“E depois há a questão moral: pode realmente entoar "O
povo exige Justiça Social" e ignorar a opressão diária
de quatro milhões de palestinos nos territórios ocupados? Quando abandona os
seus princípios no caminho para o
poder, o que fará provavelmente com esse poder?” referindo-se à nova presidente do Partido Trabalhista
de Israel Shelly Yacimovich.
Uri
Avnery
October 1, 2011
Mutiny on
the Titanic
HERE
IS a story that has never been told before:
When
the Titanic was well out into the Atlantic,
its crew mutinied.
They
demanded higher wages, less cramped quarters, better food. They assembled on the
lower decks and refused to budge from there.
A
few old hands from the engine room tried to extend the scope of the protest.
They claimed that the captain was grossly incompetent, that the officers were
nincompoops and that the voyage was bound to end in disaster.
But
the leaders of the protest resisted. “Let’s not go beyond our practical
demands,” they said. “The course of the ship is none of our business. Whatever
some of us may think about the captain and the officers on the bridge, we must
not mix matters. That would only split the protest.”
The
passengers did not interfere. Many of them sympathized with the protest, but
did not want to get involved.
It
is said that one drunken English lady was standing on deck, a glass of whisky
in her hand, when she saw the huge iceberg looming. “I asked for some ice,” she
murmured, “but this is ridiculous!”
FOR
A WEEK, or so, all the Israeli media were riveted to the goings on at the UN.
Ehud
Barak had warned of a “tsunami”. Avigdor Lieberman foresaw a “bloodbath”. The army was prepared for huge demonstrations
that were certain to end in unprecedented violence. No one could think of
anything else.
And
then, overnight, the bloody tsunami faded like a mirage, and the social protest
reappeared. State of war Out, welfare state In.
Why?
The commission appointed by Binyamin Netanyahu to examine the roots of the
protest and propose reforms had finished its work in record time and laid a
thick volume of proposals on the table. All very good ones. Free education from
the age of 3, higher taxes for the very rich, more money for housing, and so
on.
All
very nice, but far short of what the protesters had demanded. The almost half a
million demonstrators some weeks ago did not go out into the streets for that.
Economics professors attacked, other economics professors defended. A lively
debate ensued.
This
can go on for a few days. But then something is bound to happen – perhaps a
border incident, or a settlers’ pogrom against a Palestinian village, or a
pro-Palestinian resolution at the UN – and the whole media pack will veer
around, forget about the reforms and return to the good old scares.
In
the meantime, the military budget will serve as a bone of contention. The
government commission has proposed reducing this budget by 3 billion shekels –
less than a billion dollars – in order to finance its modest reforms. Netanyahu
has voiced agreement.
No
one took this very seriously. The slightest incident will enable the army to
demand a special budget, and instead of the suggested tiny reduction, there
will be another big increase.
But
the army has already raised hell – quite literally – describing the disasters
that will surely befall us if the diabolical reduction is not choked in its
cradle. We face defeat in the next war, many soldiers will be killed, the
future investigation committee will blame the present ministers. They are
already shaking in their shoes.
ALL
THIS goes to show how quickly national attention can swing from “protest mode”
to “security mode”. One day we are shaking our fists in the street, the next we
are manning the national ramparts, resolved to sell our lives dearly.
This
could lead to the idea that the two problems are really one, and can only be
solved together. But this conclusion meets with resolute resistance.
The
young leaders of the protest insist that the demand for reform unites all
Israelis – male and female, young and old, leftist and rightist, religious and
secular, Jew and Arab, Ashkenazi and Oriental. Therein lies its power. The
moment the question of national policy comes up, the movement will break apart.
End of protest.
Difficult
to argue with that.
True,
even so the rightists accuse the protesters of being leftists in disguise. Very
few national-religious people appear at the demonstrations, and no orthodox at
all. Oriental Jews, traditional voters for the Likud, are underrepresented,
though not altogether absent. People speak of a movement of the “White Tribe” –
Jews of European descent.
Still,
the movement has succeeded in avoiding an open split. The hundreds of thousands
of demonstrators have not been called upon to identify themselves with any
particular political party or creed. The leaders can rightly claim that their
tactic – if it is a tactic – has worked up to now.
THIS
CONVICTION has been reinforced by recent events in the Labor Party.
This
moribund congregation, down in the polls to a mere 7% of the votes, has
suddenly sprung to new life. A lively primary election for the party leadership
has restored some color to its cheeks. In a surprise victory, Shelly Yacimovich
has been elected party chairwoman.
Shelly
(I dislike these long foreign surnames)
was in the past an assertive, abrasive radio journalist with very pronounced
feminist and social-democratic views. Six years ago she joined Labor and was
elected to the Knesset under the wing of Amir Peretz, the then leader, who she
has now soundly beaten.
In
the Knesset, Shelly has distinguished herself as a diligent and relentless
militant on social issues. She is a girlish-looking 51, a lone she-wolf, disliked
by her colleagues, devoid of charisma, not at all the hail-fellow-well-met
type. Yet the party rank and file, perhaps out of sheer desperation, preferred
her to the members of the bankrupt old guard. The atmosphere in the country
produced by the social protest movement certainly contributed to her success.
In
all her years in the Knesset, she has not mentioned any of the national
problems – war and peace, occupation, settlements. She has concentrated exclusively
on social issues. On the eve of the primary, she shocked many members of her
party by publicly embracing the settlers. “The settlements are no sins or
crimes,” she asserted, they were put there by Labor Party governments and are a
part of the national consensus.
Shelly
may really believe this or she may consider it good tactics – the fact is that
she has adopted the same line as the protest movement: that social affairs
should be separated from “national” affairs. Seems you can be rightist on the occupation
and leftist on taxing the rich.
BUT
CAN YOU?
On
the morrow of the Labor primaries, something amazing happened. In a respected
opinion poll, Labor rose from 8 to 22 Knesset seats, overtaking Tzipi Livni’s
Kadima, which sank from 28 to 18.
A
revolution? Not quite. All the new Labor votes came from Kadima. But a move
from Kadima to Labor, while interesting in itself”, is not important. The
Knesset is divided into two blocs – the nationalist-religious and the center-left-Arab.
As long as the rightist bloc has a 5% edge, there will be no change. To effect
change, enough voters must jump from one side of the scales to the other.
Shelly
believes that by shunning national issues and concentrating on social matters,
voters can be moved to make the jump. Some say: that’s all that counts. What’s
the use of putting forward a program of peace, if you can’t change the
government? Let’s first come to power, by whatever means, and than see to
peace.
Against
this logical argument, there is the contrary contention: that if you start to
embrace the settlers and ignore the occupation, you will end up as a minor
partner in a right-wing government, as has happened before. Ask Shimon Peres.
Ask Ehud Barak.
And
then there is the moral question: can you really chant “the People Demand
Social Justice” and ignore the daily oppression of four million Palestinians in
the occupied territories? When you abandon your principles on the way to power,
what are you likely to do with that power?
THE
JEWISH High Holidays, which started the day before yesterday, provide a pause
for reflection. Politics are at a standstill. The protest leaders promise
another huge demonstration, restricted to the social demands, in a month’s
time.
In the meantime, the Titanic, this beautiful
masterpiece of naval architecture, is riding the waves.
