Haaretz doesn't often run columns by Uri Avnery, but last week they printed a piece of his entitled "Freedom of expression in Israel is a hollow pretension." It starts with a well-deserved tribute to Jonathan Pollak, the courageous Israeli activist who has just begun serving three months in jail, officially for taking part in a protest bicycle ride in Tel Aviv during Operation Cast Lead, but actually for his longtime work as a leader of the Anarchists Against the Wall and an ally and advocate for the Palestinian grassroots resistance movement.
Avnery uses the prosecution of Pollak to make a larger point. "Israel is sliding down a slippery slope," he writes. "A country that imprisons its Jonathan Pollaks will end up with jails filled with 'opponents of the regime.' We have seen that in other places − let’s hope we don’t see it here."
Now, I happen to be an admirer of Avnery, even though I consider his brand of left Zionism morally and practically bankrupt. For decades he has bravely written and demonstrated in opposition to Israeli occupation and aggression, and for his trouble he has to endure intense hostility from most of his fellow Jews. I can only hope that when I reach his current age (87), I'm half as active and outspoken as he remains.
That said, I find the lines just quoted from his column appalling, because they are infected by the same Judeo-centrism that blinds most of Avnery's compatriots to the realities around them.
In fact, it's not just in "other places" that the jails are filled with "opponents of the regime" - that's true in Israel today, and has been not just since 1967, but since the state was born in 1948 and martial law was imposed on the Palestinian population. As of Nov. 30, 2010, there were 5,741 Palestinians in Israeli prisons, according to data from the Israeli Prison Service compiled by B'tselem. That's down from the more than 8,000 who were incarcerated two years ago, but still more than four times as many as were held in 2001. Overall, it is estimated that about a fifth of the Palestinian population has been imprisoned by the Israelis at one time or another since 1967. Since most (though by no means all) of those arrested are men and boys, one-fifth of the population translates into somewhere been a third and two-fifths of adult male Palestinians.)
Avnery, I'm sure, knows all this much better than I. Yet when he writes in Haaretz, he chooses, consciously or not, to focus only on the Jews: what troubles him is not the present reality of Palestinians by the thousands languishing in prison, but the specter of a similar fate befalling Jewish dissidents in the future.
"Let's hope we don't see it here," he writes. But "it" is already there, just not for Avnery and his (and my) tribe. Let's hope he and his readers do see that, and soon.
Except that Avnery apparently does not see that “it” includes other than Jewish dissidents. But you know that.
Avnery, I’m sure, knows all this much better than I.
Then Avnery is engaging not in ethnocentrism, but ethnosupremacism.
“Liberal” Zionists are unique in rallying for and protecting universalist principles to be the safeguard of Jews alone.
“Then Avnery is engaging not in ethnocentrism, but ethnosupremacism.”
I never consciously made the distinction. Brilliant.
Avnerys Israel disappeared in 1967. If it ever existed. He thinks there is an answer that will preserve his privileges and bring some sort of justice for the Palestinians. There is not. YESHA is all or nothing.
Without an example of what you are speaking when you say “ethnocentric blindness of left Zionism”, you are only name-calling at this point.
I love liberal Zionism. (Its an ideal, not a reality, yet.) That is of having a collective body, an identity (among others as well), a commonality, that endeavors to do good in the world.
The other options that I see to that view, for an Israeli, are to have no identity short of universal consumer or universal political digit.
I find that unrealistic, a denial of the social and natural ecology that is both universal citizen and participant in tribe.
I love liberal Zionism. (Its an ideal, not a reality, yet.)
Partially true. The liberalism is an ideal, while the Zionism is a reality.
It is not difficult to imagine which conflicting ideology gets the better of the “liberal” Zionists each and every time, at the expense of other.
Richard, What do you mean, you love liberal Zionism? I’m told you haven’t been to Israel in many many years. Where’s the love? Does this mean that you love the American romantic Zionism where the rubber never meets the road. You love an ideology, or the Israel lobby? If you love something, doesnt it mean that you visit it? As Groucho said, I love my cigar but sometimes I take it out of my mouth. Well, This cigar is never in your mouth. Sorry, that probably doesnt work but you know what im saying
What he loves is a myth that never existed and cannot exist. Zionism cannot be liberal by definition. Liberalism is inclusive; Zionism is exclusive. Liberalism’s fundamental tenet is liberty for ALL without exception. Zionism’s is liberty only for the CHOSEN ethnic group and an existence that is arguably WORSE than that under slavery for the non-chosen group.
