| Mid-East Realities | www.middleeast.org |
"The removal of Arabs bodily from Palestine is part of the Zionist plan to 'spirit the penniless population across the frontier' by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
Theodor Herzl (in 1895)
Author of the Jewish State
"There are things we will tell the public about, there are things we will deny and there are things that will remain hidden forever... In wartime, you don't have to expose everything to the world, to stand in public and reveal everything, in the name of that hypocritical and lie-filled concept known as honesty."
Ariel Sharon (in 2001)
Prime Minister of the Jewish State
MID-EAST REALITIES © - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 5/10: The world of 1895 was a very different one of course from the modern internet age; and yet, so much remains the same under the surface. Some things, especially such colonial things as Theodor Herzl had in mind, could be said and written much more openly then; even while other things had to be kept in the closet and under the proverbial table. Herzl was a complex literary man interacting with a pre-World Wars pre-Holocaust Europe in a time when colonialism, racism, and Euro-White superiority were presumed. Ariel Sharon is more a street fighter, a thug and brute, a narrow self-righteous zealot; yet cunningly he has managed to have a tremendous impact on the evolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for more than a half century now, and tragically more so all the time.
In the span of a century, the Zionist enterprise, as it was known in the beginning, has succeeded in achieving political and military power far beyond expectations. Also during this same period of time the Palestinians have become far more powerless and their predicament far more tragic than was expected.
But that is the snapshot of the historical moment. The Rabin/Barak/Peres wing of the Israeli establishment seems to have understood that a time of maximum power is also a time to secure some kind of settlement with both the Palestinians and the Arab regimes, doing so on Israeli terms more than ever might be possible again. That's what the "Oslo Peace Process", the dalliance with the PLO and Arafat, and the Camp David sequestration, were all about. For they understood that the snapshot in time would pass and that unless Israel could achieve political and psychological legitimacy from the Arab and Muslim worlds then living by the sword could become a permanent reality and a day of reckoning might still lie ahead.
With the collapse of the disingenuous "peace process" and the rise of warrior Sharon and his wing of the Israeli establishment to complete power, that day of reckoning for Israel does probably lie ahead even while for now the suffering of the Palestinians is so maddening and tearful.
[Ha/aretz - 6 May 2001] Prime Minister Ariel Sharon keeps repeating that he has not changed, and five days ago the familiar voice from the past echoed once again. At a meeting with the Yesha Council of Settlements and leaders from the Jordan Valley communities, in the presence of media cameras and recorders, he made the following statements in reference to Israel's methods of operation against Palestinian terror:*
"There are things we will tell the public about, there are things we will deny and there are things that will remain hidden forever." It is superfluous to add to what has already been written about the political wisdom of such statements, but we think it is worth expressing an opinion about the moral worldview behind them.
Sharon is in effect saying that the words he utters are intended to achieve practical results; they have no intrinsic value. Words are a political or political - and apparently personal as well - tool, but they lack the original, specific meaning that people usually attribute to them. According to this approach, a politician can use words any way he pleases without considering their accepted meaning.
One can say that black is white or that big is small, because there is an external, superior purpose to the phrases issuing from a politician's mouth. Sharon felt no shame in declaring from the outset that he, or his government, will not hesitate to deceive the public, or the world ("there are things we will deny").
This attitude comes as no surprise from someone who once said that "in wartime, you don't have to expose everything to the world, to stand in public and reveal everything, in the name of that hypocritical and lie-filled concept known as honesty."
If that is how the prime minister views the role of words and interpersonal communication, how is it possible to evaluate his statements? If, for example, he repeats that he has a clear plan of how to restore calm, can the public see this as a simple promise - i.e. that the prime minister is about to bring about an end to the Palestinian violence - or does he have a hidden intent when he says such things? If he announces that he will bring peace, and that after bringing about calm, he will offer the Palestinians a wise, achievable diplomatic proposal - is this declaration being made in the language of an ordinary man or in the doublethink language of George Orwell, which Sharon sees as being reserved for statesmen?
This clarification is particularly necessary when one reads the way the prime minister words his official announcements.
The press announcements released by the Prime Minister's Bureau regularly focus on the responsibility of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority for the terror attacks and the deterioration in security. The listener draws the conclusion that this is the prime minister's learned perception about the terrorist organizations and that the frequent reminders regarding the part played by the Palestinian leadership are meant to prepare the ground for an operation that will nip the evil in the bud.
Nevertheless, when it becomes clear that Sharon has his own private dictionary, it raises doubts about the accepted meaning of the accusations he pins on the PA.
This disease is also spreading into other areas. When Sharon tells the High Court of Justice that dispatching his son, Omri, to speak to Arafat can save lives, are we to accept his statement as given, or is it couched in a code that views honesty as hypocritical? After all, according to Sharon's perception, his son is his right arm, his long arm meeting with Arafat. If his mission is to save lives, then why doesn't Sharon carry it out himself? Just because he announced that he will not hold direct talks with Arafat as long as the shooting continues?
Why is it that on this issue, of all others, he chooses to keep his word.
| Mid-East Realities | www.middleeast.org |
| Source: http://www.middleeast.org/articles/2001/5/197.htm |