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?