By Uri Avnery, 2.12.06
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".