Robert Fisk talks to Uri Avnery, 89, whom he characterizes as a great “leftist warrior.” But I wonder: Can a leftist speak so openly of the demographic threat posed by an Arab majority? Can these values be credited in the west at a time when Americans are accepting a non-white president elected with a minority of ‘the white vote’? Avnery seems very old school to me.
And as for the political solution that Avnery endorses, the two state solution, It is now 30 years old, as he states. Can a paradigm survive 30 years without being effected? Or does it crumble away? Readers know I waffle on this point, out of respect for international consensus. But how many young Palestinians believe in a fragmented Palestinian state on 1/5th of the land? These people live in a one-state reality. And how many Israelis believe in Palestinian sovereignty in a viable state? Mine are doubtful questions; but meantime, American leaders such as Jeffrey Sachs parrot Avnery’s meme: We all know what the solution is. When it hasn’t been a solution for 30 years; why? Fisk/Avnery:
“If they [Israelis] annex the West Bank as they have annexed East Jerusalem,” he [Avnery] says. “It doesn’t make much of a difference. The trouble is that in this territory which is now dominated by Israel, there are about 49 per cent Jews and 51 per cent Arabs – and this balance will become larger every year because the natural increase on the Arab side is far greater than the natural increase on our side. So the real question is: if this policy goes on, what kind of state will it be? As it is today, it is an Apartheid state, a full apartheid in the occupied territories and a growing apartheid in Israel – and if this goes on, it will be full apartheid throughout the country, incontestably.”
The Avnery argument goes bleakly on. If the Arab inhabitants are granted civil rights, there will be an Arab majority in the Knesset and the first thing they will do is change the name ‘Israel’ and name the state ‘Palestine’, “and the whole exercise of the past 130 years has come to naught.” Mass ethnic cleansing is impossible in the 21st century, he says – or hopes – but there is no discussion about the demography.
“There is a suppression. We are supposed to push this out of our consciousness. Not one single political party speaks about this problem. The word ‘peace’ does not appear in any election manifesto, except for the little Meretz party – neither the Opposition or the Coalition. The word ‘peace’ has completely disappeared.
“And The Left in Israel? They have been more or less hibernating – since the Left was killed off by Ehud Barak in 2000. He came back from Camp David – as self-proclaimed leader of the ‘peace camp’ – and told us ‘we have no partner for peace’. This was a death blow. It was not Netanyahu who said this, but the leader of the Labour Party. This was the end of Peace Now.”
Then the optimist resurfaces as the clouds darken the sea beyond Avnery’s seventh floor apartment in Tel Aviv. “When I met Arafat in 1982, the terms were all there. The Palestinian minimum and maximum terms are the same: a Palestinian state next to Israel, comprising the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as a capital, small exchanges of land and a symbolic solution to the refugee problem. But this lies on the table like a wilted flower. It is looking at us every day… we have already given up the Gaza Strip – but in order to take hold of the West Bank – the same way (Menachem) Begin gave up all of Sinai in order to get all of Palestine.”
Avnery is convinced that Hamas would accept the same
Good news from France…maybe you are right, Phil…about things starting to change…
France to back Palestinian bid for UN status
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20514194
On the other hand…Jim Crow dies hard…
Racism evident behind some US social media
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20500031
Uri Avnery is a marvellous distinguished man, but at heart he’s a Zionist.
To be sure the most harmless left-wing Zionist, but none the less a man who speaks of his service in the Nakba of ’47 and ’48 with pride and affection. A man who who was close emotionally if not politically to extreme right-winger Menachem Begin. A man who knew and worked with Golda Mier, the lady who spoke endlessly of peace yet never saw a reckless assassination plot or cruel refugee camp aerial bombing she didn’t approve of.
In a sense Uri Avnery embodies just how hideous Zionism is. Even someone as kind, intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate as he still finds ways to justify land theft and ethnic cleansing. It was all done from the purest motives don’t you see…?
Avneri is caught in the dream (and contradictions) of nice, humane, “liberal” Zioinsts: they want to keep what they stole (by terrorism and war) in 1945-1950, they want to regard it all as “legitimate”, proper, something-not-to-be-attacked-unless-by-antisemites, etc. And at the same time they want to relinquish some or all of West Bank, Golan, East Jerusalem, Gaza even though these were acquired the same way — by terrorism and war. and they want to feel good about all this, and they want the world to approve of all this.
I should explain my “terrorism” suggestion: The settlements are, in my opinion, creations carried out under the protection of IOF, and thus a product of state-terrorism. The “war” of 1967 accomplished only the occupation. The settlements are a “terrorist” project.
Several years ago, Uri Avneri spoke about I/P in a NYC-UWS synagogue. In the question period, I asked about the illegality (and removal) of the settlements under the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which prohibits settlement of an occupied territory by nationals of the occupier). Avneri brushed me off, saying the Fourth Geneva Convention (“G-IV”) is a dead-letter.
Thinking back, I recall Arafat telling the world that the PLO charter’s description of Israel as illegitimate was “caduc”, French for “null and void”. Arafat was saying that although the words were still in the document, they were a dead-letter. Avneri was saying that the anti-settlements part of G-IV was “caduc”, a “dead-letter”.
So it goes, though I keep wishing the international community would stand up on its legs and bellow (mere saying is not enough) that, like Frodo, “G-IV lives.” How else will there be a “just and lasting peace” as demanded by UNSC 242 (1967)?
I don’t see why the Palestinians should settle for 22% of the land.
Israel is about to hit the wall
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/likud-beitenu-is-headed-for-a-showdown-with-the-world.premium-1.480946
“Israelis should be finally faced with two clear alternatives: if Labor and Yair Lapid will refuse to join the next Netanyahu government, the fiction that Israel’s right wing is moderate will be dismantled. Such a government would run into head-on conflict with the world at large, and four such years of conflict will make Israelis realize the price of the occupation.
They will realize that they have to choose between a political ideology that will turn Israel into an internationally despised Pariah state and the forces of moderation that seek compromise with the Arab world”
no reason why 1948 can’t be reopened