The U.S. and Israel are principally responsible for the attacks on the civilian populations of Gaza and Lebanon. Israel must withdraw completely, and negotiate.
ISRAEL MUST END ITS GAZA-LEBANON WAR
From the Aug. 4, Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
By Jack A. Smith, Editor
It is our view that the Israeli government is responsible for the current two-front war against Gaza and Lebanon. In this article I will explain why.
Although opposed to Zionism and to the right wing ultra-nationalist political leadership of Israel, I wish the Israeli people peace, security and stability. But as I wrote in our newsletter four years ago at another time when Israel was pummeling the Palestinians, “There is a way for the Palestinian and Israeli people to live in peace and security, but the policies of the governments of Israel and the United States are leading in the opposite direction.”
In essence, I do not believe that peace will ever come about until the oppression of the Palestinian people is ended and they are able to enjoy their national rights. In earlier years I thought a settlement to this question might be the formation of a unitary nonsectarian bi-national state of Arab and Jew, but that seems terribly remote now. At present, given geopolitical realities, the so-called two-state solution may be the most realistic option.
What can we Americans do to help bring peace to the region? In my view, we must struggle to force the U.S. government to transform its historic one-sided support for Israel into a balanced policy to satisfy the real interests of both peoples. Unfortunately, our two ruling parties are utterly complicit in Israel’s arrogant rejection of Palestinian rights.
Why does the key to peace repose in Washington? Because this is from whence Israel derives its military and other subsidies, sophisticated weaponry, and the political-military protection of the most powerful state in history. The U.S. has helped Israel to become a world-class military power, unrivaled by other states in the Middle East. The Palestinian people subject to this power do not have an army, and their small police force is inconsequential. The several Palestinian liberation organizations, including governing Hamas, mainly possess small arms.
It is important to understand that Israel in effect is America’s 51st state, not simply a small country surrounded by enemies, as many Israelis still prefer to think despite Tel Aviv’s normalized relations with neighboring Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. clients in the region.
According to the U.S. group Jewish Voice for Peace, “More U.S. aid goes to Israel than any other country, even though Israel’s per capita income is as high as many European countries. In fiscal year 2003 Israel received a foreign military financing grant of $3.1 billion and a $600 million grant for economic security in addition to $11 billion in commercial loan guarantees. This total aid package of nearly $15 billion makes Israel by far the largest single recipient of U.S. aid.”
Washington not only subsidizes Israel and guarantees its security, but collaborates politically and diplomatically in Tel Aviv’s military adventures, as it is doing now. Some progressive analysts suspect the U.S. not only supported but encouraged Israel to proceed with its long-planned invasion of Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah. According to Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery Aug. 3, “President Bush is frustrated [because] the Israeli army has not ‘delivered the goods.’ Bush sent them into war believing that this powerful army — equipped with the most advanced American arms — will ‘finish the job’ in a few days. It was supposed to eliminate Hezbollah, turn Lebanon over to the stooges of the U.S., weaken Iran, and perhaps also open the way to ‘regime change’ in Syria. No wonder that Bush is angry.”
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives as well as the Bush Administration recently gave their unqualified support to Israel. The text of the House resolution, which was passed 410-8 July 20 could easily have been written in Tel Aviv. The entire New York House and Senate delegation, sporadically known for its liberalism, is behind Israel. (Among state Democrats involved in this year’s campaign, only Jonathan Tasini, the antiwar candidate challenging New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primary, has spoken out sharply against Israel’s attacks.)
Washington works hand in glove with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as it does with all Israeli leaders. For his part, Olmert has a big political stake in this war. As an untested leader from a newly created party, he is striving to demonstrate he is even tougher and more adventurous than former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the scourge of Lebanon-Palestine wars past, thus trumping Binyamin Netanyahu, the reactionary leader of the far-right wing Likud Party. Olmert is very dependant on the leading generals of the Israeli Defense Force. They promised him a swift, crushing victory in Lebanon and Gaza — thus insuring his political longevity — but it now appears that their hubris may have led him into a possible political disaster. (If you listen carefully, you may hear Netanyahu quietly sharpening Likud’s long knifes.)
