[Peace-discuss] Our client

Fri Jan 21 13:36:21 CST 2005

Excellent post, with devastating sarcasm. mkb

On Jan 19, 2005, at 4:11 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> [Dr. Ran HaCohen was born in the Netherlands in 1964 and grew up in
> Israel, where he is now a university teacher.  His "Letter from Israel"
> appears occasionally at Antiwar.com. --CGE]
>
>  January 19, 2005
>  The Threat of Peace
>  by Ran HaCohen
>  After Arafat
>
> As Oscar Wilde once said, there are only two tragedies in life: one is 
> not
> getting what one wants, and the other is getting it. Israel is now 
> facing
> the latter tragedy. For years on end, we knew what we wanted: we wanted
> Arafat dead. Not that we just sat and waited for it: we used ceaseless
> incitement to prepare world opinion for his proactive elimination; we 
> even
> endorsed a government decision to get rid of him, and we held the old 
> man
> prisoner in his destroyed headquarters under conditions that would 
> sooner
> rather than later kill the healthiest senior (the Palestinians missed a
> good point by propagating the legend that Arafat was poisoned, as if 
> his
> incarceration by Israel was not enough to kill him). Anyway, Arafat is 
> now
> dead, we got what we wanted, and we are not happy.
>
> On the contrary. Together with Arafat, Israel buried its best excuse 
> for
> perpetuating the occupation. How long can you blame the dead for
> terrorism? How long can you refuse to negotiate with the dead, to meet
> with him face to face? Not very long. More than two months after 
> Arafat's
> death, even anemic Europe understands: "the 'Arafat excuse' no longer
> exists" (Jean Asselborn, president of the European Union Council of
> Ministers, Ha'aretz, Jan. 18, 2005). And what is worse: the 
> Palestinians
> have now got a new leader who was elected democratically (goodbye to
> "ruthless dictator"), and, on top of all that, a leader who 
> consistently
> and openly -- in English and in Arabic -- renounces the armed struggle
> against the occupation. On the other hand, Abu Mazen still demands
> complete Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian lands, and an 
> independent
> Palestinian state. This, of course, is in total harmony with 
> international
> law, with UN Security Council resolutions, even with President's Bush 
> Road
> Map: in short, it is totally unacceptable for Israel.
>
> Puppet or Scarecrow
>
> Israel can live with only two kinds of Palestinian leaders. It can live
> with a puppet who accepts Israel's sovereignty over the Palestinian
> territories (we may give him some "autonomy" in return), who is ready 
> to
> give up 60 percent of the West Bank for Israeli settlements and 
> apartheid
> walls (we may temporarily remove a checkpoint or two in return), who is
> willing to forget the Palestinian refugees (we may not insist on his
> conversion to Judaism in return). Israel has made several attempts to 
> find
> or tame such a Palestinian poodle, but so far failed.
>
> Alternatively, Israel can live with a fanatic, terrorist Palestinian
> scarecrow, with a murderous, uncompromising hardliner. The settlers 
> often
> say it aloud: we prefer the Islamic Jihad, who want to throw us all to 
> the
> sea. It is very easy to deal with such a leader, both nationally and
> internationally.
>
> What we cannot live with is a moderate, sane Palestinian leader who 
> wants
> peace in return for his people's lands, rights, and freedom. A leader 
> who
> speaks good English and does not dress like bin Laden, who does not 
> want
> to throw us to the sea but insists that Jerusalem is also a Palestinian
> city. Such a leader exposes Israel's rejectionism, and there lies the
> great danger of Abu Mazen. We cannot convince the world that we are the
> eternal peace-loving victims when a majority (54 percent) of 
> Palestinians
> living in the occupied territories, as polls show, support a two-state
> solution on the basis of the 1967 lines, with border corrections and no
> massive return of refugees (Ha'aretz, Jan. 18, 2005). Because if this 
> is
> the case, it becomes obvious that the only obstacle to peace is 
> Israel's
> rejectionism, its refusal to make peace along these internationally
> accepted lines.
>
> Demonizing Abu Mazen
>