But he loves the illusion that it could have been a fair and just ideology. Worse yet, if he really hasn’t been there in many years, he is clinging to an illusion without forcing himself to really see first hand how the facts on the ground have played out.
I love the combination of characteristics that liberal Zionism is constructed of. It is an ideal, otherwise I would not say consistently that reform is needed. I would say that it is already the shining jewel on the hill.
The combination of characteristics are that of a confident, safe, familiar (sharing the bosom on one’s loved family), mature, kind, humane, permanently so. “the rain in its time…”
And, you are right in criticizing my distance. What effect can I have from this distance, what real intimacy is there?
Most likely, the first time I expressed my religious comments to prominent rabbis that have studied their full life, they’d laugh at my religious ignorance, my naivete.
I was not alive when the dream/plan of Zionism took shape. I am part of my time only. My part is to honor what is, including in that the urge to reform it. Neither you nor I can effectively change what it is from this distance. We can sympathize with elements and criticize elements.
You and I share the same odd fixation on Israel from a distance, a mix of affinity and alienation, of appreciation and criticism (both of us even severely, you more than I currently).
The responsibility and moral confusions of its birth are someone else’s. The responsibility of support for its maturation (and for me from a distance) is mine partially. Among many other responsibilities, like making a living, being of help in my own community, supporting my family as father and spouse and son. I live here and now, not in ancestral apology.
By using the term “love”, I am stating my involvement in its health. I am not willing to passively see it die a 62 year-old death. If the US can mature over two hundred + years, from great ideals and some horrible realities, Israel can to.
I probably have less money than you Phil, and cannot easily afford to visit, nor move there. I have to make do with the options that I have.
I would not cite the US as an example of a state maturing. If anything it is an example of a state, built and nurtured on ruthless violence with a democratic facade that is now disintegrating before the eyes of the world. (Hmmm, that description would also fit Israel.)
Witty, your complaint of poverty would be acceptable were there not a number of programs designed to bring American Jews to Israel at almost no expense besides Birthright. If you really wanted to go there, you would find a way to do it.
It also seems that the economic crisis here has led to an increased emigration of American Jews to Israel last year, so it appears that other Jews in your position have made a different choice.
Conceivably, their love for Israel is greater than yours and they apparently are not afraid what they will find there, as I suspect you are.
Like many other American Jews who have settled in Israel or the West Bank in recent years, they will find that not only do they no longer need to disguise their racism, it will be welcomed and encouraged. I would also guess that in the 4,000 or so that made aliyah in 2010, there wasn’t a non-racist among them
Good golly, is Zionism a religion? By all that blather I would think so.
“I love the combination of characteristics that liberal Zionism is constructed of. It is an ideal…”"
So something in your imagination, something that does not exist. A Utopian ideal…..an idea.
As for the US having matured…..that is doubtful. What has changed really?
The US is an example of a decadent state, a state in decline.
I love that the US enacted the 14th amendment (and accompanying), and affirmed it in practice by the fight for civil rights.
I was unemployed for over a year, and did consider making aliyah. My home, my friends, one of my children lives here. I have projects in progress here.
Its my home.
Your generalization of “every” is sickening to me. Your ideological lens doesn’t always serve you well. (“humorless”)
It is constructed of right wing Zionism (the only kind) sugar coated with false diplomacy and false platitudes.
I thought you said Israel was already a jewel?
Where as we laugh at your other forms of ignorance.
We know that Witty. You are actively seeing it die a 62 year-old death., while insisting the world passively do nothing about it.
I was thinking the same thing. I was reminded of the scene from Good Will Hunting, when Matt Will is telling Robin Williams about the new his first date with Mini driver’s character. When Williams asks him if he’s going to call her, Will explains that he might not because the girl is perfect and he doesn’t want to spoil that illusion.
Yeah, Witty, while you wait comfortably for the rain in its time and anthropomorphize the lethal state of Israel as a 62 year old senior who deserves to live, real flesh and blood Palestinians daily receive the real rain in the now. I’m sure when the chimneys were smoking many Germans were dreaming of their ideal Germany of the future.
