Who is Uri Avnery, and Why Does He Matter?
Jerusalem's decision in the early 1990's to admit Yasir Arafat and his fellow thugs into the heart of the land of Israel proved to be one of the country's major political blunders, paid for in the coin of a five-year terror war that traumatized Israeli society and transformed the dream of Israeli-Palestinian peace into an extended nightmare. How did it happen? According to Amnon Lord, an Israeli editor and journalist who supported the Oslo accords until buses stared blowing up in Israeli cities in 1996, a large part of the answer lies in the little-known but immense influence of Israel's revolutionary Left—and in particular of one "major player in Israeli history."
Lord first delineated his thesis in a book, The Israeli Left: From Socialism to Nihilism (Hebrew, 2002), based largely on his own political journey. In that work's final chapter, he turned his attention to Uri Avnery (born 1923), a one-time journalist, publisher, and member of the Knesset, and a full-time agitator and cultural icon. Now, in Murder among Friends (Hebrew), whose subtitle is "Uri Avnery: A Story of Political Warfare," Lord picks up where he left off. It is a curious book, intermittently marked by a personal affection for Avnery that may stem from Lord's immersion as a child and young man in the same radical fever swamps he now regards with abhorrence. But there is no mistaking the abhorrence.
Avnery is celebrated in Israel and around the world as a brave "peace activist" and champion of human rights, and has won numerous awards in recognition of his efforts as, among other things, the founder of Gush Shalom ("The Peace Bloc"). He is no less widely admired as an independent thinker who for many decades has been fearlessly telling truth to power. In Lord's meticulous telling, Avnery emerges as someone else entirely—a man consumed by hatreds who for much of his lifetime was channeling, and peddling, Soviet propaganda.
In following the arc of Avnery's career, Lord focuses in particular on his early years. Before the founding of the state in 1948, the young Avnery oscillated between the radical Right and radical Left. The connecting thread was his contempt for liberal democracy, to which, he was writing as early as 1941, he preferred both the Communist and the Nazi alternatives. (His evident blindness to the Nazis' genocidal anti-Semitism would re-emerge in his latter-day embrace of Arafat and the PLO.) After the Soviet Union emerged victorious in World War II, he fully adopted its perspective.
He wasn't alone in this respect. As incredible as it may sound today, 20 percent of the members of Israel's first Knesset, most of them in the Mapam party, openly identified with Stalin. When Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion excluded Israeli Communists from his government, they repaid him by organizing a militant underground that planned, at different stages, to mount a coup and to open the gates of Israel's north to a hoped-for invasion by the Red Army.
As much as Avnery hated "bourgeois" democracy, Lord shows, he hated Judaism, and the two were linked in his mind. Together with other talented members of his generation, he dreamed of overturning the traditional foundations of Jewish identity and fashioning a progressive Hebrew-speaking nation that would connect with and lead the forces of "anti-imperialism" throughout the Middle East. (Ben-Gurion's countervailing response to this dream was to root Israel in its biblical past and align it with the Western powers.) Although Avnery fought and was seriously injured in Israel's War of Independence, he was fighting for a very different ideal. After 1948, his hatred for Judaism morphed seamlessly into hatred for the Jewish state.
What propelled him into notoriety and won him a much wider audience was Ha'olam Hazeh ("This World"), an anti-establishment weekly tabloid that he began to publish in 1950. Ha'olam Hazeh appealed equally to a mass audience and to intellectuals by dint of its clear prose, sensational scoops, and, perhaps most importantly, the (semi)nude women who appeared on the last page. It was also, according to Lord, a front. Studiously avoiding Communist language, and seminally influenced by the journalistic methods of the legendary propagandist Willi Münzenberg, Ha'olam Hazeh succeeded in influencing a generation of young, progressive intellectuals by simultaneously stirring their dissatisfaction with Israeli politics and society and appealing to their inchoate moral ardor.
In this connection, one of Avnery's chief accomplishments was the sympathy he succeeded in drumming up, already in the 1950's, for Palestinian statehood. His approach was mostly negative. Years before there were any "occupied territories," he incessantly compared Israel with Nazi Germany, demonizing the Jewish state in language that would later become commonplace in the United Nations and on the "progressive" Left everywhere. By the 1980s, as a member of the Knesset, he would become the first Israeli to meet with Arafat—this, at the very moment the Israeli army was laying siege to Beirut where the inventor of modern terrorism was holed up. His tireless efforts to convince the Israeli public that the cause of the PLO was the cause of human rights carried the day in the Oslo accords sealed in Washington in September 1993. When Arafat triumphantly returned to Gaza in 1994, he invited Avnery to the celebrations.
Murder among Friends is flawed in a number of ways: there is no table of contents, Lord sometimes follows obsessively the trail of stories that contribute little or nothing to the narrative, and the connections he draws among events are sometimes less than convincing. Overall, though, the book is most helpful in tracing the twisted roots of an aspect of Israeli political culture that cries out to be confronted and unmasked, not least by those elements of the responsible Left whose good name it tarnishes.