I support the aspirations of the Palestinian people, but recognize there have been shortcomings in its leadership over the years — a verdict that pertains to the leadership of the Israeli people as well. However, it seems perfectly evident to me regardless of Tel Aviv’s rhetoric, that the principal obstacle by far to establishing a balanced two-state solution is the intransigence of the Israeli government.
The key step on the road to two secure and prosperous states can only be taken when Israel totally withdraws from the Occupied Territories, including from all the intrusive settlements established after the illegal occupation. I do not view Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza as a move in this direction because he repeatedly made it entirely clear, as does his successor, that (a) this was a move to strengthen Israel and (b) it was intended to justify the continuing occupation of large swaths of the West Bank, which quite properly is unacceptable to the Palestinians.
A settlement can only come about through intensive negotiations between the two parties that will include genuine give and take. In the process, some goals may have to be compromised, but that is the nature of negotiations. Any negotiation must be overseen by an international entity committed to the creation of two viable states. It most certainly cannot transpire successfully under the auspices of the United States, which has shown little but bad faith toward the Palestinians.
In this connection, I believe that calls for the destruction of the Israeli state, whether from Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran, will be transcended quickly when the occupation and neocolonial oppression of the Palestinian people ends in the establishment of a separate and viable state of their own as part of a two-state solution. Israeli politicians invariably exploit such essentially empty threats to justify Tel Aviv’s intransigent attitude toward Palestinian rights. Nuclear-armed Israel is the most powerful state in the Middle East by far, and it is protected by the world’s most powerful state. Emotional fears of Israel being “thrown into the sea” — and the cynical exploitation thereof — are not based on today’s realities.
I think that Israeli authorities who say it is impossible to talk to Hamas or Hezbollah because these organizations want to destroy Israel do so mainly because they have no desire to negotiate a real two-state solution. Some Israeli politicians do not want to forgo the irredentist notion of Greater Israel; some others, as though unaware that repression breeds resistance, believe that it may be possible to keep the Palestinians subjugated forever without ever paying the proverbial piper; some will just stall — thus prolonging the agony — indefinitely.
In terms of the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon, I do not look upon Israel as the victim, despite continuous efforts to portray it so. Yes, an armed faction of Hamas captured an Israeli prisoner of war, evidently without the knowledge of the Hamas government according to the New York Times, and this is the incident Israel claims generated the entire conflict. The fact that this fighting unit immediately called for a prisoner exchange (some 10,000 Palestinian prisoners, including children, are held by Israel, in some cases for more than 20 years) is generally ignored.
The day before the capture, it turns out, “Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza — an incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press,” according to a statement July 21 by Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky, Harold Pinter and seven other internationally recognized progressive intellectuals who were critical of Israel.
True, the Palestinian armed unit has sent some rather ineffective and largely homemade rockets over the border — a second reason for its massive retaliation, according to the Tel Aviv government. But true, too, Israel’s long-term occupation in itself is an act of war. True, as well, it has crushed Palestinian cities and civilians before and is seeking to do so again, right now in Gaza, by cutting off electrical power, daily shelling, bombing, and the killing of civilians, for which the Israeli government and army appear to have a penchant. (See the story, “Don’t Forget Gaza.”)
True again that Israel has refused to treat with the Hamas government, and has imposed horrendous sanctions on the Palestinians for democratically electing the organization, as have the principal power centers of the world at the behest of Israel and the Bush Administration. True, further, that Israeli causalities (throughout Intifada II to the current bombardment of Gaza) have been far, far fewer than those of the virtually defenseless Palestinians. That’s right, virtually defenseless. Yes, there have been suicide attacks inside Israel, but this is the tactic of a desperate people under siege without means to defend itself.
Hezbollah, which has between 1,000 and 2,500 effectives, according to Israeli estimates, came to the aid of the Palestinian people in Gaza when it became apparent that most Arab nations are now led by governments that feel secure in Uncle Sam’s back pocket — foremost being Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Syria and Iran have been accused of trying to topple Israel, thus justifying possible action against both these countries by the U.S., but they have done little in this situation except to offer moral and political support, hospice to victims, and weapons to Hezbollah — on an approximate scale of one to 10,000 compared to U.S. military support for Israel over the years.
