Uri Avnery – Jerusalem is ours…meaning it is everybody’s


       From Barak to Trump (original title)

 from Uri Avnery,  … with Gush Shalom, Tel Aviv

It has been a long time since Uri’s days as the youngest member in the Knesset with David Ben-Gurion of the wild hair

[ Editor’s Note: As a long time rough-and-tumbler inside Israeli opposition politics, Uri is a walking encyclopedia on not only Israeli history, but has personally known all the main players. It is, after all, a small country.

His biggest shortcoming as a writer, like many others, is titles; hence my change to something to draw readers, which is the bombshell part of his article. Uri does not converse with us, or anyone in the US that I know of, so we can never chat about such things.

But he is an astute historical observer of Zionist politics, and we learn a lot by following him. This story of Ehud Barak – the “smart guy” making a big splash over his peace plan without spending a minute of effort laying any groundwork with the other party – is a classic example of Israeli failure.

Uri chalks it up to Jewish chutzpah on Barak’s part – the “know it all” virus that infects the Hebrew community where, if they don’t have outsiders to argue and fight with, they battle each other like cats and dogs.

Ehud Barak – Did he fumble his peace plan, or was it planned to fail? I think the latter.

With my background, I am more suspicious of Barak’s intentions with his “peace” plan. He was smart enough to know that without meticulous preparation and initial feeling out of the other party to assure a feasible discussion got started, no peace plan had a snowball’s chance in Hell of succeeding.

The slam dunk proof of this is how quickly Barak claimed that Israel had no partner for peace, when he presented a “plan” that anyone with a modest background on the conflict could have told him would never fly.

Diplomacy has its false flags also – fake attempts for peace that are bound to fail and burn up another decade of the status quo before it is time to crank up the game again.

The US plays along with this because, with its history of never withholding our military and other financial aid as the ace cards to put pressure on the Zionists, Israel will never agree to anything that does not leave them as a complete colonial power in Palestine. The Palestinians will never accept that, nor should theyJim W. Dean ]

Jim's Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Jim's work includes research, field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more. Thanks for helping. Click to donate >>

In a perfect world, the Zionists would prefer to throw out all the Arabs, and the Palestinians would prefer to throw out all of the Zionists

– First published … December 09, 2017

Ehud Barak has “broken the silence”. He has published an article in The New York Times attacking our prime minister in the most abrasive terms. In other words, he has done exactly the same as the group of ex-soldiers who call themselves “Breaking the Silence”, who are accused of washing our dirty linen abroad. They expose war crimes to which they have been witnesses, or even participants.

But apart from the attack on Binyamin Netanyahu, Barak has used the article to publish his Peace Plan. A former chief-of-staff of the Israeli army and a former prime minister, Barak is obviously planning a comeback, and his peace plan is part of the effort. There seems to be, anyhow, open season for Peace Plans in our region.

I respect the intelligence of Barak. Many years ago, when he was still the deputy chief-of-staff, he unexpectedly invited me for a talk. We discussed the military history of the 17th century (military history is an old hobby of mine) and I soon realized that he was a real expert. I enjoyed it very much.

On a spring evening In May 1999, I was part of a huge jubilant crowd in Tel-Aviv’s Rabin Square after Barak had won the Knesset elections and become prime minister. He promised us “the dawn of a new day”. In particular, he promised to make peace with the Palestinians.

Intellectually, Barak is superior to all other politicians on the Israeli scene. Soon enough it appeared that this may be a handicap. Intelligent people tend to be arrogant. They despise people of lesser mental powers. Knowing that he had all the answers, Barak demanded that President Clinton call a meeting with Yasser Arafat.

On the morrow I spoke with Arafat and found him deeply worried. Nothing has been prepared, no prior exchange of views, nothing. He did not want to go to the meeting which he thought was bound to fail, but could not refuse an invitation from the president of the US.

The result was catastrophe. Barak, sure of himself as usual, presented his peace plan. It was more accommodating than any prior Israeli plan, but still fell far short of the Palestinians’ minimum. The meeting broke up.

What does a diplomat do in such circumstances? He announces that “we had a fruitful exchange of views. We have not yet reached total agreement, but the negotiations will go on, and there will be more meetings, until we reach agreement.” Barak did not say that. Neither did he say: “Sorry, I am totally ignorant of the Palestinian point of view, and I shall now study it seriously.”

Instead, Barak came home and announced that Israel had proposed the most generous terms ever, that the Palestinians had rejected everything, that the Palestinians want to throw us into the sea, that we have “no partner for peace”.

If this had been declared by a right-wing politician, everybody would have shrugged. But coming from the leader of the Peace Camp, it was devastating. Its effects can be felt to this very day.

A “new Ehud Barak?” Can a leopard change its spots?

So here comes Barak – the new Barak – with a brand-new Peace Plan. What does he say? The aim, he writes, is “separation” from the Palestinians. Not peace, not cooperation, just separation. Get rid of them. “Peace” is not popular just now.

How separation? Israel will annex the new Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the “settlement blocs” – the clusters of Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line but close to it. He agrees to “land swaps”. And then comes the killer: “overall security responsibility in the West Bank will remain in the hands of the Israel Defense Forces as long as necessary.”

And the sad conclusion: “Even if it is not possible to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at this stage – and it probably is not…”

If there is one Palestinian who would accept these terms, I shall be surprised. But Barak, then and now, does not care for the views and feelings of the Palestinians. Just like Netanyahu, who at least has the decency not to propose a “Peace Plan”. Unlike Trump.

