|
The Gaza Cage
By Uri Avnery
06/17/07 "ICH" -- -- WHAT HAPPENS when one and a half million
human beings are imprisoned in a tiny, arid territory, cut off
from their compatriots and from any contact with the outside
world, starved by an economic blockade and unable to feed their
families?
Some months ago, I described this situation as a sociological
experiment set up by Israel, the United States and the European
Union. The population of the Gaza Strip as guinea pigs.
This week, the experiment showed results. They proved that human
beings react exactly like other animals: when too many of them
are crowded into a small area in miserable conditions, they
become aggressive, and even murderous. The organizers of the
experiment in Jerusalem, Washington, Berlin, Oslo, Ottawa and
other capitals could rub their hands in satisfaction. The
subjects of the experiment reacted as foreseen. Many of them
even died in the interests of science.
But the experiment is not yet over. The scientists want to know
what happens if the blockade is tightened still further.
WHAT HAS caused the present explosion in the Gaza Strip?
The timing of Hamas' decision to take over the Strip by force
was not accidental. Hamas had many good reasons to avoid it. The
organization is unable to feed the population. It has no
interest in provoking the Egyptian regime, which is busy
fighting the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother--organization of
Hamas. Also, the organization has no interest in providing
Israel with a pretext for tightening the blockade.
But the Hamas leaders decided that they had no alternative but
to destroy the armed organizations that are tied to Fatah and
take their orders from President Mahmoud Abbas. The US has
ordered Israel to supply these organizations with large
quantities of weapons, in order to enable them to fight Hamas.
The Israeli army chiefs did not like the idea, fearing that the
arms might end up in the hands of Hamas (as is actually
happening now). But our government obeyed American orders, as
usual.
The American aim is clear. President Bush has chosen a local
leader for every Muslim country, who will rule it under American
protection and follow American orders. In Iraq, in Lebanon, in
Afghanistan, and also in Palestine.
Hamas believes that the man marked for this job in Gaza is
Mohammed Dahlan. For years it has looked as if he was being
groomed for this position. The American and Israeli media have
been singing his praises, describing him as a strong, determined
leader, "moderate" (i.e. obedient to American orders) and
"pragmatic" (i.e. obedient to Israeli orders). And the more the
Americans and Israelis lauded Dahlan, the more they undermined
his standing among the Palestinians. Especially as Dahlan was
away in Cairo, as if waiting for his men to receive the promised
arms.
In the eyes of Hamas, the attack on the Fatah strongholds in the
Gaza Strip is a preventive war. The organizations of Abbas and
Dahlan melted like snow in the Palestinian sun. Hamas has easily
taken over the whole Gaza Strip.
How could the American and Israeli generals miscalculate so
badly? They are able to think only in strictly military terms:
so--and--so many soldiers, so--and--so many machine guns. But in
interior struggles in particular, quantitative calculations are
secondary. The morale of the fighters and public sentiment are
far more important. The members of the Fatah organizations do
not know what they are fighting for. The Gaza population
supports Hamas, because they believe that it is fighting the
Israeli occupier. Their opponents look like collaborators of the
occupation. The American statements about their intention of
arming them with Israeli weapons have finally condemned them.
That is not a matter of Islamic fundamentalism. In this respect
all nations are the same: they hate collaborators of a foreign
occupier, whether they are Norwegian (Quisling), French (Petain)
or Palestinian.
IN WASHINGTON and Jerusalem, politicians are bemoaning the
"weakness of Mahmoud Abbas".
They see now that the only person who could prevent anarchy in
the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was Yasser Arafat. He had a
natural authority. The masses adored him. Even his adversaries,
like Hamas, respected him. He created several security
apparatuses that competed with each other, in order to prevent
any single apparatus from carrying out a coup--d'etat. Arafat
was able to negotiate, sign a peace agreement and get his people
to accept it.
But Arafat was pilloried by Israel as a monster, imprisoned in
the Mukata'ah and, in the end, murdered. The Palestinian public
elected Mahmoud Abbas as his successor, hoping that he would get
from the Americans and the Israelis what they had refused to
give to Arafat.
If the leaders in Washington and Jerusalem had indeed been
interested in peace, they would have hastened to sign a peace
agreement with Abbas, who had declared that he was ready to
accept the same far--reaching compromise as Arafat. The
Americans and the Israelis heaped on him all conceivable praise
and rebuffed him on every concrete issue.
They did not allow Abbas even the slightest and most miserable
achievement. Ariel Sharon plucked his feathers and then sneered
at him as "a featherless chicken". After the Palestinian public
had patiently waited in vain for Bush to move, it voted for
Hamas, in the desperate hope of achieving by violence what Abbas
has been unable to achieve by diplomacy.
