::::::::
The Presumptions of Uri Avneryby Martin Zehr
Following the recent article by Uri Avnery is a distinct challenge. It is filled with presumptions and unstated premises that are not documented. Such work only discredits the support for the Palestinian struggle. Mr. Avnery's article of February 17, 2007 is an article that is filled with gaps in its logical progression. http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery02172007.html It starts out with an off-handed comment regarding "RED Indians". This kind of rhetorical flourish is simply insulting on its face. Beyond that, what is the intention of such a reference? One can only guess. Just tell me what this Israeli has to contribute to the discussion about Native American's rights. What does he think he knows to presume such arrogance? Does his expertise of Native American government, history, sovereignty and culture authorize him to refer to Native Americans as "RED Indians", as if it were some kind of ironic ID that he could flash and get a snicker from his band of associates and backslappers?
Next he proceeds to a cultural critique of Jews, which he may indeed be entitled to do. "Perhaps it is the mentality of the Ghetto that is still so deeply ingrained in us." However, it does appear as if Mr. Avnery prefers to use the cover of history to hide the intentions of his remarks and attempts to establish a cultural motive for the political actions of the rightist Israeli parties. In so doing, he fails to address a sound political
programme for an Israeli government that would be capable of establishing a stable two-state scenario for the future. Regarding his specific reference point of the ghetto, I would only ask: What mentality of the ghetto was Mr. Avnery referring to- the mentality of the resistance of the Warsaw ghetto? If this was rooted in political differences it might project a distinct political alternative to the rightist configuration within Israel. As it is, it appears to project more of a cultural alienation from the European Jewish experience of 70 years ago that he projects as a causal factor in the Israeli project of today.
Mr. Avnery proceeds and declares unequivocally: "Mahmoud Abbas was accepted by everybody as an honest person, who truly wanted to achieve peace. Yet Ariel Sharon succeeded in avoiding any negotiations with him." Abu Mazen is a leader of Fatah and the President of the PA. His credentials within the PLO have indeed been well-established over the years. And yet, he has been under attack by Hamas until the recent mediation by the Saudis. Likewise, over the years he has faced actions against his political efforts by the Israeli government and ruling parties, as well. Mr. Avnery's critique of Likkud and Kadima (though not specifically identified) is linked in the person of Sharon. This understates the political alignments within Israel that are, in fact, the source of the militaristic policies of the Israeli government.
But as the article continues, Mr. Avnery does a subtle trick of a propagandist and uses the reverse argument as well, and tries to imply that the divisions between Hamas and Fatah were not real. He declares: "Hamas is trying to eliminate Mahmoud Abbas, the noble man of peace!" (One presumes here an intent on the part of the author to be ironic and sardonic without clearly proposing a position on Abu Mazen's role in the conflict between Hamas and Fatah or his role in efforts to promote Palestinian statehood.) He goes on: "It is clear that with such a gang there is no need, nor would it make any sense, to conduct negotiations about peace and borders." This is indeed curious statement proposing for a state, Israel, to negotiate with a non-governmental entity, such as Hamas, and not the PA or the PLO. Then, he suggests that the government of the people and territory of Israel begin negotiations without getting an agreed upon declaration regarding the authority of each party to negotiate on behalf of the people that they represent. It is apparently okay that the PLO has been accepted by the state of Israel to represent the Palestinian people, but Mr. Avnery sees it as only an obstacle created by the current Israeli government to expect the same of Hamas or any Palestinian government or authority. This despite the inclusion of the letter by Abu Mazen included in the Mecca Accord (see below). One remembers how complex these matters were during the Paris Accords to negotiate an end to the Vietnam War. Even the shape of the table was a subject of controversy because it was understood by all the parties that the recognition of the NLF/PRG acknowledged the existence of two legitimate governments in South Vietnam.
