har Homa were previously owned by Jews (most since before 1948) and 112 acres were owned by Arabs.

Although previously privately owned, this land has been entirely unoccupied since 1948 when the Jordanian occupational government planted a pine forest to prevent non-zoned usage of the area. Har Homa is the last open space for the expansion of Jerusalem.

Furthermore, the land at Har Homa has been zoned proportional to the current Arab/Jewish population ratio in Jerusalem (25/71 percent). This hardly constitutes an attempt to "Judaize" Jerusalem. In short, there is nothing illegal or immoral about Israel building at Har Homa.

The only violation of the Accords that has taken place has been by the Palestinians. As Article XXII of the Interim Agreement reads: "[both sides shall]...abstain from incitement, including hostile propaganda."

Recent Palestinian propaganda statements have threatened violence in order to bully Israel into more concessions. Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestine National Committee member and close confidante of Yassir Arafat, has declared Har Homa to be the issue upon which regional peace rides: "If Israel continues these unilateral actions [in] Jerusalem...they are undermining not just peace with the Palestinians but peace in the entire region."

Mohammed Jadallah, another of Arafat's cronies, was reported as saying, "If Israel decides to go ahead with building at Har Homa, the Palestinian response will be hard and violent."

Aware of Palestinian designs on Jerusalem, Israeli construction policy in recent years has been to surround the city with a ring of primarily Jewish neighborhoods. Har Homa is the last link in this protective ring. A significant Jewish presence at Har Homa would seriously set back Palestinian plans to take over Jerusalem and connect it with PA-controlled Bethlehem.

Thus there is a clash of national interests between Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the future of Har Homa. Nevertheless, by all internationally recognized legal rights, Har Homa is Israel's. The PA is granted nothing in Jerusalem even under the Oslo Accords which the PA itself accepted.

The PA, however, has more at stake here than the issue of Jerusalem--the extent of Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank. Initially, Israel planned to withdraw from only 2 to 3 percent of the West Bank. The Israeli cabinet decided yesterday to withdraw from 9 to 10 percent of the West Bank. It is apparent that the Palestinians have again successfully used the threat of violence to gain more concessions from Israel. So much for standing firm against terrorist threats...

Here we have a straight-forward case of Israeli and Palestinian national interests clashing. International law, the Oslo Accords, American law and precedent are clearly on the Israeli side. Yet President Clinton, a self-proclaimed friend of Israel, has rebuked Israel, not the Palestinians. It seems that the United States expects more restraint and abnegation of national interest from Israeli democracy than from Arafat's murderous dictatorship.

Indeed, what concessions have the Palestinians really made? They have yet to even take the simple steps of recognizing Israel's right to exist or renouncing violence as a negotiating method. The original idea of land-for-peace has become land-for-nothing. Is this the sort of people that any state, much less Israel, would want for a neighbor?

The Oslo accords were originally designed to appease Palestinian national interest. Now, however, the Palestinians are hungry again.

The Oslo Accords have effectively boxed Israel into a corner without bringing peace. How many concessions, how much appeasement is necessary to satisfy Arafat? It is time that Israel renounced the Oslo Accords as hypocritical. Peace in the Middle East will come through true reciprocity and respect, and not through appeasement and the cynical use of sadly idealistic treaties.

Adam J. Levitin '98 is a Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations/History Concentrator living in Currier House.

Palestinians have again used the threat of voilence to gain concessions.

How much appeasement is necessary to satisfy Arafat?

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.