Uri Avnery Blithely

In Haaretz:

In a column that you wrote, you draw a link between present-day legislation and the collapse of the Weimar republic.

"I was nine when the Nazis came to power, and as a child in a very political household I was very much aware of what happened. Especially when the child sees what is going on, in a very visual way: the uniforms, the parades, the music. So I know how the republic fell. I was aware of it, stage by stage, one small step followed by another small step, and then the whole thing collapsed. Collapsed because the public did not understand why it was important. The public did not summon up from within the emotional strength to oppose.

"When I see the first sign, that first red light goes on for me. I wake up a little earlier than the others. Others are waking up, too, but it takes time. At the beginning they said to us: How can you make a comparison to Nazi Germany? How could you even compare the two? So it doesn't have to be Nazi Germany, which truly was unique in human history ... It doesn't have to be Hitler - what about Mussolini? And if not Mussolini, how about Franco? Or Pinochet in Chile? Or the colonels in Greece? And if not any of these, how about Ceausescu, or Putin now? There are so many levels - from the very worst to the less worst, but each of them creates hell."

And where are we in the hierarchal ranking you described?

"We are past the first step. We are far from the last step, but in my opinion it is the first step that determines where it will head. The barricades have fallen...

However, consider this:

In 1941, Avnery wrote a pro-Nazi article in the Paris journal "Shem", whose contents were later revealed by the Hebrew University Orientalist Prof. Yehoshua Porat in his book "Shelach V'At B'yado", page 182. Herr Avnery was also fond of using the concept of "Hebrew Blood" in a racial sense, in the same way as Hitler spoke of German Aryan Blood. In those days he was anti-Marxist, although today has no problem with associating himself with Stalinists. Back then he repeatedly expressed admiration for the great job Hitler was doing in remolding and renewing the German nation. Avnery was an open admirer of Nazi propagandist Alfred Rosenberg, adopted the latter's rhetoric, and repeatedly declared that he saw himself as the Hebrew Alfred Rosenberg (which, in a sense, he is). Avnery ran a tiny "journal" called The Struggle, an obvious imitation of the name "Mein Kampf". He ran his own one-man party, whose official salute was a Nazi raised hand.

Avnery in those days advocated creation of a Semitic "race" that would lead the Middle East to greatness when combined with a new Hebraic non-Jewish culture. As such, he advocated the end of the Jewish people as a national entity and expansion of the new race into its "Semitic Lebensraum" (yes, he used that Nazi concept!). He later wrote of his dream for a new and better Hitler emerging, an anti-Nazi Hitler who will lead the struggle for peace and will promote the Palestinian cause (well, at least he got THAT part right!).

Avnery then left for Israel/Palestine.

^

Uri Avnery Nominated for Israel Prize in Journalism

The Hebrew is here.

Rino Tzror and Doron Tzuberi have proposed Uri Avnery to the Committee.


Aaaaaaaaaaargh.

^

Uri Avnery on Ze'ev Jabotinsky

Uri Avnery contributed this short piece to Haaretz's Magazine on the theme of "my childhood hero" and I have added, in italics, what Haaretz either forgot to translate or censored:-

Ze'ev Jabotinsky

I never saw him with my own eyes. I never heard his great speeches. Ze'ev Jabotinsky captivated me through his written words. And what words! A crystal clear style devoid of pretense; razor-sharp logic. I was a boy of 14 and I was enchanted by his intellectual honesty, by his total lack of hypocrisy. In the 1920s, he stated that there is an Arab Palestinian people, and scoffed at the Zionist leaders who denied this and tried to bribe the Arabs. [He was a firm nationalist and a true liberal, as those of the Italian liberation fighters whom he admired]. Under his influence I joined the Irgun. I read his weekly essay every Friday, until he died. When it didn't appear, I felt an almost physical lack.

After his death in 1940, I started to become skeptical of his views. I disavowed [his opposition to the Histadrut and the kibbutzim, his linking up to reactionary elements,] his consent to the murder of innocent Arabs in "reprisal" operations, his surrender to the religious - even though he was zealous about the separation of religion and state. I left the Irgun then, too. But after all these years, and after the thousands of articles that I've written, I still have great admiration for his style as a model of clear writing.

