[spectre] Facing Mecca

[Louise Desrenards]

http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html
http://contreinfo.info/article.php3?id_article=572

International    Israel/Palestine
Mis à Jour le : 19 février 2007  13:20
Uri Avnery : Face à la Mecque (VO)
19 février 2007

La question de la reconnaissance d¹Israel par le Hamas est présentée comme
un enjeu central conditionnant la reprise du processus de paix. Avnery met
en perspective cette notion juridique et affirme que l¹insistance d¹Israel
sur ce sujet n¹a d¹autre raison que tactique, et sert de justification au
refus de négocier. Mais il estime que l¹accord entre Hamas et Fatah, signé
sous le patronage de l¹Arabie Saoudite, change la donne. L¹embarras
manifesté aux USA devant la nouvelle situation née à la Mecque semble lui
donner raison.



Facing Mecca

By Uri Avnery

Must a Native-American recognize the right of the United States of America
to exist ?

Interesting question. The USA was established by Europeans who invaded a
continent that did not belong to them, eradicated most of the indigenous
population (the "Red Indians") in a prolonged campaign of genocide, and
exploited the labor of millions of slaves who had been brutally torn from
their lives in Africa. Not to mention what is going on today. Must a
Native-American - or indeed anybody at all - recognize the right of such a
state to exist ?

But nobody raises the question. The United States does not give a damn if
anybody recognizes its right to exist or not. It does not demand this from
the countries with which it maintains relations.

Why ? Because this is a ridiculous demand to start with.

OK, the United States is older than the State of Israel, as well as bigger
and more powerful. But countries that are not super-powers do not demand
this either. India, for example, is not expected to recognize Pakistan¹s
"right to exist", in spite of the fact that Pakistan was established at the
same time as Israel, and - like Israel - on an ethnic/religious basis.

SO WHY is Hamas required to "recognize Israel¹s right to exist" ?

When a state "recognizes" another state, it is a formal recognition, the
acknowledgement of an existing fact. It does not imply approval. The Soviet
Union was not required to recognize the existence of the USA as a capitalist
state. On the contrary, Nikita Khrushchev promised in 1956 to "bury" it. The
US certainly did not dream of recognizing at any time the right of the
Soviet Union to exist as a communist state.

So why is this weird demand addressed to the Palestinians ? Why must they
recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State ?

I am an Israeli patriot, and I do not feel that I need anybody¹s recognition
of the right of my state to exist. If somebody is ready to make peace with
me, within borders and on conditions agreed upon in negotiations, that is
quite enough for me. I am prepared to leave the history, ideology and
theology of the matter to the theologians, ideologues and historians.

Perhaps after 60 years of the existence of Israel, and after we have become
a regional power, we are still so unsure of ourselves that we crave for
constant assurance of our right to exist - and of all people, from those
that we have been oppressing for the last 40 years. Perhaps it is the
mentality of the Ghetto that is still so deeply ingrained in us.

But the demand addressed now to the Palestinian Unity Government is far from
sincere. It has an ulterior political aim, indeed two : (a) to convince the
international community not to recognize the Palestinian government that is
about to be set up, and (b) to justify the refusal of the Israeli government
to enter into peace negotiations with it.

The British call this a "red herring" - a smelly fish that a fugitive drags
across the path in order to put the pursuing dogs off the trail.

WHEN I was young, Jewish people in Palestine used to talk about our secret
weapon : the Arab refusal. Every time somebody proposed some peace plan, we
relied on the Arab side to say "no". True, the Zionist leadership was
against any compromise that would have frozen the existing situation and
halted the momentum of the Zionist enterprise of expansion and settlement.
But the Zionist leaders used to say "yes" and "we extend our hand for peace"
- and rely on the Arabs to scuttle the proposal.

That was successful for a hundred years, until Yasser Arafat changed the
rules, recognized Israel and signed the Oslo Accords, which stipulated that
the negotiations for the final borders between Israel and Palestine must be
concluded not later than 1999. To this very day, those negotiations have not
even started. Successive Israeli governments have prevented it because they
were not ready under any circumstances to fix final borders. (The 2000 Camp
David meeting was not a real negotiation - Ehud Barak convened it without
any preparation, dictated his terms to the Palestinians and broke the
dialogue off when they were refused.)

After the death of Arafat, the refusal became more and more difficult.
Arafat was always described as a terrorist, cheat and liar. But Mahmoud
Abbas was accepted by everybody as an honest person, who truly wanted to
achieve peace. Yet Ariel Sharon succeeded in avoiding any negotiations with
him. The "Unilateral Separation" served this end. President Bush supported
him with both hands.

Well, Sharon suffered his stroke, and Ehud Olmert took his place. And then
something happened that caused great joy in Jerusalem : the Palestinians
elected Hamas.

How wonderful ! After all, both the US and Europe have designated Hamas as a
terrorist organization ! Hamas is a part of the Shiite Axis of Evil ! (They
are not Shiites, but who cares !) Hamas does not recognize Israel ! Hamas is
trying to eliminate Mahmoud Abbas, the noble man of peace ! It is clear that
with such a gang there is no need, nor would it make any sense, to conduct
negotiations about peace and borders.

