[Peace-discuss] Uri Avnery: Israel "On the Wrong Side"

[Brussel Morton K.]

  He sees some hope in Obama's ascendency…

	
January 26, 2009
On the Wrong Side
by Uri Avnery

Of all the beautiful phrases in Barack Obama's inauguration speech,  
these are the words that stuck in my mind: "You are on the wrong side  
of history."

He was talking about the tyrannical regimes of the world. But we, too,  
should ponder these words

In the last few days I have heard a lot of declarations from Ehud  
Barak, Tzipi Livni, Binyamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Olmert. And every  
time, these eight words came back to haunt me: "You are on the wrong  
side of history!"

Obama was speaking as a man of the 21st century. Our leaders speak the  
language of the 19th century. They resemble the dinosaurs that once  
terrorized their neighborhood and were quite unaware of the fact that  
their time had already passed.

During the rousing celebrations, again and again the multicolored  
patchwork of the new president's family was mentioned.

All the preceding 43 presidents were white Protestants, except John  
Kennedy, who was a white Catholic. Thirty-eight of them were the  
descendants of immigrants from the British isles. Of the other five,  
three were of Dutch ancestry (Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, as  
well as Martin van Buren) and two of German descent (Herbert Hoover  
and Dwight Eisenhower).

The face of Obama's family is quite different. The extended family  
includes whites and the descendants of black slaves, Africans from  
Kenya, Indonesians, Chinese from Canada, Christians, Muslims, and even  
one Jew (a converted African-American). The two first names of the  
president himself, Barack Hussein, are Arabic.

This is the face of the new American nation – a mixture of races,  
religions, countries of origin, and skin colors, an open and diverse  
society, all of whose members are supposed to be equal and to identify  
themselves with the "founding fathers." The American Barack Hussein  
Obama, whose father was born in a Kenyan village, can speak with pride  
of "George Washington, the father of our nation," of the "American  
Revolution" (the war of independence against the British), and hold up  
the example of "our ancestors," who include both the white pioneers  
and the black slaves who "endured the lash of the whip." That is the  
perception of a modern nation, multicultural and multiracial: a person  
joins it by acquiring citizenship, and from this moment on is the heir  
to all its history.

Israel is the product of the narrow nationalism of the 19th century, a  
nationalism that was closed and exclusive, based on race and ethnic  
origin, blood and earth. Israel is a "Jewish State," and a Jew is a  
person born Jewish or converted according to Jewish religious law  
(Halakha). Like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, it is a state whose mental  
world is to a large extent conditioned by religion, race, and ethnic  
origin.

When Ehud Barak speaks about the future, he speaks the language of  
past centuries, in terms of brute force and brutal threats, with  
armies providing the solution to all problems. That was also the  
language of George W. Bush who last week slinked out of Washington, a  
language that already sounds to the Western ear like an echo from the  
distant past.

The words of the new president are ringing in the air: "Our power  
alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please."  
The key words were "humility and restraint."

Our leaders are now boasting about their part in the Gaza War, in  
which unbridled military force was unleashed intentionally against a  
civilian population, men, women, and children, with the declared aim  
of "creating deterrence." In the era that began last Tuesday, such  
expressions can only arouse shudders.

Between Israel and the United States a gap has opened this week, a  
narrow gap, almost invisible – but it may widen into an abyss.

The first signs are small. In his inaugural speech, Obama proclaimed  
that "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and  
nonbelievers." Since when? Since when do the Muslims precede the Jews?  
What has happened to the "Judeo-Christian Heritage"? (A completely  
false term to start with, since Judaism is much closer to Islam than  
to Christianity. For example: neither Judaism nor Islam supports the  
separation of religion and state.)

The very next morning, Obama phoned a number of Middle East leaders.  
He decided to make a quite unique gesture: placing the first call to  
Mahmoud Abbas, and only the next to Olmert. The Israeli media could  
not stomach that. Ha'aretz, for example, consciously falsified the  
record by writing – not once but twice in the same issue – that Obama  
had called "Olmert, Abbas, Mubarak, and King Abdallah" (in that order).

Instead of the group of American Jews who had been in charge of the  
Israeli-Palestinian conflict during both the Clinton and Bush  
administrations, Obama, on his very first day in office, appointed an  
Arab-American, George Mitchell, whose mother had come to America from  
Lebanon at age 18, and who himself, orphaned from his Irish father,  
was brought up in a Maronite Christian Lebanese family.

These are not good tidings for the Israeli leaders. For the last 42  
years, they have pursued a policy of expansion, occupation, and  
settlements in close cooperation with Washington. They have relied on  
unlimited American support, from the massive supply of money and arms  
to the use of the veto in the Security Council. This support was  
essential to their policy. This support may now be reaching its limits.

It will happen, of course, gradually. The pro-Israel lobby in  
Washington will continue to put the fear of God into Congress. A huge  
ship like the United States can change course only very slowly, in a  
gentle curve. But the turnaround started already on the first day of  
the Obama administration.

This could not have happened, if America itself had not changed. That  
is not a political change alone. It is a change in the worldview, in  
mental outlook, in values. A certain American myth, which is very  
similar to the Zionist myth, has been replaced by another American  
myth. Not by accident did Obama devote to this so large a part of his  
speech (in which, by the way, there was not a single word about the  
extermination of the Native Americans).

