Olmert
And The Pussycat
By Uri Avnery
03 April, 2007
Gush Shalom
Can
a pantheress turn into a pussycat? Impossible, a zoologist would say.
But last week, we saw it happen with our own eyes.
Condoleezza Rice came here
to teach Ehud Olmert, once and for all, who is boss. The President of
the United States wants to make order in the Middle East, and the government
of Israel has to fall into line. Otherwise
Two days later, nothing of
the threat remained. Olmert refused again. And what happened? Nothing
happened. The fearful pantheress slunk home, her tail between her legs.
Muammar al-Gaddafi, a unique
combination of dictator and comedian, complimented the "dark-skinned
African woman", and disclosed that he likes her. She has but to
raise her little finger, he said, and all the security chiefs in the
Arab world, who are the real rulers of their countries, come running.
But even Gaddafi did not argue that she had Israel on the run.
* * *
JULIUS CAESAR, as is well
known, reported to the Roman Senate "I came. I saw. I conquered."
Condoleezza could report to the US Senate: "I came. I saw. I capitulated."
Who to? To a failing Israeli prime minister, whose popularity rating
is approaching zero and who practically nobody expects to survive to
the end of the year.
In the ongoing debate about
which is wagging which - the dog its tail or the tail its dog - the
proponents of the tail have won the day. In the round just finished,
Israel has won against the United States.
This bout started with President
Bush deciding, it seems, to clear the decks for action. The US is preparing
for war against Iran. For that purpose, it has to put an end to the
mess in Iraq, unify the pro-American Arab regimes and find a solution
to the Palestinian problem.
In the beginning, everything
worked just fine. All the leaders of the Arab countries (except Gaddafi,
the inevitable absentee) gathered for a summit meeting in Riyadh. The
king of Saudi Arabia was reconciled with Bashar al-Assad. Mahmoud Abbas
brought Hamas leader Ismail Hanieh with him. President Emile Lahoud
of Lebanon, the protégée of Syria and Hizbullah, took
his place at the round table.
The united Arab world breathed
new life into King Abdullah's peace plan, which offers Israel of recognition,
peace and normalization with the entire Arab world, in return for its
withdrawal to the borders of June 4, 1967. The plan pays lip service
to a "just solution" of the refugee problem (and how could
it avoid that?) but states unequivocally that any solution depends on
Israeli agreement.
If the Arab world had made
us this offer on June 4, 1967, we would have raised our eyes to heaven,
lit candles and uttered the old Jewish blessing: "Blessed are you,
Lord, our God, king of the world, who has kept us alive, sustained us
and enabled us to reach this day."
But this week nobody lighted
candles and blessed the "sovereign of the worlds" for the
Arab peace offer. On the contrary, Olmert & Co. were racking their
brains to find a way out of this trap. Since they could not think up
a more convincing reason, they argued that it was impossible to accept
an offer that mentions the UN resolution about the refugees. Most of
the media, under the baton of Olmert's spokespersons, kept quiet about
the explicit dependency on Israeli agreement.
In short, Nyet!
* * *
THAT WAS the moment for the
huge American steamroller to get going. After all, vital American interests
are at stake.
All the Arab rulers who depend
on the US are crying out that they cannot pledge their support as demanded,
so long as the pus is still streaming from the occupation tumor. How
can the King of Saudi Arabia and the President of Egypt rally their
masses for a war against Iran, when they and their subjects are exposed
on Aljazeera, morning, noon and evening, to the horrifying sight of
the Israeli army attack dog sinking its teeth in the flesh of an old
Palestinian woman and locking its jaws?
Condoleezza arranged a showdown
with Olmert and was ready to submit an ultimatum. But it seems that
at the last moment new instructions came from the White House: Let go
and come home.
It appears that President
Bush is even weaker than Olmert. In the two houses of Congress he has
suffered a stinging defeat on Iraq. The American public has no stomach
for another war, this time against a country far more united and determined
than Iraq. In this political situation, the last thing he needs is a
head-on collision with the pro-Israeli lobby, with its Jewish and Christian
wings.
The two professors, Stephen
Walt and John Mearsheimer, won this round. In this clash between the
national interests of the United States and the Government of Israel
and its America fans, the Israeli side won.
