In support of the contention that age doesn't automatically confer wisdom, I offer the following reflection by birthday boy, Uri Avnery:
"The Arabs were here before we arrived... I still believe that the early Zionists made a terrible mistake when they did not try to combine their aspirations with the hopes of the Palestinian population. Realpolitik told them to embrace their Turkish oppressors instead. Sad. The best description of the conflict was given by the historian Isaac Deutscher: a man lives in an upper floor of a house that catches fire. In desperation the man jumps out of the window and lands on a passerby down below, who is grievously injured and becomes an invalid. Between the two, there erupts a deadly conflict. Who is right?" (A confession: Uri Avnery turns 93, antiwar.com, 8/9/17)
The first 3 sentences indicate either that Avnery has no real understanding of the settler-colonial nature of the Zionist movement or, more likely, is merely having a lend of us. Beyond sad.
Given its settler-colonial nature, at no stage in its history could the Zionist movement have given any serious thought to "combining their aspirations with the hopes of the Palestinian population."
Just to drive home the point, let me quote from an early Zionist document which a reader of this blog kindly referred me to recently. The author of Our Program, Menachem Ussishkin, Secretary of the First Zionist Congress (1897) and head of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) from 1923 until 1941, wrote in 1904:
"In order to create... a Jewish state in Palestine, it is above all necessary that the whole soil of Palestine... should be in the possession of Jews... But how is land obtained in any country? Only in one of the following three ways: by force, that is, by depriving the possessor of his property by violent means; by forced sale, that is, by expropriation (the taking of private property for public purposes) by the state; or by voluntary sale. Which of these three means is applicable in Palestine? The first is entirely excluded. For that we are too weak... "
Not excluded, mind you, because it was morally repugnant, but excluded because the Zionist movement had yet to take up arms and ethnically cleanse Palestine. Ussishkin, btw, would go on, in 1936, to advocate that the Palestinian Arabs be transferred to Iraq.
As for Avnery's "best description of the conflict [with the Palestinians]," Deutscher's fable of the falling man, see Christopher Hitchens' demolition job on that, quoted in my 27/2/14 post George Brandis, 'Hitch 22' and Some Burning Questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have read your 27/2/14 quote from Hitchens, MERC. As you said, it does a good demolition job on the Avnery quote. One thing that Hitchens does not say is that where the man landed was not by chance but was premeditated. Zionists targeted Palestine for many years before WWII with significant migrations starting in the 1890s. Additionally, they had worked to prevent European Jews migrating to anywhere else but Palestine. A better analogy would be that, for long before the fire started, the man in the upper floor had been throwing the furniture down at the passer-by, and persuading neighbours to throw things at that particular passer-by and no-one else. Makes me think of the intolerable situation of Palestinians in Hebron.
Incidentally, as far as I am concerned Hitchens lost all credibility of WMD in Iraq.
Nothing escapes your eagle-eye, G. With your clarification factored in, we can at least give Hitchens credit for getting Palestine/Israel right, but Hitchens' stance on Iraq, as you point out, is a different matter entirely.
Post a Comment