Uri Avnery's piece [see here] is interesting, if only because of his failure to recognize that the origins of the "March of the Orange Shirts" and his correctly projected possible "[Orange] March on Jerusalem" have their origin in the the war crimes and crimes against humanity of ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of Palestine, the Palestinian Arab people, perpetrated by the Israeli army in the course of and in the wake of the 1948-49 war.

Rather than come out clean, apologize for and regret his role in the said war—Avnery seems to doggedly take pride in his role as a soldier with the Giv'ati Brigade commando unit of "Samson's Foxes" and the founder editor of the fascist publication BA-MAAVAQ.  He should, thus, not be too surprised when six or so decades later today's fascists in Israel embrace as their standard, inter alia, his own complicity and the complicity of his kind of peace activists, including deceased and surviving members of the Israeli Communist Party, in the ethnic cleansing of 1948.

To my understanding, the only call that may stop the possible "[Orange] March on Jerusalem" is a firm and unequivocal call for the implementation of the right of the 1948 Palestine refugees to return and to the titles to their vast properties inside the State of Israel, underpinned by worldwide anti-apartheid boycott of Israeli material products, cultural bodies and academic institutions together with international UN sanctions against the rogue government of the State of Israel.

Needless to say that the implementation of the right of the 1948 Palestine refugees to return and to the titles to their vast properties inside the State of Israel need not result in the dislodging of a single Jewish family from their current residence.  Rather, it is likely to result in the implementation of a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict on a bi-national basis in conformity with ALL United Nation resolutions relevant to the question of Palestine, including UN General Assembly Resolutions 181 of November 1947 as well as UN GA Resolution 194 of December 1948.  Also, needless to say that, legally speaking, when recommending the partition of the country of Palestine into two states, one "Jewish" and one "Arab" with the City of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under an international regime administered by the UN (with all elements bound together by an economic union)—the General Assembly was informed by an idea of the "Jewish state" that is very different from the political Zionist idea of the same.

It was and remains impossible for the General Assembly, conducting its business under the stipulation of the UN Charter, to have legally endorsed the political Zionist idea of the "Jewish state", namely, a state that attempts to guarantee in law and practice a demographic majority of the Jewish tribes in the territories under its control.

The constitutional notion underpinning the idea of the "Jewish State" in the said UN Resolution 181, as well as its sister "Arab State", envisioned the partition of British Mandate Palestine into two essentially democratic bi-national states, one with a "Jewish" trappings and one with an "Arab" trappings, joined together in the framework of an economic union, with Jerusalem as corpus separtum under a special international regime to be administered by the United Nations.

One can only speculate as to what representations of "Jewish", "Arab" or "International" trappings would be consistent with essentially democratic constitutions.  One could imagine, for instance, that in the "Jewish State" the first line on official road signs would be Hebrew, the second Arabic and the third English; in the "Arab State"—the first line Arabic, the second, Hebrew and the third English; and in the international city of Jerusalem road signs would be only in English to skirt the stupid thorny issue of whether the second line on official road signs should be Hebrew or Arabic.

In terms of the said UN General Assembly Resolution 181 all Arab inhabitants who were ordinarily resident in the territories designated by the for the "Jewish State" were and remain entitled to "Jewish State" citizenship; all Jews ordinarily in the territories by the said Resolution for the "Arab State" were and remain entitled to "Arab State" citizenship; and all Arabs and Jews ordinarily resident on Jerusalem are and remain entitled to an international Jerusalem citizenship.  One could improve on the above and suggest a dual citizenship treaty between the "Jewish state" and the "Arab state", whereby every citizen of the "Jewish state" is entitled to "Arab state" citizenship as well—and vice versa.

For the resistance to Israeli fascism succeed it must take as point of departure a critical examination of the right of self-determination for the Hebrew people constructed in the process of the Zionist colonization of Palestine.  Such critical examination would aim to dismantle illegal institutional representations of this right as were put in place by the Parliament of the State of Israel (the Knesset) in violation of the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the standards of international law (e.g., Absentees Property Law of 1950; World Zionist Organization—Jewish Agency (Status) Law of 1952; Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (Jewish National Fund) Law of 1953 and more), and replace them with alternative legal and other institutional representations such as are consistent with the UDHR, notably with UN General Assembly Resolution of 194 of December 1948 stipulating the right of return of all Palestinian Arab refugees.

Needless to say that in this context Jerusalem is not and cannot be the capital, let alone "eternal" capital of the State of Israel—not even West Jerusalem.

The international community is quite right in keeping its embassies in Tel Aviv.

Dr. Uri Davis is a well know Israeli peace activist and author of many books on Israel and Zionism including Israel an Apartheid State and Citizenship and State: A Comparative Study of Citizenship Legislation in Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.