Israel Palestine Middle East Conflict
Uri Avnery
12.9.09
Wobbly
Stools
EVEN THE Romans never saw a game
like this in their arena: three gladiators fighting against each other, while
at the same time each of them has to defend himself against attackers from
behind.
All three of them – Barack Obama,
Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas – are fighting for their political life.
The three battles are quite different from each other, yet interconnected.
OBAMA IS in big trouble. Big?
Huge! The most important struggle concerns health insurance.
This has no connection with Israel.
Moreover, for an Israeli it is difficult even to understand it.
For us it is hard – indeed
impossible – to grasp how a modern, progressive country can function without
health insurance for all. Our health system came into being long before the
foundation of the State of Israel. Sick funds covered practically the whole
Jewish population in Palestine. After the foundation of Israel, this became law
for all citizens. Every Israeli is insured by one of four officially recognized
sick funds. All of these are financed to a large extent by the government,
which also decides what services they are obliged to provide.
In a progressive society, a
person has a right to basic medical care, including hospital care, operations
and medicines. So it seems very odd that
in the richest nation in the world there are tens of millions of people who
lack this essential protection. Especially in a country where medical
expenditure - as a percentage of the gross national product - is far higher
then in ours.
Along comes Obama and proposes a
plan that offers these people an option of governmental medical insurance. What
could be more natural? But in the US,
powerful forces are out to prevent it, on behalf of Free Enterprise, the
Market, the Right to Privacy and such high-sounding pretexts. They portray
Obama as a Second Hitler or a Second Stalin, if not both, and his popularity is
sinking dramatically.
Odd? Mad? Perhaps. But we have to take it seriously.
It concerns us directly.
BECAUSE OBAMA is a central actor in our own play.
When he came to power, he
understood that he must change the situation in the extended Middle East. Most
Muslims in the world, including most Arabs, hate the United States. Even an
imperial power cannot function effectively in an atmosphere of general hatred.
The main reason for the hatred is the unlimited US support for the government
of Israel, which oppresses the Palestinians.
For eight years, President Bill
Clinton acted as an agent of the Jewish lobby for Israel. After that, for
another eight years, President George W. Bush acted as an agent of the
Christian fundamentalist lobby for Israel. President Obama understands that
basic US interests demand an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is
poisoning the entire region.
The war in Afghanistan makes it
even worse. Obama got stuck in this quagmire by mistake: in the heat of the
election campaign he announced that he would withdraw from Iraq. But in order
not to be accused of defeatism, he added that he would intensify the American
intervention in Afghanistan.
That was a rash promise. Afghanistan
is far worse than even Iraq. It is a different war, in a different environment,
against a different enemy. The US has no chance of “winning” this war, which
has no clear aim and no clear enemy, against a population that since antiquity
has been honing its expertise in expelling foreign invaders.
It is easy to walk into a swamp,
difficult to get out of it. Obama has no exit strategy from Afghanistan. That,
too, will endanger his popularity in the near future.
THIS IS the situation in which he
enters the struggle with Binyamin Netanyahu.
There no question anymore that
the only recipe for healing the Israeli-Palestinian wound is the termination of
the occupation and the establishment of peace between the State of Israel and
the new State of Palestine beside it. This demands meaningful and intense negotiations,
within a fixed time span. That is impossible if at the same time settlements
continue to expand. As the Palestinian lawyer Michael Tarasi aptly put it: “We
are negotiating about the division of a pizza and in the meantime Israel is
eating the pizza.”
That’s why Obama has presented
the Israeli government with an unequivocal demand: an immediate stop to all
building in the settlements, including East Jerusalem. A clear and logical
demand. But while pressuring Netanyahu, he himself is exposed to heavy pressure
at home over the health insurance system and the Afghan war.
NETANYAHU’S SITUATION is no less
complex.
His government is based on a
coalition of five different parties. The settlers and their supporters
constitute a majority. The “leftist” in this coalition, Ehud Barak, has been
responsible for setting up more settlements than Netanyahu himself ever has.
Netanyahu is dancing on a thin
tightrope at the Israeli fair, high above the heads of the audience, without a
safety net. He must avoid a head on clash with Obama, while satisfying the
nationalists in his own party and his coalition.
