[Peace-discuss] The Hands of Esau

[Morton K. Brussel]

Relative to the discussion on the meaning of Bush's visit to Israel  
and the West Bank, here's the view of the Israeli Uri Avnery.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1200227323/

The Hands of Esau

12/01/08


WHICH OF the two men is the leader of the greatest power on earth and  
which is the boss of a small client state?

A visitor from another planet, attending the press conference in  
Jerusalem, would find it hard not to answer: Olmert is the president  
of the great power, Bush is his vassal.

Olmert is taller. He talked endlessly, while Bush listened patiently.  
While Olmert anointed Bush with flattery that would have made a  
Byzantine emperor blush, it was quite clear that it is Olmert who  
decides policy, while Bush humbly accepts the Israeli diktat. And  
Bush's flattery of Olmert exceeded even Olmert's flattery of Bush.

Both, we learned, are "courageous". Both are "determined". Both have  
a "vision". The word "vision", once reserved for prophets, starred in  
every second sentence. (Bush could not know that in Israel, "vision"  
has long become a jocular appellation for highfaluting speeches,  
usually in combination with the word "Zionism".)

The President and the Prime Minister have something else in common:  
not a word of what they said at the press conference had any  
connection with the truth.

ONE OF the most moving dramas in the Bible tells about our old blind  
forefather, Isaac, who wanted to bless his eldest son, Esau, a  
reddish and hairy hunter. But the second son, the homebody (or rather  
tent-body) Jacob, exploited the absence of his brother and went to  
his father in order to steal the blessing. He wore Esau's clothes and  
covered his arms with hairy goat skins. The ruse nearly failed, when  
the father felt the arms of Jacob and his suspicion was aroused.

That's when he uttered the famous words: "The voice is Jacob's voice,  
but the hands are the hands of Esau." (Genesis, 27: 22).

Yet Jacob, the impostor, did receive the blessing and became the  
father of the nation which was named after him (he was also called  
Israel). It seems that Ehud Olmert is a true successor: there is no  
connection between his voice and his hands.

Anyone who listens to him - not just at the press conference, but  
also on every other occasion - hears words of peace and reason: The  
Palestinians must have a state of their own. The "vision" must be  
realized while Bush is president, because Israel has never had and  
never will have a truer friend. The settlement outposts must be  
removed, as promised by us again and again. The settlements must be  
frozen. Etc. etc.

That is the voice of Jacob. But the hands, well, they are the hands  
of Esau.

BEFORE ANNAPOLIS, during Annapolis and after Annapolis, nothing at  
all was done to promote the Two-State Solution. The negotiations were  
about to begin - any moment now - a year ago, and now they are again  
about to begin - any moment now. Yes, the "core issues" - borders,  
Jerusalem, refugees - will be addressed. Sure. Any moment now.

But in the meantime, the hands of Esau are working feverishly. All  
over the occupied territories, the settlements are being enlarged.  
The existing outposts remain untouched, new ones spring up from time  
to time. Around them, a well choreographed dance has evolved, a kind  
of formal ballet executed by the settlers and the army. The settlers  
set up a new outpost, the army removes it, the settlers return and  
set it up again, the army dismantles, and so forth.

In the meantime the outpost gets bigger and bigger. The government  
connects it to the electricity and water systems and builds a road.  
And the army, of course, protects it day and night. We cannot leave  
good Jews at the mercy of the evil Palestinian terrorists, can we?

Bush knows all this and still continues to blabber that "the illegal  
outposts must be removed". And so it continues: the voice is Jacob's  
voice, the hands are the hands of Esau.

BUT ONE cannot fool all of the people all of the time, to quote  
another American President who was slightly more intelligent than the  
present incumbent.

And so, after Olmert and Bush repeated the mantra about removing the  
outposts and freezing the settlements, one of the journalists popped  
an innocent question: How does this fit together with the  
announcement about the building of a huge new housing project at Har  
Homa?

If anyone thought that this would embarrass Olmert, he was sadly  
mistaken. Olmert just cannot be embarrassed. He simply answered that  
this promise does not apply to Jerusalem, nor to the "Jewish  
population centers" beyond the Green Line.

"Jerusalem" - since the time of Levy Eshkol - is not only the Old  
City and the Holy Basin. It is the huge tract of land annexed to  
Israel after the Six-Day War, from the approaches to Bethlehem to the  
outskirts of Ramallah. This area includes the hill that was once  
forested and called Jebel Abu-Ghneim, now the site of the big and  
ugly Har Homa settlement. And the "population centers" are the big  
settlement blocs in the occupied Palestinian territories, which  
President Bush so generously presented to Ariel Sharon.

