Ever since the days of the Syria strike rumors, which I consistently and correctly denied would become a reality (use the Google Custom Search feature on the sidebar), I have read the column of Yuri Avnery, a 90-year old Israeli Jew whose column is published on the Gush Shalom and CounterPunch (where I first found it) websites in English. I have found his pieces to be only slightly worse than the good Edward Dark‘s, and that’s saying a lot. Avnery and Dark (neither native English speakers) (almost) always give excellent and perceptive analyses of the Middle East. Their pieces are better than any analysis published by the Council on Foreign Relations and most of the analysis published by the New York Times.
There is only one major political issue I’ve seen expounded on in Avnery’s columns for the past three years on which I have serious disagreements with Avnery, and it is the most major one. I deny a two-state solution, as imagined by most of the international community, is either possible or preferable. He sees the two-state solution, as imagined by most of the international community, as the only solution. I do not see the Israeli colonies as any kind of obstacles to peace. Avnery thinks they are the greatest obstacles to peace. I find this astonishing. Perhaps the simplest, strongest, and most-ignored of Avnery’s arguments is his simple point that a Western (or Israeli)-provoked war with Iran was always an utter impossibility.