The steamroller did not roll.
Condoleezza went to Olmert and sat with him for three hours. Her final
statement sounds more like the purring of a domestic cat than the snarling
of a predator.
* * *
AND THE Israeli public? The
public that saw another historic opportunity going past and being ignored?
No doubt, the huge majority
would have supported Olmert, if he had announced his acceptance of the
Arab offer. But only a small minority is ready to rebel against Olmert
when he does the opposite.
The silent majority includes
the victims of the next wars, their parents and children. Could it be
that they don't care? That it does not concern them?
The public does not get excited.
Does not complain. Does not raise its voice. Does not demonstrate.
This week, the Peace Now
movement called for a demonstration, to demand that Olmert respond positively
to the Arab summit initiative. The event took place near the residence
of the Prime Minister in Jerusalem. The organizers brought the flags
of all the Arab states, including Palestine. That was a refreshing sight
for those who remember how 20 years ago an activist was driven away
from a Peace Now demonstration because he was carrying a small Palestinian
flag.
How many came? A movement
that once called out 400 thousand demonstrators after the Sabra and
Shatila massacre, attracted this time (true, on a work day) 250 people.
Neither Haaretz nor any other newspaper mentioned the colorful demonstration
with one word, no TV channel showed a single picture. Except for Aljazeera.
What is the reason for this
indifference? Fatalism? Fatigue? Past disappointments? Distrust of the
government and/or the Arabs?
No doubt: something dramatic
is needed to shock this public into action. One commentator suggested
that the Saudi King follow the example of Anwar Sadat and come to Jerusalem,
speak in the Knesset and address the Israeli public directly. But Sadat
made his historic visit only after Moshe Dayan had promised, in secret
meetings in Morocco, that Menachem Begin was prepared to give back all
of the Sinai peninsula. Olmert is not promising anything.
* * *
DID OLMERT respond? You bet.
After all, it was impossible to ignore it altogether.
He declared that he was ready
to meet with the Saudi king. Naïve people could be favorably impressed.
The Prime Minister of Israel was ready to meet with leaders of the Arab
states. Nice. Very nice, indeed.
Actually, this is an old
gimmick of Israeli governments, from the days of David Ben-Gurion on.
A meeting with the head of one of the most important Arab states could
be interpreted as normalization, and normalization is the main Israeli
demand. Meaning, Israel achieves its main objective without giving anything
in return. No Arab leader does, of course, fall into this trap.
Immediately afterwards, Olmert
declared that not a single settlement outpost would be dismantled until
the Palestinians "fight terrorism". This also has an historical
background: when President Bush agreed to recognize Israeli "population
centers" - the large settlements set up beyond the Green Line in
total violation of international law and previous American demands -
Ariel Sharon undertook to dismantle all the settlements established
after his taking office in early 2001. Even under Israeli law, these
settlements ("outposts") are illegal.
This undertaking is also
included in the poor old Road Map. According to it, Israel was obliged
to dismantle these settlements in the first phase, and simultaneously
the Palestinians had to disarm their organizations.
Amir Peretz, who as Minister
of Defense is responsible for this sector, declared again and again
that - any minute now - he was going to dismantle the outposts. In practice,
not a single one was dismantled. Now Olmert declares that first of all
the Palestinians must "fight terrorism", and only then will
the government decide what to do about the settlements.
In other words: no outpost
will be dismantled.
In such a way, the "window
of opportunity" is closing. (To use a rather stupid American expression.
After all, a window is an opening through which one views what's happening
outside, not one to pass in order to do something. For that there are
doors.)
* * *
ON THE eve of Passover, Olmert
has poured out his thoughts, such as they are, in all the media.
Israel's largest mass circulation
daily splashed a sensational headline across its front page: "Olmert:
Within Five Years We Can Achieve Peace!"
What? Five years? In 1993
we signed the Oslo accord, which foresaw the final peace settlement
between Israel and the Palestinian people within five years. Since then,
13 years have passed, and even negotiations on this have not yet started.
It seems that the "five
years" belong to the same world of illusions as Condoleezza's "political
horizon": as you go forward, it recedes.
Click
here to comment
on this article