Israel Matzav

Another view on Ghajar

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I had passed on a Wednesday opportunity to gain access to Ghajar, the soon-to-be-divided town on the edge of the Golan Heights that is rarely open to outsiders.

But I did provide you with this quote from the town's spokesman, which I got from a Lebanese website.

Najeeb Khateeb, a spokesman for Ghajar, said his townsmen would have consented to the village being transferred in its entirety to Lebanon as a temporary measure before its ultimate return to Syria. He said he opposed the partition.

“We have no objection that the entire village, with all of its lands, be transferred to Lebanon,” he told The Media Line. “However, we refuse to become landless refugees in Lebanon. We remained here to guard our homes and land, even though 50% of our residents were uprooted in 1967 and now live in Syria. We would rather die here than become refugees.”

I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that an Israeli blogger who visited Ghajar on Wednesday was told a completely different story - by the same spokesperson:

Najib Khatib, the spokesman for Ghajar’s local council, was unable to hide his discontent at the fact that no official representative has visited the village to ask what the 2,200 residents want or inform them of decisions which will affect their future.

“We only find out what is going on by way of the media” he said.

Since Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the residents have consistently opposed the division of the village as stipulated by the UN. Najib explained that there are not two halves to the village; it is one community and every resident of it has family members in both the artificially created parts.

“Why put up another Berlin Wall here?” he asked rhetorically, and indeed when one sees where the proposed border would lie, one understands the full absurdity of the UN stipulation.

Most of the agricultural land belonging to the village is situated in the southerly area which means that should the division plan go ahead, the people living today in the northerly part would, according to Najib, find themselves stateless refugees in Lebanon and bereft of their lands. He calls it a “Judgement of Solomon”: a demand to divide something which cannot be divided.

Najib then explained that the village never had any connections with Lebanon, from which it is separated by the natural border of the River Hatzbani. All the old deeds they have for their lands are Syrian and were issued in the Golan Heights town of Kuneitra. The UN mapmakers who drew up the border or “Blue Line” in 2000 relied upon old maps from 1923 created as a result of the Sykes-Picot agreement. As he wryly pointed out, “Those maps were made by the British and the French. There were no Israelis, Lebanese or Syrians then.”

According to Najib, the entire village speaks with one voice on this issue and their position is that they are part of the Golan which was captured by Israel in 1967 and as such, their fate is inextricably linked to that of the Golan as a whole. If a peace agreement is ever signed between Israel and Syria under which the former gives over the Golan, then Ghajar should go back to being a part of Syria. Until then, they wish to remain as they are today: one united village in Israel, with Israeli citizenship.

There's much more (and great pictures) so make sure to read the whole thing.

I have two takeaways for you. First, to whom did Mr. Najib tell the truth? That's hard to say. There are those that argue that these people so fear Syria and Hezbullah that they always hedge their bets and don't say anything against them. I suppose that's true in this case as well. Even what they told the blogger makes it sound like a mistake and that it's the fault of the UN - and not of Hezbullah or the Lebanese government. To me - and probably most of you - it seems obvious that any rational person would want to remain in Israel and that statements about the town going back to Syria are for domestic consumption in Damascus, but I don't think we can be 100% sure, and I'm not convinced it matters. Even if these people would rather have the entire town go to Lebanon rather than the entire town staying in Israel, that's apparently not on the table and it doesn't make what is on the table any less irrational.

Second, time moves on and change comes about. Going back to a map that was in use nearly 90 years ago without accounting for the current reality is insane. Ghajar is a scene we're likely to see played out again and again if God forbid Israel ever decides to do what the 'Palestinians' want and give them every inch that was liberated in 1967. It would be insane to do that.

Labels: blue line, Ghajar, Golan Heights, Lebanon

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:49 PM