The
Method In The Madness
By Uri Avnery
13 February, 2007
Gush-Shalom
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.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights