Three pieces by Uri Avnery The vizier's flour by Uri Avnery
translated from 07/Dec/98 Ma'ariv

Will he land at the Arafat Airport or not? Will he treat Arafat as a head of state? Will he demonstrate even-handedness between Israel and Palestine?

All of this is unimportant. What is important is that President Clinton is even coming to Gaza, thus granting the Palestinian Authority a state-in-the-making status.

For Netanyahu's government this is a heavy blow. For the past fifty years, Israel's entire concept of national security has been based on the alliance between the U.S. and Israel. This alliance has provided Israel with exclusive American support against the entire Arab world, so much so that at times it has been hard to determine whether it is the dog that is wagging its tail or the tail wagging the dog.

Now this is all changing. Even though the American-Israeli alliance continues to exist, it no longer is exclusive. It has to coexist now with an American-Palestinian alliance, and although there is no real parity, nevertheless the balance has been altered.

Two men are responsible for this change: Arafat and Netanyahu.

Long ago Arafat set in motion ago a political strategy whose sole objective was to achieve this change. He has adhered to it with astounding patience, in the face of failures and humiliation, despite daily invectives from a large portion of the Palestinian intelligentsia. Clinton's day in Gaza will also be Arafat's personal victory.

Netanyahu has helped Arafat along by making a series of mistakes. He has made Clinton dislike him personally, by attempting to use the American extreme right wing to force the president's hand. Netanyahu is also directly responsible for Clinton's visit to Gaza.

It happened in this manner: Netanyahu and his people invented the story that "The Palestinian Charter has not been changed." This is a lie, intended for the sole purpose of justifying Netanyahu's continuing violations of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu has learned from his mentors that if one repeats a lie enough times, it becomes the truth, and the bigger the lie, the more convincing it is.

However, there is also another rule: The propagandist always becomes a prisoner of his own propaganda. He may not always convince someone else, but he always, always convinces himself.

Since he vowed not to retreat from Palestinian territories "as long as they refuse to change their charter," Netanyahu was forced to insist on that at the Wye Conference. So Clinton came up with a brilliant idea: He would go to Gaza himself, in order to take part in a conference to which members of the Palestinian National Committee would be invited, and he would get them to express their support for the abolition of the already-abolished charter paragraphs.

Netanyahu did not dare object. After all, it was he who had invented this idea. Plain and simple, he dug himself a hole.

A similar thing is happening to him regarding the matter of Palestinian prisoners. Netanyahu has repeated ad nauseaum his catch-phrase "blood on their hands." He vowed never to release the owners of these hands. And now he is trapped by these four dumb words like a bird in a cage.

In every war, both sides have "blood on their hands." Ariel Sharon has blood on his hands. Every combat soldier has blood on his hands. Over the century of war between Israel and Palestine, tens of thousands have been killed, and only the draft-dodgers and the Yeshiva-scholars have no blood-stained hands. From the point of view of current international law, there is no difference between soldiers in uniform and guerrilla fighters. There is no difference between a pilot who rains bombs on civilians from the air and an underground fighter who plants the bomb on the ground. Each side claims that its man is a "hero" and the other one is "a murderer."

When war is over, prisoners are released. Even Nazi soldiers, who had destroyed Russia and had been taken prisoner, were released after the war. There are no differences between Egyptian, Syrian and Palestinian prisoners of war.

But Israel has always insisted on regarding the Palesininian fighters as simply criminals. Words such as "murderers" and "blood on their hands," which served as a propaganda tool during the war, became obstacles as soon as Israel embarked on the road to peace. Yitzhak Rabin, too, did not dare release all of the Palestinian prisoners the day after signing the Oslo Accords (as Gush Shalom advised him), thus missing a historic opportunity to jumpstart the peace process. Now Netanyahu is entangled in the coils of his own propaganda.

An Arab story: In a certain city, riots broke out because of the scarcity of flour. The mob started to march on the Sultan's palace. In order to save his master, the vizier spread a rumor that there is a flour give-away at the city gates. The mob turned around, rushing toward the gates, soon followed by the vizier himself. "Why are you running? You know very well that it is just a lie!" the Sultan asked. But the vizier, in his rush, responded: "And what if it is true?"

Sacred Lies by Uri Avnery
translated from Ma'ariv 22/Nov/98

Like two well-trained ballet dancing partners who no longer need to practice together, the enemies of peace from both sides jumped into action. Each knew exactly what to do.

