February 14, 2007
Israel's Provocations:
The Method in the Madness
by Uri Avnery

http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=10515

When a prime minister has just lost a war, is dogged by corruption
allegations, and sees his popularity ratings in free fall, what can he
do?

Why, he can initiate provocations.

A provocation diverts attention, generates headlines, creates the
illusion of power, radiates a sense of leadership.

But a provocation is a dangerous instrument. It can cause irreversible
damage.

Provocation No. 1: The Northern Frontier

Along the northern border runs a fence. But not everywhere does the
fence coincide exactly with the recognized border (the so-called Blue
Line). For topographical reasons, some sections of the fence run a few
dozen meters south of it.

That is the theory of the situation. In the course of the years, both
sides have become accustomed to regarding the fence as the actual
border. On the Lebanese side, the villagers farm the fields up to the
fence, fields that may well be their property.

Now Ehud Olmert has decided to exploit this situation and reveal
himself as a great, invincible warrior. Some explosives recently found
a few yards from the Blue Line serve as a pretext. The Israeli army
claims that they were put there just days ago by Hezbollah fighters
disguised as goatherds. According to Hezbollah, they are old bombs
that have been there since before the recent war.

Olmert sent soldiers beyond the fence to carry out a Hissuf
("exposure") - one of those new Hebrew words invented by the army's
"verbal laundry" to beautify ugly things. It means the wholesale
uprooting of trees, in order to improve vision and facilitate
shooting. The army used the trademark weapon of the State of Israel:
the armored bulldozer.

The Lebanese army sent a warning that they would open fire. When this
did not have any effect, they indeed fired several salvoes over the
heads of the Israeli soldiers. The Israeli army responded by firing
several tank shells at the Lebanese position and lo - we have our
"incident."

The whole affair is very reminiscent of Ariel Sharon's methods in the
'60s, when he was the chief of operations of the Northern Command.
Sharon became quite an expert at provoking the Syrian army in the
demilitarized zones that existed on the border between the two
countries at the time. Israel claimed sovereignty over these areas,
while the Syrians asserted that it was a neutral zone that did not
belong to either state and in which the Arab farmers, who owned the
land, were allowed to tend their fields.

According to legend, the Syrians exploited their control of heights
overlooking the Israeli villages in the valley below them. Again and
again the evil Syrians (the Syrians were always "evil") terrorized the
helpless kibbutzim by shelling. This myth, which was believed by
practically all Israelis at the time, served as a justification for
the occupation of the Golan Heights and their annexation by Israel.
Even now, foreign visitors are brought to an observation post on the
Golan Heights and shown the defenseless kibbutzim down below.

The truth, which has been exposed since then, was a bit different:
Sharon used to instruct the kibbutzniks to go to their shelters, and
then he would send an armored tractor into the demilitarized zone.
Predictably, the Syrians shot at it. The Israeli artillery, just
waiting for its cue, then opened up a massive bombardment of the
Syrian positions. There were dozens of such "incidents."

Now the same method is being practiced by Sharon's successor. Soldiers
and bulldozers enter the area, the Lebanese shoot, the Israeli tanks
shell them.

Does this provocation make any political sense? The Lebanese army
answers to Fouad Siniora, the darling of the United States and the
opponent of Hezbollah. In the wake of the Second Lebanon War, this
army was deployed along the border, at the express demand of the
Israeli government, and this was proclaimed by Olmert as a huge
Israeli achievement. (Until then, the Israeli army commanders had
adamantly opposed the idea of stationing Lebanese or international
troops in this area, on the grounds that this would hamper their
freedom of action.)

So what is the aim of this provocation? The same as with all Olmert's
recent actions: gaining popularity to survive in power, in this case
by creating tension.

Provocation No. 2: The Temple Mount

Islam has three holy cities: Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. In Mecca
this week, the chiefs of Fatah and Hamas assembled in order to put an
end to the mutual killing and set up a unity government. While the
attention of the concerned Palestinian public was riveted there,
Olmert struck in Jerusalem.

As pretext served the "Mugrabi Gate," an entrance to the Haram-al-
Sharif ("the Noble Sanctuary"), the wide plaza where the al-Aqsa
mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located. Since this gate is higher
than the Western Wall area below it, one can approach it only over a
rising bridge or ramp.

The old bridge collapsed some time ago and was replaced with a
temporary structure. Now the "Israel Antiquities Authority" is
destroying the temporary bridge and putting in its place - so it says
- a permanent one. But the work looks much more extensive.

As could have been expected, riots broke out at once. In 1967, Israel
formally annexed this area and claimed sovereignty over the entire
Temple Mount. The Arabs (and the whole world) have never recognized
the annexation. In practice, the Temple Mount is governed by the
Islamic Waqf (religious endowment).