Mr. Avnery plods ahead: "Since Hamas came to power, its leaders have understood the need to become more flexible. They are very sensitive to the mood of their people." Perhaps that explains their loss of support in polls. http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2006/p22epdf.pdf There are indeed more revealing figures regarding Palestinian perceptions of the current actions of Hamas and their impact on the resolution of Palestinian statehood. It would appear as though these views are not incorporated into Mr. Avnery's
broad generalizations. His comments do reflect a certain style of writing in which the author can project a reality without ever having to substantiate it with data, documentation or concrete observations. As a result, Mr. Avnery is free to ascertain whatever he wants without ever having to prove his case based on empirical evidence. The word for this is: PROPAGANDA.
Mr. Avnery then declares:"Hamas has announced its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state bounded by the June 1967 borders--meaning: next to Israel and not in place of Israel." Needless to say Mr. Avnery never mentions Hamas's constant use of the 'hudna' as a truce in regards to the 1967 boundaries. This projects such a position without establishing a framework for future state-to-state relations between Israel and Palestine. This infers that any agreement is not a completed project in the face of Hamas's declaration that the entire Palestinian territory is declared a non-negotiable Islamic trust (wafq) in its covenant. Yes, this is indeed used by Israeli government representatives to evade needed communications towards a peace process. That does not negate its relevancy regarding the current role of Hamas. Negotiations are based on mutual trust and establish definable mechanisms for addressing mistrust in the opening rounds. They are also based on a certain amount of acceptable risk going into them. When Hamas declares in its covenant that the issue of Palestine is non-negotiable and that all the land is Islamic land, there is little doubt as to what the significance of that caveat is for the future. It appears quite clearly specified and is in fact furthered delineated in the letter included by Abu Mazen.
But, don't let facts interfere with Mr. Avnery's interpretation. "Hamas undertook to respect the agreements signed by the PLO, including the Oslo agreement, which is based on the mutual recognition of the State of Israel and the PLO as representative of the Palestinian people." It seems as though Mr. Avnery feels his interpretation of the Mecca Accords are the definitive ones. It does not allude to any other possible interpretation. Others are not so accepting of Mr. Avnery's interpretation of the Mecca Accords. There
remains many unseen ramifications of the Mecca Accords, not that I am suggesting that they should be opposed. Conciliation is needed to promote stability in the Palestinian project and to become more self-defining as a political entity. There does remain the questionable intention of the Hamas organization as it has demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the welfare of the Palestinian people in pursuit of its claims for power. Further, there remains a fundamental issue of Hamas's position on the right of self-determination for Palestinian people. Never is that fundamental right for independence and national identity defined by Hamas. Instead an Islamic wafq is Hamas's stated political solution for Palestine. This opens up many
possible scenarios in place of Palestinian self-government.
Other interpretations are made in regards to a projected Hamas victory in the Mecca Accords. "As both Hamas and Fatah officials have made clear in recent days, nothing in the accord can be viewed as addressing the first two of the Quartet's conditions (recognition of Israel and renunciation of violence) and only through a tortuous interpretation of the final clause can even a loose connection be made to the third condition (accepting previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements). Neither "Israel," nor "peace process," nor
"political horizon," nor even the word "peace" itself can be found. Not only is there a huge difference between "respecting" a resolution and agreeing to be bound by it, but because Abbas failed specifically to cite which Palestinian, Arab, and UN resolutions he asked Haniyeh to "respect," the Hamas leader could pick and choose from those he likes and those he dislikes. This critical paragraph is, in other words, worse than meaningless -- it is actually tantamount to a license for Hamas to interpret its political program as it sees fit, drawing on its own selective reading of the diplomatic history of the Arab-Israeli conflict." Robert Satloff, the author, is executive director of The Washington Institute. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2564 If that is indeed the case, then this Accord will not produce the unified government needed by the Palestinians to rule. One can ask, if this, in fact, has always been Hamas's intention in the Mecca mediation process.
