An Answer To Uri Avnery

by Ilan Pappe

Electronic Intifada
28 April 2007


The following is Ilan Pappe's response to Uri Avnery's essay "Bed of Sodom"
http://zope.gushshalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1177227796/

_______________________________________________________________

Uri Avnery accuses the supporters of the one-state solution of forcefully
imposing the facts onto the "Bed of Sodom". He seems to regard these people
at best as daydreamers who do not understand the political reality around
them and are stuck in a perpetual state of wishful thinking. We are all
veteran comrades in the Israeli Left and therefore it is quite possible that
in our moments of despair we fall into the trap of hallucinating and even
fantasizing while ignoring the unpleasant reality around us.

And therefore the metaphor of the Bed of Sodom may even be fitting for
lashing out at those who are inspired by the South African model in their
search for a solution in Palestine. But in this case it is a small cot of
Sodom compared to the king-size bed onto which Gush Shalom and other similar
members of the Zionist Left insist on squeezing their two-state solution.
The South African model is young -- in fact hardly a year has passed since
it was seriously considered -- while the formula of two states is sixty
years old: an abortive and dangerous illusion that enabled Israel to
continue its occupation without facing any significant criticism from the
international community.

The South African model is good subject matter for a comparative study --
not as an object for a hollow emulation. Certain chapters in the history of
the colonization in South Africa and the Zionization of Palestine are indeed
nearly identical. The ruling methodology of the white settlers in South
Africa resembles very closely that applied by the Zionist movement and later
Israel against the indigenous population of Palestine since the end of the
19th century. Ever since 1948, the official Israeli policy against some of
the Palestinians is more lenient than that of the Apartheid regime; against
other Palestinians it is much worse.

But above all the South African model inspires those concerned with the
Palestine cause in two crucial directions: by introducing the one democratic
state, it offers a new orientation for a future solution instead of the
two-state formula that failed, and it invigorates new thinking of how the
Israeli occupation can be defeated -- through boycott, divestment, and
sanctions (the BDS option).

The facts on the ground are crystal clear: the two-state solution has
dismally failed and we have no spare time to waste in futile anticipation of
another illusory round of diplomatic efforts that would lead to nowhere. As
Avnery admits, the Israeli peace camp has so far failed to persuade the
Israeli Jewish society to try the road of peace. A sober and critical
assessment of this camp's size and force leads to the inevitable conclusion
that it has no chance whatsoever against the prevailing trends in the
Israeli Jewish society. It is doubtful whether it will even keep its very
minimal presence on the ground, and there is a great concern that it will
disappear all together.

Avnery ignores these facts and alleges that the one-state solution is a
dangerous panacea to offer to the critically ill patient. All right, so let
us prescribe it gradually. But for God's sake let us take the patient off of
the very dangerous medicine we have been forcing down his throat the last
sixty years and which is about to kill him.

For the sake of peace, it is important to expand our research on the South
African model and other historical case studies. Because of our failure we
should study carefully any other successful struggle against oppression. All
these historical case studies show that the struggles from within and from
without reinforced each other and were not mutually exclusive. Even when the
sanctions were imposed on South Africa, the ANC continued its struggle and
white South Africans did not cease from their attempt to convince their
compatriots to give up the Apartheid regime. But there was not one single
voice that echoes the article of Avnery, which claimed that a strategy of
pressure from the outside is wrong because it weakens the chances of change
from within. Especially when the failure of the inside struggle is so
conspicuous and obvious. Even when the De Klerk government negotiated with
the ANC the sanctions regime still continued.

It is also very difficult to understand why Avnery underrates the importance
of world public opinion. Without the support this world public opinion gave
to the Zionist movement, the Nakba (catastrophe) would not have occurred.
Had the international community rejected the idea of partition, a unitary
state would have replaced Mandatory Palestine, as indeed was the wish of
many members of the UN. However, these members succumbed to a violent
pressure by the US and the Zionist lobby and retracted their earlier support
for such a solution. And today, if the international community alters its
position once more and revises its attitude towards Israel, the chances for
ending the occupation would increase enormously and by that maybe also help
to avert the colossal bloodshed that would engulf not only the Palestinians
but also the Jews themselves.

The call for a one-state solution, and the demand for boycott, divestment
and sanctions, has to be read as a reaction against the failure of the
previous strategy -- a strategy upheld by the political classes but never
fully endorsed by the people themselves. And anyone who rejects the new
thinking out of hand and in such a categorical manner, may be less bothered
by what is wrong with this new option and far more troubled by his own place
in history. It is indeed difficult to admit personal as well as collective
failure; but for the sake of peace it is sometimes necessary to put aside
one's ego. I am inclined to think that way when I read the false narrative
Avnery concocted about the Israeli peace movement's 'achievements' so far.
He announces that 'the recognition of the existence of the Palestinian
people has become general, and so has the readiness of most Israelis to
accept the idea of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital of both
states'. This is a clear case of amputating both the leg and the hand of the
patient to fit him to the Bed of Sodom. And even more far-fetched is the
declaration that 'We have compelled our government to recognize the PLO, and
we shall compel them to recognize Hamas' -- now that the rest of patient's
limbs have been dispensed with (sorry for the gruesome metaphor but I am
forced into it by Avnery's choice). These assertions have very little in
common with the position of the Jewish public in Israel towards peace from
1948 until today. But facts can sometime confuse the issue.