Donald Trump is not a genius like Barak, but he also has a Peace Plan.

A group of right-wing Jews, including his son-in-law (also no genius, he) have been working on this for months. He has proposed it to Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor, to the new Saudi Crown Prince and other Arab princes. It seems to provide for a Palestinian State composed of several small isolated enclaves on the West Bank, without Jerusalem and without an army.

This is sheer lunacy. Not one single Palestinian and not one single other Arab would accept this. Worse, anyone proposing such a caricature of a state betrays utter ignorance.

That’s where the real problem lies: it is much worse than just not knowing. It demonstrates abysmal contempt for the Palestinians and for Arabs in general, a basic belief that their feelings, if any, don’t matter at all. This is a remnant of colonial times.

Palestinians, and Arabs at large, do have deep feelings and convictions. They are a proud people. They still remember the times when Muslims were incomparably more advanced than the barbarian Europeans. To be treated like dirt by the US president and his Jewish entourage hurts them deeply, and may lead to a disturbance in our region that no Arab prince, hired by the USA, will be able to control.

This especially concerns Jerusalem. For Muslims, this is not just a town. It is their third holiest place, the spot from where the Prophet – peace be upon him – ascended to heaven. For a Muslim to give up Jerusalem is inconceivable.

The latest decisions of Trump concerning Jerusalem are – to put it mildly – idiotic. Arabs are furious, Israelis don’t really care, America’s Arab stooges, princes and all, are deeply worried. If disturbances erupt, they may well be swept away.

And what for? For one evening’s headline?

There is no subject in our region, and perhaps in the world – that is more delicate. Jerusalem is holy to three world religions, and one cannot argue with holiness.

In the past I have devoted much thought to this subject. I love Jerusalem (contrary to the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who was disgusted by it and left it in a hurry after one single night). The early Zionists disliked the city as a symbol of all that is wrong and foul in Judaism.

Some twenty years ago I composed a manifesto, together with my late friend, Feisal al-Husseini, the leader of Jerusalem’s Arabs and the scion of its most noble family. Hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians signed it.

Its title was “Our Jerusalem”. It started with the words: “Jerusalem is ours, Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims, Christians and Jews.” It went on:

“Our Jerusalem Is a mosaic of all the cultures, all the religions and all the periods that enriched the city, from earliest antiquity to this very day – Canaanites and Jebusites and Israelites, Jews and Hellenes, Romans and Byzantines, Christians and Muslims, Arabs and Mamelukes, Othmanlis and Britons, Palestinians and Israelis.

“Our Jerusalem must be united, open to all, and belonging to all its inhabitants, without borders and barbed wire in its midst.”

And the practical conclusion: “Our Jerusalem must be the capital of the two states that will live side by side in this country – West Jerusalem the capital of the State of Israel and East Jerusalem the capital of the State of Palestine.”

I wish I could nail this Manifesto to the doors of the White House.


Managing Editor
Jim W. Dean is Managing Editor of Veterans Today involved in operations, development, and writing, plus an active schedule of TV and radio interviews. Read Full Complete Bio >>>

Jim W. Dean Archives 2009-2014

DISCLOSURES: All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. I think Jerusalem should not be capital of any country, as the situation is it can only be an international city under joint or impartial control where all religions be allowed access. But Uri will have to convince the Israel government to withdraw from the city along with the forced settlers.

  2. © Sputnik/
    On December 6, US President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital despite international pressure. The decision triggered bloody clashes in Israel, mass protests all over the world and even prompted Hamas to declare the beginning of the third Intifada, that is, struggle of Arabs (mainly in Palestine) against the Jewish state.
    Explore the history of the decades-long conflict between Israel and Palestine in our infographic.
    Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    20:50 13.12.2017(updated 20:55 13.12.2017)

  3. As for Jerusalem obsession I will never understand it in the 21st century. For all those Zionists that like to say about themselves that they are progressive and western and open-minded, with Jerusalem obsession they only prove they are no traditionally different than their buddies some or couple of hundred miles to the southeast in Madinah or Meccah. Claiming Jerusalem is a very Muslim thing to do – someone should whisper to Netanyahu. Maybe Netanyahu has some Muslim roots, he should double-check with the heraldry because with the Kushner Jerusalem move he basically can throw his pamphlet “we will never be like them (Arabs)” out of the window. While tons of arable non-occupied land await some even more progressive Zionists..

  4. I thought that the Mossad chief latest proposal for building an artificial island/port/customs off the coast of Gaza was fairly decent. Together with building 2 airports (favorably international) within Gaza and West Bank should the “hostilities” lessen. And air corridor giveaway as well. Surely some smarter Israelis dwell on the origins of territorial fragility, but always use the experiences of uber-nations with no such occupation whatsoever. There are countries with territorial fragility out there, only they don’t use Lockheed or Northop or Raytheon as their management, nor “final solutions” on the natives.

  5. Of course the basic problem in all this is Israel was unfairly granted State status while it was unfairly denied to Palestine at the same time. Hence Israel has all the bargaining chips while Palestine has none. Without armed force, there will be no Palestinian State. Unfortunately the bully U.S. has aided Israel while shafting the Palestinians. The same for England. I am sure this outcome is exactly what was intended by the selfish people of Israel who hate the Palestinians anyway. Both States should have been created at the same time or no States should have been created. Perhaps one should start over by revoking the State of Israel until both can be created simultaneously and fairly.

Comments are closed.