Middle East: New Tensions on the West Bank

Israel seeks to impose its own brand of Palestinian self-rule

The midnight knock on the door came shortly after George Qamsiyeh noticed one day last week that his two-story house was surrounded by Israeli soldiers. Once inside, an officer impatiently read a military decree ordering his squad to demolish the house and confiscate the land. Qamsiyeh’s son Walid had been arrested the night before, and had purportedly confessed to throwing molotov cocktails at an Israeli bus. At gunpoint, the father was urged to sign the order and given 90 minutes to evacuate his family and their belongings. At 2:07 a.m., a thunderous blast rocked the West Bank town of Beit Sahur.

Seconds later, George Qamsiyeh’s house lay in smoldering ruins.

By Tuesday, four other houses of West Bank families had been destroyed, leaving 62 more Palestinians homeless. At the same time, Israeli authorities gave back 225 acres of impounded property to the residents of El Bira, 13 miles from Beit Sahur, and allowed two deported Palestinian leaders to return to their West Bank towns. The contradictory measures were vivid evidence of Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon’s emerging carrot-and-stick policy in the occupied territories.

The Israeli strategy, however, has provoked only new outbursts of hostility. A Palestinian village council chief, Yussuf Khatib, who cooperated with the Israeli plan, was ambushed last week by a commando squad and shot at point-blank range. Khatib was seriously wounded and his 23-year-old son Khazem was killed. In Beirut, the Palestine Liberation Organization claimed responsibility for the shooting, saying the men were guilty of “treasonous collaboration with the enemy.”

P.L.O. officials also warned that Israel was planning an imminent assault on southern Lebanon, ostensibly to weaken Palestinian artillery positions. Some feared an attack could come this week as Arab leaders gather for a summit meeting in Fez, Morocco. The most likely item on their agenda: Saudi Arabia’s eight-point peace plan, which calls for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while implicitly recognizing Israel by upholding the “right of the countries of the region to live in peace.” An Israeli move into southern Lebanon would almost certainly scuttle the Saudi peace plan and eliminate any further peace overtures from moderate Arab states. That, in turn, would greatly increase the threat of a new Middle East war. Deeply worried that Lebanon’s fragile cease-fire could soon crack, the Reagan Administration planned to dispatch Special Envoy Philip Habib back to the region after the Arab summit to seek a lasting truce.

The sense of urgency was heightened by an apparent deadlock between Egypt and Israel over Palestinian autonomy on the West Bank and Gaza. Just two weeks ago, both sides spoke hopefully of a “breakthrough,” but that optimism has all but vanished. “There are dramatic differences just in the concept of the self-governing authority,” said a Western diplomat in Cairo about the talks. After 30 months, the two sides have agreed only on how to conduct elections for members of a proposed autonomy council.

Their disagreements appear insurmountable. Egypt sees the council as a “representative body” that might one day become a Palestinian parliament. Cairo believes there should be 80 to 100 members to represent the 1.3 million Palestinians in the occupied areas. Israel, however, insists that the council should serve only as an administrative body, requiring no more than 18 participants. Egypt wants the council to “have power to amend, alter or abrogate existing laws and promulgate new laws.” Israel rejects this notion as tantamount to Palestinian sovereignty.

There are other stumbling blocks as well. Egypt wants East Jerusalem to be considered part of the West Bank; Israel adamantly refuses. Egypt wants a strong local police force; Israel demands full authority to arrest any Palestinian resident considered a security threat. As a Western diplomat puts it, the underlying question in each case is the most basic one of all: “Where does Israel’s authority stop and the authority of the self-governing council start?”

Egypt seems intent on faithfully pursuing the talks, if only to avoid giving Israel any pretext for delaying the return next April of the easternmost part of the Sinai. But the stalemate has persuaded top Israeli ministers that the autonomy plan will never be carried out. Echoing the prevailing sentiments last week, Deputy Foreign Minister Yehuda Ben-Meir said flatly, “We can live without the suggested autonomy.” That conviction would explain the decision to proceed with Sharon’s plan for a civilian administration in the West Bank and Gaza, thereby institutionalizing Israel’s own concept of Palestinian autonomy.

But the recent wave of unrest on the West Bank compelled Sharon to abandon some of his own guidelines for a more humane occupation. In the latest crackdown, Israeli forces have shut down Birzeit University, imposed strict curfews while they tracked down protesters and dynamited houses belonging to relatives of those involved in anti-Israel violence. Some Israelis found the demolition of houses especially repugnant. “This is insanity, sheer madness,” said a top-ranking security official. “It does not make sense. It makes the whole peace process meaningless.”

Sharon’s harsh actions also dismayed some Israeli military and intelligence officers in the occupied areas. Major General Danny Matt, chief coordinator of Israeli operations in the West Bank and Gaza, brusquely handed in his resignation last week. Said Matt: “I am resigning because Israel has no policy in the administrative territories, and whatever appears to be the new policy will lead only to another war.” Some of the victims also seemed bewildered by the demolition policy. Standing in the rubble that was once her house in Beit Sahur, Palestinian Housewife Miriam A’teyeh asked: “Is this the way they want peace with us?”

—By William Drozdiak. Reported by David Halevy/Jerusalem and Robert C. Wurmstedt/Cairo