Right on the first page, Avneri employs generalization:
The Zionists, on the other hand, were convinced that the Arab resistance to the Zionist enterprise was simply the consequence of the murderous nature of the Arabs and of Islam.
Not every Zionist shares such stupid point of view. I suspect that what we see here is not only unfunded generalization, but projection. When Avneri was younger and far from his current defeatist position, he was nevertheless as dense as he is today. Perhaps, young Avneri indeed attributed Arab hostility to Zionist enterprise to murderous nature of Arabs; but there were and there are plenty of more intelligent people - not that beeing smarter than Avneri is achievment in itself. The most amusing part is that in shizophrenic Avneri's text smearing of his political opponents coexist with acknowledging the reality:
Actually, the most extreme Zionist leader, Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky, was almost alone in having recognized by the 1920s that the Arab resistance to the Zionist settlement was an inevitable, natural, and, from its own point of view, just reaction of a "native" people defending their country against foreign invaders. Jabotinsky also recognized that the Arabs in the country were a distinct national entity/.../
On the same first page, Avneri delves into po-mo bubbling:
This requires a readiness to hear and understand the other side’s position in this historical conflict, in order to bridge the two national experiences and unify them in a joint narrativ
While technically it is not a lie, assumption that emplying po-mo gibberish can promote the conflict solution is far from obvious.
The same can be said of item # 6:
The settlement of such a prolonged historical conflict is possible only when each side is able to understand the mental-political world of the other and is ready to speak as equal to equal, "eye to eye". Contemptuous, power-oriented, overbearing, insensitive and ignorant attitudes prevent an agreed solution.
Traditional and religious motives drew the Zionist Movement to Palestine (Eretz Israel in Hebrew) and the decision was made to establish the Jewish State in this land. The maxim was: "A land without a people for a people without a land". This maxim was not only conceived in ignorance, but also reflected the general arrogance towards non-European peoples that prevailed in Europe at that time.
Palestine was not an empty land - not at the end of the 19th century nor at any other period. At that time, there were half a million people living in Palestine, 90% of them Arabs. This population objected, of course, to the incursion of foreign settlers into their land
Population of 450,000 in the whole Palestine fits "land without people" description. Avneri fails to notice that Palestinian mythology describe pre-WWI Palestine as populous, prospering country.
The Arab-Palestinian nation carried with them the memories of the long-lasting colonial oppression/.../
Western Palestine has been ruled by Britain for 30 years, from 1918 to 1948; in 1922 Britain carved out of Palestine the Transjordan Kingdom and granted nominal independence. Even 30 years can be hardly described as "lng-lasting colonial oppression".
It is not difficult to understand the source of "long-lasting colonial oppression" myth: British presence in Egypt has long history, and French adventures in Magrib in general and Algiere in particular started in early XIX century. Palestinian "narrative" oscilates between common Arab one and narrow Palesininian. While Palestinian has not suffered from "long-lasting colonial oppression", they inherits the myth from common Arab history. Unfortunately, it doesn't turn lie into the truth.
Oscilation between narrow Palestinian and common, pan-arabic "narratives" is substancial part of general Palestinian insanity.
This resulted in practical cooperation and a community of interests between the Zionist enterprise and imperialist and colonialist powers, directed against the Arab national movement.
There were points in Middle East history when some Western powers allied themselves with Arab national movements, US policy during Suez crisis being the primary example.
Against the Zionist claim of having successfully "Made the Desert Bloom", the Arabs cited the testimonies of European travelers who had, for several centuries, described Palestine as a comparatively populous and flourishing land, the equal of any of its regional neighbors.
The keyword here is "equal of any neighbors". Indeed, according to the European travellers of XIX century, the whole region was desolated, underdeveloped and sparsely populated.
A fragmented Arab population with no national leadership to speak of, with no unified command over its meager forces, poorly equipped with mostly obsolete weapons, facing an extremely well organized Jewish community that was highly trained in the use of the weapons that were flowing to it (especially from the Soviet bloc.)
