Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 10. februar 2007 / Time Line February 10, 2007
Version 3.59. Februar 2007, 11. Februar 2007
02/02/2007
The Method in the Madness
By: Uri Avnery
WHEN A Prime Minister has just lost a war, is dogged by corruption
allegations and sees his popularity ratings in free fall - what can
he do?
Why, he can initiate provocations.
A provocation diverts attention, generates headlines, creates the
illusion of power, radiates a sense of leadership.
But a provocation is a dangerous instrument. It can cause
irreversible damage.
PROVOCATION NO. 1: The northern frontier.
Along the northern border runs a fence. But not everywhere does the
fence coincide exactly with the recognized border (the so-called
Blue Line). For topographical reasons, some sections of the fence
run a few dozen meters south of it.
That is the theory of the situation. In the course of the years,
both sides have become accustomed to regarding the fence as the
actual border. On the Lebanese side, the villagers farm the fields
up to the fence, fields which may well be their property.
Now Ehud Olmert has decided to exploit this situation and reveal
himself as a great, invincible warrior. Some explosives recently
found a few yards from the Blue Line serve as a pretext. The
Israeli army claims that they were put there just days ago by
Hizbullah fighters disguised as goatherds. According to Hizbullah,
they are old bombs that have been there since before the recent
war.
Olmert sent soldiers beyond the fence to carry out a "Hissuf"
("exposure") - one of those new Hebrew words invented by the army's
"verbal laundry" to beautify ugly things. It means the wholesale
uprooting of trees, in order to improve vision and facilitate
shooting. The army used the trademark weapon of the State of
Israel: the armored bulldozer.
The Lebanese army sent a warning that they would open fire. When
this did not have any effect, they indeed fired several salvoes
over the heads of the Israeli soldiers. The Israeli army responded
by firing several tank shells at the Lebanese position and lo - we
have our "incident".
The whole affair is very reminiscent of Ariel Sharon's methods in
the 60s, when he was the chief of operations of the Northern
Command. Sharon became quite an expert at provoking the Syrian army
in the demilitarized zones that existed on the border between the
two countries at the time. Israel claimed sovereignty over these
areas, while the Syrians asserted that it was a neutral zone that
did not belong to either state and in which the Arab farmers, who
owned the land, were allowed to tend their fields.
According to legend, the Syrians exploited their control of heights
overlooking the Israeli villages in the valley below them. Again
and again the evil Syrians (the Syrians were always "evil")
terrorized the helpless kibbutzim by shelling. This myth, which was
believed by practically all Israelis at the time, served as a
justification for the occupation of the Golan Heights and their
annexation by Israel. Even now, foreign visitors are brought to an
observation post on the Golan Heights and shown the defenseless
Kibbutzim down below.
The truth, which has been exposed since then, was a bit different:
Sharon used to instruct the Kibbutzniks to go to their shelters,
and then send an armored tractor into the demilitarized zone.
Predictably, the Syrians shot at it. The Israeli artillery, just
waiting for its cue, then opened up a massive bombardment of the
Syrian positions. There were dozens of such "incidents".
Now the same method is being practiced by Sharon's successor.
Soldiers and bulldozers enter the area, the Lebanese shoot, the
Israeli tanks shell them.
Does this provocation make any political sense? The Lebanese army
answers to Fuad Siniora, the darling of the United States and the
opponent of Hizbullah. In the wake of the Second Lebanon War, this
army was deployed along the border, at the express demand of the
Israeli government, and this was proclaimed by Olmert as a huge
Israeli achievement. (Until then, the Israeli army commanders had
adamantly opposed the idea of stationing Lebanese or international
troops in this area, on the grounds that this would hamper their
freedom of action.)
So what is the aim of this provocation? The same as with all
Olmert's recent actions: gaining popularity to survive in power, in
this case by creating tension.
PROVOCATION NO. 2: The Temple Mount.
Islam has three holy cities: Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. In Mecca
this week, the chiefs of Fatah and Hamas assembled in order to put
an end to the mutual killing and set up a unity government. While
the attention of the concerned Palestinian public was riveted
there, Olmert struck in Jerusalem.
As pretext served the "Mugrabi Gate", an entrance to the
Haram-al-Sharif ("the Noble Sanctuary"), the wide plaza where the
al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located. Since this
gate is higher than the Western Wall area below it, one can
approach it only over a rising bridge or ramp.
The old bridge collapsed some time ago, and was replaced with a
temporary structure. Now the "Israel Antiquities Authority" is
destroying the temporary bridge and putting in its place - so it
says - a permanent one. But the work looks much more extensive.
As could have been expected, riots broke out at once. In 1967,
Israel formally annexed this area and claimed sovereignty over the
entire Temple Mount. The Arabs (and the whole world) have never
recognized the annexation. In practice, the Temple Mount is
governed by the Islamic Waqf (religious endowment).
