Israeli Peace Activist Uri Avnery Dead at 94

Reprinted from Haaretz

Veteran left-wing journalist, lawmaker and peace activist Uri Avnery died Monday at age 94 in Tel Aviv. A founder of the Gush Shalom peace movement, Avnery was also one of the first Israelis to actively advocate for the establishment of a Palestinian state, more than 70 years ago.

As a youth he fought with the Irgun pre-state underground militia and later in life moved to the left of the political spectrum. He was also editor-in-chief of the iconic liberal weekly, Haolam Hazeh, for 40 years.

The eternal peace activist never shirked controversy and was involved in fateful events in the country’s history, some of which he documented and others he actively took part in shaping. But while Avnery’s supporters saw his ideas as groundbreaking, detractors denounced him as an enemy of the people.

Avnery asked to be cremated, for his archives to be donated to the National Library, and his money toward peace activism. He summarized his life by noting that while his ideals “won a resounding victory” theoretically, in practice they “were defeated politically.”

Avnery was born in Germany in 1923 as Helmut Ostermann. He grew up in Hannover as one of four offspring of a comfortable, bourgeois family. The family immigrated to British Mandatory Palestine in November 1933, a few months after Hitler rose to power. After a few months at Nahalal in the north, the family moved to Tel Aviv, where he lived until his death.

Avnery started his political career on the right side of the political map. He said that as a youth he admired Zeev Jabotinsky and saw himself as a Revisionist. In 1938, when he was 15, he joined the Irgun to fight the British forces “for the right to our own state,” as he put it. “I was convinced that we deserved independence, just like everyone else,” he recalled.

In an interview with Haaretz in April 2014, Avnery said of his activities with the Irgun: “I distributed leaflets [during a period when the Irgun killed many people], and as such I bear responsibility. The Irgun planted bombs in markets in Jaffa and in Haifa, which killed dozens of women and children, and I supported that.”

Vocation in life

In his Hebrew-language memoir “Optimi” (“Optimistic”), Avnery wrote that his service with the Irgun taught him political lessons for later on his career: “We were freedom fighters,” he wrote. “In my eyes, the British authorities were a terrorist organization. Back then, I learned that the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist depends on your perspective.”

Three years later, he dropped out of the underground militia. “The Irgun’s war against the Arabs bothered me a great deal. I was very much opposed to their anti-Arab line,” he said. He later explained he believed that, just as the Jews had the right to a national life, “The Arabs in the country have the same right.”

His older brother, Werner, joined the British army at that time and committed suicide during his service. Afterward, Uri adopted the name “Avnery” as his surname for its resemblance to the name “Werner.”

From a young age, Avnery saw himself as a politician. As someone whose life had changed completely as a result of politics – Hitler’s rise to power in his homeland – he saw it as the most significant vocation in life.

Initially, Avnery favored the idea of a single state, one in which a new people would arise as a union of two peoples – the Arabs and the Hebrews. The idea was espoused by the movement he established in 1946 which was called Bama’avak (“The Struggle,” aka The Young Israel).

He believed at that time that the national Hebrew movement was a natural ally of the Arab nation, and advocated cooperation between both movements under a joint name. “This is an ideal built on a culture partnership of homeland and history,” he said.

Accordingly, Avnery was disappointed on November 29, 1947, when the United Nations ratified the UN Partition Plan. “I couldn’t accept the partition of the country. Tul Karm, Hebron and Nablus were my country,” he said, adding, “The joy over carving up the country into pieces angered me a great deal. I dreamed of a joint national movement based on a common love of the land.”

This ideal didn’t withstand the test of reality. During the War of Independence in 1948-49, he discovered that “the vision of joint life in the country had died.” He later said: “I was a peace activist before the war, but the war was existential – a matter of life and death.”

