2. THE LANDSCAPE OF LAND SWAPS BETWEEN PALESTINE AND ISRAEL

[IMAGE 5 – The geopolitical landscape - land swaps in the Gaza perimeter and annexation in the West Bank.]

 

Any area Israel wishes to annex in the West Bank will have to be "swapped" for regional open spaces of the same size, quality and characteristics – mostly Israeli agricultural land of historical landscape value. The character and economy of the landscape - mainly its relationship with villages and the farmers which together form a regional rural system - directly affects the possibilities for swaps, and therefore the scenarios of a future agreement.

For example, if Israel is to annex all the land within the security barrier route, the land it will have to swap will engulf Israeli villages around Gaza, taking nearly all their agricultural land. This agriculture is important not only economically, but is embedded historically in the original Zionist ethos of Israel. As Ran Pauker, one of the founders of the Nir-Oz Kibbutz near Gaza, told us in an interview: “Of course for peace I would give the land that I cultivated for more than 50 years, but it’s a shame that its actually to swap for suburbs in the West Bank".

In contrast - we study the regional landscape required around Israeli villages and Kibbutzim around Gaza and the West Bank – keeping a continuous open expanse around them, connecting them, maintaining the “village in the fields” landscape – both economically and phenomenally (based on the work of Shaul Arieli and Dan Rotem). We then obtain a far smaller area possible for swap. Such an area significantly limits the amount of land Israel can annex in the West Bank.

 

*

The land swaps analysis goes hand in hand with the analysis of regional landscape required for a prosperous Palestine. The two converge to form a territorial scenario for a possible agreement. We thus see how an analysis and planning of regional landscape directly affects geopolitical possibilities, and the character of communities, such as the number of settler population Israel will need to evacuate.

 

3. THE LANDSCAPE OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENT

[IMAGE 1b – Regional landscape as settlement – Israeli agriculture, nature reserves, and heritage landscapes.]

 

3.1. Settlements without landscape

When discussing land swaps we saw what Israel within its 1949 borders loses from annexation. What, on the other hand, do settlers staying in the annexed areas, and Israel as a whole, actually gain? Not only do the blocks obstruct access of Palestinians to a disjointed landscape, they do the same to Israelis as well. The new border proposed by Israel, in the Annapolis negotiations or the security barrier for example, leaves annexed Jewish settlements isolated from their surroundings. What kind of a unique quality of life does an Ariel resident stand to gain from living there? Living in a “sleeping-suburb”, that resident is enclosed within a wall, and is unable to simply take a walk out in the surrounding landscape, as any resident of a similar locality does regularly. Ariel could therefore exist anywhere within the original borders of Israel.

 

3.2. Territorial, religious agriculture as settlement

Since most Israeli agriculture and declarations of national parks are outside the potential areas for annexation, their development is not necessarily aiming to promote areas for annexation in an agreement, but simply to obstruct the possibility for any agreement at all.

First, they are used by Israel to form political land continuities, blocking Palestinian development. Second and more important – Israeli use of territorial, religious agriculture and landscape presents a sort of "affinity with the land". As has been in the evacuation of Gaza settlements in 2005 - it is more complicated to "uproot" a farmer whose employment is the local land, or a settlement with heritage landscape, than evacuating a suburban settler, probably employed within the 1949 borders.

As is described in detail in the report “Kerem Navot” by Dror Etkes – Since 1997, after the Oslo accords (which divided the West Bank to Palestinian and Israeli controlled areas), there was a meaningful change in the character of Israeli agricultural expansion. Rather than secular, ideologically moderate, industrial-sized farms in the Jordan valley, most growth has been in extreme right-wing, religious fundamentalist settlements in the mountain ridge of the West Bank - where until that time, there was almost no agricultural activity but rather suburban settlements. This is part of an overall strategy of land grabs by extremist settler population, and it conforms with “back to earth” recent religious trends.

 

3.3. Territorial, religious landscape as settlement

Israeli development of landscapes of religious, archeological, scenic, and environmental values, is used to consolidate geopolitical continuities, blocking Palestinian future continuous sovereignty.

For example, in the same Wadi Qana where Palestinian agriculture is engulfed by Israeli settlements, Israel has declared a nature reserve. It is also justified religiously and historically, on biblical reference: “The border went out from Tappuah westward to the Brook Kanah, and it ended at the sea. This was the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim according to their families.” (Joshua 16:8 (NKJV)). Israeli inspectors then ordered the removal of newly planted 1400 olive trees by Palestinians, even though the landscape has historically been combined with vines and orchards (in a region where most fertile land has been cultivated or grazed for more than 3,000 years). Meanwhile, an Israeli illegal outpost in the reserve, called Alonei Shiloh and Nof Kanah (Landscape of Kanah) has not been ordered to evacuate.

 

3.4. Spatial religion

While there are famous Jewish religious buildings in the West Bank (such as the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb), most Jewish spatial heritage in the West Bank is embodied in the landscape – archeological, natural, agricultural, scenic, or simply the land as a whole. Most of the spatial heritage is located along the mountain ridge, away from the territories for annexation. Therefore, Israel’s insistence on these extensive territories for annexation, is in fact disconnecting it from its own historical, cultural and religious heritage. We suggest that instead of annexing settlements with almost no heritage value, Israel should propose arrangements that preserve access to sites and landscapes that the Jewish people have an actual affinity with - similar to arrangements other religions have with Israel within its 1949 borders.

 

*

To conclude, we propose an additional stage for geopolitical planning based also on regional landscape – First, consolidating the territories for annexation to areas that allow a regional landscape for a prosperous Palestinian state, with long term balanced growth. Second – land swaps that allow the conservation of Israeli regional landscapes within the 1949 armistice line. Third – designing an arrangement which enables Israel to maintain an affinity with historic and religious heritage landscapes in the West Bank. Such a solution – enhanced by our understanding of regional, territorial, religious landscape and agriculture - can promote a stable, sustainable agreement, and most importantly – a just and equitable peace.