Uri Avnery
17.2.07          ; 

                      Facing Mecca

MUST A Native-American recognize the right of the United States of
America to exist?

Interesting question. The USA was established by Europeans who invaded
a continent that did not belong to them, eradicated most of the
indigenous population (the "Red Indians") in a prolonged campaign of
genocide, and exploited the labor of millions of slaves who had been
brutally torn from their lives in Africa. Not to mention what is going on
today. Must a Native-American - or indeed anybody at all - recognize the
right of such a state to exist?

But nobody raises the question. The United States does not give a damn if
anybody recognizes its right to exist or not. It does not demand this from
the countries with which it maintains relations.

Why? Because this is a ridiculous demand to start with.

OK, the United States is older than the State of Israel, as well as bigger
and more powerful. But countries that are not super-powers do not
demand this either. India, for example, is not expected to recognize
Pakistan's "right to exist", in spite of the fact that Pakistan was
established at the same time as Israel, and - like Israel - on an ethnic/
religious basis.


SO WHY is Hamas required to "recognize Israel's right to exist"?

When a state "recognizes" another state, it is a formal recognition, the
acknowledgement of an existing fact. It does not imply approval. The
Soviet Union was not required to recognize the existence of the USA as a
capitalist state. On the contrary, Nikita Khrushchev promised in 1956 to
"bury" it. The US certainly did not dream of recognizing at any time the
right of the Soviet Union to exist as a communist state.

So why is this weird demand addressed to the Palestinians? Why must
they recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State?

I am an Israeli patriot, and I do not feel that I need anybody's recognition
of the right of my state to exist. If somebody is ready to make peace with
me, within borders and on conditions agreed upon in negotiations, that is
quite enough for me. I am prepared to leave the history, ideology and
theology of the matter to the theologians, ideologues and historians.

Perhaps after 60 years of the existence of Israel, and after we have
become a regional power, we are still so unsure of ourselves that we
crave for constant assurance of our right to exist - and of all people, from
those that we have been oppressing for the last 40 years. Perhaps it is the
mentality of the Ghetto that is still so deeply ingrained in us.

But the demand addressed now to the Palestinian Unity Government is far
from sincere. It has an ulterior political aim, indeed two: (a) to convince
the international community not to recognize the Palestinian government
that is about to be set up, and (b) to justify the refusal of the Israeli
government to enter into peace negotiations with it.

The British call this a "red herring" - a smelly fish that a fugitive drags
across the path in order to put the pursuing dogs off the trail.


WHEN I was young, Jewish people in Palestine used to talk about our
secret weapon: the Arab refusal. Every time somebody proposed some
peace plan, we relied on the Arab side to say "no". True, the Zionist
leadership was against any compromise that would have frozen the
existing situation and halted the momentum of the Zionist enterprise of
expansion and settlement. But the Zionist leaders used to say "yes" and
"we extend our hand for peace" - and rely on the Arabs to scuttle the
proposal.

That was successful for a hundred years, until Yasser Arafat changed the
rules, recognized Israel and signed the Oslo Accords, which stipulated
that the negotiations for the final borders between Israel and Palestine
must be concluded not later than 1999. To this very day, those
negotiations have not even started. Successive Israeli governments have
prevented it because they were not ready under any circumstances to fix
final borders. (The 2000 Camp David meeting was not a real negotiation -
Ehud Barak convened it without any preparation, dictated his terms to the
Palestinians and broke the dialogue off when they were refused.)


After the death of Arafat, the refusal became more and more difficult.
Arafat was always described as a terrorist, cheat and liar. But Mahmoud
Abbas was accepted by everybody as an honest person, who truly wanted
to achieve peace. Yet Ariel Sharon succeeded in avoiding any negotiations
with him. The "Unilateral Separation" served this end. President Bush
supported him with both hands.

Well, Sharon suffered his stroke, and Ehud Olmert took his place. And
then something happened that caused great joy in Jerusalem: the
Palestinians elected Hamas.

How wonderful! After all, both the US and Europe have designated Hamas
as a terrorist organization! Hamas is a part of the Shiite Axis of Evil! (They
are not Shiites, but who cares!) Hamas does not recognize Israel! Hamas
is trying to eliminate Mahmoud Abbas, the noble man of peace! It is clear
that with such a gang there is no need, nor would it make any sense, to
conduct negotiations about peace and borders.

And indeed, the US and their European satellites are boycotting the
Palestinian government and starving the Palestinian population. They
have set three conditions for lifting the blockade: (a) that the Palestinian
government and Hamas must recognize the right of the State of Israel to
exist, (b) they must stop "terrorism", and (c) they must undertake to fulfill
the agreements signed by the PLO.

