Uri Avnery

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Uri Avnery

2.12.06

                 A  Sparkling Bubble

A FRIEND of mine, who was brought up in Egypt, took part in the 

interrogation of Egyptian officers captured in the 1956 Sinai war.

An Egyptian lieutenant-colonel told him: "Every time David Ben-Gurion 

gave a speech declaring that he was holding out his hand for peace, we 

put our forces on alert."

And, indeed, it was a typical method of Ben-Gurion: before launching a 

military operation, he would make a speech culminating with "We are 

holding out our hand for peace!" He frequently added that he was ready 

to meet the Arab leaders face to face, that he was in favor of negotiations 

without pre-conditions, and such.

NOW, BEN-GURION has an heir.

True, even in his darkest dreams Ben-Gurion could not have imagined an 

heir like Olmert - a politician personifying all the traits that Ben-Gurion 

detested. But, as the Bible says, "the dead praise not the Lord" (Psalm 

115) nor can they choose their heirs.

Last week, Olmert went all the way to Ben-Gurion's grave in the remote 

Negev and made a speech designed to establish his status as his 

successor. No point wasting words on this pretension. But it is certainly 

revealing to analyse the speech itself.

On the face of it, a peacenik speech the likes of which we have not heard 

for some time. Some said that this was an answer to the words addressed 

to him by the writer David Grossman at the Rabin memorial rally. And 

indeed, there is a resemblance between the two: just as Grossman's 

speech was rich in sublime values and poor in practical proposals, so 

Olmert excelled in impressive phrases but failed the test of content.  

WHAT DID he say, after all?

"If you (the Palestinians) set up a new government that will undertake to 

fulfill the principles of the Quartet, a government that will realize the 

Road Map and bring about the release of Gilad Shalit - I shall propose to 

Abu-Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) to meet him immediately, with the aim of 

conducting a real, open, sincere and serious dialogue between us and 

you."  (I have translated the words literally, since the official translation 

has edited the text.)

Looks good. But if one looks again, one realizes that it is just a soap 

bubble.

Since the days of Ben-Gurion, all our governments have used this tactic: 

say "yes" to every peace proposal, and add a small prior condition that 

turns "yes" into "no".

What does Olmert demand from the Palestinian government? Little things: 

to recognize Israel's right to exist without fixed borders  (and without 

Israel recognizing the right of a Palestinian state to exist within the 1967 

borders), to stop the violence (without a parallel commitment by Israel) 

and to recognize all the agreements signed in the past (almost all of 

which have been violated by Israel no less than by the Palestinians.)

On top of this, the Palestinian government must fulfill its "obligations" 

under the Road Map. This ridiculous document, a product of Bush & Co., 

demands that the Palestinians' first step must involve dismantling all the 

"terror organizations". Meaning: all the military organizations of the 

Palestinian parties. As long as the occupation is in force, this is a 

completely impossible and unreasonable demand and the Palestinians, of 

course, do not agree. It's like demanding that Israel must dismantle the 

IDF as a first step.

Olmert does not suggest that Israel, too, would follow the Road Map. 

According to that document, parallel to the dismantling of the Palestinian 

organizations, Israel must stop all settlement activities. In practice, these 

were not suspended for a moment and are in full swing even now. 

What will happen if the Palestinians fulfill all these one-sided conditions? 

Olmert will agree to meet Abu-Mazen "immediately". What for? In order to 

conduct a "real, open, sincere and serious dialogue."

The words were chosen meticulously. Not "negotiations", God forbid, but 

"dialogue". A strictly non-committal term. If we eliminate from the text all 

the nice words that only serve as decorations - "immediately", "real", 

"open", "sincere", "serious" - all that remains is the agreement to a 

meeting. Perhaps there are people who are eager to meet Olmert - it's a 

matter of taste - but this has no political meaning at all.

OLMERT DOES not spare words. "In the framework of the dialogue (again 

"dialogue" and not "negotiations") and in accordance with the Road Map 

(see above) you (the Palestinians) will be able to establish an independent 

and viable Palestinian state, with territorial contiguity in Judea and 

Samaria (Olmert uses these occupation terms instead of the term "West 

Bank", which has become a symbol of the opposition to the occupation), a 

state with full sovereignty and defined borders."

Now that is really nice. No more "temporary borders", as in the Road Map, 

but "defined borders". Only one little detail: where will these run?

Some might say: one does not disclose his final positions before the start 

of the negotiations (sorry, dialogue). But the Palestinians are expected to 

give everything before the start. 

"We, the State of Israel, will agree to the evacuation of many territories 

and the settlements that we have established therein. This is extremely 

difficult for us - akin to the Parting of the Red Sea (a Hebrew saying) - but 

we will bear it, in exchange for true peace between us and you." 

Sounds nice. But what does it mean? The evacuation of "many territories" 

and not "all the territories", not even "most of the territories". (In Israeli 

usage, "territories" means "occupied territories", a term official 

spokesmen prefer to avoid.)

Also, not "the borders that existed on the eve of the Six-Day War". Not 

even "borders based on the Green Line", which would allow for small 

changes and an agreed swap of territories. But a new border which would 

annex to Israel the "settlement blocs", as defined by the Separation Wall. 

