Uri Avnery

If I could choose between the two rhetorical gladiators, I would rather have Mahmoud Abbas representing Israel and Netanyahu representing the other side.  Abbas stood almost motionless and read his speech (in Arabic) with quiet dignity. No gimmicks.



Netanyahu used all the tricks taught in a beginners course in public speaking. He rotated his head regularly from left to right and back, stretched out his arms, raised and lowered his voice convincingly. At one point he produced the required visual surprise. Last time it was a childish drawing of an imagined Iranian atom bomb, this time it was a photo of Palestinian children in Gaza playing next to a rocket launcher. Everything a bit too slick, too smooth, too “sincere”. Like the furniture marketeer he once was.



Both speeches were delivered to the General Assembly of the United Nations. Abbas spoke two weeks ago, Netanyahu this week. Because of the Jewish holidays, he came late – rather like the person who arrives at the party after all the main guests have already left. The hall was half empty, the sparse audience consisted of junior diplomats sent to demonstrate the presence of their government. They were obviously bored stiff.



Not that it matters. One does not speechify in the General Assembly in order to convince its members. One speaks there for the home audience. Netanyahu did, and so did Abbas.



The speech of Abbas was a contradiction between form and content: a very moderate speech clad in very extreme language. It was clearly addressed to the Palestinian people, who are still boiling with anger over the killing and destruction of the Gaza war. This led Abbas to use very strong language. He used the word “genocide” – not once, but three times. That was a bonanza for the Israeli propaganda machine, and it immediately became known as the “Genocide Speech”.



The speech itself, shorn of the strong language, was quite moderate, as moderate as it could be. Its crux was a peace program identical with the terms Palestinians have proposed from the start of Yasser Arafat’s peace policy, as well as with the Arab Peace Initiative.



It stuck to the Two State Solution: a State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital “alongside the State of Israel”, the 1967 borders, an “agreed-upon solution to the plight of the Palestinian refugees” (meaning: agreed upon with Israel, meaning: essentially no return). It also mentioned the Arab Peace Initiative. No Palestinian leader could possibly demand less. It also demanded a “specific time frame” to prevent the charade of endless “negotiations”.



For this he was attacked by Netanyahu as the incarnation of all evil, the partner of Hamas, which is the equivalent of the so-called Islamic State, which is the heir of Adolf Hitler, whose latter-day reincarnation is Iran.



I have known Mahmoud Abbas for 32 years. He was not present at my first meeting with Yasser Arafat in besieged Beirut, but when I met Arafat in Tunis, in January 1983, he was there. As chief of the Israel desk of the PLO headquarters, he was present at all my meetings with Arafat in Tunis. Since the return of the PLO to Palestine, I have seen Abbas several times.



He was born in 1935 in Safed, where my late wife Rachel also grew up. They used to ruminate about their childhood there, trying to work out if Abbas was ever treated by Rachel’s father, a pediatrician.



There was a striking difference between the personalities of Arafat and Abbas.  Arafat was flamboyant, extrovert and outgoing, Abbas is withdrawn and introvert. Arafat made decisions with lightning speed, Abbas is deliberate and cautious. Arafat was warm in human relations, fond of gestures, always preferring the human touch. Abbas is cool and impersonal. Arafat inspired love, Abbas inspires respect.



But politically there is almost no difference. Arafat was not as extreme as he seemed, Abbas is not as moderate as he looks. Their terms for peace are identical. They are the minimum terms any Palestinian leader – indeed any Arab leader – could possibly agree to.



There can be months of negotiations about the details – the exact location of the borders, the exchanges of territories, the symbolic number of refugees allowed to return, security arrangements, the release of the prisoners, water and such. But the basic Palestinian demands are unshakable.



Netanyahu is always quick to exploit changing circumstances to promote his unchanging attitude. The latest hot issue is the so-called Islamic State. The world is appalled by its atrocities. Everyone condemns it.  So Netanyahu connects all his enemies with IS. Abbas, Hamas, Iran – they are all IS.



Netanyahu counts on the fact that most people do not know what he is talking about. However, the facts are well-known to anyone interested in world politics. They are certainly known to the diplomats in the corridors of the UN. So why does Netanyahu repeat these misrepresentations (to use a mild word) from the UN rostrum?



Because he was not speaking to the diplomats. He was speaking to the most primitive voters in Israel, who are proud to have such a fluent English-speaking representative to address the world. 



Uri Avnery is an activist and an advocate of Palestinian rights. He can be reached at avnery@actcom.co.il