Ari Shavit is a well-known and acclaimed Israeli journalist, who is now touring the United States promoting his new book, My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel. He is being portrayed by the Israel-friendly U.S. press as a sensitive liberal who is brilliant, fair-minded and a seeker of peace. We have covered the Shavit phenomenon here and here, and noted that Shavit is probably perceived by Thomas Friedman, Terry Gross, David Remnick and Jeffrey Goldberg, all Shavit cheerleaders, as an effective antidote to the recent critical commentary in Max Blumenthal’s book and Ian Lustick’s New York Times op-ed.
The irony is that Shavit is not a liberal Zionist, even by the admittedly low Israeli standard. A sense of this can be gleaned from reading his hectoring and war- threatening op-ed in the New York Times, The Bomb and the Bomber, from May 2012. His disturbing outlook in support of the aggressive Iran policy of his self-proclaimed friend, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was again featured on the Times editorial page two days ago.
If you want a glimpse of what Shavit thinks of the Palestinians, view his remarkably insensitive and inflammatory directive to them (begin at minute 6:42) to forget the expulsion of 25 – 35 thousand Arab residents of Lydda in 1948 because their sense of victimhood is an impediment to the current peace process!
Shavit, of course, knows that his “liberal and sensitive side” are what many of his American connections are selling and he does a reasonable, although far from impeccable, job of supplying that in interviews and appearances. But in Israel he is not thusly constrained.
What follows is a video and transcript of a 2009 Israeli television appearance where Shavit’s not-so-liberal ideas and the not-so-reasonable side of his personality are on full display. Gideon Levy (wearing the red shirt) is one of the most outspoken and eloquent voices for Palestinian rights and against the occupation, in Israeli journalism. Despite the fact that both Shavit and Levy work for the same newspaper, Ha’aretz, Shavit (wearing the black shirt) assaults Levy with a tirade of hyperbolic and outrageous insults.
What did Levy say that triggered Shavit’s extreme ire? First he asked the question, “Would you allow the Palestinians of Nablus to live in Tel Aviv?” Then Levy made the statement that the Jews came to a land occupied by another people.
Look at Shavit’s eyes and his gestures. Is this the man of peace and reason that is being sold in the U.S. market?
Dan Margalit (host): If two peoples seriously intend to live in peace, the Palestinians shouldn’t have a problem with Ofra or Ariel staying where they are. Let’s say that we stole the land. Let’s say that we’ll pay for the land. We’re a people that pays for land – ever since the days of the Cave of Machpelah [i.e. the time of Abraham -trans.]…. That’s not the point. The point is your rejection of the very idea – not yours, maybe, Abu Mazen’s, Yasser Arafat’s – of the very idea that a Jewish community [Heb. “yishuv”] can exist in the heart of Palestine.
Gideon Levy: Why? Would you allow the Arabs of Nablus to live in Tel Aviv?
Margalit: What’s the connection?
Levy: Ah, suddenly. What’s the connection?
Shavit: You’re a total demagogue. They don’t recognise the state of the Jewish people. They don’t recognize the Jewish people and its right. That’s the issue. That’s what you’re ignoring. You always take this extreme part.
Levy: You are the extreme right. I have nothing to discuss with you. You are a spokesman of the extreme right, masquerading.
Shavit: Gideon, You want a secular, democratic state. You’re worse than the extremists among the Palestinians.
Levy: Terrific. OK. Perfect. Anti-Semite.
Shavit: And this is a kind of anti-Semitism, an unwillingness to recognize the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.
Levy: [Just] say Nazi.
Shavit: No, this is an extreme anti-Israeli approach that you spread like poison around the world. And then you call it demagoguery. This is demagoguery of the worst kind, your demagoguery.
Levy: I’m a little tired of Ari Shavit. Who tries to have it all. It is … I want to refresh people’s memory, once and for all. We came to a country inhabited by another people.
Margalit: Oh, delegitimizing of Israel. We understand.
Shavit: Then let’s leave. That’s why you’re not worried about Iran, because you agree with Ahmedinejad. You think we should go back to Austria. That’s what you’re saying.
Levy: [Just say] Adolf Hitler.
Shavit: When you talk like this, when you don’t recognize the right of the Jewish people, when you don’t want a national home for the Jewish people, you are a partner of the enemies of Israel [also “the Jewish people” – trans.].
Thanks to Shmuel Sermoneta-Gertel for providing this translation.
I am not really au fait with the Jewish festivals but say tisha b Av means you take out the letters AV from every surname.
Sh AV it.
Sh it.
It looks right.
Glunts: If you want a glimpse of what Shavit thinks of the Palestinians, view his remarkably insensitive and inflammatory directive to them (begin at minute 6:42) to forget the expulsion of 25 – 35 thousand Arab residents of Lydda in 1948 because their sense of victimhood is an impediment to the current peace process! Thank you so much for pointing this out. I watched the video a few times and became more irrate after this statement each time. Is he kidding? Is all I could think.
Gideon Levy would eat brainwashed Ari anyday.
Shavit reminds me of Beinart. He can write well but he won’t acknowledge the system. And nothing can change without breaking the system.
Levy is far more honest and far more clearsighted about what has happened and what it means.
2004
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-israelis-victory-1.120347
“By the time this article goes to print, there may have been another terror attack. By the time it reaches the homes of the readers, Hamas could have carried out a sensational act of revenge. And in spite of this, in April 2004, we can already say out loud what we have been observing since the beginning of the year: There is a reasonable chance that after 1,300 days of war, a new strategic reality is beginning to take shape around us – a reality of an Israeli victory.