This means that almost all the extensive building activities that are  
now going on beyond the Green Line are not covered by the Israeli  
undertaking to freeze the settlements. And while Olmert publicly  
announced this, President Bush was standing at his side, smiling  
foolishly and painting on another layer of compliments.

The following day, Bush visited Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and told  
the shocked Palestinians that the innumerable Israeli roadblocks in  
the West Bank, which turn the life of the Palestinians into hell, are  
necessary for the protection of Israel and must remain where they are  
- until after the establishment of the hoped-for democratic  
Palestinian state.

Condoleezza Rice was quick to remind him in private that this was not  
very wise, since he was about to visit half a dozen Arab countries.  
So Bush hastened to call another press conference in Jerusalem,  
talking about the "core issues": there would be a "contiguous"  
Palestinian state, but the 1949 borders (the Green Line) would not be  
restored. He would not speak about Jerusalem. Also, the refugee  
problem would be settled by an international fund - meaning that none  
at all would be allowed to return.

Altogether, much less than Bill Clinton's 2000 "parameters", and less  
than most Israelis are already prepared to accept. It amounts to 110%  
support for the official Israeli government line.

After that, Bush had dinner with Israeli cabinet ministers. He  
cordially shook the hand of Minister Rafael Eitan, the former  
spymaster who controlled the Israeli spy in Washington, Jonathan  
Pollard, whom Bush refuses to pardon. (Eitan would be arrested the  
moment he set foot on American soil.) He spoke cordially with the  
ultra-rightist Minister Avigdor Liberman, urging him to support  
Olmert. Throughout the dinner, he talked and talked, until Condi sent  
him a discreet note suggesting that he shut up. Bush, in high  
spirits, read the note out loud.

I HAVE mentioned more than once the British World War II poster which  
was pasted up on the walls in Palestine: "Is this trip really  
necessary?"

That is again the question now: Is this trip of Bush's really necessary?

The answer is: Of course. Necessary for Bush. Necessary for Olmert.  
Necessary for Abbas, too.

For Bush, because he is a lame duck, in the last year of his term,  
and therefore almost paralyzed. In the United States he is rapidly  
becoming irrelevant. His touted Middle East tour has been drowned out  
by the primary elections mayhem, which produces a new drama almost  
every day. While Hillary wrestles with Obama and the glib Bill  
competes with an impressive black grandma, who cares where the worst  
president in American history is traipsing around?

Olmert is well aware of the situation. When he declares that the last  
year of the term of his noble friend must be used, what he really  
means to say is: he cannot exert any pressure on us, he cannot even  
"nudge" us, as he promises. There is no need to remove even one  
single outpost for him. So let us squeeze the last drop of juice out  
of his presidency, before he is thrown onto the trash pile of history.

But Olmert needs the presence of Bush at his side, because his  
position is not much more secure than Bush's. Bush is bankrupt in a  
big way, after starting one of the most pointless and unsuccessful  
wars in US history. That is true for Olmert in a small way. He is  
bankrupt too, and he also started a pointless, failed war.

In two weeks time, the Winograd Commission will publish its final  
report on Lebanon War II, and everyone expects it to come down on  
Olmert like a 16 ton weight. He may survive, if only because there is  
now no credible substitute. But he needs all the help he can get -  
and what better help than the "Leader of the Free World" gazing at  
him with liquid eyes?

It's the old story about the lame and the blind.

THIS WAS NOT Bush's last presidential visit to Israel. He has already  
promised to return on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the  
state, which falls this year (in accordance with the Hebrew calendar)  
on May 8. What else can a president do in his last months in office,  
except star in ceremonies with kings, presidents and prime ministers?

Perhaps he had intended to finish with a big bang, a historic climax  
that would overshadow even his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,  
such as a grand attack on Iran. But it seems that the US intelligence  
community, in a patriotic act that makes up for some of its earlier  
sins, has prevented this by publishing its sensational report.

True, this week something happened that put on a warning light. Some  
small Iranian boats were reported to have made a provocative gesture  
against the powerful American warships in the Strait of Hormuz.

That takes us right back to 1964 and to what has become known as the  
"Gulf of Tonkin incident". President Lyndon Johnson announced that  
Vietnamese vessels had attacked American warships. That was a lie,  
but it was enough for Congress to empower the president to widen the  
war that killed millions of people (and buried Johnson's career).

But this time the red light went out quickly. The US Congress is not  
what it was, it seems that the Americans have no stomach for another  
war, the historical parallel was too obvious. Bush has been left  
without an option for war. He has been left with nothing.

Apart from Olmert's flattery, of course.



Uri Avnery's Column
This Week's Message
Press Releases
אמת מול אמת
Video
Downloads


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080115/c5ddf433/attachment.html