Hezbollah has emphasized more than once that it is willing to return the two prisoners it captured and to stop its rocket attacks, but Israel refuses to agree to mutuality. The prisoners would have to be exchanged for some prisoners in Israeli jails — a deal Israel accepted several times in the past, but refused this time in order to launch a war. And the rockets would be stilled if Israel agrees to halt its bombing and shelling of Lebanese villages, according to the latest statement on the subject Aug. 3 by Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. Tel Aviv ignores these and earlier offers (a) because it wants the war to continue until it annihilates Hezbollah and (b) because it “won’t talk to terrorists.”
It is worth recalling in this connection that Hezbollah has insisted from the start that the two soldiers were captured in a gunfight inside Lebanon, not in Israel. Forbes reported July 12 that the capture prompted a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.”
The French news agency AFP reported the same day that “according to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab, near to the border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated in middle of morning.” Hezbollah itself announced the capture July 12 in these words: "Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place." The Lebanese defense organization then requested a prisoner exchange, to which it is said Israel responded by firing at its positions, thus touching off the cross-border rockets and bombs from both sides.
Hezbollah, incidentally, observed the two-day “suspension of air strikes” initiated by Tel Aviv this week after the Qana massacre by halting the firing of rockets into Israel. Israel itself repeatedly broke its temporary “truce” by continuing to send jet bombers into Lebanon.
No one denies that rockets have been fired at Israel from Lebanon — but look at what Israel is firing into Lebanon! So far, many more civilians have died in Lebanon (over 900, according to the Beirut government Aug. 3) than in Israel (officially 56, but it is not clear whether this includes Israeli soldiers as well as civilians). One-third of Lebanon’s dead are children under the age of 12. A quarter of Lebanon’s population has become refugees and a great many of them have had their homes destroyed.
Israel is obviously targeting civilians, and appears to be bragging about it. "One who goes to sleep with rockets,” said Dan Gillerman, Israeli’s UN ambassador, referring to the myth that virtually all the residents of southern Lebanon are hiding rockets in their bedrooms, “shouldn't be surprised if he doesn't wake up in the morning." Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, the army chief of staff, said Israel was going "to turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years" — a task that requires destroying much of the country’s civilian infrastructure, a war crime that has been taking place for several weeks. Another general was quoted in the mass circulation newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth as saying, “Every village from which a Katyusha is fired must be destroyed" — a phrase evoking orders given German troops at the Russian front. "Everyone in southern Lebanon,” insisted Justice Minister Haim Ramon July 27, “is a terrorist and is connected to Hezbollah," knowing full well he was in effect sentencing innocent civilians to death.
Does this extreme disproportion count for nothing? How many eyes for an eye will Israel demand? And most importantly in terms of context, who is oppressing whom in this general situation — or doesn’t that matter if the victims are Arabs?
Human Rights Watch released a lengthy investigative report on the fighting Aug. 3 (see story below) stating that it "found numerous cases in which the IDF [Israeli army] launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians."
And as Jimmy Carter, a long-time friend of the Israeli people, put it: “It is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response.” People throughout the world seem to understand this, judging by the extraordinary support developing for Hezbollah in Arab and Islamic quarters, and the considerable opposition toward Israel and the U.S. that has been generated in recent days throughout the world, though far less so in America, of course.
The UN and the international community — particularly the European Union nations which are considered allies of Tel Aviv — have been arguing for an immediate cease-fire throughout the last weeks, mainly because of the brutality of Israel’s offensive in Lebanon. But the Bush Administration subverted these efforts in order to provide more time for Israel to crush Hezbollah, which has turned out to be a formidable opponent. I wonder how quickly the U.S. would have demanded a cease-fire had Hezbollah possessed jet fighter bombers, large artillery pieces, smart bombs and guided missiles, tanks and the backing of a superpower.
