Is the Left being Flip-Flopped (II) ?

(Continued from preceding post, of July 11, which should be read first, especially if you are not very familiar with the Israel-Palestine conflict):

Is what used to be opposed by the Left in the past now going to be pronounced as the Left position more generally? If so, who calls the shots in the background? From what can still be seen on Working TV's video of the panel at the press conference for Prof. Aruri, people directly involved still had ENOUGH with 40 years of occupation. At the library monologue, you could pick up a copy of the primer (The Wall Must Fall), meant not only for union members, by BC CUPE.; whose president for many years, Ken Davidson, was on the panel. There is explicit support for the "international peace consensus", which has been urged especially by Left outfits. The role of Gush Shalom comes up repeatedly. Its now unmentionable (co)founder, "the veteran Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery" is quoted directly in the Foreword by Carl Rosenberg , who was also on the morning press conference panel. In his capacity as editor of OUTLOOK, a high quality magazine of the Jewish Canadian Left, several of Avnery's weekly articles have been re-published for some time now. From various other sources (e.g. at least readers' comments in the TYEE), it is obvious that Avnery is much better appreciated even in North America, probably even in Massachusetts, than their own renowned intellectual. The still widely respected I.F. Stone's early (strong) praise for him should further make any background flip-flopper's task to erase his name an unenviable one.

Aruri's point on (about) 60 years does not mean that his one state would be on the agenda after another two decades of status quo misery. What is meant is that he views all of Israel, proclaimed about 60 years ago, as occupied Palestinian territory; so whatever time (and blood and tears) it takes, it will be worth the wait. And he does want peace at the end, just like the CanWesterners or the people at the other internet-advertised June 6 event in Vancouver; the Washington state one just across the Columbia river from Portland, OR. There they had Israeli Knesset members celebrating with right wing Christian fundamentalists of "Americans for a Safe Israel", i.e. one opposed to Oslo and to the return of any territory occupied in 1967. They all want peace , just not the one that may be achievable in a foreseeable future.

I am hardly the ideal person for arguing against one state utopias, since, unlike Uri Avnery (I believe), one state has always looked preferable to me, even when I was still a Zionist (until 1941-2) and belonged to the HaShomer HaTzair; which worked for a bi-national state. It did not look likely, or easy, even then; before all the killing and maiming wars and occupation and suicide bombing and dependencies (increasingly including the dependence of an Israeli coolies and billionaires economy on soft and hardware for military, surveillance, indirect censorship, spying, fence-wall architecture and profits emanating from export of other expertise in confrontations; as detailed in a really scary Naomi Klein article in the Georgia Straight).

A unitary state at internal peace without even an intervening mutual independence stage thus does not look like a serious option now.

But Prof. Aruri assures us that Palestinian and Israeli "intellectuals" will be getting together to take care of things; in fact the process has already started (somewhere). With a theater whiz on the press conference panel, he could already have begun discussing a scenario. But will the Royal Canadian Air Farce approve of it?

It is true that Aruri does not mean peace in our time. He emphasizes that it will take time. He is familiar with the ongoing suffering and knows there will be shells and rockets flying, crimes committed which, if violence gets bad enough so that the word war can be used, can then be applied for war crimes propaganda. Bombs will be exploded in civilian locations, but all the mayhem will be over there. Prof. Aruri's base could continue to be near Martha's Vineyard, an appropriate place for retired and emeritus intellectuals to get together and ensure a happy future ever after. Am I invited?

I have spent most of my professional life at scientific research, with about twenty peer reviewed publications , having been one of the first students to earn a doctorate (under a renowned professor) following graduation (with high distinction, ~ magna cum laude) from the very institution of which Aruri is now Chancellor Professor Emeritus. It is called the University of Massachusetts (at) Dartmouth (of which I was unaware until now); following several name changes and a move from Fall River and New Bedford to the little town half way between those.

