Translation of an
article to be published
in Ma'ariv on October 24, 2000
12 Conventional Lies
by
Uri Avnery
/ 22.1o.oo
1. "Barak has
turned every stone to achieve peace."
Truth is, he has
turned every stone to build settlements. Since his first day in office,
he has accelerated the pace of setting up new settlements (in the guise
of "enlarging" existing ones), confiscating lands, demolishing
Palestinian homes and building "by-pass roads" (whose main purpose is to
add Palestinian lands to the "settlement blocs" which he wants to annex
to Israel.) In all these activities, Barak has done more than Netanyahu.
In the political
field, too, Barak has upstaged Netanyahu: Bibi returned at least the
greater part of the town of Hebron to the Palestinians. Barak has not
returned one single inch of occupied territory.
2. "At Camp David,
Barak went further than any previous Prime Minister."
Even if this were
true, it would mean very little. If one Marathon runner (Netanyahu)
falls down after one mile, and another (Barak) falls down after three,
the difference between them is not really important. What is important
is that neither of them got even near the finishing line (26 miles).
Barak’s proposals at
Camp David were far from the minimum necessary to make peace with the
Palestinian people and the whole Arab world: Palestinian sovereignty
over East Jerusalem, and especially the compound of the holy mosques
(Haram al-Sharif).
Barak indicated at
Camp David that he might "consider" some cosmetic changes (and thereby
he indeed broke some of the Israeli taboos concerning Jerusalem) – but
as a matter of fact he denied the Palestinians, the Arabs and the
Muslims sovereignty over the compound of the holy mosques and the major
Arab neighborhoods in the city. That’s why the summit failed and the
escalation started, leading up to the "al-Aksa intifada".
3. "Arafat blew up
the Camp David summit."
On the eve of his
departure for the summit, Barak announced five "Red Lines", which he
would not cross under any circumstances. Among them: Israeli sovereignty
over the entire city of Jerusalem, no return to the 1967 border, Keeping
80% of the settlers were they are, no return of a single refugee to
Israel!!! Afterwards he softened some of these stands, but not enough to
come anywhere near an agreement.
4. "All the time,
we give, give, give. Arafat doesn’t give anything."
When the
Palestinians agreed to a peace settlement based on the pre-1967 border
(the Green Line), they were already giving up in advance 78% of the land
between the sea and the Jordan river. They are ready to set up their
state in the remaining 22%. Our government wants a "compromise" over
this area. Meaning: "What’s mine is mine, about what’s yours, we shall
compromise".
(Factual background:
the November 29, 1947, UN partition resolution gave the Jewish state 55%
and the Arab state 45% of Palestine. In the ensuing war [started by the
Arabs], we conquered half of the territory allotted to the Arab state.
Thus the "Green Line" came about, leaving 78% of the country in our
hands.)
The problem is not
expressed in percentage points only. Barak appears to be asking for only
10% of the occupied territories. In reality, it’s closer to 30%, taking
into account the territories he wants to annex in the Jerusalem area and
place under his "security control" in the Jordan valley. But even worse,
in the map submitted to the Palestinians, these percentage points cut
the country up from East to West and from North to South, so that the
Palestinian state will consist of a group of islands, each surrounded by
Israeli settlers and soldiers.
5. "How can one
make peace with the Palestinians when they break every agreement?"
Well, Palestinian
violations pale in comparison with ours. Before the end of the 5-years
interim period (May 1998), the IDF had to withdraw from all the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip except "specified military locations",
settlements and Jerusalem. Barak refuses to do this even at this late
date. Also, four "safe passages" between the West Bank and Gaza should
have been in operation long ago. In practice, only one was opened, and
this one can only be used by Palestinians after much harassment.
6. "Barak is the
heir to Rabin."
Far from it. Within
a few months he has succeeded in destroying not only all the
achievements of Rabin, but those of Begin, too. He has buried the Oslo
agreement (to which he objected from the beginning) and destroyed the
relations built up with much effort between Israel and a number of Arab
countries. He has created ferment among the Arab citizens in Israel
itself. In many respects, he has thrown us back to 1948, even 1936.
7. "The lynching in
Ramallah shows that the Arabs are animals."
In a confrontation
like this one, each side points to the atrocities committed by the
other, "forgetting" the atrocities committed by his own side. Israel
points to the horrible lynching, the Palestinians point to the killing
of 12-years old Muhammad al-Dira in the arms of his father and the
brain-killing bullets used by Israel army snipers against stone-throwing
children. Our acts of violence come in response to the actions of the
Palestinians, theirs come in response to ours. It’s a vicious circle.
8. "The Palestinian
media are instruments of incitement."
That is true, but
unfortunately there is no great difference between theirs and ours in
this respect. Ours and theirs speak the same language, following
guidelines from above. When Palestinian TV shows over and over again the
picture of the boy dying in the arms of his father, that’s incitement.
When our TV shows dozens of times a day, day after day, the atrocious
lynching in Ramallah, that’s incitement.
9. "They shoot at
us and the Israeli army is exercising self-restraint."
It is strange that
in two weeks of "self-restraint"’ about 110 Palestinian and 3 Israeli
soldiers have been killed. No Israeli officer has explained (or was
asked to explain) this curious ratio.
Instead of "pacifying" the area, as intended, this "self-restraint" has
inflamed it even more. Every funeral has led to another confrontation.
10. "The Arabs send
their children against our army positions, so that they can be killed, in
order to provide pictures for the world media."
This is a horrendous
accusation, betraying an obnoxious racism. It contains the belief that
Arab parents do not care about their children dying.
In the struggle
waged by our underground organizations before 1948 and during our War of
Independence, boys and girls played an important part. The arms training
of Palestinian boys is no different from the training of our own Gadna
youth battallions. The boy who, in 1948, destroyed a Syrian tank at
kibbutz Deganya has become a national hero. When a people fights for its
very existence and freedom, its youth cannot but take part. (I joined
the Irgun, defined by the British as a terrorist organization, at the
age of 14 and a half. By the age of 15 I carried guns.)
It is an illusion to
think that Palestinian parents can restrain their children from going
out into the street and throwing stones, when they live under a cruel
occupation and their brothers and sisters provide examples of heroism
and self-sacrifice. It is quite natural for the Palestinian people to be
proud of them.
Joan of Arc, by the
way, was 16 years old when she led the French army into battle.
The settlers
routinely exploit their children and babies, not hesitating to put them
in harm’s way.
11. "Again it is
proved that the whole world is against us. They are all anti-Semites."
World public opinion
is always on the side of the underdog. In this fight, we are Goliath and
they are David.
In the eyes of the
world, the Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against a
foreign occupation. We are in their territory, not they in ours. We
settle on their land, not they on ours. We are the occupiers, they are
the victims. This is the objective situation, and no minister of
propaganda (like Mr. Nachman Shai) can change that.
12. "We have no
partner for peace."
True, we have no
partner for a peace that Palestinians see as a capitulation to Israeli
ultimatums. We do have a partner for a peace based on equality and
mutual respect.
The solution is
quite clear: the State of Palestine must be set up within the pre-1967
border, with Jerusalem serving as the capital of the two states - East
Jerusalem with the Haram al-Sharif must belong to Palestine, West
Jerusalem with the Western Wall and the Jewish quarter must belong to
Israel.
When this
solution is accepted in principle, negotiations can start about the
other problems: mutual security, exchange of territories, a moral and
practical solution for the refugee problem, water allocation etc.
This peace will
come about, because the only alternative is hell for both sides.
Get this article in
Hebrew
ua / hagalil.com /
24-10-2000 |