The roads are one of the initiatives of the United States Agency for
International Development for building infrastructure in underdeveloped
countries. Israel has already proudly left the club of developing
countries and is not among the clients of USAID. Nevertheless, it
appears the Smith family of Illinois is making the occupation a little
less expensive for the Cohen family of Petah Tikva.

According to a June 2010 fact sheet on the USAID Internet site, last
year American taxpayers funded the paving of 63 kilometers of asphalt
roads in the West Bank. It also says completion of a road in the
southern part of the West Bank dramatically increased the amount of
trade between Dahriya and Beer Sheva.

What the site doesn’t say is that a significant segment of the road
goes through Area C – the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive
Israeli civilian and military control and responsibility under the
interim agreement of 1995 (the second Oslo agreement ). The agreement
states: “Territorial jurisdiction includes land (and ) subsoil.”

This is not the only occupation-perpetuating road funded by American
money. Dror Etkes, an expert on the settlements, noticed a few days ago
USAID workers energetically laying asphalt on two roads in the Samaria
region (northern West Bank ) that crosses Area C. Israelis haven’t been
traveling these roads for years now because the taxpayer (in this
case, the Israeli taxpayer ) has already paved separate, wide, modern
roads for them.

Etkes wondered how it is possible that the Obama administration,
which is vociferously opposed to the continuation of the status quo in
the West Bank, continues to subsidize the road for Israel. “If the state
of Israel is insisting on continuing to hold on and de facto annex the
West Bank,” he says, “it should also be allocating the money needed to
take care of the infrastructure.”

I asked an American official why the administration isn’t demanding
of Israel that it fulfill its obligations and pay the price of the
occupation out of its own pocket.

“Who told you we aren’t demanding that?” replied the official. “We
are also demanding a construction freeze in the settlements and you know
at least as well as anyone else what is happening on the ground.”

It is worth mentioning that the when the Palestinians sought
permission to pave a short road in Area C to enable access to the
planned town of Rawabi, Israel pulled out the Oslo accord and kicked
them down the stairs. The USAID tractors don’t have access to the area
either.

However, when it suits his interest, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is a stickler for Oslo. A few days ago he announced that
unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state would be considered a
violation of the agreement. Tomorrow, incidentally, will mark the eighth
anniversary of Foreign Minister Netanyahu’s statement on Israel radio
that “all the Oslo agreements are null and void.”

A USAID spokeswoman responded that the program’s infrastructure
projects “respond to the needs of the Palestinian people and are
implemented in response to requests from the Palestinian Authority. Many
of the USAID funded projects cross from one area to another in
accordance with the needs of the Palestinian communities and the
specific project. There are roads and water pipelines that cross through
Area C or are adjacent to Area C as designs require and agreements with
Civil Authorities allow.”

No way home

The Oslo agreement, which is so close to Netanyahu’s heart, also
states that both sides see “the West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a
single territorial unit.”

Nevertheless, since the outbreak of the second intifada, Israel has
cut off almost entirely the connection between these two areas.

Security authorities make a point of expelling Gazans from the West
Bank and they do not allow residents of Gaza to reunite with their
families in the West Bank.

A year ago, in response to a petition to the High Court of Justice by
the Hamoked Center for the Defense of the Individual, the State
Prosecutor’s Office said the policy does not apply to individuals who
took up residence in the West Bank before the year 2000 and “about whom
there exists no negative security material.”

Be that as it may, during this past year a number of Palestinians
have been expelled from the West Bank even though they arrived their
prior to the cut-off date, and had no “negative security material”
against them. Several have applied to Hamoked for help.

One of them, M.N., 29, went to Gaza in 2004 to participate in the
mourning for his father. Since then he has been stuck and is in hiding
from Hamas, which has issued an arrest warrant for him.

The coordinator of permits at the Coordination and Liaison Office in
the Israel Defense Forces has recommended that M.N.’s request to return
to the West Bank be granted. In the opinion appended to the
recommendation, the aforementioned response by the prosecutor to the
High Court of Justice is cited.

But the High Court of Justice is one thing and the reality is
another. The Liaison Office’s legal adviser rejected the recommendation
and wrote that it is necessary “to be strict about consistency, paying
attention to the fact that approving the request might be a precedent
for approving similar requests.” In another case handled by Hamoked, the
adviser wrote that G.J. entered the West Bank in 2000 and should not be
expelled under the guidelines. So why has  G.J. been sent to Gaza and
not allowed back in the West Bank?

“The aforementioned is a bachelor and he has no family connection in
Judea and Samaria,” was the response. Truly an excellent reason. The
time has come for him to find a bride in Ramallah and marry.