On the face of it, that makes sense. In reality, none at all. Because all
these conditions are completely one-sided:

a) the Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist (without
defining its borders, of course), but the Israeli government is not required
to recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist at all.

(b) The Palestinians must put an end to "terrorism", but the Israeli
government is not required to stop its military operations in the
Palestinian territories and stop the building of settlements. The
"roadmap" does indeed say so, but that has been completely ignored by
everybody, including the Americans.

(c) The Palestinians must undertake to fulfill the agreements, but no such
undertaking is required from the Israeli government, which has broken
almost all provision of the Oslo agreement. Among others: the opening of
the "safe passages" between Gaza and the West Bank, the carrying out of
the third "redeployment" (withdrawal from Palestinian territories), the
treatment of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one single territory, etc.
etc.

Since Hamas came to power, its leaders have understood the need to
become more flexible. They are very sensitive to the mood of their
people. The Palestinian population is longing for an end to the occupation
and for a life of peace. Therefore, step by step, Hamas has come nearer
to recognition of Israel. Their religious doctrine does not allow them to
declare this publicly (Jewish fundamentalists too cling to the word of God
"To your seed I have given this land") but it has been doing so indirectly.
Little steps, but a big revolution.

Hamas has announced its support for the establishment of a Palestinian
state bounded by the June 1967 borders - meaning: next to Israel and
not in place of Israel. (This week, ex-minister Kadura Fares repeated that
Hamas leader Khaled Mashal has confirmed this.) Hamas has given
Mahmoud Abbas a power of attorney to conduct the negotiations with
Israel and has undertaken in advance to accept any agreement ratified in
a referendum. Abbas, of course, clearly advocates the setting up of a
Palestinian state next to Israel, across the Green Line. There is no doubt
whatsoever that if such an agreement is achieved, the huge majority of
the Palestinian population will vote for it.

In Jerusalem, worry has set in. If this goes on, the world might even get
the impression that Hamas has changed, and then - God forbid - lift the
economic blockade on the Palestinian people.

Now the King of Saudi Arabia comes and disturbs Olmert's plans even
more.

In an impressive event, facing the holiest site of Islam, the king put an
end to the bloody strife between the Palestinian security organs and
prepared the ground for a Palestinian government of national unity.
Hamas undertook to respect the agreements signed by the PLO, including
the Oslo agreement, which is based on the mutual recognition of the
State of Israel and the PLO as representative of the Palestinian people.

The king has extracted the Palestinian issue from the embrace of Iran, to
which Hamas had turned because it had no alternative, and has returned
Hamas to the lap of the Sunni family. Since Saudi Arabia is the main ally
of the US in the Arab world, the king has put the Palestinian issue firmly
on the table of the Oval Room.

In Jerusalem, near panic broke out. This is the scariest of nightmares: the
fear that the unconditional support of the US and Europe for Israeli policy
will be reconsidered.

The panic had immediate results: "political circles" in Jerusalem
announced that they rejected the Mecca agreement out of hand. Then
second thoughts set in. Shimon Peres, long established master of the
"yes-but-no" method, convinced Olmert that the brazen "no" must be
replaced with a more subtle "no". For this purpose, the red herring was
again taken out of the freezer.

It is not enough that Hamas recognize Israel in practice. Israel insists that
its "right to exist" must also be recognized. Political recognition does not
suffice, ideological recognition is required. By this logic, one could also
demand that Khaled Mashal join the Zionist organization.


If one thinks that peace is more important for Israel than expansion and
settlements, one must welcome the change in the position of Hamas - as
expressed in the Mecca agreement - and encourage it to continue along
this road. The king of Saudi Arabia, who has already convinced the
leaders of all Arab countries to recognize Israel in exchange for the
establishment of the state of Palestine across the Green Line, should be
warmly congratulated.

But if one opposes peace because it would fix the final borders of Israel
and allow for no more expansion, one will do everything to convince the
Americans and Europeans to continue with the boycott on the Palestinian
government and the blockade of the Palestinian people.


The day after tomorrow, Condoleezza Rice will convene a meeting of
Olmert and Abbas in Jerusalem.

The Americans now have a problem. On one side, they need the Saudi
king. Not only does he sit on huge oil reservoirs, but he is also the
center-piece of the "moderate Sunni bloc". If the king tells Bush that the
solution of the Palestinian problem is needed in order to dam the spread
of Iranian influence across the Middle East, his words will carry a lot of
weight. If Bush is planning a military attack on Iran, as it seems he is, it is
important for him to have the united support of the Sunnis.

