SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas M. who wrote (10336)3/12/2006 7:17:51 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22250
 
Why is peace a dirty word in Israel?

By Uri Avnery*

12 March 2006

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| HOME | SPOTLIGHT MENU |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uri Avnery asks why the word "peace" is not mentioned by any of the main political parties in the Israeli election campaign. His answer is that "the huge majority of Israeli Jews do not believe in peace". Instead, they want "a Jewish State, with as large a Jewish majority as possible" and with borders that are unilaterally fixed, "without speaking with those Palestinians".

In English, a "four-letter word" is a rude expletive. It is a vulgar description of a sexual act or organ, and an educated person will not use it.

Now it appears that in the Hebrew language, too, there is a four-letter word, which a decent person will not use, especially not in an election campaign. A (politically) correct person will avoid it at all costs.

That word is Peace (which in Hebrew consists of four letters).

This week, the election propaganda moved from the street to radio and TV. Israeli law accords every list of candidates a minimum of free broadcasting time (10 minutes on TV), with parties represented in the outgoing Knesset getting additional minutes according to their size. No other election broadcasts on TV or radio are allowed.

As a result, election propaganda has been taken out of the hands of the politicians and turned over to the "experts" - advertising people, copywriters and assorted "strategists". This is a cynical bunch. Like lawyers, most advertising people are mercenaries. They may serve a left-wing party today and sell their services to a right-wing one tomorrow. Their personal opinions do not count; business is business.

When an advertising expert plans an election campaign, his aim is not to explain the programme of the party that hired him, but to attract voters. He is more a circus juggler than a preacher.

Election propaganda is like a gown: it should emphasize the attractive features of its owner and hide the less attractive ones. The difference is that the advertising expert can invent limbs that do not exist and cut off limbs that do, according the demands of the market.

One of the major headaches of the propagandist is that his candidates may speak up, God forbid, and expose their real views, thus spoiling the show. As a well-known advertising expert told me: "Selling a politician is like selling toothpaste, with one important difference - toothpaste doesn't talk!"

As a result, the election propaganda does not say much about the real aims of the leaders and their parties. One can assume in advance that most of the content of the broadcasts is fraudulent. If a commercial enterprise distributed such a mendacious prospectus on the stock exchange, it would be indicted.

Does this mean that the election propaganda is not interesting? On the contrary, one can learn a lot from it. It does not reflect the real positions of the parties, but it does reflect public opinion. More precisely: public opinion as it appears to the experts, who conduct daily polls, listen to focus groups and such.

On this background, it is worthwhile to examine the broadcasts.

In one of his mysteries, Sherlock Holmes observed that the solution lay in the curious incident of the dog in the night. "But the dog did nothing in the night-time!" his assistant exclaimed. "That is the curious incident!" Sherlock replied.

The curious incident in the present election campaign is a word that does not appear at all: the word "peace".

A stranger will not understand its absence. After all, Israel is in a perpetual state of war. The broadcasts themselves are full of frightening Hamas parades. The fear of suicide bombings is stronger in Israel than any other fear. Logic says that a party that promises peace will reach the heights of popularity. Yet, wonder of wonders, no important party is claiming this crown for itself. More than that, no important party so much as mentions the word peace in its broadcasts.

Kadima speaks about Hope, Hope, Hope - without spelling out what kind of hope, hope for what. It speaks of "Might", and even of a "Chance for a Political Move". Peace? Nyet.

Kadima's masterpiece is a TV clip which harnesses to its cause the whole crew - Herzl, Ben-Gurion, Begin, Sharon and Rabin. It shows Herzl announcing the Zionist idea, Ben-Gurion founding the State of Israel, Begin making peace with Egypt, Sharon crossing the Suez Canal in the Yom-Kippur [Ramadan] war, and Rabin making peace with - King Hussein.

King Hussein? Wait a minute. Didn't Rabin sign an agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization and shake hands with Yasser Arafat? Wasn't that the high point of his life? Wasn't he awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for that? Wasn't the peace with Hussein almost an afterthought, since Hussein had already been an unofficial ally of Israel for more than 40 years? But Kadima has decided that it must not show Arafat at any price. It could be accused, God forbid, of striving for peace with the Palestinians!

