Israel Palestine Infos
Uri Avnery
October 1, 2011
Mutiny on the Titanic
HERE IS a story that has
never been told before:
When the Titanic was well
out into the
They demanded higher
wages, less cramped quarters, better food. They assembled on the lower decks and
refused to budge from there.
A few old hands from the
engine room tried to extend the scope of the protest. They claimed that the
captain was grossly incompetent, that the officers were nincompoops and that the
voyage was bound to end in disaster.
But the leaders of the
protest resisted. “Let’s not go beyond our practical demands,” they said. “The
course of the ship is none of our business. Whatever some of us may think about
the captain and the officers on the bridge, we must not mix matters. That would
only split the protest.”
The passengers did not
interfere. Many of them sympathized with the protest, but did not want to get
involved.
It is said that one
drunken English lady was standing on deck, a glass of whisky in her hand, when
she saw the huge iceberg looming. “I asked for some ice,” she murmured, “but
this is ridiculous!”
FOR A WEEK, or so, all
the Israeli media were riveted to the goings on at the UN.
Ehud Barak had warned of
a “tsunami”. Avigdor Lieberman foresaw a “bloodbath”.
The army was prepared for huge demonstrations that were certain to end in
unprecedented violence. No one could think of anything else.
And then, overnight, the
bloody tsunami faded like a mirage, and the social protest reappeared. State of
war Out, welfare state In.
Why? The commission
appointed by Binyamin Netanyahu to examine the roots of the protest and propose
reforms had finished its work in record time and laid a thick volume of
proposals on the table. All very good ones. Free education from the age of 3,
higher taxes for the very rich, more money for housing, and so on.
All very nice, but far
short of what the protesters had demanded. The almost half a million
demonstrators some weeks ago did not go out into the streets for that. Economics
professors attacked, other economics professors defended. A lively debate
ensued.
This can go on for a few
days. But then something is bound to happen – perhaps a border incident, or a
settlers’ pogrom against a Palestinian village, or a pro-Palestinian resolution
at the UN – and the whole media pack will veer around, forget about the reforms
and return to the good old scares.
In the meantime, the
military budget will serve as a bone of contention. The government commission
has proposed reducing this budget by 3 billion shekels – less than a billion
dollars – in order to finance its modest reforms. Netanyahu has voiced
agreement.
No one took this very
seriously. The slightest incident will enable the army to demand a special
budget, and instead of the suggested tiny reduction, there will be another big
increase.
But the army has already
raised hell – quite literally – describing the disasters that will surely befall
us if the diabolical reduction is not choked in its cradle. We face defeat in
the next war, many soldiers will be killed, the future investigation committee
will blame the present ministers. They are already shaking in their shoes.
ALL THIS goes to show how
quickly national attention can swing from “protest mode” to “security mode”. One
day we are shaking our fists in the street, the next we are manning the national
ramparts, resolved to sell our lives dearly.
This could lead to the
idea that the two problems are really one, and can only be solved together. But
this conclusion meets with resolute resistance.
The young leaders of the
protest insist that the demand for reform unites all Israelis – male and female,
young and old, leftist and rightist, religious and secular, Jew and Arab,
Ashkenazi and Oriental. Therein lies its power. The moment the question of
national policy comes up, the movement will break apart. End of protest.
Difficult to argue with
that.
True, even so the
rightists accuse the protesters of being leftists in disguise. Very few
national-religious people appear at the demonstrations, and no orthodox at all.
Oriental Jews, traditional voters for the Likud, are underrepresented, though
not altogether absent. People speak of a movement of the “White Tribe” – Jews of
European descent.
Still, the movement has
succeeded in avoiding an open split. The hundreds of thousands of demonstrators
have not been called upon to identify themselves with any particular political
party or creed. The leaders can rightly claim that their tactic – if it is a
tactic – has worked up to now.
THIS CONVICTION has been
reinforced by recent events in the Labor Party.
This moribund
congregation, down in the polls to a mere 7% of the votes, has suddenly sprung
to new life. A lively primary election for the party leadership has restored
some color to its cheeks. In a surprise victory, Shelly Yacimovich has been
elected party chairwoman.
Shelly (I dislike these
long foreign surnames) was in the past an assertive, abrasive radio
journalist with very pronounced feminist and social-democratic views. Six years
ago she joined Labor and was elected to the Knesset under the wing of Amir
Peretz, the then leader, who she has now soundly beaten.
In the Knesset, Shelly
has distinguished herself as a diligent and relentless militant on social
issues. She is a girlish-looking
In all her years in the
Knesset, she has not mentioned any of the national problems – war and peace,
occupation, settlements. She has concentrated exclusively on social issues. On
the eve of the primary, she shocked many members of her party by publicly
embracing the settlers. “The settlements are no sins or crimes,” she asserted,
they were put there by Labor Party governments and are a part of the national
consensus.
Shelly may really believe
this or she may consider it good tactics – the fact is that she has adopted the
same line as the protest movement: that social affairs should be separated from
“national” affairs. Seems you can be rightist on the occupation and leftist on
taxing the rich.
BUT CAN YOU?
On the morrow of the
Labor primaries, something amazing happened. In a respected opinion poll, Labor
rose from 8 to 22 Knesset seats, overtaking Tzipi Livni’s Kadima, which sank
from 28 to 18.
A revolution? Not quite.
All the new Labor votes came from Kadima. But a move from Kadima to Labor, while
interesting in itself”, is not important. The Knesset is divided into two blocs
– the nationalist-religious and the center-left-Arab. As long as the rightist
bloc has a 5% edge, there will be no change. To effect change, enough voters
must jump from one side of the scales to the other.
Shelly believes that by
shunning national issues and concentrating on social matters, voters can be
moved to make the jump. Some say: that’s all that counts. What’s the use of
putting forward a program of peace, if you can’t change the government? Let’s
first come to power, by whatever means, and than see to peace.
Against this logical
argument, there is the contrary contention: that if you start to embrace the
settlers and ignore the occupation, you will end up as a minor partner in a
right-wing government, as has happened before. Ask Shimon Peres. Ask Ehud Barak.
And then there is the
moral question: can you really chant “the People Demand Social Justice” and
ignore the daily oppression of four million Palestinians in the occupied
territories? When you abandon your principles on the way to power, what are you
likely to do with that power?
THE JEWISH High Holidays,
which started the day before yesterday, provide a pause for reflection. Politics
are at a standstill. The protest leaders promise another huge demonstration,
restricted to the social demands, in a month’s time.
In the meantime, the
Titanic, this beautiful masterpiece of naval architecture, is riding the waves.