On the other side, the pro-Israel lobby - both Jewish and Christian - is
very important for Bush. It is vital for him to be able to count on the
"Christian base" of the Republican Party, which is composed of
fundamentalists who support the extreme Right in Israel, come what may.

So what is to be done? Nothing. For this nothing, Condi found an apt
diplomatic slogan, taken from up-to-date American slang: "New Political
Horizons".

Clearly, she did not ponder on the meaning of these words. Because the
horizon is the symbol of a goal that will never be reached: the more you
approach it, the more it recedes.

                "You and I and the Next War"

"WE ARE ready for the next war," a reserve soldier told a TV reporter this
week, on the scene of a brigade-size maneuver on the Golan Heights.

What war? Against whom? About what? This was not stated, and not even
asked. The soldier saw it as self-evident that war will break out soon, and
it seems that he did not particularly care against whom.

Politicians are used to expressing themselves more cautiously, in words
like "If, God forbid, a war should break out…" But in Israeli public
discourse, the next war is seen as a natural phenomenon, like tomorrow's
sunrise. Of course, war will break out. The only question is against whom.


AND INDEED - against whom? Perhaps Hizbullah again?

Quite possibly. In the Knesset and the media, a lively debate took place
this week about whether Hizbullah has already regained all the
capabilities it had before the Second Lebanon War, or not yet. In a
Knesset committee, there was an altercation between one of the Army
Intelligence chiefs, who vigorously insisted that this was so, and the
Minister of Defense, who voiced his opinion that Hizbullah has only the
"potential" to get there.

Hassan Nasrallah, who has a wonderful talent for driving Israelis up the
wall, poured oil on the flames by announcing, in a public speech, that
arms were flowing to him from Syria, and that he transfers them to the
south in trucks "covered with straw". Let them all know.

Our commentators reacted by declaring that "no later than this summer"
the Israeli army will be compelled to attack in Lebanon in order to remove
the danger, and, on this occasion, also to eradicate the shame and restore
to the army the "deterrent power" that was lost on the battlefields of that
unfortunate war.


OR PERHAPS Syria, this time?

That is also possible. After all, this week's brigade maneuver, the first for
a long time, was held on the Golan and obviously directed against
Damascus.

True, the Syrians have offered peace. They are going out of their way to
tempt Israel to start negotiations.

But that is out of the question. President Bush has forbidden Israel to take
even the tiniest step in that direction. Bush is threatening Syria with war
(see below) and it is unthinkable that Israel, the loyal camp-follower,
would make peace with somebody America does not like. No, peace with
Syria is not on the cards. Forget it.

And, as the Romans did not say: "si non vis pacem, para bellum" - if you
do not want peace, prepare for war.

Preparations go well beyond training the forces on the ground. They also
have a psychological dimension. The day before yesterday, an extra-large
front page headline in Haaretz announced: "Syrian Arms Race With the
Help of Iran". The other media followed suit. It was said that Russia was
supplying Syria with huge quantities of anti-tank weapons, of the kind
that penetrated even the most advanced Israeli tanks in the recent war.
And, as if that was not enough, Russia is also providing Syria with anti-
shipping missiles that would be a real threat to our navy, and long-range
missiles that can reach every corner of Israel.

The news story puts together three countries - Syria, Russia and Iran -
which are, quite fortuitously, the three members of Bush's new "axis of
evil".

Clearly, this media campaign is being orchestrated by the army chiefs and
is connected with the maneuver. As a matter of fact, it is the first action
by the new Chief-of-Staff, Gaby Ashkenazi, who observed the maneuver
in the company of the Minister of Defense, Amir Peretz. (A quick-witted
photographer caught Peretz viewing the action through binoculars. But
the lens caps were still on, and so he obviously saw nothing but black.)

Truth is that no danger lurks in that direction. There is not the slightest
possibility that Syria would attack Israel. The military capabilities of Syria,
even with all the Russian arms they may get, are vastly inferior to those of
the Israeli army. That is the considered view of the entire Israeli
intelligence community. If Syria rearms, it is for defensive purposes. They
are, quite justly, afraid of Israel and the United States.

But if one wants war, what does that matter?


AND PERHAPS these are simply diversionary tactics, in order to shift
attention away from the real target of the next war - Iran?