Do you actually think that the world would not notice an 1845 America if it grew after 1945, after Nuremberg, Geneva, the UN Charter? So what’s the world to do, Witty? Pretend white phosophorous drops are H2O drops?
so in other wise you suppoprt a country that harm’s your home county’s interests
Which is your higher/most core identity, Dick Witty, universal citizen or participant in tribe? We’re not talking about which pair of socks you wish to wear today.
RW writes Without an example of what you are speaking when you say “ethnocentric blindness of left Zionism”, you are only name-calling at this point.
Norr’s entire essay describes exactly such an example. Can you read? Or is you can’t reason?
Of course I got his jist. He is taking ideological potshots at Uri Avneri, for loving his home and community, so much that he seeks to mature it.
May we all be cursed so.
Richard but you have to agree that Norr was not just name-calling — he did give an example (namely Avneri) and he presented a cogent argument. You cannot dismiss Norr’s argument in the way you did.
BTW I think Avneri is one of the truly great Israelis. His contributions over the years to the cause of justice for the Palestinians must be admired. I would never have written what Norr did in this piece because of the tremendous respect that I have for Avneri. However, the whole idea of “progressive Zionism” is ripe with contradictions and as much as I respect Avneri I also recognize that he carries those contradictions with him. Out of respect for him I would focus my arguments against other targets.
I think Norr errs on the side of demanding conformity to the anti-Zionist perspective.
Those of us that simultaneously have a body, a family, a community, and sense of justice and kindness, desire that we live AND let live.
Those ideologs that have a voice and some sense of justice (not necessarily kindness), desire conformity to an ideology.
I’ve seen some videos of Jeff Blankfurt (only a couple on youtube). In one in describing the condition of Jews in Europe for the century before 1948, he was impressive, intellectually kind, then hit a tipping point, at which point he was unwilling to express ANY kindness or sympathy to those confused in 1948, or to those that are living citizens of contemporary Israel.
There are Israelis that bear the same attitude towards Hamas and generalized to all Palestinians with the second intifada as the tipping time. They were willing to consider Palestinians’ experience until that tipping point.
Neither of those two ideological positions are the humane one. Continual sympathy for the experience of all of the parties is the appropriate progressive political approach. And, I’m sorry to say, the “ONLY” one. (And, he calls me humorless.)
Richard why do you evade his point and instead write he is name-calling?
Could you get your points across slightly more clearly, why do you think pointing out the system of criminalization of high percentages of Palestinians amounts to name-calling? Clearly all these recent arrests of Jewish Israelis are related to the Palestinians plight.
He clearly states: I am an admirer.
I don’t think it’s deliberate, but in contexts like these you always use diversionary tactics. What is your real problem? That 1948 is mentioned here, and thus he must refer to the martial law even inside the green line too, the “Arab villages” under control, if they survived at all that is?
I have a perfect example for you Witty. Stand up, walk over to a mirror, and you will see a text book example right in front if you.
Zionism of any stripe cannot fail to be ethnocentric, since Zionism is concerned with Jews in Palestine.
The rhetorical device of picking on folks for what they don’t say is way overused.
Avnery is a hero, an amazing writer, and deeply connected to Israeli reality. Whatever he wrote was calculated to influence the intended audience – readers of Ha’aretz. It’s a column, not reportage.
But this is not a matter of omitting anything. Avneri is actually denying the existence and the experience of Palestinian political prisoners, or denying their humanity, when he says that ‘Israel does not yet have large numbers of political prisoners’. We may presume that he’s simply forgetting them or intentionally omitting them for his audience’s sake, but with his language he is actually negating them. And that is simply irresponsible for someone who is, we trust, ultimately concerned with the goal of Palestinian rights.
left zionism
an oxymoron
why?
because zionism is a latter-day form of colonialism
and since colonialism = racism
zionism may be many things
but liberal it is not
never has been
“Haaretz doesn’t often run columns by Uri Avnery, but last week they printed a piece of his entitled “Freedom of expression in Israel is a hollow pretension.”
I too was surprised to see his article in Haaretz, I confess I’m a huge fan of Uri Avenary — he represents to me (along with many others) so much of what I’ve learnt and admired about the Jewish culture and tradition. A true man of conscience.
He is 87, (wow! I knew he was really old, but not that old!) , the same age as Helen Thomas when she made her verbal faux pas.