The UN Security Council has been ineffective so far but Secretary-General Kofi Annan appears to be making serious efforts to galvanize world and public opinion in support of a fast cease-fire. Annan has implied what every international lawyer well knows: punishing the civilian population of a country for what its leaders allegedly are doing contravenes the Geneva Convention and is legally a war crime.
Fortunately, the international outcry is becoming impossible for Washington and Tel Aviv to ignore and at least a temporary secession of fighting is expected soon. The notion of having an international force enter Lebanon to “disarm Hezbollah,” however, is preposterous. Hezbollah, even if it eventually suffers many casualties from Israel’s onslaught, will remain and grow stronger as Lebanon’s independent defense force, unless the Beirut government invites all its fighters into the Lebanese army, which Israel would hardly accept. The only way to settle this situation is through serious negotiations between the belligerents. (For a truly interesting take on Hezbollah, see the article below titled “A Look at Hezbollah.”)
Obviously Tel Aviv — with approval from the imperial hegemon in Washington — is operating on a preconceived plan to destroy both Hezbollah and Hamas. The San Francisco Chronicle confirmed this suspicion July 21 with an article from Jerusalem beginning: “Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago.” It’s not just Hezbollah and Hamas, according to the statement from Roy, Chomsky, Pinter, et al, who stated that the “political aim” of Israel’s actions over the years, including this latest episode, “is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.”
The White House is motivated by objectives beyond that of destroying Hezbollah, which it would consider a major victory in the project to extend total U.S. hegemony over the Middle East known as the “war on terrorism.” That objective is to situate a government thoroughly subordinate to Washington and Tel Aviv in Beirut. Washington believed that would eventuate after it forced Syria to quit Lebanon 15 months ago, ignoring that, if anything, Damascus was a force for stability. But Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who the White House evidently believed would become its marionette, clearly disappointed the Bush Administration and visibly perturbed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by having the effrontery to denounce Israel for destroying his country.
Instead of trying to attain a peace, the U.S. was swiftly shipping many more laser-guided “smart” bombs and 600-pound “bunker-buster” bombs to Israel to enable it to continue punishing Lebanon and its people. According to a statement July 26 from the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Bush Administration is breaking the law by re-supplying armaments to Israel because the Arms Export Control Act bans the sale of weapons used to attack civilians. As such, concluded the progressive civil liberties organization, the U.S. is now legally “complicit in the death of innocent people” in Lebanon.
Ignored by many supporters of Israel in this entire affair is the fact that the Palestinian people, including Hamas, genuinely believe they are fighting a war of liberation against an oppressive government, and that Hezbollah is under the impression that it is offering solidarity to an oppressed people.
Even if Israel succeeds in crushing Hamas and Hezbollah, which is not likely, that outcome would neither end Palestinian resistance nor diminish Israel’s perennial sense of insecurity. The fight will go on. Only a fair settlement will bring peace. But that means Israel will have to drop its self-serving complaint that it has “no negotiating partner.” Quoting Avnery again, real peace will be attained when Israel agrees to negotiate in good faith “with the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, and with Hamas and Hezbollah — because it’s only with enemies that one makes peace.” One negotiates with the partners that exist, or there are no negotiations — which it seems is the reason the Olmert government has rejected the only partners available. Until this changes, nothing changes.
There is a cause and an effect to the present conflict. The cause is long-term Israeli subjugation, maltreatment and humiliation of the Palestinian masses. The effect is uprisings and attempts to fight back by any means available. If the Israeli or American people were in a similar situation, would they not rise up? As a secularist with left politics I am not in ideological agreement with either Hamas or Hezbollah, but as an anti-imperialist I recognize the right of oppressed people to rebel and to accept help from allies.
“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.” It’s time to end the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza. It’s time to withdraw from the occupied territories. It’s time to negotiate an honorable understanding with the Palestinian people. And it’s time for the people of Lebanon, of Palestine and of Israel to live in peace. At issue is whether Israel will seize the time.