Amir Peretz of Labour might have been tempted to speak about peace, if his handlers had not shut him up in time. He feels much safer talking about children without food and oldsters without pensions.

Likud, of course, does not speak about peace. Binyamin Netanyahu is at his best when scaring people. For this purpose he went down to the junkyard and retrieved some used generals, who testify that Hamas and the Palestinian [National] Authority pose an existential threat to Israel, much as the frightful Iranian bomb. Only the Great Bibi [Netanyahu] knows how to deal with them. Peace? Don't make me laugh!

Most amusing is Meretz, the party headed by Yossi Beilin, originator of the Geneva Initiative. Its main broadcast shows men and women pushing slips of paper into the cracks of the Western Wall while voicing their most ardent wish. There is a woman yearning for an academic degree, a man who wants to marry another man, a grandpa who longs for money in order to buy a present for his grandson, a Christian woman who hankers for recognition as a Jewess, a mother who desires to send her son to kindergarten, a woman pining for a divorce. And what is the one thing nobody yearns for, longs for, pines for according to the Meretz propaganda people?

You guessed it: That four-letter word again.

What does all this say about the Israeli public, 2006?

It says that the huge majority of Israeli Jews do not believe in peace. Peace is being conceived as a dream, something that has nothing to do with reality. A party that speaks about peace brands itself as living in a fantasy world. Worse, it may be suspected of "Arab-loving". What could be more disastrous?

So what do Israelis believe in? They want a Jewish State, with as large a Jewish majority as possible. That is agreed among all the Jewish parties. They believe in fixing the final borders of Israel unilaterally, without speaking with those Palestinians. The Palestinians, as everybody knows, have just elected Hamas and want to throw us into the sea.

What borders? Ehud Olmert is gradually disclosing what he has in mind. His map will not surprise the readers of this column. His Greater Israel includes all the territory trapped between the Green Line and the Separation Wall; and in addition the Jordan Valley; Greater Jerusalem, which includes the Ma'aleh Adumim settlement and the territory between it and the city (but giving up some densely populated Arab neighbourhoods); the settlement blocs of Ariel, Alfei-Menasheh, Modi'in Illit and Gush Etzion; and "special security areas". He takes care not to draw an actual map, so there is no certainty about the borders of the settlement blocs. But he certainly aims at annexing more than half of the West Bank.

For Netanyahu, that is, of course, blatant treason, a shameful surrender to the Arabs. In his broadcasts, he denounces Olmert's borders as "borders inviting terrorism'. The Likud does actually draw a map, in which the Wall moves right to the centre of the West Bank.

Labour and Meretz agree in principle to the annexation of the settlement blocs, but they do not publish maps. They mention half-heartedly some undefined swaps of territory. No wonder, since they dream, almost visibly, of joining the coalition under Olmert that will probably be set up after the election. The map of the coalition is more important than the map of annexations.

And peace? Shhhhhhh

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

* *Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| EMAIL THIS PIECE TO A FRIEND |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| TOP | HOME | SPOTLIGHT MENU |
------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: Thomas M. who wrote (10336)3/13/2006 4:53:31 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Respond to of 22250
 
Told you so....(*)

Iran moves into Lebanon vacuum
By Michael Slackman The New York Times

MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006

BEIRUT
Nearly one year ago, not long after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, who was twice prime minister of Lebanon, Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon, unleashing a wave of patriotism here that prompted many to declare that the Lebanese might finally be able to take control of their destiny.

But like so many other historic events, the intensity of the moment and the rush of emotions eclipsed at least one important and largely unanswerable question: What next? With Syria gone, or at least its troops gone, who would fill the power vacuum left behind?

At the time, Iran did not appear to be the answer. But that is what is happening, according to government officials, political leaders and analysts here.

Iran, which has long been a powerful player in Lebanon, has been able to increase its influence, partly through its ties to the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah. That has given Tehran a stronger trump to play in its confrontation with the United States and Europe over its nuclear program.

In Lebanon, the Iranians could contribute to the kind of retribution they have promised as a payback - from a strike across the border into Israel, to a more forceful flexing of political muscle that could paralyze the Lebanese government, political analysts and government officials said.

While Iran helped create, finance and train Hezbollah in the first place, it was Syria that settled scores and managed relations between Shiite factions and Palestinians throughout Lebanon. Syria was a filter between Tehran and Hezbollah, and now that Syria has been uprooted, Iran and Hezbollah can work much more closely together.

