The man who had principles

"Rehavam Ze'evi was a man of principle," said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at this week's memorial service for the tourism minister who was murdered by terrorists five years ago. Between the lines, one can detect Olmert's hesitation, which in the end gave rise to such a vague statement that lacked elaboration regarding the nature of these principles. The main thing is that he had principles. But the fundamental question that must be asked is whether Olmert is also a man of principle. And if so, which principle failed to guide him to absent himself from the blatantly political memorial service, which once again made those same ostensibly vague "principles" as white as the driven snow.

Olmert is not alone. At the previous service, former prime minister Ariel Sharon said that Ze'evi would certainly have opposed the disengagement from Gaza, but "he is missed now more than ever." At many memorial ceremonies for Ze'evi, those who cherish his memory praise his principles under the camouflage of an official ceremony in memory of an Israeli minister. To date, the following have been named after him: a bridge over the Ayalon highway, a street in Holon, a boulevard in Bet Shean, a Hanukkah torch race (which was dedicated in the presence of Finance Minister Avraham Hirchson, Chief Rabbis Yona Metzger and Shlomo Amar, MKs and public figures), a Land of Israel studies prize (which was recently awarded by Ya'akov Katz, chair of the pedagogical administration in the Education Ministry and accompanied by a performance by the Home Front Command entertainment troupe).

In June 2004, state-sponsored Channel 1 broadcast, for some reason, the December 2003 assembly held in Ze'evi's memory at the International Convention Center in Jerusalem.

Behind all these events stands the Morag association, which perpetuates the legacy of Gandhi (Ze'evi) and is headed by chairman Palmach Ze'evi, Rehavam's son. It is not Ze'evi the man who is the focus of the association's activity, but rather those same principles that Ze'evi insisted on and did not even try to conceal, but flaunted publicly. Only when legislation against racism threatened to outlaw his party, Moledet, did he change its platform to some extent in order not to find himself outside the fence together with Rabbi Meir Kahane (founder of the outlawed far-right Kach party).

Ze'evi's principles were simple: as far as he was concerned, there is no room for two nations in the territories of Eretz Israel (which according to his view are very spacious). And since the Arabs, all the Arabs (those living in Israel and those living in the territories were defined as one unit, although that was also explained somewhat vaguely, in order not to violate the law), are not getting up and leaving of their own volition, he suggested transferring them - in other words moving them - to Arab countries. When the transfer idea was sharply condemned and defined as a violation of the anti-racism law, Ze'evi and his party changed their discourse to the concept of "voluntary transfer": instead of loading them onto trucks, creating a "negative magnet" that would force the Arabs to emigrate.

Ze'evi marketed these principles as a direct continuation of the values of the Labor movement and the agricultural settlement of the land. It was not difficult. As opposed to the typical man of the right, Menachem Begin, who would have nothing to do with him, his friends from the Palmach (pre-state underground military commando units) were not alarmed when he distorted the history of Zionism, and concocted a deceptive mixture of legitimate settlement within the boundaries of a state recognized by the world, occupation and oppression.

Maybe that is why it is easy for his loyal heir, MK Benny Elon, to continue to market the same concoction. A year ago, Elon expressed satisfaction with findings of an Israel Institute for Democracy study indicating that 62 percent of Jewish Israelis support the expulsion of Arabs. "Voluntary transfer of Israeli Arabs is more humane than constantly killing them," Elon said, recalling his mentor's central principle. When he speaks of Israel, he is, of course, referring to all of Eretz Israel, with no difference between Umm al-Fahm (an Arab city in Israel proper) on the one hand, and Nablus and Hebron (Palestinian cities) on the other. Positing expulsion versus killing, which creates an illusion that those two options are the only ones, did not meet with strong opposition. On the contrary, the idea of annexing Umm al-Fahm to the Palestinian state was applauded even among certain circles on the left.

The irony is that Morag, like the crazy idea proposed at the time by former education minister Limor Livnat to teach the "Ze'evi legacy" in schools, is becoming redundant with frightening speed. Why complain about Olmert for eulogizing Ze'evi as a man of principle? After all, the equally extreme principles of his new deputy, the minister who will from now on be in charge of Israel's deterrent capability, and who together with Ze'evi established the National Union party, are becoming increasingly popular among a large number of Israelis. And the Labor Party is granting a seal of approval, for the first time in its history, to "principles" that will lead Israeli democracy to an abyss. It's a shame you can't see it, Rehavam Ze'evi. It certainly would have caused you great satisfaction.