The original Hebrew text is here., if you wish to check.

^

Uri Avnery: Kidnapped

Really. I think he's been mentally and psychologically kidnapped.

Why?

His op-ed in Ha-Ha-Haaretz today.

Extract from:

Shalit wasn't kidnapped

It was the Israeli government that coined the term "kidnapped soldier," and the media obediently joined the chorus. Gilad Shalit has been a prisoner of war for 1,205 days. ...The Israeli government refused to call the taking of a prisoner of war by its real name, arguing that it was a "kidnapping." The Israeli media, which on security matters marches in lockstep like a Prussian regiment behind the generals, joined the chorus. Everyone, everyone almost without exception, spoke from the first day about the "kidnapped soldier." The term is significant. Every army in the world is accustomed to exchanging prisoners of war. Usually this is carried out at the end of a war. Sometimes it also takes place during a war. The army releases the enemy's fighters in return for its own fighters.

When it comes to kidnapping, the situation is altogether different. When criminals kidnap someone and demand a ransom, the question can arise whether to pay the price, which could encourage further kidnappings. It rewards criminals.

The world media also accepted the Israeli terminology almost without exception. All over the world there were references to the "kidnapped" Israeli soldier and not the "prisoner of war."

Now, before you begin to think that he may have a point, you have to realize that what Avnery is suggesting has nothing to do with Israel but everything to do with Hamas.

You see, Avnery considers Hamas an equal army to the IDF. Hamas has a military framework and Israel has one. They are equal and Israel and Hamastan are equal. They are not terrorists but fighters, soldiers.

This is insanity.

Avnery, a former Irgun fighter who turned his back on the Zionist struggle, is a turncoat. And he is harming Israel's position. He is subverting the truth and justifying the Hamas campaign against Israelis.

Uri Avenery: Amos Kenan Asserted Deir Yassin Was No Massacre

In his eulogy of Amos Kenan, Uri Avnery touched on Deir Yassin:-

Like many leftist youngsters at the time, he joined the Lehi (Stern Group) underground, which then had a pro-Soviet orientation. With the founding of the state, all Lehi members were drafted into the new Israeli army.

Before that he took part in the atrocious Irgun and Lehi action in Deir Yassin. He had a problem dealing with this – and he always asserted that the massacre was not intended, or that it did not take place at all. He maintained that the commander was killed and that the control over the fighters was lost.

Avnery also relates to an incident of "Jewish terror" in 1952.

In July 1952, the religious minister of transportation, David-Zvi Pinkas, published regulations that practically prohibited the use of cars on the Shabbat. Many of us joined forces to battle this religious coercion and demonstrated in the center of Tel Aviv. But Amos went further: he laid a bomb at the door to Pinkas’ apartment. He was caught red-handed, indicted, stubbornly refused to talk and finally acquitted for “lack of evidence”.

When the chief of the Tel Aviv police personally went to interrogate him in prison and offered to talk with him “man to man”, Kenan countered calmly “the weather today is fine”.

As a result of this affair, Kenan was compelled to leave Haaretz, and I welcomed him with open arms to Haolam Hazeh.

Although the intended target was unharmed by the bomb blast, Minister Pinkas died some three months later of a heart attack. But Avnery received Kenan with open arms.

Uri Avnery Surely Can

Surely can be a nuisance.

Here he's on the Obama slogan chant:-

There is no chance for progress towards Israeli-Palestinian peace without American pressure on the Israeli government...All the American Presidents after Dwight Eisenhower have been afraid of exerting such pressure...To be effective, American pressure does not need to be brutal. It should be gentle, but firm and consistent. This may suit Obama's temperament.

If the new American administration...comes to the conclusion that Israeli-Arab peace is an essential requirement of the American post-Bush policy, then the new President must inform our new Prime Minister of this fact...Many Israelis would thank him for that. Quite possibly, our next Prime Minister would also thank him in the hidden recesses of his (or her) heart.

Will the new American President do so? Is Barack Obama able to do so?

There is only one possible answer: Yes, you can!

But will he?