I had come to Fall River in 1950 to learn the ancient art (and modern science) of dyeing, a skill needed by the just emerging (pre-military) Israeli industry, and I expected to return with a B.S. in "Chemistry and Dyeing". But the head of the Chemistry Department (Dr. Watters) tricked me into going on. I had to go elsewhere, since you couldn't get a doctorate there then, and I doubt that Aruri could have had a doctoral program now.

That does not mean that it is not a worthy institution. I was happy with it. There were problems but not fundamental ones. I was still a good left socialist, which would not be the appropriate description now. Our professor for Economics and Economic History (Lavaux) was a Taft Conservative (we had to know the Taft-Hartley Act inside out) and he was real mad about "the planners and schemers in Washington". When he blamed those planners for the current (moderate) unemployment, I couldn't keep my big mouth shut and asked if that couldn't be due to inadequate or lack of planning. At which he invited me to come forward, if I want to give socialist speeches. Even though it was Joe McCarthy's USA, I don't think it was meant to intimidate me. And I don't think Prof. Aruri has anything to fear now, if he decided to come forward and speak out for the long held stand of the Left in favor of the global consensus solution.

If my doctorate and research in polymer (macromolecular) science are inadequate for the intellectual appellation, which I never desired before, how can I qualify, so I can also participate in the powwow? I also learned some things in non-academic "universities"; e.g. while wearing a (n optional) "Palestine" ribbon on the shoulder strap of my uniform while serving in the war against the fascist axis when I was of normal student age. Such army service was the proper Left thing to do at the time, but there were some leftists opposed; at least the Trotzkyists. Since I knew a couple of them, one was a close personal friend, I can assure you that they had got themselves to honestly believe it was just another imperialist war.

In line with that, I do not mean to say that Aruri does not really believe that a settlement now with formation of a Palestinian state in the areas occupied by Israel in the last 40 years is a bad idea; just that he has not been forthright in presenting his rejection; and that his inability to even mention Avnery while pushing for Pappe, right following the recent public debate between the two, is not what one expects from an academic intellectual. Although I had raised my hand to ask him whether he had heard of Avnery, the unusual way audience participation was handled made it possible to prevent the question (not Aruri's fault).

(I should add something about the Paris and Jerusalem 1968 stereo slides below)

HOW TO VIEW SUCH STEREOSCOPIC IMAGES (click here)

http://3dexpo.com/how.htm

[ To view a larger, more detailed version of this image click on it. If you are using Internet Explorer, click then on the icon at the lower right of the resulting image. ]

Is the Left being Flip-Flopped

to Oppose a Palestinian State Next to the State of Israel ?

What is generally called "the 2-state solution", the formation of a Palestinian state next to Israel, has long been referred to as the ("international" or) "global consensus" for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Later, it was also to be the main basis for peace with the Arab world as a whole, following a Saudi initiative repeated at a recent Riyadh summit, and to which the Syrian government also subscribed (at least in principle). The Israeli government appeared to be the only serious holdout, but then made noises indicating a more open attitude. Could it be that 40 years of occupation will have been ENOUGH ? Are there real prospects for peace in the Near East?

I had not heard previously of Dr. Naseer Aruri, emeritus professor at the University of Massachusetts, and described in notices as a renowned Palestinian intellectual. His talk on June 6 at the Vancouver Public library could be expected to provide significant information even to those of us pretty familiar with the problems. The title was clear cut:

40 Years of Occupation and the Prospects for Peace. The 3/4 hour talk can be summarized briefly with respect to that title: The proper time frame is about 60 years of occupation, not 40. And let's not hold our breath in expectation of peace now. Better later!

He did start out with 40 years, but of futile "peacemaking", without trying to make sense of that. Peace following the 1967 war was clearly rejected, and at that time not by the Israeli government (as far as known). But the Khartoum Conference of the defeated Arab governments said no, no, no. When a separate Palestinian voice began to be heard, it was no less negative. And it didn't take very long before the "Greater Israel" crowd got heard from. The first sign I became aware of of movement within the PLO toward peace based on a 2-state solution came in the seventies, not long before Begin came in , with Sharon and their "Peace for Galilee" war in Lebanon; then the first intifada. When the news about negotiations in Oslo were revealed they sure looked good.