On the morning after the signing of the Wye Accords, Moslem extremists carried out an attack. Jewish settlers immediately responded with an act of "revenge." The Moslems demanded that the implementation of the Accords be stopped immediately. The Jews demanded that the implementation of the Accords be stopped immediately. And so on and so forth, for the umpteenth time.

Since Judaism and Islam have a lot in common, the actions of each religion's extremist side are quite similar. The same beliefs, the same goals, the same methods. And the same mendacity.

It is permitted to lie for the sacred goal. In fact, it is a requirement. As the Bible commands: Thou shalt wage war with deceit.

On the Jewish side, the deceit revolves entirely around the concept of "security." The leaders of the messianic "Black Revolution" know perfectly well that the public is not about to mobilize for the insane cause of settlements in the heart of Palestinian territory. Only few are prepared to die for the cause of "Greater Israel." Slogans such as "Not an inch" and "Liberated territory will not be relinquished" evoke nowadays only a derisive chuckle.

Every Israeli wants "security." Jewish history, the holocaust, a century of struggle on the land -- all of these have created a hunger for absolute, total security, unlike anywhere else in the world. In the name of such security, any abomination can be justified, the most revolting thing can be made pure, and any intention can be disguised.

Which is why the settlers no longer speak of the bells of salvation, of the days of Messiah, of the cleansing of the land of the "Ishmaelites" (see Sefi Rakhlevsky's book "The Messiah's Donkey"). The seeds of insanity have found their way to Hebron and a dozen other sites, all in the name of security. Now these places have to be defended in the name of security. The return of one percent of the West Bank endangers their concept of security. Peace itself is a terrible danger to security.

This is, of course, a completely false claim. In truth, security is an entirely inconsequential matter to these settlers and their admirers. They are prepared to risk their children's lives every day in order to reach their goal. In their view, the secularists are the Seed of Amalek, and their deaths are insignificant. But they have succeeded so well with this brainwashing about security that all the Israeli media have bought it, repeating this lie every day. For the sake of security, Netanyahu is prepared to put an end to the peace process and lead the country into a new century of regional nuclear-chemical-biological warfare.

All that it would take to burst this bubble of deceit would be the answer to one simple question: If the problem of security were to be absolutely solved, would the fanatics be willing then to turn over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians? To dismantle the settlements? To reach compromise on the matter of Jerusalem? The answer is, of course, an absolute "NO." End of the lie.

For the Palestinian extremists, the big lie is now called "human rights." Anyone who wants to bury the peace process talks of "human rights." Left-wingers, who not too long ago worshipped Stalin and justified the slaughter of millions, now have taken up the cause of human rights in Ramallah. Religious fanatics, whose entire aim is to establish in Palestine a government like that of the Taliban in Afghanistan, or at the very least like that of Homeini in Iran, speak all day long about "human rights" which are being trampled by the abominable Palestinian Authority.

Public polls indicate that the vast majority of the Palestinian population wants peace. It cannot be swayed by the vision of a fundamentalist regime that imprisons its women at home and which abdicates all of its power in favor of an extreme religious faction. That public no longer believes in the religious decree that turns all of Palestine into an islamic "Wakf" (islamic property) which would prohibit Palestinians from relinquishing a square inch to the Jews. Palestinians yearn for peace and quiet, and they believe that Arafat can deliver it.

Which is why the extremists do not speak of their true goals, except when among themselves, in their homes and in their mosques. Outside, they speak of human rights. The evil Arafat persecutes those innocent faithful who have done no wrong. He violates human rights.

The Internet is full of their noise. Their words are disseminated all over the world, courtesy of the Israeli media.

However, here, too, one can ask just one simple question: Were Arafat to sanctify every single human right, and if the Palestinian police were to behave like its Swiss counterparts -- would then the religious extremists cease their war against the Palestinian Authority and the peace process?

The Moslem extremists play dumb: They are not trying to undermine Arafat at all, they say, nor to fight the elected Palestinian government. God forbid they should raise their hand against their Palestinian brothers. All they want is to carry out bloody acts against the Israelis. So why is Arafat so hostile to them?

This is a very sophisticated lie. The Palestinian Authority, like any elected government, is expected to run state affairs. To that end, it must have control over all of the armed forces. It can not allow splinter armed factions to wage their private wars, because this would prevent any chance of setting a national strategic course, to conduct state affairs and sign agreements. Those who plant a bomb in the Mahane Yehuda marketplace of West Jerusalem intend to destroy the agreement signed by Arafat, and in this manner, destroy the elected government of the Palestinian Authority. It is a direct assault on Palestinian democracy. But talk of human rights is intended to deceive the Palestinian public.

