Uri
Avnery
September 17, 2011
Sad and
Happy
“WILL
THIS be the happiest day of your life?” a local interviewer asked me, referring
to the approaching recognition of the State of Palestine by the UN.
I
was taken by surprise. “Why would that be?” I asked.
“Well,
for 62 years you have advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state next
to Israel, and here it comes!”
“If
I were a Palestinian, I would probably be happy,” I said, “But as an Israeli, I
am rather sad.”
LET
ME explain.
I
came out of the 1948 war with four solid convictions:
(1) There exists a Palestinian
people, though the name Palestine had been wiped off the map.
(2) It is with this Palestinian
people that we must make peace.
(3) Peace will be impossible
unless the Palestinians are allowed to set up their state next to Israel.
(4) Without peace, Israel will
not be the model state we had been dreaming about in the trenches, but
something very different.
While
recovering from my wounds and still in uniform, I met with several young
people, Arabs and Jews, to plot our course. We were very optimistic. Now
everything seemed possible.
What
we were thinking about was a great act of fraternization. Jews and Arabs had
fought each other valiantly, each fighting for what they considered their
national rights. Now the time had come to reach out for peace.
The
idea of peace between two gallant fighters after the battle is as old as
Semitic culture. In the epic written more than 3000 years ago, Gilgamesh, king
of Uruk (in today’s Iraq) fights against the wild Enkidu, his equal in strength
and courage, and after the epic fight they become blood brothers.
We
had fought hard and had won. The Palestinians had lost everything. The part of
Palestine that had been allotted by the UN to their state had been gobbled up
by Israel, Jordan and Egypt, leaving nothing for them. Half the Palestinian
people had been driven from their homes and become refugees.
That
was the time, we thought, for the victor to stun the world with an act of
magnanimity and wisdom, offering to help the Palestinians to set up their state
in return for peace. Thus we could forge a friendship that would last for
generations.
18
years later I brought this vision up again in similar circumstances. We had won
a stunning victory against the Arab armies in the Six-Day war, the Middle East
was in a state of shock. An Israeli offer to the Palestinians to establish
their state would have electrified the region.
I
AM telling this story (again) in order to make one point: when the “Two-State
Solution” was conceived for the first time after 1948, it was as an idea of
reconciliation, fraternization and mutual respect.
We
envisaged two states living closely together, with borders open to the free
movement of people and goods. Jerusalem, the joint capital, would symbolize the
spirit of the historic change. Palestine would become the bridge between the
new Israel and the Arab world, united for the common good. We spoke of a
“Semitic Union” long before the European Union became a reality.
When
the Two-State Solution made its extraordinary march from the vision of a
handful of outsiders (or crazies) to a world-wide consensus, it was this
context in which it was viewed. Not a plot against Israel, but the only viable
basis for real peace.
This
vision was firmly rejected by David Ben-Gurion, then the undisputed leader of
Israel. He was busy distributing new Jewish immigrants across the vast areas
expropriated from the Arabs, and he did not believe in peace with the Arabs
anyhow. He set the course that successive Israeli governments, including the
present one, have followed ever since.
On
the Arab side, there was always support for this vision. Already at the
Lausanne Conference in 1949, an unofficial Palestinian delegation appeared and
secretly offered to start direct negotiations, but they were roughly rebuffed
by the Israeli delegate, Eliyahu Sasson, on direct orders from Ben-Gurion (as I
heard from him later).
Yasser
Arafat told me several times – from 1982 to his death in 2004 – that he would
support a “Benelux” solution (on the model of the union between Belgium, the
Netherlands and Luxemburg), which would include Israel, Palestine and Jordan
(“and perhaps Lebanon too, why not?”)
PEOPLE
SPEAK about all the opportunities for peace missed by Israel throughout the
years. That is nonsense: you can miss opportunities on the way to a goal that
you desire, but not on the way to something you abhor.
Ben-Gurion
saw an independent Palestinian state as a mortal danger to Israel. So he made a
secret deal with King Abdullah I, dividing between them the territory allocated
by the UN partition plan to the Arab Palestinian state. All Ben-Gurion's
successors inherited the same dogma: that a Palestinian state would be a
terrible danger. Therefore they opted for the so-called ”“Jordanian option” –
keeping what is left of Palestine under the heel of the Jordanian monarch, who
is no Palestinian (nor even Jordanian - his family came from Mecca).
This
week, the present Jordanian ruler, Abdullah II, flew into a rage when told that
yet another Israeli former general, Uzi Dayan, had again proposed turning
Jordan into Palestine, with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as “provinces” of
the Hashemite kingdom. This Dayan is, unlike his late cousin, Moshe, a pompous
fool, but even a speech by such a person infuriates the king, who is mortally
afraid of an influx of Palestinians driven from the West Bank into Jordan.
Three
days ago, Binyamin Netanyahu told Cathy Ashton, the pathetic “foreign
secretary” of the European Union, that he would agree to anything short of
Palestinian statehood. That may sound strange, in view of the “historic” speech
he made less than two years ago, in which he expressed his support for the
Two-State Solution. (Perhaps he was thinking of the State of Israel and the
State of the Settlers.)
In
the few remaining weeks before the UN vote, our government will fight tooth and
nail against a Palestinian state, supported by the full might of the US. This week Hillary Clinton trumped even her
own rhetorical record when she announced that the US supports the Two-State
Solution and therefore opposes any UN vote recognizing a Palestinian state.
APART
FROM the dire threats of what will happen after the UN vote for a Palestinian
state, Israeli and American leaders assure us that such a vote will make no
difference at all.
If
so, why fight it?
Of
course it will make a difference. The occupation will go on, but it will be the
occupation of one state by another. In history, symbols count. The fact that
the vast majority of the world’s nations will have recognized the State of
Palestine will be another step towards gaining freedom for Palestine.
What
will happen the day after? Our army has already announced that it has finished
preparations for huge Palestinian demonstrations that will attack the
settlements. The settlers will be called upon to mobilize their “quick-reaction
teams” to confront the demonstrators, thus fulfilling the prophecies of a
“bloodbath”. After that the army will move in, pulling many battalions of regular
troops from other tasks and calling up reserve units.
A
few weeks ago I pointed to ominous signs that sharpshooters would be employed
to turn peaceful demonstrations into something very different, as happened
during the second intifada. This week this was officially confirmed:
sharpshooters will be employed to defend the settlements.
All
this amounts to a war plan for the settlements. To put it simply: a war to
decide whether the West Bank belongs to the Palestinians or the settlers.
In
an almost comical turn of events, the army is also providing means of crowd
dispersal to the Palestinian security forces trained by the Americans. The
occupation authorities expect these Palestinian forces to protect the
settlements against their compatriots. Since these are the armed forces of the
future Palestinian state, which is opposed by Israel, it all sounds a bit
bewildering.
According
to the army, the Palestinians will get rubber-coated bullets and tear gas, but
not the “Skunk”.
The
Skunk is a device that produces an unbearable stench which attaches itself to
the peaceful demonstrators and will not leave them for a long time. I am afraid
that when this chapter comes to an end, the stench will attach itself to our
side, and that we shall not get rid of it for a long time indeed.
LET’S
GIVE free rein to our imagination for just one minute.
Imagine
that in the coming UN debate something incredible happens: the Israeli delegate
declares that after due consideration Israel has decided to vote for
recognition of the state of Palestine.
The
assembly would gape in disbelief. After a moment of silence, wild applause
would break out. The world would be electrified. For days, the world media
would speak of nothing else.
The
minute of imagination has passed. Back to reality. Back to the Skunk.