The Israeli leaders, both military and political, were
overjoyed. They were interested in undermining Abbas, because he
enjoyed Bush's confidence and because his stated position made
it harder to justify their refusal to enter substantive
negotiations. They did everything to demolish Fatah. To ensure
this, they arrested Marwan Barghouti, the only person capable of
keeping Fatah together.
The victory of Hamas suited their aims completely. With Hamas
one does not have to talk, to offer withdrawal from the occupied
territories and the dismantling of settlements. Hamas is that
contemporary monster, a "terrorist" organization, and with
terrorists there is nothing to discuss.SO WHY were people in
Jerusalem not satisfied this week? And why did they decide "not
to interfere"?
True, the media and the politicians, who have helped for years
to incite the Palestinian organizations against each other,
showed their satisfaction and boasted "we told you so". Look how
the Arabs kill each other. Ehud Barak was right, when he said
years ago that our country is "a villa in the jungle".
But behind the scenes, voices of embarrassment, even anxiety,
could be heard.
The turning of the Gaza Strip into Hamastan has created a
situation for which our leaders were not ready. What to do now?
To cut off Gaza altogether and let the people there starve to
death? To establish contacts with Hamas? To occupy Gaza again,
now that it has become one big tank trap? To ask the UN to
station international troops there -- and if so, how many
countries would be crazy enough to risk their soldiers in this
hell?
Our government has worked for years to destroy Fatah, in order
to avoid the need to negotiate an agreement that would
inevitably lead to the withdrawal from the occupied territories
and the settlements there. Now, when it seems that this aim has
been achieved, they have no idea what to do about the Hamas
victory.
They comfort themselves with the thought that it cannot happen
in the West Bank. There, Fatah reigns. There Hamas has no
foothold. There our army has already arrested most of Hamas'
political leaders. There Abbas is still in power.
Thus speak the generals, with the generals' logic. But in the
West Bank, too, Hamas did win a majority in the last elections.
There, too, it is only a matter of time before the population
loses its patience. They see the expansion of the settlements,
the Wall, the incursions of our army, the targeted
assassinations, the nightly arrests. They will explode.
Successive Israeli governments have destroyed Fatah
systematically, cut off the feet of Abbas and prepared the way
for Hamas. They can't pretend to be surprised.
WHAT TO DO? To go on boycotting Abbas or to provide him with
arms, to enable him to fight for us against Hamas? To go on
depriving him of any political achievement or to throw him some
crumbs at long last? And anyway, isn't it too late?
(And on the Syrian front: to go on paying lip service to peace
while sabotaging all the efforts of Bashar Assad to start
negotiations? To negotiate secretly, despite American
objections? Or continue doing nothing at all?)
At present, there is no policy, and no government which could
determine a policy.
So who will save us? Ehud Barak?
Barak's victory in this week's Labor Party leadership run--off
has turned him almost automatically into the next Minister of
Defense. His strong personality and his experience as Chief of
Staff and Prime Minister assure him of a dominant position in
the restructured government. Olmert will deal with the area in
which he is an unmatched master -- party machinations. But Barak
will have a decisive influence on policy.
In the government of the two Ehuds, Ehud Barak will decide on
matters of war and peace.
Until now, practically all his actions have had negative
results. He came very close to an agreement with Assad the
father and escaped at the last moment. He withdrew the Israeli
army from South Lebanon, but without speaking with Hizbullah,
which took over. He compelled Arafat to come to Camp David,
insulted him there and declared that we have no partner for
peace. This dealt a death blow to the chances of peace, a blow
which still paralyzes the Israeli public. He has boasted that
his real intention was to "unmask" Arafat. He was more of a
failed Napoleon than an Israeli de Gaulle.
Will the Ethiopian change his skin, the leopard his spots? Hard
to believe.
IN THE dramas of William Shakespeare, there is frequently a
comic interlude at tense moments. And not only there.
Shimon Peres, the person who in 55 years of political activity
had never won an election, did the impossible this week: he got
elected President of Israel.
Many years ago, I entitled an article about him "Mr. Sisyphus",
because again and again he had almost reached the threshold of
success, and success had evaded him. Now he might feel like
thumbing his nose at the gods after reaching the summit, but --
alas -- without the boulder. The office of the president is
devoid of content and jurisdiction. A hollow politician in a
hollow position.
Now everybody expects a flurry of activity at the president's
palace. There will certainly be peace conferences, meetings of
personalities, high--sounding declarations and illustrious
plans. In short -- much ado about nothing.
The practical result is that Olmert's position has been
strengthened. He has succeeded in installing Peres in the
President's office and Barak in the Ministry of Defense. In the
short term, Olmert's position is assured.
And in the meantime, the experiment in Gaza continues, Hamas is
taking over and the trio -- Ehud 1, Ehud 2 and Shimon Peres are
shedding crocodile tears.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush
Shalom.
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story. We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