Avnery served in the “Samson Foxes” commando unit. He was seriously wounded during the final days of the war, while fighting in the Kiryat Gat region. The worldview he adhered to until his dying day was formed during the period in which he was hospitalized for his wounds. One of those beliefs was the two-state solution.

In his memoir he wrote: “The war totally convinced me there’s a Palestinian people, and that peace must be forged first and foremost with them. To achieve that goal, a Palestinian nation-state had to be established.”

In this sense, Avnery was a groundbreaker. “During that period, there weren’t even 10 people in the world who believed in that,” he declared. “But today, it’s a global consensus. Even Netanyahu – who doesn’t think of realizing it – has been forced to say he supports it,” he wrote, referring to the prime minister’s “two-state speech” at Bar-Ilan University in 2009.

Avnery published his impressions of the war in Haaretz and Haaretz’s evening paper, Yom, Yom, while the fighting raged. At the end of the war, he compiled them in his first book, “In the Fields of the Philistines, 1948,” which became a best seller and briefly made Avnery a national hero.

But he felt the book did not provide a full description of the war, so in 1950 he published a follow-up, “The Other Side of the Coin,” which described the war’s darker side. Its publication stirred outrage and turned Avnery from “a popular man to top of the list of hated people; from a beloved person to someone who smeared Israel’s name,” as he put it.

In 1949, at the young age of 25, Avnery was appointed chief editorial writer at Haaretz. He left soon after, though, citing political differences with the newspaper’s then-editor, Gershom Shoken.

In 1950, Avnery and his friends purchased the Haolam Hazeh weekly news magazine from its founder, Uri Cesari. Avnery became its editor-in-chief for the next 40 years, and under his stewardship Haolam Hazeh became antiestablishment, subversive, sensationalist and a consensus-breaker. It operated under the legendary slogan “Without Fear, Without Prejudice.”

Avnery expressed his worldview in a number of areas: Opposition to worship of the military; religious coercion; the absence of a democratic constitution; discrimination against ethnic groups; and David Ben-Gurion’s anti-Arab policy.

The weekly sought to crusade against establishment corruption. It published a list of hard-hitting investigative pieces and exposed public and political scandals. Then-Shin Bet security service head Isser Harel defined Avnery at the time as “Government Enemy No. 1.” Ben-Gurion dubbed the magazine “that certain weekly.”

Alongside its political and social agenda, Haolam Hazeh also dabbled in tabloid journalism, publishing trashy gossip stories and photographs of naked women. This combination was seen by many as a journalistic revolution, in terms of both writing style and the magazine’s approach. The weekly also proved controversial, with its editorial offices being bombed on several occasions and its archive completely destroyed following an arson attack in 1972.

Avnery received belated recognition for his journalistic endeavors in 2004 when he won the Sokolov lifetime achievement award.

Political movement

In addition to journalism, Avnery increasingly became more political. In 1965, after the Knesset passed a law against defamation – which Avnery saw as specifically targeting his news magazine – he established a radical protest movement called Haolam Hazeh – Koah Hadash (New Force).

The movement’s political platform incorporated the values of liberty, equality and peace. Avnery was elected to the Knesset on this platform in November 1969 and was reelected four years later. His parliamentary activities included tackling religious coercion, promoting civil marriage, denuclearizing the Middle East and gay rights.

In his eyes, his biggest political mistake was voting in favor of the unification of Jerusalem after the Six-Day War in 1967. He subsequently explained his vote as an attempt to prevent the restoration of East Jerusalem to Jordanian rule, based on the hope of realizing a two-state solution and turning a united Jerusalem into the capital of both Israel and a Palestinian state.

Avnery later returned to the Knesset in 1979 as a founding member of the Sheli party (aka Left Camp of Israel). In a speech that year in favor of ratifying the peace treaty with Egypt, he said: “They say we will have a small country, but there is no greater mistake than this. Peace doesn’t reduce the size of the country. It enlarges it exponentially. In another year, we’ll get in our cars and drive on the weekends to Cairo and Alexandria. Two days later, we’ll take the train to Damascus and Aleppo, we’ll fly to Algiers and Baghdad, we’ll sail to Casablanca and Sudan. When you wake up in the morning to the sight of the pyramids outside your hotel window, as happened to me, it will be like a dream. Is this a utopia? That word doesn’t frighten us.”