Members of Hezbollah have become members of the government for the first time, magnifying the importance of the relationship between Iran and the Lebanese Shiite movement.

That is the downside for America, and for Lebanon as well, officials here said. Unity remains elusive as Lebanon continues to find itself a playing field for foreign interests.

"There is without any doubt a growing Iranian influence not only in Lebanon but in the whole region," said Nassib Lahoud, a Maronite Christian who is a former ambassador to the United States and member of Parliament. "We are trying to build normal relations with everyone, and we refuse to turn Lebanon into a battlefield for regional and international powers."

Political leaders came together last week in downtown Beirut for what was billed as the start of a national dialogue, a chance to try to resolve long-simmering disputes. Those meetings are supposed to resume Monday. There was to be discussion about disarming militias like Hezbollah and figuring out what to do about President Emile Lahoud, a staunch ally of Syria, who has clung to his office even while his ability to govern has withered under pressure to resign. There also were discussions over whether to continue its dispute with Israel over a small patch of land called Shebaa Farms.

But even before the meetings began, government officials acknowledged that Lebanon's ability to resolve some of its most vexing domestic conflicts would depend on decisions made in Tehran and Washington. Charles Rizk, Lebanon's minister of justice, said that as Iran's and Hezbollah's influence has risen in Lebanon, the country's hopes for unity hinge on Iran and America at least agreeing to talk to each other. It is an idea, officials here acknowledge, that appears as remote as a Syrian-Israeli peace deal. But as a nation unusually susceptible to outside influences, officials said that was their reality, no matter how bleak.

"I hope that by America inaugurating a process of détente with Iran, this will reverberate into more consensus in Lebanon," Rizk said in an interview. "This is the only chance for us to solve our problems."

For years, Iran had been a kind of second lieutenant to Syria, important, influential and spiritually linked to the Hezbollah militia in a way that the Alawite leadership of Syria never could have been.

But on the ground, where Syrian troops were dug in, and where Syrian intelligence agents ran the show, Tehran's role was often more behind the scenes. In the 1980s, during the Lebanese civil war, Syria established its dominant position when it brokered a deal between the two Shiite militias - Amal and Hezbollah - and settled the feuding that was taking place in the Palestinian camps. After that, Iran found itself one step removed from the surrogates it helped create.

Then, suddenly, Damascus found itself in retreat.

Iran saw an opportunity and began to press ahead with its established relationships in Lebanon and with trying to build new ones. Lebanese officials and academics and religious leaders were increasingly feeling the generosity of the Iranian state, officials said, with invitations to conferences in Iran and offers of aid.

Lebanese officials say that Iran has been careful not to appear heavy-handed, so as not to alienate Sunni, Druse and Christian factions. After years under the fist of Damascus, many people here said that Iranian power was preferable because of geography - Tehran is far away - and because the Iranians appear to be more intent on winning allegiances, not forcing them.

"Iran is omnipresent in Lebanon, not only with Hezbollah," said Ridwan al-Sayyid, an adviser to the prime minister and a professor of Islamic studies at Lebanese University. "They are strong, not like Syria, but they shape their presence in different ways. They are helping many, many organizations - Sunnis, Shiites and Christians. They are benevolent."

This is not the first time that the United States has seen Iran benefit, however unintentionally, from events that initially were regarded as strengthening the Bush administration's hand. With each American military strike in the region, first against the Taliban in Afghanistan and then against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran has found its influence in the region grow as its enemies were defeated by American military might, political analysts said.

"Iran now has many more cards in confronting the United States than the United States has in confronting Iran," said Hassan Nafaa, a professor of political science at Cairo University.

Now it appears that Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon is another boost to the leaders in Tehran.

"I believe that Iran's role in Lebanon has become stronger, and if you look at its relationship with Hezbollah it is stronger," said Ahmed Fatfat, Lebanon's interim interior minister.

What this means, officials said, is that as long as the United States and Iran are at odds - a prospect that is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future - Lebanon will remain, at best, in limbo. Lebanon will be unable to resolve its own domestic problems while Iran continues to try to build up its strategic position across the country.

"If there is an Iranian-American clash, it will be played out here," Fatfat said.

iht.com

(*) Message 18969119