http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=90827&d=11&m=1&y=2007&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
Thursday, 11, January, 2007 (22, Dhul Hijjah, 1427)
The Kiss of Death
Uri Avnery, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SINCE JUDAS Iscariot embraced Jesus, Jerusalem has not seen such a kiss.
After being boycotted by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert for years, Mahmoud
Abbas (Abu Mazen) was invited to the official residence of the prime minister
of Israel two weeks ago. There, in front of the cameras, Olmert embraced him
and kissed him warmly on both cheeks. Abbas looked stunned, and froze.
Somehow the scene was reminiscent of another incident of
politically-inspired physical contact: The embarrassing occurrence at the Camp
David meeting, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak pushed Yasser Arafat forcefully
into the room where Bill Clinton stood waiting.
In both instances it was a gesture that was intended to look like paying
respect to the Palestinian leader, but both were actually acts of violence that
- seemingly - testified to ignorance of the customs of the other people and of
their delicate situation. Actually, the aim was quite different.
According to the New Testament, Judas Iscariot kissed Jesus in order to
point him out to those who had come to arrest him.
In appearance - an act of love and friendship. In effect - a death
sentence.
On the face of it, Olmert was out to do Abbas a favor. He paid him
respect, introduced him to his wife and honored him with the title "Mr.
President".
That should not be underestimated. At Oslo, titanic battles were fought
over this title. The Palestinians insisted that the head of the future
Palestinian Authority should be called "President". The Israelis rejected this
out of hand, because this title could indicate something like a state. In the
end, it was agreed that the (binding) English version would carry the Arabic
title "Ra'is", since that language uses the same word for both "president" and
"chairman". Abbas, who signed the document for the Palestinian side, probably
did not envisage that he himself would be the first to be addressed by an
Israeli prime minister as "President".
But enough trivia. More important is the outcome of this event. After the
imposed kiss, Abbas needed a big Israeli gesture to justify the meeting in the
eyes of his people. And indeed, why shouldn't Olmert do something resounding?
For example, to release on the spot a thousand prisoners, remove all the
hundreds of checkpoints scattered across the West Bank, open the passage
between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?
Nothing of the sort happened. Olmert did not release a single prisoner -
no woman, no child, no old man, no sick person. He did indeed announce (for the
umpteenth time) that the roadblocks would be "eased", but the Palestinians
report that they have not felt any change. Perhaps, here and there, the endless
queue at some of the roadblocks has become a little shorter. Also, Olmert gave
back a fifth of the Palestinian tax money withheld (or embezzled) by the
Israeli government.
To the Palestinians, this looked like another shameful failure for their
president: He went to Canossa and received meaningless promises that were not
kept.
Why did Olmert go through all these motions? The naïve explanation is
political. President Bush wanted some movement in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, which would look like an American achievement. Condoleezza Rice
transmitted the order to Olmert. Olmert agreed to meet Abbas at long last.
There was a meeting. A kiss was effected. Promises were made and immediately
forgotten. Americans, as is well known, have short memories. Even shorter (if
that is possible) than ours.
But there is also a more cynical explanation. If one humiliates Abbas,
one strengthens Hamas. Palestinian support for Abbas depends on one single
factor: His ability to get from the US and Israel things Hamas cannot. The
Americans and the Israelis love him, so - the argument goes - they will give
him what is needed: The mass release of prisoners, an end to the targeted
killings, the removal of the monstrous roadblocks, the opening of the passage
between the West Bank and Gaza, the start of serious negotiations for peace.
But if Abbas cannot deliver any of these - what remains but the methods of
Hamas?
The business of the prisoners provides a good example. Nothing troubles
the Palestinians more than this: Almost every Palestinian clan has people in
prison. Every family is affected: A father, a brother, a son, sometimes a
daughter. Every night, the Israeli Army "arrests" another dozen or so. How to
get them free?
Hamas has a proven remedy: To capture Israelis (in the Israeli and
international media, Israelis are "kidnapped" while Palestinians are
"arrested"). For the return of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, Olmert will
release many prisoners. Israelis, according to Palestinian experience,
understand only the language of force.
Some of Olmert's advisers had a brilliant idea: To give Abbas hundreds of
prisoners as a gift, just for nothing. That would reinforce the position of the
Palestinian president and prove to the Palestinians that they can get more from
us this way than by violence. It would deal a sharp blow to the Hamas
government, whose overthrow is a prime aim of the governments both of Israel
and the USA.
Out of the question, cried another group of Olmert's spin doctors. How
will the Israeli media react if prisoners are released before Shalit comes home?
The trouble is that Shalit is held by Hamas and its allies, and not by
Abbas. If it is forbidden to release prisoners before the return of Shalit,
then all the cards are in the hands of Hamas. In that case, perhaps it makes
sense to speak with Hamas? Unthinkable!
The result: No strengthening of Abbas, no dialogue with Hamas, no nothing.
That is an old Israeli tradition. When there are two alternatives, we
choose the third: Not to do anything.
No Palestinian Option. No nothing. Now the same is happening vis-à-vis
Syria.
Again there are two alternatives. The first, to start negotiations with
Bashar Assad, who is making public overtures. That means being ready to give
back the Golan Heights and allow the 60,000 Syrian refugees to return home. In
return, Sunni Syria could well cut itself loose from Iran and Hezbollah and
join the front of Sunni states. Since Syria is both Sunni and
secular-nationalist, that may also have a positive effect on the Palestinians.
Olmert has demanded that Assad cut himself off from Iran and stop helping
Hezbollah before any negotiations. That is a ridiculous demand, obviously
intended to serve as an alibi for refusing to start talking. After all, Assad
uses Hezbollah in order to put pressure on Israel to return the Golan. His
alliance with Iran also serves the same purpose. How can he give up in advance
the few cards he holds and still hope to achieve anything in the negotiations?
The opposite alternative suggested by some senior army commanders: To
invade Syria and do the same there as the Americans have done in Iraq. That
would create anarchy throughout the Arab world, a situation that would be good
for Israel. That would also renovate the image of the Israeli Army that was
damaged in Lebanon and restore its "deterrence power".
So what will Olmert do? Give the Golan back? God forbid! Does he need
trouble with the 16,000 vociferous settlers there? What then, will he start a
war with Syria? No! Hasn't he had enough military setbacks? So he will go for
the third alternative: To do nothing.
Bashar has at least one consolation: He does not run the risk of being
kissed by Olmert.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