In his valedictory Knesset speech in 1981 (as he relinquished his seat to an Arab lawmaker), Avnery was the first lawmaker to present the Palestinian flag alongside the Israeli one. “Those who couldn’t believe yesterday that Sadat would ever speak here will not be able to believe that someday Yasser Arafat will speak here,” he said.

Avnery was one of the first Israelis to have contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization. He had his first contacts with an Arafat envoy in 1974, which led to his founding the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace in December 1975.

In July 1982, at the height of the first Lebanon war, Avnery met with PLO chief Arafat in Beirut – the first time Israelis had met with the Palestinian leader. Avnery said at that meeting: “The fact that we are sitting here together in the middle of this terrible war is a sign that in the future our two peoples will find a solution to coexist. Palestinians and Israelis. I believe there will be a Palestinian state alongside Israel and both sides will live together in peace in two countries that, little by little, will develop good neighborly relations, and even better.”

Several cabinet members called for Avnery to be put on trial for high treason, but the attorney general decided no crime had been committed. Avnery and Arafat met a dozen more times in the years that followed.

Human shield

In 1993, months after then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin expelled hundreds of Islamic activists to Lebanon, Avnery established Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc) – a movement that supported the establishment of a Palestinian state, making Jerusalem the capital of both countries and dismantling the settlements in Palestinian territory.

A year later, when Arafat returned to Gaza, he invited Avnery to his reception and sat alongside him on the podium. In 2003, during the second intifada, Avnery spent time at the presidential compound in Ramallah, operating as a “human shield” for Arafat – for fear Israel might attempt to assassinate him.

Avnery had many critics who opposed his politics and ideology. Extremists labeled him a traitor and slanderer of Israel. While editor of Haolam Hazeh, he was subjected to physical attacks and once had both his arms broken after being ambushed. In 1975, he was seriously wounded after an assailant stabbed him on his own doorstep.

Avnery, and many in his circle, admitted he had some difficulties when it came to people skills. A friend once said: “Avnery is disabled like Trumpeldor was. Trumpeldor lacked an arm; Avnery lacks feeling.” The activist wrote in his memoir: “There’s something wrong with my emotional relations with people. And the worst thing about it is, I don’t really care.”

He said he only ever told his wife, Rachel, he loved her when she was on her deathbed, and that he had never cried – not even during funerals for his comrades in arms. His rivals would delight in highlighting his deficiencies as expressed in his mother’s will. She left him no inheritance “since he didn’t take care of me and instead went to visit that murderer Yasser Arafat.”

Avnery published seven books and a vast number of articles in various publications, including in the pages of Haaretz. “Optimist” was published around the time of his 90th birthday. “I feel like an imposter,” he said at an event marking his birthday. “Someone wrote by mistake that I’m 90 – I feel half that age.”

Avnery ended his life with mixed feelings. On the one hand, he was convinced he had turned his political ideas – first and foremost his support for establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel – into a “global consensus.” On the other, he admitted he had failed to realize these ideas politically. “Life goes on, the struggle continues. Tomorrow is a new day,” he wrote on the last page of his memoir.

His wife, Rachel, a teacher and ideological partner, died in 2011. They were partners for 58 years and chose not to have any children.

Read Uri Avnery’s archives at Antiwar.com.

26 thoughts on “Israeli Peace Activist Uri Avnery Dead at 94”

  1. People like Uri Avnery are needed to make peace. It’s a sorrow that he’s gone. I especially enjoyed his knowledgeable takedowns of prominent Israeli politicians. No one else could do it like him. He was courageous and an excellent writer.