We must be cautious; the outcome has yet to be determined; peace and quiet are still far off; Palestinian terror has not been eradicated; it will continue to stalk Israel for a long time. Moreover, Palestinian society has yet to undergo the revolution in awareness that is the only thing that will make it possible to put an end to the conflict. However, after three and a half years of a cruel existential struggle, we can now state that the attempt by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to destroy the Jewish homeland by force has failed. As the smoke of battle begins to dissipate, it appears that Israel has gained the upper hand. What has brought about a relative Israeli victory at this stage of the war is a multidimensional national accomplishment. In terms of security, Israel has achieved clear military superiority vis-a-vis the Palestinian fighting force. The sharp decline in the number of casualties, the sharp increase in the number of attacks prevented, and the almost fictional manner in which Hamas leaders Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi were assassinated are testimony to the fact that the balance of power between Israel and terrorism has changed dramatically in the past two years. The achievement is also impressive in economic terms: Before our very eyes, Israel is now leaping forward from a depressing wartime recession to the accelerated growth of a society that is beginning once again to believe in itself. Israel’s free market and economic vitality are proving during this frenetic spring that they have withstood the threat of the years of terror and have prevailed.
On the diplomatic plane, the achievement is even more impressive. The American decision to shut out the option of the Palestinian right of return and to abolish the sanctity of the Green Line gave Israel, on April 14, its greatest diplomatic success since the peace treaty with Egypt. By defining the final status agreement that will end the present war as an agreement that will in effect be based on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Bush’s declaration rejected the Palestinian attempt to undermine the Israeli nation-state. It turned Arafat’s great attack of the early 21st century into a monumental failure that is increasingly reminiscent of the failed Arab revolt of the 1930s. However, the main Israeli victory achieved in the years 2000-2004 is not the victory over the Palestinians. It’s the victory of the Israelis over themselves, a victory of the Israelis over the insanity that befell them immediately after the Six-Day War in 1967, a victory of the Israelis over the messianism, the delusion and the arrogance that have ruled them for two generations. Because what is becoming increasingly clear these days, with the disengagement plan becoming a generally accepted national platform, is that Israel is in fact beginning to return to itself – to return to its border, to return to its sanity, to return to the rational and moral basis of its existence. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon deserves quite a lot of credit for the victory that is in the offing. He is the one who conducted the military campaign patiently, wisely and calmly. He is the one who conducted the diplomatic campaign with impressive talent. He is the one who enabled Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring about an economic turnaround here, at a time when he himself was bringing about a far-reaching ideological turnaround. However, in the final analysis, the limited Israeli victory is not the victory of Sharon. It’s the victory of the Israeli individuals who have withstood the supreme test in recent years. It’s the victory of Israeli civil society, which knew how to maintain a sense of proportion and a sense of reality even in times of terror. It’s the victory of the Israeli public that confronted Islamic fanaticism at the same time as it rid itself of Jewish fanaticism.”
That last bit is particularly deluded.
2005
http://www.haaretz.com/so-mature-this-new-israeli-majority-1.167097
“The conflict is about the very existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. The conflict is about the very existence of a free non-Arab society in any part of the Holy Land. The conflict is about Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish democratic state.
Since 2000, a new Israeli majority, large and silent, has formed around this basic insight. This majority understands that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not end in the foreseeable future. This majority understands that the occupation is a danger to Israel morally, demographically and politically. However, this majority also understands that the end of the occupation, along with continuation of the conflict, is problematic. It is liable to foment tidal waves of violence that will rock Israel and jeopardize its existence. Therefore, the new Israeli majority expects its national leadership to take action in order to end the occupation gradually, cautiously and without burdening Israel with existential risks. The new Israeli majority does not yet have a party. It is not yet represented in the Knesset. But its quiet pressure is what induced Ariel Sharon to build the separation fence. Its quiet pressure is what made Ariel Sharon adopt the disengagement plan. Thus, in a peculiar manner, the new Israeli majority today finds its political expression through Sharon. Sharon’s singular personality on the one hand, combined with the silent determination of the Israeli majority, have become the most important – and the most realistic – agents of change in the Middle East arena. Sharon did not want the fence. Sharon did not want to evacuate settlements. However, at the end of a lengthy maturation process, he found himself actualizing the deep Israeli insight that emerged as a result of the collapse of the peace process and as a result of the great war of terror: it is precisely in the absence of peace that Israel needs a border. It is precisely because the conflict will continue that Israel needs dividing. Until the Israelis and the Palestinians learn to make love again, they need a lengthy period of separation. Only the creation of a line separating the Israeli space from the Palestinian space will liberate Israel from the colonial syndrome and liberate the Palestinians from the victimization syndrome. Only the creation of a buffer between the two peoples will end the symbiotic relationship between them and lead both of them toward true mutual recognition.This is the historic importance of August 2005. It is not just about the liberation of 1.4 million Palestinians from the yoke of the Israeli occupation. It is not just about the evacuation of a third of the occupied Palestinian territory. It is about the beginning of the implementation of the project of dividing the land. “
Gideon Levy: Why? Would you allow the Arabs of Nablus to live in Tel Aviv?
Woman: He allows the Arabs of Nazareth, He allows the Arabs of Jaffa…
…
…
…
Shavit: No, this is an extreme anti-Israeli approach that you spread like poison around the world. And then you call it demagoguery. This is demagoguery of the worst kind, your demagoguery.
Levy: I’m a little tired of Ari Shavit…Who tries to have it all. It is …
Woman: Gideon, you support one state for the Palestinians and one state for the Jews and Arabs. That’s what you want, two states but one state only for Arabs and one state for Jews and Arabs, it is an intolerable situation…can’t be.
…
…
…