That means the annexation of at least 10% of the West Bank, and perhaps 

much more.

And what's to stop that? After all, at this stage the other side would 

already be disarmed and would have agreed to recognize an Israel 

without fixed borders. 

That is the old plan of Ariel Sharon: to dismantle the small and dispersed 

settlements, in which some 20% of the settlers live, in order to annex to 

Israel the territories occupied by the remaining 80%. Olmert does not say 

what would happen to the expanded Jordan Valley, which constitutes 

about 20% of the West Bank and which is already completely cut off from 

it (with the exception of Jericho). Nor does he mention East Jerusalem, in 

which another 200 thousand settlers have established themselves.

He promises that with the release of the captured soldier, Gilad Shalit, he 

would be prepared "to release numerous Palestinian prisoners, including 

ones who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms, in order to increase 

the trust between us and prove that we indeed hold out our hand for 

peace."

After eliminating all the bla-bla from this sentence, what it says is that he 

would agree to release veteran prisoners, with "blood on their hands", 

which he and his predecessors have always refused to do, in return for 

the soldier, as demanded by Hamas. That only confirms the Palestinian 

view that Israel understands only the language of force and that it would 

never give up anything unless compelled to do so.

It seems that Olmert was in an especially generous mood, so he added: 

"(After) the cessation of terrorism and violence� we will significantly 

diminish the number of road-blocks, increase freedom of movement in 

the territories, facilitate movement of people and goods in both 

directions, improve the operation of the border-crossings to the Gaza 

Strip, and release your monies held by us, in order to alleviate the 

humanitarian hardship which many of you suffer."

"Thank you, really thank you from the bottom of our hearts," a Palestinian 

might reply. Not the end of the occupation, not even the lifting of the 

blockade of Gaza. The dismantling of some road-blocks, leaving the 

others where they are. Not the return of freedom of movement, but an 

agreement to "increase" the permitted movement. And no opening of the 

passage between the Gaza strip and the West Bank (as provided for in the 

Oslo agreement 13 years ago.) But at least, we would give back the 

Palestinian money "held" by us. "Embezzled" would be a more proper 

term.

And what did Olmert not say in his speech? He did not propose a cease-

fire in the West Bank. Why? Perhaps because the army chiefs object. But 

even a child can understand that without a cease-fire there, the cease-

fire in the Gaza Strip will not hold. The members of the organizations in 

Gaza will not be able to sit still while their defenseless comrades in the 

West Bank are being arrested, wounded and killed. Not to mention the 

dismemberment implied in this proposal, contrary to the Oslo agreement, 

which states unequivocally that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 

constitute "a single territorial unit". 

SO HOW to define this speech?

It is easy to say what it is not: it is not a "turning point" in the policy of 

the government. A "turning point" is a change of direction, which would 

necessitate the preparation of the public, explaining the nature of the 

change, its reasons and expected results. Nothing of the sort has been 

done. Even the spokesmen of the extreme right did not get excited.

The correct definition is "spin" - just some more sleight of hand prepared 

by "image advisors" and publicity experts.

True, even spin can have some positive value. Olmert has decided to 

devote the spin to matters of peace, not matters of war. This shows that 

he believes that Israeli public opinion is moving in this direction. The 

Israeli peace camp can congratulate itself for that. But there is no cause 

for dancing in the streets. 

WHY DID Olmert make such a speech at all? And why now?

There is an internal reason. In Israel, the impression has (quite rightly) 

gained ground that this is a government without an agenda, without a 

political plan, a "hollow" government (to use Grossman's phrase), whose 

only concern is political survival.

Olmert thought it necessary to fill the vacuum and to create the image of 

a Prime Minister who knows what he is doing and is working towards a 

clear goal.

And there is also an external reason, which may be more significant. 

Olmert may be bankrupt, but President Bush is even more desperate. He 

has come to the Middle East in order to convince the American voter that 

he knows what he is doing in Iraq and in the whole region. He needs a 

manifest achievement. He is carrying on the tradition of his predecessors 

that an American president who does not know what to do turns to the 

Israeli-Palestinian conflict and achieves a "breakthrough".  

Bush demanded that Olmert make a gesture to impress the world. So he 

made a gesture - delivering a speech full of nice phrases and promises 

with nothing behind them.

It must be remembered: Bush wants to look like a resolute statesman, 

who is constructing a front of "moderate" Arab leaders against the Evil 

Axis of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. This is why he came to Amman, 

instead of summoning his servants to Washington. But the leaders of 

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan know the dangers of looking like Israeli 

agents. So Bush demanded that Olmert include in his speech a reference 

to the Saudi peace initiative, which was rejected out of hand by the Israeli 

government after it had been endorsed by all the Arab states. This 

initiative says that the entire Arab world would recognize Israel and 

establish normal relations with it if it withdrew to the borders of June 4, 

1967. Now, suddenly, Olmert declares that there are "positive" elements 

in it. But he did not accept it this time either.

Bush has returned home and will forget the whole matter. Olmert's 

speech will join the many others which were forgotten the day after they 

were delivered. Just another speech by an Israeli leader "holding out his 

hand for peace".