  2. A decent man, even so he did not see anything wrong in establishing modern Israel on land that belonged to another people, with the key beneficiary being European Jews.

    Still, RIP!

    1. He did not see anything wrong with the immigration, but rather with what was done when they got there. That is true in various ways of most mass immigrations. Yet since Roman times, needs must, mass immigrations happen.

      1. The Jews were not coming to Palestine to live with the people there, they were going there to take over the land, drive out the native people….and then expand their control. This was made clear by their leaders.

        1. Careful when beholding the mote in thy brother’s eye.

          If you’re not American I withdraw my comment.

  3. “In his eyes, his biggest political mistake was voting in favor of the unification of Jerusalem after the Six-Day War in 1967. He subsequently explained his vote as an attempt to prevent the restoration of East Jerusalem to Jordanian rule, based on the hope of realizing a two-state solution and turning a united Jerusalem into the capital of both Israel and a Palestinian state.”

    The important lesson I take from that is that there are often many different and conflicting reasons swirling around one decision of yes/no. All the votes on one side don’t agree with each other, and may detest each other and the other’s ideas, yet vote the same anyway. We mustn’t forget the complexity and humanity, oversimplifying complexity for convenience.

    I will miss Uri Averny’s work. Even when I disagreed with some of what he said, it was always thought provoking and well considered. I agreed far more than I disagreed, and quoted his wisdom and insights.

  4. Very sad to read of his passing. He lived a long and productive life. Very independent minded and willing to take great risks in all senses of that term.
    He was a real hero to good people in Israel and Palestine. And his writings made those of us living elsewhere understand more about that reality.
    A true individual voice. For good. RIP

  5. Rest in peace, Uri. You were the bright, idealistic side of Zionism. Satanyahu, of course, is your polar opposite.

  6. Uri Avnery was a gatekeeper propagandist for the zionazi pseudostate, a supporter of the NATO bombardment of Libya, a cheerleader for the headchoppers in Syria, who as late as 2014 was still calling for an invasion of Syria to overthrow President Assad, whom he designated a “hyena”. What kind of “peace activist” cheers on an alliance with the headchopper regime of Saudi Barbaria? What kind of “peace activist” calls those opposed to the terrorist invasion of Syria “monsterophiles”? Like the Hasbaraganda outlet Ha’aretz, he was the smiling mask of zionazism, nothing more.

    Take the talk about the so called “two state solution”. Avnery was always careful to say that this would involve an “exchange of territories”, which means that illegal zionazi settlers would remain in Occupied Palestine (West Bank), and that there would only be a “symbolic” return of the Palestinians displaced in the Naqba. In other words the “two state solution” Palestine would be a Bantustan reduced to a source of cheap labour to the zionazi pseudostate, without the pseudostate having to take any responsibility for what went on inside it. Everything Avnery said, including his decrying of Jews who left the zionazi pseudostate in disgust, was clearly designed to one end: preserving the zionazi pseudostate as a white West European “Jewstate” a la Herzl.

    Still, he had his uses; gatekeeper propagandists have to criticise their own masters in order to maintain credibility. That Avnery did, and his columns are useful in that regard.

    1. You really have no shame, do you. I called you out on your lies once before. You never produced one shred of evidence to support your claim that the man was a racist. Now, you all but dance on his grave with demonic glee. You are not anti-war. You are something else.

      1. Did Avnery have shame when he crowed exultantly about the lynching of Brother Muammar Gaddafi? How about his full throated support for the war criminal Hillary Clinton?

        Where did I call Avnery a racist? I called him a gatekeeper propagandist for zionazism, and as for proof, the archives are linked right at the end of the article for your perusal, or if you want the full list (Antiwar only published a selection) you can visit his columns at the Gush Shalom website.

        I will be waiting for your apology after you read what Avnery wrote about Libya and Syria.