From the Aug. 4, Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
By Jack A. Smith, Editor
It is our view that the Israeli government is responsible for the current two-front war against Gaza and Lebanon. In this article I will explain why.
Although opposed to Zionism and to the right wing ultra-nationalist political leadership of Israel, I wish the Israeli people peace, security and stability. But as I wrote in our newsletter four years ago at another time when Israel was pummeling the Palestinians, “There is a way for the Palestinian and Israeli people to live in peace and security, but the policies of the governments of Israel and the United States are leading in the opposite direction.”
In essence, I do not believe that peace will ever come about until the oppression of the Palestinian people is ended and they are able to enjoy their national rights. In earlier years I thought a settlement to this question might be the formation of a unitary nonsectarian bi-national state of Arab and Jew, but that seems terribly remote now. At present, given geopolitical realities, the so-called two-state solution may be the most realistic option.
What can we Americans do to help bring peace to the region? In my view, we must struggle to force the U.S. government to transform its historic one-sided support for Israel into a balanced policy to satisfy the real interests of both peoples. Unfortunately, our two ruling parties are utterly complicit in Israel’s arrogant rejection of Palestinian rights.
Why does the key to peace repose in Washington? Because this is from whence Israel derives its military and other subsidies, sophisticated weaponry, and the political-military protection of the most powerful state in history. The U.S. has helped Israel to become a world-class military power, unrivaled by other states in the Middle East. The Palestinian people subject to this power do not have an army, and their small police force is inconsequential. The several Palestinian liberation organizations, including governing Hamas, mainly possess small arms.
It is important to understand that Israel in effect is America’s 51st state, not simply a small country surrounded by enemies, as many Israelis still prefer to think despite Tel Aviv’s normalized relations with neighboring Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. clients in the region.
According to the U.S. group Jewish Voice for Peace, “More U.S. aid goes to Israel than any other country, even though Israel’s per capita income is as high as many European countries. In fiscal year 2003 Israel received a foreign military financing grant of $3.1 billion and a $600 million grant for economic security in addition to $11 billion in commercial loan guarantees. This total aid package of nearly $15 billion makes Israel by far the largest single recipient of U.S. aid.”
Washington not only subsidizes Israel and guarantees its security, but collaborates politically and diplomatically in Tel Aviv’s military adventures, as it is doing now. Some progressive analysts suspect the U.S. not only supported but encouraged Israel to proceed with its long-planned invasion of Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah. According to Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery Aug. 3, “President Bush is frustrated [because] the Israeli army has not ‘delivered the goods.’ Bush sent them into war believing that this powerful army — equipped with the most advanced American arms — will ‘finish the job’ in a few days. It was supposed to eliminate Hezbollah, turn Lebanon over to the stooges of the U.S., weaken Iran, and perhaps also open the way to ‘regime change’ in Syria. No wonder that Bush is angry.”
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives as well as the Bush Administration recently gave their unqualified support to Israel. The text of the House resolution, which was passed 410-8 July 20 could easily have been written in Tel Aviv. The entire New York House and Senate delegation, sporadically known for its liberalism, is behind Israel. (Among state Democrats involved in this year’s campaign, only Jonathan Tasini, the antiwar candidate challenging New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primary, has spoken out sharply against Israel’s attacks.)
Washington works hand in glove with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as it does with all Israeli leaders. For his part, Olmert has a big political stake in this war. As an untested leader from a newly created party, he is striving to demonstrate he is even tougher and more adventurous than former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the scourge of Lebanon-Palestine wars past, thus trumping Binyamin Netanyahu, the reactionary leader of the far-right wing Likud Party. Olmert is very dependant on the leading generals of the Israeli Defense Force. They promised him a swift, crushing victory in Lebanon and Gaza — thus insuring his political longevity — but it now appears that their hubris may have led him into a possible political disaster. (If you listen carefully, you may hear Netanyahu quietly sharpening Likud’s long knifes.)
I support the aspirations of the Palestinian people, but recognize there have been shortcomings in its leadership over the years — a verdict that pertains to the leadership of the Israeli people as well. However, it seems perfectly evident to me regardless of Tel Aviv’s rhetoric, that the principal obstacle by far to establishing a balanced two-state solution is the intransigence of the Israeli government.