For many months now, our media have been voicing dark warnings about
Iran almost daily. Within a few years they are going to have the capability
to carry out a "Second Holocaust", as well as the will to do so. The picture
is of a crazy country, headed by a Second Hitler, who is prepared to have
Iran annihilated if this is the price of wiping Israel off the map.

Against such an enemy, of course, the old Hebrew adage applies: "He who
gets up to kill you, go and kill him first."


AFTER THE Six-Day War, a pacifist satire bore the title: "You and I and the
Next War". ("You" in the feminine form.) Perhaps it should be revived now.

During the last few days, a very large ad appeared in the newspapers,
signed by a group calling itself "The Reserve Soldiers" and claiming to
represent the disappointed reservists of the last war. The ad sets out all
the reasons for removing Olmert from power, and reaches its climax with
the dire warning: "He will remain on his chair and direct the next war."

Perhaps that is exactly what he has in mind. We never had a prime
minister mired so deeply in a quagmire of troubles. In a few weeks, the
Commission of Inquiry of the Second Lebanon War will publish its
findings. True, it was Olmert himself who appointed the commission and
handpicked its members, in order to avoid falling into the hands of a
judicial board of inquiry, whose members would have been appointed by
the Supreme Court, and who might have been much less considerate. But
even so, he may survive the findings of the commission only by the skin
of his teeth. At the same time, several corruption allegations against him
are being investigated by the police.

True, Olmert succeeded last week in appointing new police chiefs
(including a personal friend) as well as a new Minister of Justice to his
liking, but this also does not guarantee him full immunity.

In the meantime he only exemplifies an old truth: a clever person knows
how to extricate himself from a trap that a wise person would not have
fallen into in the first place.

He has no agenda. He said so himself. He is the chief of an amorphous
party, without members or institutions and without real roots in the
community. Public opinion polls show that his ratings are nearing the
bottom (only the Minister of Defense has sunk even lower.) Olmert
remains in power only because many believe that all the available
alternatives would be even worse.

A cynical Prime Minister, entrapped in such a situation, could easily be
tempted to start another military adventure, in the hope that it would give
him back his lost popularity and divert attention from his private and
political troubles. If this is the aim, it really does not matter much against
whom - Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians or Iranians. The main thing is that
it should happen as soon as possibly, preferably this summer at the
latest. What remains is to convince the public of the presence of an
existential danger, but in our country that is not too difficult.


ALL THIS reminds one, of course, of another outstanding leader - George
W. Bush. Amazing how these two find themselves in almost the same
situation.

The American political system is admired by many in Israel, and from
time to time the cry goes up that it should be adopted by us, too. A
strong leader, elected fairly directly by the people, who appoints
competent ministers - what could be better?

But it seems that the American system has created a terrifying situation:
President Bush has two more years in office - and in this time he can start
any war at will, even though now the American public has clearly shown
in the congressional elections that it loathes the Iraq war. As
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military forces in the world,
he can widen and deepen the war in Iraq, and at the same time start a
new war against Iran or Syria.

The two houses of Congress can, in theory, stop him by cutting the
allocations for the armed forces, but most of the members of these two
august bodies are windbags who are terrified out of their wits (if they
have any) by the very thought. Any marine in Baghdad has more guts than
the whole bunch of Senators and Congressmen together. They would not
even dream of impeaching the President.

Thus, one single person can cause a world-wide catastrophe. He has no
brakes, but has a strong drive towards war: to fulfill his "vision" (dictated
to him by God Himself in private conversation) and to retouch his image
in history.

Is this practical? Well, the American army is too small to conduct another
major war on the ground. But Bush and his advisors believe that there is
no need for that. They are the successors to the American general who in
his time talked about "bombing Vietnam back to the stone age". After all,
it worked in Serbia and Afghanistan.

The neo-cons, who still reign supreme in Washington, are convinced that
a rain of many hundreds of smart bombs on all the nuclear, military,
governmental and public installations in Iran could "do the job". Their
friends in Israel will applaud, since that would relieve Israel of the need to
do something similar, if on a smaller scale.

But an American and/or Israeli adventure would be a disaster. Bombs can
devastate a country, but not a people like the Iranians. Only the wildest
imagination can foresee how the more than a billion Muslims in scores of
countries - including all our neighbors - would react to the destruction of
a Muslim country (even a Shiite one). This is playing with fire, which may
start a world-wide conflagration.

Bush and Olmert and the Next War - HELP!

but then again......who actually LIKES israel??

www.islamquest.net

 

Bismillah,

Did you know that Arabs, Christian and Muslim and Atheist, living in Israel proper, as they call it, consider themselves Israeli?  Maybe they like it.