I thought at 87 you’ve earned the right say it the way you want to.
I think their life-work is enough for us to put anything they say — no matter how seemingly incorrect — in perspective, and not to get too righteous in our commentary.
I don’t disagree that Avenary is likely ethno-centric in that comment. So What? Le’ts not get too fundamentalist in our rhetoric.
(So What? Miles Davis: link to youtube.com
Or, So What? Ministry:link to youtube.com
choose your poison)
I and saw through Avnery and got off his bus when he came out against BDS. His reason for campaigning to end the occupation isn’t because it’s wrong but because it is destroying Israel. He objected to the occupation from the very start back in 1967 but it’s only today that we can see why. There is something insincere about Israelis that object the occupation while not objecting to the 3/4 of the water they are using in Israel being stolen.
Perhaps it’s time to reflect on Lincoln versus Douglas? Does Avnery’s activities mimic Lincoln’s? Seems to me he’s a lesser man by quite a margin. link to nybooks.com
Witty, A good read, your reflections.
I’ve no trouble with ‘tribal’ identity as an essential element of what one is.
To my mind it’s totally compatible with a universalist morality and values.
I think that’s what I’m suggesting in my previous post as well.
Were the “Righteous Gentiles” examples of the compatability of tribalism and univeral morality and values? And what were their neighbors examples of? How about the members of the White Rose?
Henry, I share your opinions about Avnery, both pro and con. Could not agree more.
most israelis are immune to palestinian suffering. this is a given. it’s passed on to them as immunities are passed to a child thru suckling on their mother’s tit then reinforced daily thru rituals of the state/religious systems
designed to create an impervious society sensitive only to the needs of themselves conditioned to believe they are surrounded by constant threat to
ensure their own survival.
therefore it makes sense they may only recognize the threat they pose to themselves by their self imposed emotional isolation when the state starts eating their own.
it makes sense to make the appeal avnery is making if he speaks to his society exclusively because of the very immunity to suffering of others that exists in israel. had he also addressed those who israel has been demonizing and imprisoning since it’s inception it would have diluted it’s impact.
this is the sad sorry state of affairs, a sad sorry reality but the reality none the less. this is the appeal that might reach his audience which is not us. he is speaking directly to the very people who created and reinforce the injustice and making the appeal in a way that may penetrate the impervious nature of the society. any mention of those others would risk rattling the cage of fevered immunities, slamming the door in his face and shuting out any chance of them hearing him. he’s not talking to you and me he is talking to them.
Likely much of Jesus’s rap was also Judeo-centric though certainly he advocated we treat all as we wish to be treated. Chosen people are by definition centrist. Jesus would have danced with the people of Philistia–called Palestine by Latins. The King James syncophants claim that King David danced with the handmaidens but the Hebrew/Aramaic word rendered handmaidens is more commonly translated “people.”
A common mind-set cannot envision David/Jesus dancing with pl;ain people . not just chosen people
From the article:
“Now, I happen to be an admirer of Avnery, even though I consider his brand of left Zionism morally and practically bankrupt…
Whoa, easy there!
I know of other Israeli Leftists who are opposed to the BDS (which I support) on a matter of principle. They’re opposed to all boycotts even as they proactively participate in activities promoting rights and justice for Palestinians, putting their lives/careers in jeopardy.
“…what troubles him is not the present reality of Palestinians by the thousands languishing in prison, but the specter of a similar fate befalling Jewish dissidents in the future.”
I find that unnecessary and undeserved, just like a subsequent comment from Walid (deep respects, Walid, I learn a lot from you):
“His reason for campaigning to end the occupation isn’t because it’s wrong but because it is destroying Israel. He objected to the occupation from the very start back in 1967 but it’s only today that we can see why. There is something insincere about Israelis that object the occupation while not objecting to the 3/4 of the water they are using in Israel being stolen.”
I don’t know if Avnery supports theft of Palestinian water, does he?
My point is: is it really all that useful or productive to get so hot under the collar as to loose all sense of perspective and toot one’s own ideological purity?
@Citizen January 13, 2011 at 4:24 am
“4:24 am”? Do you never sleep?
a minor point: “‘tribal’ identity as an essential element of what one is” does not equal ‘tribalism’. c.f. Amartya Sen: Identity and Violence.
Thanks for making me google ‘White Rose’.