> So what can Israel do against this threat? Against the danger that it
> would be blamed for what it should be blamed, namely, for desiring 
> peace
> much less than it desires the occupied Palestinian lands and water?
>
> There are means, luckily. Obviously, Abu Mazen should be pushed into
> either of the two desired options for a Palestinian leader: if he 
> cannot
> be turned into Israel's subcontractor, he should be portrayed as a
> terrorist. Attempts are already underway. The Israeli media was 
> "appalled"
> when during his election campaign Abu Mazen referred to Israel as "the
> Zionist enemy." Appalling indeed: after all, only Israelis are allowed 
> to
> call Palestinians "the enemy" -- Palestinians are expected to call us
> their beloved big brother -- and labeling Israel as Zionist is even a
> greater insult.
>
> The context of Abu Mazen's angry words was not taken into 
> consideration.
> Abu Mazen used these words upon hearing the news from Beth Lahia (Gaza
> Strip), where an Israeli tank had just fired at what the Israeli army
> shamelessly described as "Hamas activists," killing Mahmoud Raban (12
> years old), his brother Bissam (17), their cousins Rajah (10), Jabir 
> (16),
> Mohammed (22), and Hani (17), as well as their friend Jibril Kassih 
> (16),
> and leaving Mohammed Raban (17) on a respirator with barely one leg and
> one arm, Issa Relia (13) with both his legs amputated above the knee, 
> and
> the two cousins Imad al-Kaseeh (16) and Ibrahim al-Kaseeh (14) each 
> with
> two legs amputated (Gideon Levy, Ha'aretz, Jan. 14, 2005). That's not
> appalling: it's "an exception" perhaps, though the army never bothered 
> to
> express sorrow, not to mention apology or regret. But calling Israel 
> "the
> Zionist enemy" in the aftermath of the bloodbath -- now that's 
> appalling.
>
> Let's Engage Gaza
>
> Portraying Abu Mazen as a terrorist is going to take some time, though;
> but Israel is impatient, it wants to act now. The dangers of peace are
> best coped with by the army: Israel has done this several times before,
> using the army to ignite the scene just when a cease-fire was at hand,
> most notably when it re-occupied the West Bank in "Operation Defensive
> Shield" (2002), the biggest military operation in the territories since
> 1967, just one day after the Arab League had adopted the Saudi Peace
> Initiative, acknowledging Israel's right to live in peace once it ended
> the occupation.
>
> We are now in a similar situation. A big military operation can divert
> attention from "the new era," from the pressure to cease-fire; it can
> unify the masses behind our brave soldiers, and, above all, help Sharon
> postpone indefinitely his vague promises to dismantle Gaza settlements 
> â €
> “ a "plan" that, as Tanya Reinhart convincingly argues, he has little
> intention to carry out. So expect a large-scale operation in Gaza, 
> soon.
> The immediate excuse -- missile attacks on Israel -- does not really
> matter: Abu Mazen, so the argument goes, does not stop the missiles, 
> so we
> are forced to send the army to stop them; at the same time, the army
> itself admits it has no means to stop the missiles. So we are sending 
> the
> army to do what it cannot do, because Abu Mazen does not do it either.
> After all, occupation is not about logic -- it's about breaking bones.
>
> A Liberal Demands War Crimes
>
> There is no better seismograph for Israel's intentions than "liberal"
> senior columnist Yoel Marcus from the highbrow daily Ha'aretz:
>
> "Our patience boiled over long ago. (...) There is a breaking point 
> and a
> time when the government must take off its gloves and present the other
> side with a flat ultimatum: For every indiscriminate round of fire on a
> civilian target, we will retaliate in kind on the closest and most
> populated Palestinian city. We will give it to them good. An eye for an
> eye." ("An Eye for an Eye," Ha'aretz, Jan. 18, 2005)
>
> When Marcus resorts to the style of propagandists of the darkest
> dictatorships in the 20th century, when he openly urges the government 
> to
> take revenge on innocent Palestinian civilians, preparing the hearts of
> his readers for war crimes on a large scale, you can be sure the army
> won't lag behind.
>
> 	###
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>