Israel On The Wrong Side of History
By Uri Avnery
Gush Shalom, January 31, 2009
On The Wrong Side
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."
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
Obama was speaking as a man of the 21st century. Our
leaders speak the language of the 19th century. They resemble the
dinosaurs which 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.
preceding 43 presidents were white Protestants, except John Kennedy, who
was a white Catholic. 38 of them were the descendants of immigrants from
the British isles. Of the other five, three were of Dutch ancestry
(Theodor 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 descendents 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, multi-cultural and multi-racial: 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
BETWEEN Israel and the United States a gap has
opened this week, a narrow gap, almost invisible – but it may widen into
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.
Haaretz, 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 turn-around started
already on the first day of the Obama administration.
could not have happened, if America itself had not changed. That is not
a political change alone. It is a change in the world-view, 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
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 re-phrased 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
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 which deserves all praise. His advisors 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 9 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.
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 Liberman. His party, which in any normal
country would be called fascist, is steadily rising in the polls. Why?
Liberman 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 US
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
Between the mental world of Obama and the mental
world of Liberman 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, Browne 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
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
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 US. 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.
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.
This site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the