[WCUSP] Palestinian Accords (Facing Mecca) by Uri Avnery (The Other Israel)

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

February 17 / 18, 2007
The  Palestinian Accords
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 Pakistan's "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 Israel's 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 anybody's 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:
 

 
a) 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.
 

 
(b) 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.
 

 
(c) 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 Olmert's 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.


<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wilpf.org/pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20070222/8881e524/attachment-0001.html