The Gaza War, during which tens of millions of Americans saw the  
horrible carnage in the Strip (even if rigorous self-censorship cut  
out all but a tiny part), has hastened the process of drifting apart.  
Israel, the brave little sister, the loyal ally in Bush's "War on  
Terror," has turned into the violent Israel, the mad monster, which  
has no compassion for women and children, the wounded and the sick.  
And when winds like these are blowing, the Lobby loses height.

The leaders of official Israel do not notice it. They do not feel, as  
Obama put it in another context, that "the ground has shifted beneath  
them." They think that this is no more than a temporary political  
problem that can be set right with the help of the Lobby and the  
servile members of Congress.

Our leaders are still intoxicated with war and drunk with violence.  
They have rephrased the famous saying of the Prussian general Carl von  
Clausewitz into: "War is but a continuation of an election campaign by  
other means." They compete with each other with vainglorious swagger  
for their share of the "credit." Tzipi Livni, who cannot compete with  
the men for the crown of warlord, tries to outdo them in toughness, in  
bellicosity, in hard-heartedness.

The most brutal is Ehud Barak. Once I called him a "peace criminal,"  
because he brought about the failure of the 2000 Camp David conference  
and shattered the Israeli peace camp. Now I must call him a "war  
criminal," as the person who planned the Gaza War knowing that it  
would murder masses of civilians.

In his own eyes, and in the eyes of a large section of the public,  
this is a military operation that deserves all praise. His advisers  
also thought that it would bring him success in the elections. The  
Labor Party, which had been the largest party in the Knesset for  
decades, had shrunk in the polls to 12, even nine seats out of 120.  
With the help of the Gaza atrocity it has now gone up to 16 or so.  
That's not a landslide, and there's no guarantee that it will not sink  
again.

What was Barak's mistake? Very simply: every war helps the Right. War,  
by its very nature, arouses in the population the most primitive  
emotions – hate and fear, fear and hate. These are the emotions on  
which the Right has been riding for centuries. Even when it's the  
"Left" that starts a war, it's still the Right that profits from it.  
In a state of war, the population prefers an honest-to-goodness  
rightist to a phony leftist.

This is happening to Barak for the second time. When, in 2000, he  
spread the mantra "I have turned every stone on the way to peace, / I  
have made the Palestinians unprecedented offers, / They have rejected  
everything, / There is no one to talk with" – he succeeded not only in  
blowing the Left to smithereens, but also in paving the way for the  
ascent of Ariel Sharon in the 2001 elections. Now he is paving the way  
for Binyamin Netanyahu (hoping, quite openly, to become his minister  
of defense).

And not only for him. The real victor of the war is a man who had no  
part in it at all: Avigdor Lieberman. His party, which in any normal  
country would be called fascist, is steadily rising in the polls. Why?  
Lieberman looks and sounds like an Israeli Mussolini, he is an  
unbridled Arab-hater, a man of the most brutal force. Compared to him,  
even Netanyahu looks like a softie. A large part of the young  
generation, nurtured on years of occupation, killing, and destruction,  
after two atrocious wars, considers him a worthy leader.

While the U.S. has made a giant jump to the left, Israel is about to  
jump even further to the right.

Anyone who saw the millions milling around Washington on inauguration  
day knows that Obama was not speaking only for himself. He was  
expressing the aspirations of his people, the Zeitgeist.

Between the mental world of Obama and the mental world of Lieberman  
and Netanyahu there is no bridge. Between Obama and Barak and Livni,  
too, there yawns an abyss. Post-election Israel may find itself on a  
collision course with post-election America.

Where are the American Jews? The overwhelming majority of them voted  
for Obama. They will be between the hammer and the anvil – between  
their government and their natural adherence to Israel. It is  
reasonable to assume that this will exert pressure from below on the  
"leaders" of American Jewry, who have incidentally never been elected  
by anyone, and on organizations like AIPAC. The sturdy stick, on which  
Israeli leaders are used to lean in times of trouble, may prove to be  
a broken reed.

Europe, too, is not untouched by the new winds. True, at the end of  
the war we saw the leaders of Europe – Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, and  
Zapatero – sitting like schoolchildren behind a desk in class,  
respectfully listening to the most loathsome, arrogant posturing from  
Ehud Olmert, reciting his text after him. They seemed to approve the  
atrocities of the war, speaking of the Qassams and forgetting about  
the occupation, the blockade and the settlements. Probably they will  
not hang this picture on their office walls.

But during this war masses of Europeans poured into the streets to  
demonstrate against the horrible events. The same masses saluted Obama  
on the day of his inauguration.

This is the new world. Perhaps our leaders are now dreaming of the  
slogan: "Stop the world, I want to get off!" But there is no other  
world.

Yes, we are now on the wrong side of history.

Fortunately, there is also another Israel. It is not in the limelight,  
and its voice is heard only by those who listen out for it. This is a  
sane, rational Israel, with its face to the future, to progress and  
peace. In these coming elections, its voice will barely be heard,  
because all the old parties are standing with their two feet squarely  
in the world of yesterday.

But what has happened in the United States will have a profound  
influence on what happens in Israel. The huge majority of Israelis  
know that we cannot exist without close ties with the U.S. Obama is  
now the leader of the world, and we live in this world. When he  
promises to work "aggressively" for peace between us and the  
Palestinians, that is a marching order for us.

We want to be on the right side of history. That will take months or  
years, but I am sure that we shall get there. The time to start is now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090126/c696da20/attachment.html