And indeed, the US and their European satellites are boycotting the
Palestinian government and starving the Palestinian population. They have
set three conditions for lifting the blockade : (a) that the Palestinian
government and Hamas must recognize the right of the State of Israel to
exist, (b) they must stop "terrorism", and (c) they must undertake to
fulfill the agreements signed by the PLO.

On the face of it, that makes sense. In reality, none at all. Because all
these conditions are completely one-sided :

the Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist (without
defining its borders, of course), but the Israeli government is not required
to recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist at all.

The Palestinians must put an end to "terrorism", but the Israeli government
is not required to stop its military operations in the Palestinian
territories and stop the building of settlements. The "roadmap" does indeed
say so, but that has been completely ignored by everybody, including the
Americans.

The Palestinians must undertake to fulfill the agreements, but no such
undertaking is required from the Israeli government, which has broken almost
all provision of the Oslo agreement. Among others : the opening of the "safe
passages" between Gaza and the West Bank, the carrying out of the third
"redeployment" (withdrawal from Palestinian territories), the treatment of
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one single territory, etc. etc.

Since Hamas came to power, its leaders have understood the need to become
more flexible. They are very sensitive to the mood of their people. The
Palestinian population is longing for an end to the occupation and for a
life of peace. Therefore, step by step, Hamas has come nearer to recognition
of Israel. Their religious doctrine does not allow them to declare this
publicly (Jewish fundamentalists too cling to the word of God "To your seed
I have given this land") but it has been doing so indirectly. Little steps,
but a big revolution.

Hamas has announced its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state
bounded by the June 1967 borders - meaning : next to Israel and not in place
of Israel. (This week, ex-minister Kadura Fares repeated that Hamas leader
Khaled Mashal has confirmed this.) Hamas has given Mahmoud Abbas a power of
attorney to conduct the negotiations with Israel and has undertaken in
advance to accept any agreement ratified in a referendum. Abbas, of course,
clearly advocates the setting up of a Palestinian state next to Israel,
across the Green Line. There is no doubt whatsoever that if such an
agreement is achieved, the huge majority of the Palestinian population will
vote for it.

In Jerusalem, worry has set in. If this goes on, the world might even get
the impression that Hamas has changed, and then - God forbid - lift the
economic blockade on the Palestinian people.

Now the King of Saudi Arabia comes and disturbs Olmert¹s plans even more.

In an impressive event, facing the holiest site of Islam, the king put an
end to the bloody strife between the Palestinian security organs and
prepared the ground for a Palestinian government of national unity. Hamas
undertook to respect the agreements signed by the PLO, including the Oslo
agreement, which is based on the mutual recognition of the State of Israel
and the PLO as representative of the Palestinian people.

The king has extracted the Palestinian issue from the embrace of Iran, to
which Hamas had turned because it had no alternative, and has returned Hamas
to the lap of the Sunni family. Since Saudi Arabia is the main ally of the
US in the Arab world, the king has put the Palestinian issue firmly on the
table of the Oval Room.

In Jerusalem, near panic broke out. This is the scariest of nightmares : the
fear that the unconditional support of the US and Europe for Israeli policy
will be reconsidered.

The panic had immediate results : "political circles" in Jerusalem announced
that they rejected the Mecca agreement out of hand. Then second thoughts set
in. Shimon Peres, long established master of the "yes-but-no" method,
convinced Olmert that the brazen "no" must be replaced with a more subtle
"no". For this purpose, the red herring was again taken out of the freezer.

It is not enough that Hamas recognize Israel in practice. Israel insists
that its "right to exist" must also be recognized. Political recognition
does not suffice, ideological recognition is required. By this logic, one
could also demand that Khaled Mashal join the Zionist organization.

If one thinks that peace is more important for Israel than expansion and
settlements, one must welcome the change in the position of Hamas - as
expressed in the Mecca agreement - and encourage it to continue along this
road. The king of Saudi Arabia, who has already convinced the leaders of all
Arab countries to recognize Israel in exchange for the establishment of the
state of Palestine across the Green Line, should be warmly congratulated.

But if one opposes peace because it would fix the final borders of Israel
and allow for no more expansion, one will do everything to convince the
Americans and Europeans to continue with the boycott on the Palestinian
government and the blockade of the Palestinian people.

The day after tomorrow, Condoleezza Rice will convene a meeting of Olmert
and Abbas in Jerusalem.

The Americans now have a problem. On one side, they need the Saudi king. Not
only does he sit on huge oil reservoirs, but he is also the center-piece of
the "moderate Sunni bloc". If the king tells Bush that the solution of the
Palestinian problem is needed in order to dam the spread of Iranian
influence across the Middle East, his words will carry a lot of weight. If
Bush is planning a military attack on Iran, as it seems he is, it is
important for him to have the united support of the Sunnis.

On the other side, the pro-Israel lobby - both Jewish and Christian - is
very important for Bush. It is vital for him to be able to count on the
"Christian base" of the Republican Party, which is composed of
fundamentalists who support the extreme Right in Israel, come what may.

So what is to be done ? Nothing. For this nothing, Condi found an apt
diplomatic slogan, taken from up-to-date American slang : "New Political
Horizons".

Clearly, she did not ponder on the meaning of these words. Because the
horizon is the symbol of a goal that will never be reached : the more you
approach it, the more it recedes.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli author and activist. He is the head of the Israeli
peace movement, "Gush Shalom".