Weekend Edition May 18-20, 2012
The New Protest
by
URI AVNERY
Rabin
Square in Tel Aviv has seen many demonstrations, but none quite like
last Saturday’s.
It
has nothing to do with the event which gave the square its name: the
huge rally for peace at the end of which Yitzhak Rabin was
assassinated. It was different in every respect.
It
was a joyous occasion. Dozens of NGOs, many of them small, some of
them slightly larger, each with a different agenda, came together in
an effort to restart last year’s social protest. But it was not a
continuation of last year’s Israeli Spring by any means.
Last
year’s upheaval was quite unplanned. A young woman, Daphni Leef,
could not pay her rent and so she put up a small tent in Rothschild
Boulevard, five minutes’ walk from Rabin Square. She had obviously
struck a chord, because within days hundreds of tents had sprung up
in the boulevard and all over the country. It ended in a huge
demonstration, called the “March of Half a Million”, which led to
the setting up of a government commission, which made a list of
suggestions to relieve social injustice. Only a small fraction of
them were put into practice.
The
whole effort called itself “apolitical”, rebuffed politicians of
all stripes, and resolutely refused to deal with any national problem
such as peace (what’s that?), occupation, settlements and such.
All
decisions were made by an anonymous leadership grouped around Daphni.
Some of the names became known, others did not. The masses who took
part were quite content to accept their dictates.
*
* *
NO
MORE. This year’s new initiative has no obvious leadership at all.
There was no central tribune, no central speakers. It resembled
London’s Hyde Park Corner, where anyone can climb on a chair and
preach his or her gospel. Each group had its own stand where its
flyers were displayed, each had its own name, its own agenda, its own
speakers and its own guides (since we should not call them leaders).
Since
the square is big and the audience amounted to some thousands, it
worked. Many different – and some contradictory – versions of
social justice were advocated, from a group called “Revolution of
Love” (everybody should love everybody) to a group of anarchists
(all governments are bad, elections are bad too).
They
all agreed only on one point: they were all “apolitical”, all
shrank back from the taboo subjects (see above).
Gideon
Levy called the scene “chaotic” and was immediately attacked by
the protesters as lacking understanding (with a hint that he was too
old to understand.) Chaos is wonderful. Chaos is real democracy. It
gives the people their voice back. There are no leaders who steal and
exploit the protest for their own careers and egos. It’s the way
the New Generation expresses itself.
It
all reminded me of a happy period – the 60s of the last century,
when almost none of this week’s protesters was yet born, or even
“in the planning stage”’ (as Israelis like to put it).
At
the time, Paris was seized by a passion for social and political
protest. There was no common ideology, no unified vision of a new
social order. At the Odeon theatre an endless and uninterrupted
debate was going on, day after day, while outside, demonstrators
threw cobblestones at the police, who beat them up with the leaden
seams of their overcoats. Everyone was elated, it was clear that a
new epoch in human history had begun.
Claude
Lanzmann, the secretary of Jean-Paul Sartre and lover of Simone de
Beauvoir, and who later directed the monumental film “Shoah”,
described the atmosphere to me like this: “The students burnt the
cars in the streets. In the evenings I parked my car at distant
places. But one evening I told myself: What the hell, what do I need
a car for? Let them burn it!”
But
while the Left was talking, the Right gathered its forces under
Charles de Gaulle, a million Rightists marched down the Champs
Elisees. The protest petered out, leaving only a vague longing for a
better world.
The
protest was not limited to Paris. Its spirit infected many other
cities and countries. In lower Manhattan, youth reigned supreme.
Provocative posters were sold in the streets of the Village, young
men and women wore humorous buttons on their chests.
On
the whole, the vague movement had vague results. Without a concrete
agenda, it had no concrete results. De Gaulle fell some time later
for other reasons. In the US, the people elected Richard Nixon. In
public consciousness, some things changed, but for all the
revolutionary talk, there was no revolution.
*
* *
ON
SATURDAY’S rally, young Daphni Leef and her comrades wandered
around in the crowd like a relic from the past, hardly noticed. After
only one year, it seemed as if a new New Generation was taking over
from yesteryear’s New Generation.
It
was not that they were unable to unite around a common agenda –
rather, they did not see the virtue, or even the necessity of having
a common agenda, a common organization, common leadership. All these
are, in their eyes, bad things, attributes of the old, corrupt,
discredited regime. Away with them!
I
am not quite sure what I think about it.
On
the one hand, I like it very much. New energies are released. A young
generation that seemed egoistic, apathetic and indifferent, suddenly
shows that it cares.
For
years now, I have expressed my hope that the young people would
create something new, with a new vocabulary, new definitions, new
slogans, new leaders, that are totally divorced from today’s party
structures and government coalitions. A new beginning. The beginning
of the Second Israeli Republic.
So
I should be happy, watching a dream coming true.
And
indeed, I am happy about this new development. Israel needs basic
social reforms. The gap between very rich and very poor is
intolerable. A broad new social movement, even with so much
diversity, is a good thing.
Social
Justice is a leftist demand and always has been. A demonstration
shouting “The People Demand Social Justice” is leftist, even if
it wants to avoid this stigma.
But
the adamant refusal to enter the political arena and proclaim a
political agenda is disturbing. This could mean that it will all
peter out just like last year’s effort.
When
the demonstrators insist that they are “apolitical” – what do
they mean? If it means that they do not identify themselves with any
existing political party, I can only applaud. If it is a tactical
ploy, in order to attract people from all existing camps, ditto. But
if it is a serious determination to leave the political arena to
others, I must condemn it.
Social
justice is a political aim par
excellence.
It means, among other things, to take away money from other uses and
devote it to social purposes. In Israel, it inevitably means taking
away money from the huge military budget, as well as from the
settlement drive, from the subsidies paid as a bribe to the Orthodox
and from the parasitic tycoons.
Where
can this be done? Only in the Knesset. To get there, you need a
political party. So you have to be political. Period.
An
“apolitical” protest, avoiding the burning questions of our
national existence, is something that is outrageously divorced from
reality.
Last
year I compared the social protest to a mutiny on board the Titanic.
I could expand on this. Imagine the wonderful ship on its maiden
voyage with all the lively activity on board. The band throws away
the old-fashioned music of Mozart and Schubert, replacing it with
hard rock. Anarchists dismiss the captain and elect a new captain
every day. Others reject the Boat Drill – a ridiculous exercise on
the “unsinkable” ship – and organize sport events instead. Also
the scandalous difference between first class and the steering
passengers is abolished. And so on. All deserving causes.
But
somewhere along the route there lurks an iceberg.
Israel
is heading towards an iceberg, bigger than any of those in the path
of the Titanic. It is not hidden. All its parts are clearly visible
from afar. Yet we are sailing straight towards it, full steam ahead.
If we don’t change course, the State of Israel will destroy itself
– turning first into an apartheid-state monster from the
Mediterranean to the Jordan, and later, perhaps, into a bi-national
Arab-majority state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
Does
this mean that we must give up the struggle for social justice?
Certainly not. The fight for social solidarity, for better education,
for improved medical services, for the poor and the handicapped, must
go on, every day, every hour.
But
to be successful this struggle must be a part – politically and
ideologically – of the wider struggle for the future of Israel, for
ending the occupation, for peace.
URI
AVNERY is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He
is a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The
Politics of Anti-Semitism.