Dr. Aruri presented arguments to show that the US government has not really been acting as an honest broker between Israeli and Palestinian representatives. There is more on that in his book Dishonest Broker. Other things, too, seemed pretty obvious, but some in the audience may not have been aware of them. He made a point of no longer referring to the occupation as political "genocide", but rather as "politicide", a term he attributes to a just deceased Israeli sociologist (Kimmerling): which would have been really fitting, if in 1967 Israel had occupied a functioning, independent Palestinian polity.

The most significant in Aruri's talk was his rejection of the two state global consensus; which had been advanced most fiirmly by the Left, of which the sponsors of this event clearly view themselves as part; thus presumably Prof. Aruri, too. His fleeting attempt to present this rejection as a position he is only now in the process of reaching/confirming should be taken with a generous measure of salt. While knocking Oslo, initiated without US brokerage, he views the accord as a "crippling blow" to the 2-state solution by the US and Israel . But those of us who welcomed it at the time were not educated by him about his reasoning for that. He may possibly just mean that it was subject to valid criticism.

Many of us have been aware of Israeli factors contributing to preventing Oslo from leading to an early, reasonably just settlement that could lead to reconciliation; most notably the murder of Rabin. There was also the principled rejection of the accord by Sharon. But corresponding Palestinian efforts from people associated with Aruri's rejectionist position should also be considered. And then there were suicide bombing "resistance" and "settlers".

Like many Israelis, both Jewish and Arab, who, unlike him, remain committed to peace now based on the two state consensus, Aruri complains about the premature convening of the Clinton-Arafat-Barak summit at Camp David, the "generous" Barak offer and the Clinton treatment of Arafat later. He also reveals that a (religious) Jewish member (named Miller) of the US delegatiion expressed criticism of the US role. But according to Aruri, Miller "admitted", implying that Miller had to be pressured to admit rather than having at own initiative honestly wanted to do his job for better US political action in pursuit of its stated goal of peace; something Aruri's fellow American citizens who are Jews really are expected to do; both by ancient Jewish tradition and modern American law.

Would it be proper to say that Dr Aruri admits that Palestinian President Abu Mazen, the close political companion of Yasir Arafat, is no good; e.g. that he cooperated with the US and Israel to deprive his Islamist enemies of its election victory. Or is Aruri rather eager to degrade him, the one leader in that triangle with the US and Israel who seems to have fought seriously for peace now with two states. It would be nice , if we could believe that such "admission" results from passionate commitment to democratic practice rather than to rejection of the peace consensus.

Since Aruri does not subscribe to the one possible (if not very likely) way for peace now, it may not be in search of an answer that he asked why Israel is afraid of peace. His own answer amounts to what Uri Avnery called the demographic demon in Israeli brains, but the man seems determined not to mention the name of this consistent fighter for two states at peace. The demon really is not satisfied with only Israeli brains. It must have been around when, before the UN was ever brought in and voted for two states, an Anglo-American commission could not get agreement from the Arab leadership to admit just 100,000 survivors of the Nazi camp system; a number not comparable to the millions the demon now disturbs Israeli brains with.

Uri Avnery played an important role toward recognition by Israelis that the PLO can no longer be dismissed as just a senseless terrorist outfit. Along with his "Peace Bloc" (Gush Shalom), he has acted now for engaging with Hamas, too. An intellectual might be expected (naively?) to be eager to engage in a dialogue with someone like him; as Avnery himself showed by organizing a major public debate in Tel Aviv with 2-state opponent Ilan Pappe; still formally a professor at Haifa University, although clearly without support to speak of in Israel, unlike Avnery. Pappe was not just honored by being mentioned. Aruri promised us a Pappe visit to Vancouver. Does that mean that the Vancouver Public Library has been made to agree to another anti-consensus monologue? Does all that Vancouverites are to be exposed to have to be 1-state propaganda by a "Librarian Left" lecture monopoly and and the right wing ("New Zionist") Revisionist Asper CanWest newspaper monopoly?