The Israeli government argues that the bridge is separate from the
Temple Mount. The Muslims insist that the bridge is a part of it.
Behind this tussle, there is a lurking Arab suspicion that the
installation of the new bridge is just a cover for something else
happening below the surface.

At the 2000 Camp David conference, the Israeli side made a weird-
sounding proposal: to leave the area itself to the Muslims, but with
Israeli sovereignty over everything beneath the surface. That
reinforced the Muslim belief that the Israelis intended to dig beneath
the Mount, in order to discover traces of the Jewish Temple that was
destroyed by the Romans 1936 years ago. Some believed that the real
intention was to cause the Islamic shrines to collapse, so a new
Temple could be built in their place.

These suspicions are nurtured by the fact that most Israeli
archaeologists have always been the loyal foot-soldiers of the
official propaganda. Since the emergence of modern Zionism, they have
been engaged in a desperate endeavor to "find" archaeological evidence
for the historical truth of the stories of the Old Testament. Until
now, they have gone empty-handed: there exists no archaeological proof
for the exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, and the kingdoms of
Saul, David, and Solomon. But in their eagerness to prove the
unprovable (because in the opinion of the vast majority of
archaeologists and historians outside Israel - and also some in Israel
- the Old Testament stories are but sacred myths), the archaeologists
have destroyed many strata of other periods.

But that is not the most important side of the present affair. One can
argue to the end of days about the responsibility for the Mugrabi
walkway or what it might be that the archaeologists are looking for.
But it is impossible to doubt that this is a provocation: it was
carried out like a surprise military operation, without consultation
with the other side.

Nobody knew better what to expect than Olmert, who, as mayor of
Jerusalem, was responsible for the killing of 85 human beings - 69
Palestinians and 16 Israelis - in a similar provocation, when he
"opened" a tunnel near the Temple Mount. And everybody remembers, of
course, that the Second Intifada started with the provocative "visit"
to the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon.

This is a provocation against 1.3 billion Muslims, and especially
against the Arab world. It is a knife in the back of the "moderate"
Mahmoud Abbas, with whom Olmert pretends to be ready to have a
"dialogue" - and this at exactly the moment Abbas reached an
historical agreement with Hamas for the formation of a national unity
government. It is also a knife in the back of the king of Jordan,
Israel's ally, who sees himself as the traditional protector of the
Temple Mount.

What for? To prove that Olmert is a strong leader, the hero of the
Temple Mount, the defender of the national values, who doesn't give a
damn for world public opinion.

Provocation No. 3

After Haim Ramon was convicted of indecent conduct, the post of the
minister of justice fell vacant. In a surprise blow, after laying down
a smoke screen by dangling the names of acceptable candidates, Olmert
appointed to the post a professor who is the open and vocal enemy of
the Supreme Court and the attorney general.

The Supreme Court is almost the only governmental institution in
Israel that still enjoys the confidence of the great majority. The
last president of the Court, Aharon Barak, once told me: "We have no
troops. Our power is based solely on the confidence of the public."
Now Olmert has appointed a minister of justice who has been engaged
for a long time and with a lot of noise in destroying this confidence.
Indeed, it seems that this is his main interest in life, ever since he
failed to get a close friend, a female professor, elevated to the
Supreme Court.

One can see in this an effort by Olmert, a politician who is dragging
behind him a long train of corruption affairs (several of which are at
present under police and state comptroller investigation), to
undermine the investigators, the attorney general and the courts. It
serves also as revenge against the court that dared to convict Ramon,
his friend and ally. He did not, of course, consult with anyone in the
judicial system: not with the attorney general (whose official title
is "legal adviser of the government") nor with the president of the
Supreme Court, Dorit Beinish, whom he cannot stand.

I am not an unreserved admirer of the Supreme Court. It is a wheel in
the machinery of the occupation. It cannot be relied on in matters
like the targeted assassinations, the Separation Wall, the demolition
of Palestinian homes, and the hundred and one other cases over which
the false banner of "security" is waving. But it is the last bastion
of human rights inside Israel proper.

The appointment of the new minister is an assault on Israeli
democracy, and therefore no less dangerous than the other two
provocations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do the three have in common? First of all: their unilateral
character. Forty years of occupation have created an occupation
mentality that destroys all desire and all ability to solve problems
by mutual understanding, dialogue, and compromise.

Both in foreign and domestic relations, Mafia methods reign: violence,
sudden blows, targeted eliminations.

When these methods are applied by a politician haunted by corruption
affairs, an uninhibited warmonger who is fighting for survival by all
means available, this is indeed a very dangerous situation.