The description fits Palestinian irregular forces, but after Israel independence has been proclaimed, neighboring Arab countries joined the conflict. Both Jordan and Egypt has formiddable armies, trained and led by British officers and reasonably equipped.
Before the state has been proclaimed, the Jewish forces could be also described as "poorly equiped with mostly obsolere weapons". The Zionist leadership was better, and Jewish population of Palestine was and still is far more advanced comparing with the neighbors. But it still makes the War of Independence victory of few against the many.
During the war, the Jewish State expanded its territory and ended up with 78% of the area of Palestine, which was left almost empty of Arabs. The Arab populations of Nazareth and some villages in the Galilee remained almost by chance; the villages in the Triangle were given to Israel as part of a deal by King Abdullah and their Arab inhabitants could not, therefore, be driven out.
78% is funny math because it conveniently ignore transjordan Palestine. As to the completeness of expulsion, there were quite a few places from where Arabs remained. beyond Nazareth and Triangle - say, Haifa.
No less important than the expulsion itself is the fact that the refugees were not allowed to return to their homes when the fighting was over, as is usual after a conventional war.
Here Avneri uses rather narrow definition of "conventional war". Millions of peoples became refuges after WWII, and most of them has never returned back.
With Israeli assistance, the monarch of Trans-Jordan, Abdullah, assumed control over the West Bank and since then there has been, in effect, an Israeli military guarantee for the existence of what became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
"Military guarantee in effect" is very vague term. Israel has not recognized Trans-Jordan annexation of land masses in Western Palestine.
The main rationale for the alliance between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom, which has already existed for three generations, is to prevent the establishment of an independent and viable Palestinian State, which was - and still is - considered by the Israeli leadership a potential obstacle to the realization of the Zionist objective.
That is complete nonsense. Jordan Kingdom is, by any definition, independent and viable Palestinian state. It is true that the kongdom is ruled from above and regular Palestinian has almost no say in the state running - but that is common feature across all Arab states.
Israel indeed objected to creation of PLO state, and for the good reason.
However, after the Arab debacle in the June 1967 war, Fatah under Yasser Arafat took control over the PLO, which has been the sole representative of the Palestinian people ever since.
Not exactly the truth. PLO claims to be sole representative of Palestinian people and has been recognized in that capacity fisrt by Arab League and later by UN. The legislative infrastructure operates on the misleading assumption that the Occupation Authority is the owner of "government-owned lands", although these are the essential land reserves of the Palestinian population. It goes without saying that the settlement activity contravenes international law.
The words "essential land reserve" has no legal meaning, and placing them into legal context can be described only as cheap propaganda trick. Concerning international law, there is no international law describing Israeli obligations for disputed territories without clear sovereign claim. Legally speaking, Israeli presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is not occupation.
Throughout the period of the "Oslo Process", Israel continued its vigorous expansion of the settlements, primarily by creating new settlements under various guises, expanding existing ones, building an elaborate network of "bypass" roads, expropriating land, demolishing houses, uprooting plantations etc. The Palestinians, for their part, used the time to build up their strength, both within the framework of the agreement and outside it.
The last part of the Oslo process description is correct - Palestinian has never tried to pretend they are going to fulfill their obligation under peace treaties. The number of armed thugs officially went far beyond the Oslo-stupilated limits. As for the Israeli settlement expansion, Avneri lies by omission: Oslo treaties has not included Israeli obligation to halt settlement activity.
He /Barak/ drew up his proposals in complete disregard of the Palestinian side and presented them as an ultimatum. He was shocked and enraged when the Palestinians rejected them.
Barak offered deepest concessions possible short of complete capitulation: sharing of Jerusalem, territorial exchange for few minor correction of 1949 ceasefire lines and even limited return of Palestinian refugees. While in my opinion such concessions are unacceptable, it is hard to imagine what else Barak could offer and what Avneri would like to see.
As a result of all these processes, the conflict is becoming less and less an Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, and more and more a Jewish-Arab one
Hey, wait, what about 1848, 1967 and 1973? Weren't them Jewish-Arab confrontations?
Does Avneri expect that his followers to has attention span so short? Is being dumb a mandatory requirement for joining New Israeli Peace Camp?