The opposition by the current Israeli government and the negative statements by the US Secretary of State appear to indicate that inasmuch as the Accord does not address a decisive break from Hamas's Covenant, it presents a problematic scenario for negotiation. Let's recall that it was always Hamas that refused to participate in the PLO with the broad range of Palestinian forces and organizations. They preferred a tactic of rejectionism and now appear to prefer the tactic of burrowing from within the PLO. This is not a change in ideology or goals of Hamas, just a shift in tactics for the time being. Hamas is an Islamic resistance group of Palestinians. It is not a Palestinian national liberation organization. It is not for Palestinian liberation, it is for Islamic domination. The significance of the distinction between these separate projects has yet to be sharply crystallized. There has been a clear demonstration through the conflict that has arisen ever since Hamas's election as a majority in the PA. It is clear that the Palestinian people in Gaza were supportive of the Accord to end the fratricidal and sectarian conflict. At issue, among other things, remain
the call for jihad as the implement for accomplishment of Hamas's project.
"If the king tells Bush that the solution of the Palestinian problem is needed in order to dam the spread of Iranian influence across the Middle East, his words will carry a lot of weight. If Bush is planning a military
attack on Iran, as it seems he is, it is important for him to have the united support of the Sunnis." Not only does Mr. Avnery speak for Native Americans, but now he speaks for the Saudi royal family and Wahhabi
hierarchy. One wonders what the ramifications are of Mr. Avnery's glib assertions regarding Saudi intentions in regards to Iran.
The Mecca Accord dealt with one issue only- the acting unity of the representatives of the Palestinian Authority and putting an end to the armed conflict between them. Hamas cabinet officials have resigned as part of this process. This "national unity government" is to be headed by Haniyeh and will include eleven additional ministers nominated by Hamas; eight ministers nominated by Fatah; and one minister allotted to each of the other four political parties represented in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Also, it appears as though Hamas has accepted becoming a member of the PLO thereby subjecting Hamas to the authority and decision-making process of the PLO. But, that remains to be seen. There remains the need to establish a working government for the Palestinian nation to conduct its affairs with other nations. Likewise, there remains the task of defining the authority of the PA and the PLO.
Finally, there is the separate letter from Abu Mazen in the Accord stating: "I call upon you as prime minister of the next government to abide by the interests of the Palestinian people and to preserve their rights and maintain their accomplishments and develop them and work on achieving their national goals as ratified by the resolutions of the Palestinian National Council meetings and the Basic Law articles and the national conciliation document and Arab summit resolutions and, based on all this, I call upon you to respect the Arab and international legitimacy resolutions and agreements signed by the PLO." Not a guarantee, but a public admonition of Haniyeh to accept its agreements and designated authority. This letter is clearly presented in a manner to differentiate the PLO from the leadership of Hamas and presents
a challenge to Hamas regarding its conduct in refusing to accept existing agreements between Israel and the PLO.
Both can claim victories, but the conflict has ended. Mr. Avnery had nothing to do with ending that conflict. In fact, he seeks to obscure the profound and serious nature of the differences of Hamas and Fatah and seems to promote Hamas as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, instead of just being the majority party. So, in the end he presumes to speak for Native Americans, the Palestinians and the Saudis. But he can't even speak for Israeli people, when he continues to presume that his own views are relevant to the peace process in South West Asia. For that, Mr. Avnery would have to demonstrate much more of a political presence in either the Israeli electorate and government, or the Palestinian electorate and the PLO. The issue then becomes: Who does Mr. Avnery speak for and what is his political credibility beyond that of an individual critiquing the actions of the Israeli government? The assertion by Gush Shalom that represents Mr. Avnery's base of support is: "The agreement was achieved under the auspices
of the King of Saudi Arabia, the initiator of the Arab Peace Plan. This plan assures Israel of recognition by the entire Arab world, in return for the withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of the State of Palestine." http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/announcements/1166558377 Maybe
they should re-read Abu Mazen's letter in the Accord again before they make that assertion.