        And as for “dancing on his grave”, just the opposite: I’d written in response to one of his earlier gatekeeper Hasbaraganda columns right here on antiwar that I hope he lives for another thirty years so he can suffer the mental anguish of watching the zionazi pseudostate he helped set up crumble into the dustbin of history. It is a great pity death saved him from that.

        1. So rather than defend your own actions, you point at someone else’s and essentially say: I may be awful, but he’s worse. That’s a poor rejoinder, but never mind. I have looked through my inventory and discovered that the person I called out was not you. So I apologize for that. I think, however, that given the body hasn’t been cold for very long, you could have tempered your response to the death of an old man and peace activist, albeit an occasionally inconsistent one. Single faults over a lifetime of work are not the measure of a man, or you’d better hope not, brother Colin. Yes, he did support the invasion of Libya; there have been other similarly inconsistent contributors to the web site over the years. Are we (read: you) so much better than everyone else that we should be so unforgiving to all? We are all human and prone to mistakes, you included, unless you consider yourself superhuman; call them blind spots. If we can’t admit that to ourselves, then there is no hope, as we will fail to empathize with others, including our political opponents, those with whom we vehemently disagree, and our so-called enemies de jour. It’s not by attacking each other with derogatory labels that we achieve understanding or win others to our cause. Resistance, whether passive or demonstrative, is not the same thing as belligerance. We, who have no power but our words, our votes (some of us not even those) and how we spend our money (some of us not even that), must realize that those three things have equal power and use each of them carefully.

          1. I do not believe that Avnery was a peace activist, for reasons I have already stated. More than that I do not believe that anyone is raised to the status of being beyond criticism just because they are dead. As for Avnery I relentlessly criticised him when he was alive and I’m not going to be hypocritical enough to pretend that this does not matter when he is dead.

        2. So rather than defend your own actions, you point at someone else’s and essentially say: I may be awful, but he’s worse. That’s a poor rejoinder, but never mind. I have looked through my inventory and discovered that the person I called out was not you. So I apologize for that. I think, however, that given the body hasn’t been cold for very long, you could have tempered your response to the death of an old man and peace activist, albeit an occasionally inconsistent one. Single faults over a lifetime of work are not the measure of a man, or you’d better hope not, brother Colin. Yes, he did support the invasion of Libya; there have been other similarly inconsistent contributors to the web site over the years. Are we (read: you) so much better than everyone else that we should be so unforgiving to all? We are all human and prone to mistakes, you included, unless you consider yourself superhuman; call them blind spots. If we can’t admit that to ourselves, then there is no hope, as we will fail to empathize with others, including our political opponents, those with whom we vehemently disagree, and our so-called enemies de jour. It’s not by attacking each other with derogatory labels that we achieve understanding or win others to our cause. Resistance, whether passive or demonstrative, is not the same thing as belligerance. We, who have no power but our words, our votes (some of us not even those) and how we spend our money (some of us not even that), must realize that those three things have equal power and use each of them carefully.

  7. I feel so fortunate to have had his writing to read for the past few years on Antiwar.com. No one understood Israel or where it came from better- and no wonder, since he was there from the start, and knew everyone, and everyone knew him.

    He always had great insights to share. There are a few people who should live forever, and I always hoped he would.

  8. I had my disagreements with him. He supported world government, while I support no government. But is takes a deep courage to challenge the majority ideas of your own people, ensuring that your very life itself was always in mortal danger.

    As far as not being able to cry, that is not a moral failing, it is physiological and neurological. How do I know this? Because for the first 24 years of my life I was able to cry freely. After I developed schizo-affective disorder shortly after my 24th birthday, I could only cry during extreme conditions of sorrow or pain. Odd that clinical depression, which is quite uncomfortable, could minimize your ability to cry, but that’s the way it is. I miss the emotional release potential of crying, and it is not right to condemn someone for not being able to cry, you should pity them instead.

    RIP, Uri, you will be missed.

Comments are closed.