But in order to stifle any debate on the one-state solution or the BDS
option, Avnery draws from his magic hat the winning card: 'but beneath the
surface, in the depths of national consciousness, we are succeeding'. Let us
thus provide the Palestinians with metal detectors and X-ray equipment --
they may discover not only the tunnel, but also the light at its end. The
truth is that what lies in the deepest layers of the Israeli national
consciousness is far worse from what appears on the surface. And let us hope
that this remains there forever and does not bubble to the surface. These
are deposits of dark and primitive racism that if allowed to flow over will
drown us all in a sea of hatred and bigotry.

Avnery is right when he asserts that 'there is no doubt that 99.99 percent
of Jewish Israelis want the State of Israel to exist as a state with a
robust Jewish majority, whatever its borders'. A successful boycott campaign
will not change this position in a day, but will send a clear message to
this public that these positions are racist and unacceptable in the 21st
century. Without the cultural and economical oxygen lines the West provides
to Israel, it would be difficult for the silent majority there to continue
and believe that it is possible both to be a racist and a legitimate state
in the eyes of the world. They would have to choose, and hopefully like De
Klerk they will make the right decision.

Avnery is also convinced that Adam Keller debunked most successfully the
argument for a boycott by pointing out that the Palestinians in the occupied
territories did not give in to boycott. This is indeed a fine comparison: a
political prisoner lies nailed to the ground and dares to resist; as a
punishment he is denied even the meager food he received hitherto. His
situation is compared to a person who occupied illegally this prisoner's
house and who for the first time is facing the possibility of being brought
to justice for his crimes. Who has more to lose? When is the threat mere
cruelty and when is it a justified means to rectify a past evil? The boycott
will not happen, states Avnery. He should talk with the veterans of the
anti-Apartheid movement in Europe. Twenty years passed before they convinced
the international community to take action. And they were told, when they
began their long journey, that it will not work -- that too many strategic
and economic interests are involved and invested in South Africa.

Moreover, adds Avnery, in places such as Germany the idea of boycotting the
victims of the Nazis would be rejected out of hand. Quite to the contrary.
The action that already has been taken in this direction in Europe has ended
the long period of Zionist manipulation of the Holocaust memory. Israel can
no longer justify its crimes against the Palestinians in the name of the
Holocaust. More and more people in Europe realize that that the criminal
policies of Israel abuse the Holocaust memory and this is why so many Jews
are members in the movement for boycott. This is also why the Israeli
attempt to cast the accusation of anti-Semitism against the supporters of
the boycott has met with contempt and resilience. The members of the new
movement know that their motives are humanist and their impulses are
democratic. For many of them their actions are triggered not only by
universal values but also by their respect for the Judeo-Christian heritage
of history. It would have been best for Avnery to use his immense popularity
in Germany to demand from the society there to recognize their share not
only in the Holocaust but also in the Palestinian catastrophe and that in
the name of that recognition to ask them to end their shameful silence in
the face of the Israeli atrocities in the occupied territories.

Towards the end of his article, Avnery sketches the features of the
one-state solution out of the present reality. And thus because he does not
include the return of the refugees or a change in the regime as components
of the solution he describes today's dismal reality as tomorrow vision. This
is indeed an unworthy reality to fight for and nobody I know is struggling
for it. But the vision of a one-state solution has to be the exact opposite
of the present Apartheid state of Israel as was the post-Apartheid state in
South Africa; and this is why this historical case study is so illuminating
for us.

We need to wake up. The day Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush declared their
loyal support for the two-state solution, this formula became a cynical
means by which Israel can maintain its discriminatory regime inside the 1967
borders, its occupation in the West Bank and the ghettoization of the Gaza
Strip. Anyone who blocks a debate over alternative political models allows
the discourse of two states to shield the criminal Israeli policies in the
Palestinian territories.

Moreover, not only are there no stones left in the occupied territories with
which to build a state after Israel ruined the infrastructure there in the
last six years, a reasonable partition is not offering the Palestinian a
mere 20 percent of their homeland. The basis should be at least half of the
homeland, on the basis of the 181 partition route, or a similar idea. Here
is another useful avenue to explore, instead of embroiling forever inside
the Sodom and Gomorrah stew that the two-state solution has produced so far
on the ground.

And finally, there will be no solution to this conflict with a settlement of
the Palestinian refugee problem. These refugees cannot return to their
homeland for the same reason that their brothers and sisters are being
expelled from greater Jerusalem and alongside the wall and their relatives
are discriminated against in Israel. They cannot return for the same reason
that every Palestinian is under the potential danger of occupation and
expulsion as long as the Zionist project has not been completed in the eyes
of its captains.

They are entitled to opt for return because it is their full human and
political right. They can return because the international community had
already promised them that they could. We as the Jews should want them to
return because otherwise we will continue to live in a state where the value
of ethnic superiority and supremacy overrides any other human and civil
value. And we cannot promise ourselves, as well as the refugees, such a fair
and just solution within the framework of the two-state formula.

_______________________________________________________________

Ilan Pappe is senior lecturer in the University of Haifa Department of
political Science and Chair of the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian
Studies in Haifa. His books include, among others, The Making of the
Arab-Israeli Conflict (London and New York 1992), The Israel/Palestine
Question (London and New York 1999), A History of Modern Palestine
(Cambridge 2003), The Modern Middle East (London and New York 2005)
and his latest, Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006).


Web link
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6836.shtml