It's time for Uri Avnery to hang it up. Before he embarasses himself any further.
On the morrow of the 1948 war, when we raised this flag
[the Two State Solution] for the first time in Israel, we were a tiny band. We could be counted on the fingers of two hands. Everybody denied that a Palestinian people even existed. In the late 60s I tramped around Washington DC and spoke with officials at the White House, the Department of State, the National Security Council and the US delegation to the UN - nobody there was prepared to entertain this idea.
Now there is a world-wide consensus that this is the only solution. The United States, Russia, Europe, Israeli public opinion, Palestinian public opinion, the Arab League. One has to realize the full meaning of this: the entire Arab world now supports this solution. This is extremely important for the future.
Why did this happen? After all, it is not that we are so gifted as to win over the whole world. No, it is the inner logic of this solution that conquered the globe. True, some of the new adherents of this solution only pay lip service to it. Perhaps they use it to divert attention from their real aims. People like Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert act as if they support this idea, while in reality their intention is to keep the occupation forever. But this shows that even they realize that they cannot go on opposing the Two State solution openly. When the whole world recognizes that this is the only practical solution - it will, in the end, be realized.
One of Avnery's main problems with the One State solution appears to be ... (dramatic pause) ... that it would allow Israel to take unfair advantage of the palestinian arabs. No, really.
In this state, the Israelis will be dominant. They have a complete superiority in practically all spheres - quality of life, military power, technological capabilities. The average per annum income of an Israeli is 25 times (25 times!) higher than that of an average Palestinian - $ 20,000 as against $ 800. The Israelis will see to it that the Palestinians will be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for a long, long time.
It will be an occupation by other means. A disguised occupation. It will not end the conflict, but open another phase.
Another objection to the One State solution:
It pulls the rug from under the feet of those who fight against the occupation. If the whole country between the sea and the Jordan is to become one state anyhow, then the settlers can put their settlements anywhere they like.
Eeek! Horrors! To be fair, Avnery also acknowledges that it would constitute "the dismantling of the State of Israel," but though he's clear that the vast majority of Israelis (99.99%, he says) wouldn't go for that, it's not clear that he's among them. He has a different problem.
No doubt, the One State idea gives its adherents moral satisfaction. Somebody told me: OK, it is not realistic, but it is moral, and that is the place where I want to be. I say: that is a luxury we cannot afford. When the fate of so many human beings is in the balance, a moral stand that is not realistic is immoral. I repeat: a moral stand that is not realistic is immoral.
So. The attempt to dismantle the State of Israel is a moral stand. But not a realistic one. Which makes it immoral. This is the face of the Israeli left (fringe)? Or maybe Avnery just needs a comfy room in a nice beit avot (rest home).
(At our very first meeting in 1982, Yasser Arafat spoke with me about a Benelux solution, like the one that existed for some time between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg) - Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and perhaps even Lebanon. He continued to talk about this until the end.)
Delusional.