It is all very simple: The Israelis deserve security. Naturally. The Palestinians deserve human rights. Naturally. But the Israelis will not achieve security through the settlers, just as the Palestinians will not achieve their human rights from Hamas and Jihad. Both will lead to disaster, bloodshed and mutual hatred. And in order to fight the extremists of both sides, one must first rip off their masks.

Sick and tired of the stammerers by Uri Avnery
November 23

"Enough!" was the voters' verdict in the local elections. The results show that there has been a profound change in the public spirit. It has tired of all those stammering parties that are for and against anything and everything, that change their positions every morning according to the latest polls. It is sick and tired of the politicians who are ready to make loud proclamations about anything and to perform any trick just to gain a small headline or a couple of minutes on a talk show.

This entire structure is about to collapse. The public yearns for parties which stick to their objectives and for individuals who are true to an idea. It does not want professional politicians with inflated egos and minuscule intellects. It wants trustworthy individuals. Netanyahu and his cohorts are not necessarily the only ones responsible for the public's reaction. But they have certainly exacerbated it greatly. This is the first conclusion.

The second conclusion is that the struggle between the religious and secular sectors for the soul of the country has now taken center stage in our lives. The chasm between the two is steadily widening and deepening, despite the blather about "bringing hearts together" and "mutual understanding."

In spite of their internal squabbles, the haredi-religious-messianic camp is closing ranks, becoming a united crushing force, threatening the democratic, liberal and secular state established by us. Shaping up against it (finally) is a ready-to-fight secular camp, reacting to the aggressive gall of the religious camp. Safi Rakhlevsky's eye-opening book "The Messiah's Donkey" has come in the nick of time.

All of this is particularly evident in Jerusalem. The religious block has gained 15 out of 31 mandates on the Council. Even though Ehud Olmert, a politician with no scruples or inhibitions, has been elected Mayor (for the last time), he has lost all of his power on the Council. So, too, is the case with the Labor Party. In contrast, the small faction of Ornan Yekutieli, a fighting secularist, along with Meretz, have gained 7 mandates -- more than Likud and Labor combined.

In Tel Aviv, three small, strictly secularist factions have gained nine mandates, in contrast to the losses of the two "big" parties.

In the next elections to the Knesset, there is a tremendous chance for a new, secular, fighting party which will wage a no-holds-barred struggle to wipe out "the black revolution" of the messianic-haredi-nationalist extremists. No more Roni Milos, no more Lipkin-Schachaks, no more politicians trying to hitch a quick ride on a popular theme, but rather a party of energetic young people who will propose an unequivocal platform, at its core the absolute separation of religion and state, in the spirit of the American constitution.

This would mean: Establishing a uniform educational system for all of Israel's children, one which would impart elementary values to all, where the particular message of each sector (humanist, religious, Arab, etc.) would be merely an addition. The abolition of the exemption of Yeshiva scholars from military duty. The abolition of state-funding for yeshiva students and for the myriad parasitic institutions which have been milking us. Operating public transportation seven days a week. Operating state-run airlines without interruption. Civil marriage and divorce. The dismantling of the "religious councils" financed by the local authorities and the establishment, instead, of volunteer institutions which would provide religious services on a pay-per-service basis. The abolition of religious restrictions on food, autopsies, etc.

The struggle for peace is part of the struggle for the soul of the nation. The messianic-religious camp, which is the body controlling the aggressive settler movement, is now leading the struggle against peace. It is this movement which supplies the extreme Right with its ideology and political force. Here, too, we need a fighting secular party to state things emphatically, without stuttering and side glances. Most of the public already understands that there will be a Palestinian state, side by side with the State of Israel. It needs to be stated clearly: The settlements are a danger to the survival of the State, and they must be dismantled. The end of the war dictates the return of all territory occupied in 1967. Jerusalem, the symbol of peace and reconciliation, must serve as the capital of both states.

Half-truths, evasions, or clever tricks will no longer work. No more declarations of Ehud Barak that are neither fish nor fowl. No more statements by Yossi Sarid that "blocs of settlements" must stay under Israeli control, that the Palestinian state has to be established on "more than 90% of the West Bank," or that he "will not voluntarily declare the intention of dividing Jerusalem". The public wants courage. The public wants truth.

Were I younger by a few years, I would found such a party myself. But it is a task for the young generation. Our role is to provide support. The young people should be the ones to unfurl its banner, and it is from their ranks that an aggressive faction in the next Knesset could carry on the fight.