How to do this? One has to
convince Obama to allow a small amount of building in the settlements, just
another tiny bit, in order to appease the settlers. One has to convince the
settlers that the promise to freeze building is just window dressing, and that
in reality building will continue at full speed.
The Americans recognize, of
course, that our government is trying to deceive them. If they allow the
building of just another 500 houses in the settlement blocks, and the
completion of just another 2500 houses whose construction has already begun,
and just a few more in East Jerusalem, in practice the building will go on
unchecked.
The settlers know perfectly well
that their whole enterprise has been based on deceit and trickery, house after
house and neighborhood after neighborhood, and they are happy to allow
Netanyahu to continue with this method. For the time being, they do not cry
out, they are not worried, the more so as no large Israeli public movement has
yet arisen in support of Obama’s peace efforts.
Obama’s troubles concerning the
health issue look to Netanyahu like the answer to a prayer. Perhaps he is not
satisfied with divine help alone, and the pro-Israel lobby is quietly helping
the enemies of reform. If Obama’s people decide that the time is not ripe for a
confrontation with Netanyahu and that it is worth giving in about small matters
– some houses here, some houses there – that would be a huge victory for
Netanyahu. Every Israeli will see it this way: Netanyahu stood up like a man,
Obama blinked first. But thereafter, in the second and third battle, when Obama
insists and does not give in, neither in word nor in deed, Netanyahu will be in
trouble.
MAHMOUD ABBAS is the weakest of
the three gladiators. His situation is the most precarious.
He is on a slippery slope and has
to rely on support from Obama, who himself stands atop a tower that may
collapse. He has already learned that Netanyahu does not intend to conduct real
negotiations with him. And Hamas accuses him of collaboration with the
occupation.
West Bank public opinion polls
seem to show that the popularity of Fatah there is on the rise and that Hamas
is losing. But polls in Palestine can almost be counted on to be wrong (as on
the eve of the last elections, when they forecast a huge Fatah victory). More
than a thousand Hamas militants are in the prisons of the Palestinian
Authority. The Authority’s security services, which are being trained by the
American general Keith Dayton, are working in close cooperation with the
occupation forces and serve, quite openly, as their sub-contractors. What does
the ordinary Palestinian in the street think about that?
Life in the occupied West Bank is
built on an illusion. Commentators praise the success of the PA’s Prime
Minister, Salaam Fayad, in reconstructing the Palestinian economy. Ramallah is
flowering. New businesses are being opened. Netanyahu’s “economic peace” is
becoming a reality. But that is, of course, a delicate bubble: the Israeli army
can eradicate all this in half an hour, as it did in the 2002 “Defensive
Shield” operation.
If Abbas does not succeed in
achieving impressive progress towards peace within a few months, the whole
structure may come crashing down. General Dayton has already warned that if
peace is not achieved “within two years”, the forces now being trained by him
may rise up against the Israeli occupation (and against Abbas, of course).
Hamas is breathing heavily down their necks.
IN A FEW days, the three – Obama,
Netanyahu and Abbas – are supposed to hold a summit conference in New York and
to launch the Ship of Peace.
It will be an interesting meeting
– if it takes place - because each of the three will be sitting on a wobbly
stool, with unequal legs. While talking with his two colleagues, each will be
preoccupied with his enemies at home.
That is not, of course, an
unusual situation. Henry Kissinger once said that Israel has no foreign policy,
only a domestic policy. But that is more
or less true for every country. The United States, Israel and Palestine are not
unique in this respect.
Commentators in ivory towers, who
are used to handling out gratuitous advice to political leaders and telling
them what to do, frequently miss this dimension. A person who has never
experienced the heat of an election campaign cannot come near to understanding
the full depths of a politician’s motives. In the words of Otto von Bismarck, a
politician through and through: “Politics is the art of the possible”.
How to move the peace efforts
back from the realm of the impossible? In this campaign, the Israeli peace camp
has a double task: first, to expose the policy of evasion and deceit of our
government; and, second, to strengthen Obama’s hand in his endeavor to bring
peace to this region. It is important that a strong and authentic Israeli camp
express support for his efforts. Our friends in the US, in Europe and
throughout the entire world have a similar task.
This three-sided struggle is not
taking place in a Roman arena, and we are not just spectators looking on from
the terraces. At stake in this game is nothing less than our lives.