The Israeli government argues that the bridge is separate from the
Temple Mount. The Muslims insist that the bridge is a part of it.
Behind this tussle, there is a lurking Arab suspicion that the
installation of the new bridge is just a cover for something else
happening below the surface.
At the 2000 Camp David conference, the Israeli side made a
weird-sounding proposal: to leave the area itself to the Muslims,
but with Israeli sovereignty over everything beneath the surface.
That reinforced the Muslim belief that the Israelis intended to dig
beneath the Mount, in order to discover traces of the Jewish Temple
that was destroyed by the Romans 1936 years ago. Some believed that
the real intention was to cause the Islamic shrines to collapse, so
a new Temple could be built in their place.
These suspicions are nurtured by the fact that most Israeli
archaeologists have always been the loyal foot-soldiers of the
official propaganda. Since the emergence of modern Zionism, they
have been engaged in a desperate endeavor to "find" archaeological
evidence for the historical truth of the stories of the Old
Testament. Until now, they have gone empty-handed: there exists no
archaeological proof for the exodus from Egypt, the conquest of
Canaan and the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon. But in their
eagerness to prove the unprovable (because in the opinion of the
vast majority of archaeologists and historians outside Israel - and
also some in Israel - the Old Testament stories are but sacred
myths), the archaeologists have destroyed many strata of other
periods.
But that is not the most important side of the present affair. One
can argue to the end of days about the responsibility for the
Mugrabi walkway or what it might be that the archaeologists are
looking for. But it is impossible to doubt that this is a
provocation: it was carried out like a surprise military operation,
without consultation with the other side.
Nobody knew better what to expect than Olmert, who, as mayor of
Jerusalem, was responsible for the killing of 85 human beings - 69
Palestinians and 16 Israelis - in a similar provocation, when he
"opened" a tunnel near the Temple Mount. And everybody remembers,
of course, that the Second Intifada started with the provocative
"visit" to the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon.
This is a provocation against 1.3 billion Muslims, and especially
against the Arab world. It is a knife in the back of the "moderate"
Mahmoud Abbas, with whom Olmert pretends to be ready to have a
"dialogue" - and this at exactly the moment Abbas reached an
historical agreement with Hamas for the formation of a national
unity government. It is also a knife in the back of the king of
Jordan, Israel's ally, who sees himself as the traditional
protector of the Temple Mount.
What for? To prove that Olmert is a strong leader, the hero of the
Temple Mount, the defender of the national values, who doesn't give
a damn for world public opinion.
PROVOCATION NO. 3: After Haim Ramon was convicted of indecent
conduct, the post of the Minister of Justice fell vacant. In a
surprise blow, after laying down a smoke screen by dangling the
names of acceptable candidates, Olmert appointed to the post a
professor who is the open and vocal enemy of the Supreme Court and
the Attorney General.
The Supreme Court is almost the only governmental institution in
Israel which still enjoys the confidence of the great majority. The
last President of the Court, Aharon Barak, once told me: "We have
no troops. Our power is based solely on the confidence of the
public." Now Olmert has appointed a Minister of Justice who has
been engaged for a long time and with a lot of noise in destroying
this confidence. Indeed, it seems that this is his main interest in
life, ever since he failed to get a close friend, a female
professor, elevated to the Supreme Court.
One can see in this an effort by Olmert, a politician who is
dragging behind him a long train of corruption affairs (several of
which are at present under police and State Comptroller
investigation), to undermine the investigators, the Attorney
General and the courts. It serves also as revenge against the court
that dared to convict Ramon, his friend and ally. He did not, of
course, consult with anyone in the judicial system: not with the
Attorney General (whose official title is "Legal Adviser of the
Government") nor with the President of the Supreme Court, Dorit
Beinish, whom he cannot stand.
I am not an unreserved admirer of the Supreme Court. It is a wheel
in the machinery of the occupation. It cannot be relied on in
matters like the targeted assassinations, the Separation Wall, the
demolition of Palestinian homes and the hundred and one other cases
over which the false banner of "security" is waving. But it is the
last bastion of human rights inside Israel proper.
The appointment of the new minister is an assault on Israeli
democracy, and therefore no less dangerous than the other two
provocations.
WHAT DO the three have in common? First of all: their unilateral
character. Forty years of occupation have created an occupation
mentality that destroys all desire and all ability to solve
problems by mutual understanding, dialogue and compromise.
Both in foreign and domestic relations, Mafia methods reign:
violence, sudden blows, targeted eliminations.
When these methods are applied by a politician haunted by
corruption affairs, an uninhibited war-monger who is fighting for
survival by all means available - this is indeed a very dangerous
situation.
 |
 |