Palestine Think Tank

Gush Shalom is hosting a protest on the sea, coordinated with allies in besieged Gaza. Like usual, Gush Shalom does not demand that the siege be ended unconditionally. It wants a "ceasefire", whatever that means in the context of ongoing Israeli oppression and domination of Palestine. The same week, Uri Avnery wrote an article entitled "An Apology", taking as his reference point the dramatic events in the Canadian Parliament last week.

It would have been good to reproduce, or at least review, the text of the apology delivered by the Prime Minister of Canada, and that of the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the Liberal Party (that has been the governing party for most of Canada's history).

See: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/aboriginal-apology.html and http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/apology-future.html and

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=18133d91-b8aa-4fbe-956e-20298d79c1d5 and

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080611/harper_text_080611/20080611?hub=Politics

The Canadian apologies to the aboriginal peoples are too little, and too late. Much will have to be done — much struggle will be required — to give the Canadian apologies any substance. But, all can recognize that these apologies are infused with the spirit of compassion and are an affirmation of democratic values. Furthermore, the Canadian apologies are framed not as the end of this issue, but as the introduction to a new beginning. The Canadian political leaders were not heard to be saying: "Here, you have our apology, now leave us alone and move on." On the contrary, they hold open the promise, or at least the prospect, of a fresh start, of re-establishing relations on a new basis. As such, these apologies can be employed as levers for the struggle of the First Nations, and for all who want an inclusive Canada based on solidarity.

By contrast, the opening of Avnery's "apology" is not an apology but a self-justification, effectively saying: "We did not mean any wrong. We did not have bad intentions." Isaac Deutscher once wrote of a man jumping out of a burning building, causing damage to the people below. But, the Zionist movement did not make any kind of appeal to the people of Palestine, along the lines of: "We represent persecuted people looking for a haven. Our heritage connects us to Eretz Yisrael-Palestine. May we settle in your country, please? We will do our best to be good neighbors and help build up the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants." The Zionists did not request shelter or a refuge. They barged in. They did not even yell, as might someone jumping out of a burning building: "Help! Watch out below!"

The Zionists came into Palestine with a strong sense of entitlement, showing disdain for the indigenous people, and aiming for mastery, in the manner of colonialists.

A true apology would have said:

Initially, we were oblivious to your needs and your very existence. We ignored the rabbis who reported back to Herzl that "the bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man". Once we could no longer be oblivious to your existence, we undertook a conscious, carefully planned and professionally executed policy, to obliterate your existence. We called this policy "transfer", "partition", "Judaization", "we are here, they are there", and "2 states for 2 peoples".

Uri Avnery offers a vague and perfunctory apology (exceedingly vague and perfunctory, as compared with the Canadian apologies to First Nations), and then proposes an excessively detailed and specific "just, viable and practical solution of our century-old conflict". His proposed "solution" does not seem to acknowledge that the conflict is ongoing: the military occupation continues, the ethnic cleansing continues, torture continues, Palestinian citizens of Israel are subjected to systemic racism and are denied equal rights, and the cream of Palestinian political activists are still held in Israeli prisons and concentration camps, many in prolonged preventive detention without charges. How, in these circumstances, can a "Committee for Truth and Reconciliation" have any meaning? How will this "allow both our peoples to live their lives in freedom, peace and prosperity"?

Then, Avnery goes back to the principles of Partition, but supplements that misguided segregationist programme by adding to the "Jewish State" the Palestinian lands seized in the war of 1947 – 49, and some of the lands seized in the June 1967 war. This solution, he says, "has emerged from our painful experiences, hammered out by the lessons of our sufferings, crystallized by the exertions of the best of our minds – yours as well as ours." This, he says, implements the principle of equality. Oy vey to such equality! While refusing to turn back the clock, Avnery digs his heels in on the 60 year-old fundamental features of Palestinian dispossession, thus prolonging the oppressive status quo.

I must say that, in this context, I found the invocation of "our religion" and "yours, and every other" as, frankly, disgusting.

The rest of the proposed speech is simply a colonial master dictating terms of capitulation to the colonial slaves, as Israeli governments have been doing to the Palestinians since the beginning. This posture has not worked very well for them until now, and will work less and less well in the future.

When Avnery says "What is Arab shall be yours, what is Jewish shall be ours" he reveals his essential agreement with Ehud Barak's (and all other Zionist leaders') goal that "we are here, they are there", as well as his denial of the Arab character of Palestine, and his rejection of the modern, democratic attitude to separation of religion and state. Thus, he demonstrates his commitment to ethnic-nationalist war without end, apparently hoping and believing that the Israeli militarists and racists will command the upper hand indefinitely.

