When a prime minister has just lost a war, is dogged by corruption allegations and sees his popularity ratings in free fall — what can he do?
Why, he can initiate provocations.
A provocation diverts attention, generates headlines, creates the illusion of power, radiates a sense of leadership.
But a provocation is a dangerous instrument. It can cause irreversible damage.
Provocation No. 1: The northern frontier.
Along the northern border runs a fence. But not everywhere does the fence coincide exactly with the recognized border (the so-called Blue Line). For topographical reasons, some sections of the fence run a few dozen meters south of it.
That is the theory of the situation. In the course of the years, both sides have become accustomed to regarding the fence as the actual border. Olmert sent soldiers beyond the fence to carry out a “Hissuf” (“exposure”) — one of those new Hebrew words invented by the army’s “verbal laundry” to beautify ugly things. It means the wholesale uprooting of trees, in order to improve vision and facilitate shooting. The army used the trademark weapon of the State of Israel: The armored bulldozer.
The Lebanese Army sent a warning that they would open fire. When this did not have any effect, they indeed fired several salvoes over the heads of the Israeli soldiers. The Israeli Army responded by firing several tank shells at the Lebanese position and lo — we have our “incident”. The whole affair is very reminiscent of Ariel Sharon’s methods in the 1960s, when he was the chief of operations of the Northern Command.
So what is the aim of this provocation? The same as with all Olmert’s recent actions: Gaining popularity to survive in power, in this case by creating tension.
Provocation No. 2: The Temple Mount.
Islam has three holy cities: Makkah, Madinah and Jerusalem. While the attention of the concerned Palestinian public was riveted in Makkah, Olmert struck in Jerusalem.
As pretext served the “Mugrabi Gate”, an entrance to the Haram Al-Sharif (“the Noble Sanctuary”), the wide plaza where the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located. Since this gate is higher than the Western Wall area below it, one can approach it only over a rising bridge or ramp.
The old bridge collapsed some time ago, and was replaced with a temporary structure. Now the “Israel Antiquities Authority” is destroying the temporary bridge and putting in its place — so it says — a permanent one. But the work looks much more extensive.
As could have been expected, riots broke out at once. In 1967, Israel formally annexed this area and claimed sovereignty over the entire Temple Mount. The Arabs (and the whole world) have never recognized the annexation.
The Israeli government argues that the bridge is separate from the Temple Mount. The Muslims insist that the bridge is a part of it. Behind this tussle, there is a lurking Arab suspicion that the installation of the new bridge is just a cover for something else happening below the surface.
These suspicions are nurtured by the fact that most Israeli archaeologists have always been the loyal foot-soldiers of the official propaganda. Since the emergence of modern Zionism, they have been engaged in a desperate endeavor to “find” archaeological evidence for the historical truth of the stories of the Old Testament. Until now, they have gone empty-handed: there exists no archaeological proof for the exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan and the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon. But in their eagerness to prove the unprovable the archaeologists have destroyed many strata of other periods.
Nobody knew better what to expect than Olmert, who, as mayor of Jerusalem, was responsible for the killing of 85 human beings — 69 Palestinians and 16 Israelis — in a similar provocation, when he “opened” a tunnel near the Temple Mount. And everybody remembers, of course, that the Second Intifada started with the provocative “visit” to the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon.
This is a provocation against 1.3 billion Muslims, and especially against the Arab world. It is a knife in the back of the “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas, with whom Olmert pretends to be ready to have a “dialogue” — and this at exactly the moment Abbas reached an historical agreement with Hamas for the formation of a national unity government. It is also a knife in the back of the king of Jordan, Israel’s ally, who sees himself as the traditional protector of the Temple Mount.
What for? To prove that Olmert is a strong leader.
Provocation No. 3: After Haim Ramon was convicted of indecent conduct, Olmert appointed to the post a professor who is the open and vocal enemy of the Supreme Court and the attorney general. The Supreme Court is almost the only governmental institution in Israel which still enjoys the confidence of the great majority though cannot be relied on in matters like the targeted assassinations, the Separation Wall, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the hundred and one other cases over which the false banner of “security” is waving. Now Olmert has appointed a minister of justice who has been engaged for a long time and with a lot of noise in destroying this confidence. One can see in this an effort by Olmert, a politician who is dragging behind him a long train of corruption affairs (several of which are at present under police and State Comptroller investigation), to undermine the investigators, the attorney general and the courts. It serves also as revenge against the court that dared to convict Ramon, his friend and ally. But it is the last bastion of human rights inside Israel proper. The appointment of the new minister is an assault on Israeli democracy, and therefore no less dangerous than the other two provocations.
What do the three have in common? First of all: Their unilateral character. Forty years of occupation have created an occupation mentality that destroys all desire and all ability to solve problems by mutual understanding, dialogue and compromise.