For there is, after all, a liberal Zionist Left—represented by, among others, the eminent jurist Ruth Gavison and the academic and former politician Amnon Rubinstein—that is fully and uncompromisingly committed to Israel's democratic and Jewish future. There is also a non-Zionist Left, represented by the academic and polemicist Yehouda Shenhav, whose multiculturalist arguments, however questionable, are at least motivated by genuine sympathy for those relegated to Israel's margins.
By contrast, the revolutionary Left represented by Uri Avnery and others like him has contributed nothing but venom and spilled blood, while deliberately and consciously aiding and abetting some of the most murderous enemies of the Jewish people.
You write that, " Avnery has consistently provided a penetrating insight into much surrounding the intractable peace process." I haven't found any penetrating insights in what Avnery has written, while I have consistently found that he demonizes his opponents (a true student of Lenin, he doesn't argue with his opponents, he tries to destroy them). However, I spend much of my time searching for penetrating insights, and I would be happy and thankful if you would provide what you consider to be some of Avnery's.
When it comes to today's killing and destruction, the most murderous enemies of Israeli and other Jews comprise people for whom the theocracy part of Islam is the driving force.
In the Middle East and elsewhere, it is most difficult to find inchoate or active warfare that does not include a participant force that adheres to Islam.
Today, the bond that connects the foot-soldiers of terrorism, Islamic theocracy and progressivism is the continuous and insidious disdain of freedom and an unstoppable quest for absolute rule, both too obvious to be denied, as is the remarkable absence of any equivalent on the right or among any group that prefers freedom to its alternatives.
In the post-industrialized world, it has generally been socialists of varying types, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, who orchestrated mass murders, this in addition to the warfare deaths that resulted from their conduct. Now, we can, if we already have not, add Islamists in the Middle East and Africa, and exported to the West, to that sordid list.
The socialist quest to extol an attitude that embraces the slaughter of non-compliant human beings in the name of Allah and Sharia is despicable and dangerous to people who relish not only an absence of warfare, but also freedom.
And the mindlessness of the relatively small, yet vocal portion of the human beings of today, especially those who are Jewish, who commend or are apologists for the various current-day Avnerys in their midst, is deserving of scorn and disdain more than pity.
Overwhelming governmental socialism may be foreboding enough when its history is reckoned with. But when connected with the kind of violence that tolerates nothing different from what it demands, it moves from foreboding to a murderous Orwellian construct. Ultimately, freedom may prevail over planned society, but the human sacrificial cost will continue to be extreme.
Thanks, Aryeh, for your devotion to the entire truth which, along with freedom, are Uri’s arch-enemies.
I apreciate your response and am more than glad to lead you to the Gush Shalom website; http://www.gush-shalom.org/, where you can see his articles, get on the mailing list and follow it for better or worse on your own terms. Peace will require all of us to make room for many parties with differing views on both sides of Jerusalem and beyond.
Thanks again!
A gentle disagreement.
Does, for example, the peace that Mr. Snider's statement envisions require that Middle Eastern Arab countries make room for Jewish residents and their synagogues, yeshivas and holidays?
Peace requires only that the shooting stops. In this case, I am confident that Israel will not shoot if it is not fired upon. Thus, peace. At least until Israel, once more, becomes a shooting target.
Implicit and embedded in the particular peace requirement offered by Mr. Snider is a multi-layered something that, strange as it may be, is much, much larger than that peace. That something is dominance, control and, ultimately, a lack of freedom. And that is not a something that I would want to make room for in order to experience peace.
Julian Tepper
Placitas, NM
The classical game of synthesis cannot be accomplished between issues of life and death, survival and extermination, war and peace. The mantra of "differeing views on both sides" is so vague as to render the phrase limp with meaning. What are the differeing views on the Holocaust? Abbas as a Holocuast denier can provide us with one to be sure, but does that constitute a sensible foundation on which to compromise?
When an enemy calls long term for your annihilation, are there "differing views on both sides" of such a call?
Shall there be differing views on both sides about liberty? Freedom? Prosperity?
Talking and writing about peace as something which constitutes "differing views on both sides" is a clever little feeling-filled word game, but it also manages to say precious little in the gambit.
In hard negotiations between potentially deadly opponents, beginning with some form of "well, there's differing views on both sides" is not even a beginning of a dialogue. It's a happy little song to assure those who sing it that they really, really are nice people -- irrespective of the end game of any opening gambit. This is the singular problem of the collectivist, whose history spans many nations, cultures, religious streams and many centuries, one in which every collective ended up having distrusted leaders and angry, withering membership.
Usually what I have found is that "differing views on both sides" is an attenmpt to stake out the moral high ground from which to snipe at one's allies while embracing one's enemies.
And what is the synthesis between enemies, when all is said and done? Avnery's track record is not one of achieving peace after a lifetime of activism. But Arafat liked him.
I appreciate your attention and your comments.
You are simply hopeless.
I whole-heartedly agree that someone should translate Lord's books into English.
I think it's a serious mistake, however, to put David Grossman, Amoz Oz, AB Yehoshua and Tom Segev in the same camp as Uri Avnery. You can deeply disagree with the politics of Oz, et al. but you can also argue with them, and sometimes learn something in the process. But there's no arguing with Avnery, and, of course, no learning.
Comments are closed for this article.