Avnery emphasizes his commitment to an undemocratic, demographically-defined ethnic-nationalist "Jewish state' when he limits the refugees' "right of return" to "coming back to the territory of Israel in acceptable numbers, agreed by us." Insisting on the ongoing prerogative of the ethnic cleanser empties this "apology" of all content and all credibility, and exposes the quote from Rabbi Hillel as a bare-faced lie.

This "apology" will never be given or accepted as an apology. It is introduced on the Gush Shalom website as "Avnery's dream". Israel's most active peace campaigners continue to dream that the Palestinians will accept their oppressive nightmare as inevitable reality. This dream undermines the effectiveness of their political and protest activity.

There is nothing in this proposed apology speech that is "essential for opening a new chapter in the history of this country." It contains no potential for healing. Not a word or a phrase. Nothing. This text is useful as a frank exposure of the political limitations of the most intrepid Israeli peace activists. Those limitations will be overcome, over time, with the help of democratic agitation and education, sustained and effective international solidarity, and — most crucially — the unified mass action of Palestinian workers, farmers, and refugees on the road of democratic revolution.

Israeli and Palestinian peace activists all have much to learn from the revolutionary-inspired values of Western democracy. The sad fact is that the Israelis can start by learning a thing or 2 from the likes of Canada's Conservative and right-wing Liberal politicians.

Only then will they begin to understand NDP Leader Jack Layton's remarks, that "we as a Parliament and as a country assume the responsibility for one of the most shameful eras of our history" and "It is the moment to finally say we are sorry and it is the moment where we start to begin a shared future on equal footing through mutual respect and truth."

Regards,
Henry Lowi

Henry Lowi lived in Israel from 1971 to 1988. He is an IDF veteran, and a veteran of the peace movement, and of Palestine solidarity.

HERE IS THE ARTICLE CRITIQUED: FROM COUNTERPUNCH

This week, the Prime Minister of Canada made a dramatic statement in Parliament: he apologized to the indigenous peoples of his country for the injustices done to them for generations by successive Canadian governments.

This way, White Canada tries to make peace with the native nations, whose country their forefathers conquered and whose culture their rulers have tried to wipe out.

APOLOGIZING FOR past wrongs has become a part of modern political culture.

That is never an easy thing to do. Cynics might say: nothing to it. Just words. And words, after all, are a cheap commodity. But in fact, such acts have a profound significance. A human being – and even more so, a whole nation – always finds it hard to admit to iniquities performed and to atrocities committed. It means a rewriting of the historical narrative that forms the basis of their national cohesion. It necessitates a drastic change in the schoolbooks and in the national outlook. In general, governments are averse to this, because of the nationalistic demagogues and hate-mongers who infest every country.

The President of France has apologized on behalf of his people for the misdeeds of the Vichy regime, which turned Jews over to the Nazi exterminators. The Czech government has apologized to the Germans for the mass expulsion of the German population at the end of World War II. Germany, of course, has apologized to the Jews for the unspeakable crimes of the Holocaust. Quite recently, the government of Australia has apologized to the Aborigines. And even in Israel, a feeble effort was made to heal a grievous domestic wound, when Ehud Barak apologized to the Oriental Jews for the discrimination they have suffered for many years.

But we face a much more difficult and complex problem. It concerns the roots of our national existence in Israel.

I BELIEVE that peace between us and the Palestinian people – a real peace, based on real conciliation – starts with an apology.

In my mind's eye I see the President of the State or the Prime Minister addressing a special extraordinary session of the Knesset and making a historic speech on the following lines:

MADAM SPEAKER, Honorable Knesset,

On behalf of the State of Israel and all its citizens, I address today the sons and daughters of the Palestinian people, wherever they are.

We recognize the fact that we have committed against you a historic injustice, and we humbly ask your forgiveness.

When the Zionist movement decided to establish a national home in this country, which we call Eretz Yisrael and you call Filastin, it had no intention of building our state on the ruins of another people. Indeed, almost no one in the Zionist movement had ever been in the country before the first Zionist Congress in 1897, or even had any idea about the actual situation here.

The burning desire of the founding fathers of this movement was to save the Jews of Europe, where the dark clouds of hatred for the Jews were gathering. In Eastern Europe, pogroms were raging, and all over Europe there were signs of the process that would eventually lead to the terrible Holocaust, in which six million Jews perished.

This basic aim attached itself to the profound devotion of the Jews, throughout the generations, to the country in which the Bible, the defining text of our people, was written, and to the city of Jerusalem, towards which the Jews have turned for thousands of years in their prayers.

The Zionist founders who came to this country were pioneers who carried in their hearts the most lofty ideals. They believed in national liberation, freedom, justice and equality. We are proud of them. They certainly did not dream of committing an injustice of historic dimensions.

ALL THIS does not justify what happened afterwards. The creation of the Jewish national home in this country has involved a profound injustice to you, the people who lived here for generations.

We cannot ignore anymore the fact that in the war of 1948 – which is the War of Independence for us, and the Naqba for you – some 750 thousand Palestinians were compelled to leave their homes and lands. As for the precise circumstances of this tragedy I propose the establishment of a "Committee for Truth and Reconciliation"' composed of experts from your and from our side, whose conclusions will from then on be incorporated in the schoolbooks, yours and ours.

We cannot ignore anymore the fact that for 60 years of conflict and war, you have been prevented from realizing your natural right to independence in your own free national state, a right confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947, which also formed the legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel.

For all this, we owe you an apology, and I express it hereby with all my heart.

The Bible tells us: "Whoso confesseth (his crimes) and forsakes them shall have mercy" (Proverbs 28:13). Clearly, confession does not suffice. We have also to forsake the wrongs we have done in the past.

It is impossible to turn the wheel of history back and restore the situation that existed in the country in 1947, much as Canada – or the United States, for that matter – cannot go back 200 years. We must build our common future on the joint desire to move forwards, to heal what can be healed and repair what can be repaired without inflicting new wounds, committing new injustices and causing more human tragedies.

I urge you to accept our apology in the spirit in which it is offered. Let us work together for a just, viable and practical solution of our century-old conflict – a solution that may not fulfill all justified aspirations nor right all wrongs, but which will allow both our peoples to live their lives in freedom, peace and prosperity.

This solution is clear for all to see. We all know what it is. It has emerged from our painful experiences, hammered out by the lessons of our sufferings, crystallized by the exertions of the best of our minds – yours as well as ours.

This solution means, simply: You have the same rights as we. We have the same rights as you: to live in a state of our own, under our own flag, governed by laws of our own making, ruled by a government freely elected by ourselves – hopefully a good one.

One of the fundamental commandments of our religion – as of yours and every other – was pronounced 2000 years ago by Rabbi Hillel: Do not unto others, what you do not want others to do to you.

This means in practice: your right to establish at once the free and sovereign State of Palestine in all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, which will be accepted as a full member of the United Nations.

The borders of June 4, 1967, will be restored. I hope that we can agree, in free negotiations, to minimal exchanges of territory beneficial to both sides.

Jerusalem, which is so dear to all of us, must be the capital of both our states – West Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the capital of Israel, East Jerusalem, including al-Haram al-Sharif, which we call the Temple Mount, the capital of Palestine. What is Arab shall be yours, what is Jewish shall be ours. Let us work together to keep the city, as a living reality, open and united.

We shall evacuate the Israeli settlements, which have caused so much suffering and iniquities to you, and bring the settlers home, except from those small areas which will be joined to Israel in the framework of freely agreed swaps of territory. We shall also dismantle all the paraphernalia of the occupation, both physical and institutional.

We must approach with open hearts, compassion and common sense, the task of finding a just and viable solution for the terrible tragedy of the refugees and their decendants (sic). Each refugee family must be granted a free choice between the various solutions: repatriation and resettlement in the State of Palestine, with generous assistance; staying where they are or emigration to any country of their choice, also with generous assistance; and yes – coming back to the territory of Israel in acceptable numbers, agreed by us. The refugees themselves must be a full partner in all our efforts.

I trust that our two states – Israel and Palestine, living side by side in this beloved but small country, will quickly come together on the human, social, economic, technological and cultural levels, creating a relationship that will not only guarantee our security, but also rapid development and prosperity for all.

Together we will work for peace and prosperity throughout our region, based on close relations with all the countries of the area.

Committed to peace and vowing to create a better future for our children and grandchildren, let us rise to our feet and bow our heads in memory of the countless victims of our conflict, Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians – a conflict that has lasted far too long.

SUCH A SPEECH is, to my mind, absolutely essential for opening a new chapter in the history of this country.

In decades of meeting with Palestinians of all walks of life, I have come to the conclusion that the emotional aspects of the conflict are no less – and perhaps even more – important than the political ones. A profound sense of injustice permeates the minds and actions of all Palestinians. Unconscious or half-conscious guilt feelings are troubling the souls of the Israelis, creating a deep conviction that Arabs will never make peace with us.

I do not know when such a speech will be possible. Many imponderable factors will have an impact on that. But I do know that without it, mere peace agreements, reached between haggling diplomats, will not suffice. As the Oslo agreements have shown, building an artificial island in a sea of stormy emotions just will not do.

THE PUBLIC apology by the Canadian Prime Minister is not the only thing we can learn from that North American country.

43 years ago, the Canadian government took an extraordinary step in order to make peace between the English-speaking majority and the French-speaking minority among their citizens. That relationship had remained an open wound from the time the British conquered French Canada some 250 years ago. It was decided to replace the Canadian national flag, which was based on the British "Union Jack", with a completely new national flag, featuring the maple leaf.

On this occasion, the Speaker of the Senate said: "The flag is the symbol of the nation's unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion."

We can learn something from that, too.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.