The key step on the road to two secure and prosperous states can only be taken when Israel totally withdraws from the Occupied Territories, including from all the intrusive settlements established after the illegal occupation. I do not view Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza as a move in this direction because he repeatedly made it entirely clear, as does his successor, that (a) this was a move to strengthen Israel and (b) it was intended to justify the continuing occupation of large swaths of the West Bank, which quite properly is unacceptable to the Palestinians.
A settlement can only come about through intensive negotiations between the two parties that will include genuine give and take. In the process, some goals may have to be compromised, but that is the nature of negotiations. Any negotiation must be overseen by an international entity committed to the creation of two viable states. It most certainly cannot transpire successfully under the auspices of the United States, which has shown little but bad faith toward the Palestinians.
In this connection, I believe that calls for the destruction of the Israeli state, whether from Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran, will be transcended quickly when the occupation and neocolonial oppression of the Palestinian people ends in the establishment of a separate and viable state of their own as part of a two-state solution. Israeli politicians invariably exploit such essentially empty threats to justify Tel Aviv’s intransigent attitude toward Palestinian rights. Nuclear-armed Israel is the most powerful state in the Middle East by far, and it is protected by the world’s most powerful state. Emotional fears of Israel being “thrown into the sea” — and the cynical exploitation thereof — are not based on today’s realities.
I think that Israeli authorities who say it is impossible to talk to Hamas or Hezbollah because these organizations want to destroy Israel do so mainly because they have no desire to negotiate a real two-state solution. Some Israeli politicians do not want to forgo the irredentist notion of Greater Israel; some others, as though unaware that repression breeds resistance, believe that it may be possible to keep the Palestinians subjugated forever without ever paying the proverbial piper; some will just stall — thus prolonging the agony — indefinitely.
In terms of the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon, I do not look upon Israel as the victim, despite continuous efforts to portray it so. Yes, an armed faction of Hamas captured an Israeli prisoner of war, evidently without the knowledge of the Hamas government according to the New York Times, and this is the incident Israel claims generated the entire conflict. The fact that this fighting unit immediately called for a prisoner exchange (some 10,000 Palestinian prisoners, including children, are held by Israel, in some cases for more than 20 years) is generally ignored.
The day before the capture, it turns out, “Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza — an incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press,” according to a statement July 21 by Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky, Harold Pinter and seven other internationally recognized progressive intellectuals who were critical of Israel.
True, the Palestinian armed unit has sent some rather ineffective and largely homemade rockets over the border — a second reason for its massive retaliation, according to the Tel Aviv government. But true, too, Israel’s long-term occupation in itself is an act of war. True, as well, it has crushed Palestinian cities and civilians before and is seeking to do so again, right now in Gaza, by cutting off electrical power, daily shelling, bombing, and the killing of civilians, for which the Israeli government and army appear to have a penchant. (See the story, “Don’t Forget Gaza.”)
True again that Israel has refused to treat with the Hamas government, and has imposed horrendous sanctions on the Palestinians for democratically electing the organization, as have the principal power centers of the world at the behest of Israel and the Bush Administration. True, further, that Israeli causalities (throughout Intifada II to the current bombardment of Gaza) have been far, far fewer than those of the virtually defenseless Palestinians. That’s right, virtually defenseless. Yes, there have been suicide attacks inside Israel, but this is the tactic of a desperate people under siege without means to defend itself.
Hezbollah, which has between 1,000 and 2,500 effectives, according to Israeli estimates, came to the aid of the Palestinian people in Gaza when it became apparent that most Arab nations are now led by governments that feel secure in Uncle Sam’s back pocket — foremost being Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Syria and Iran have been accused of trying to topple Israel, thus justifying possible action against both these countries by the U.S., but they have done little in this situation except to offer moral and political support, hospice to victims, and weapons to Hezbollah — on an approximate scale of one to 10,000 compared to U.S. military support for Israel over the years.
Hezbollah has emphasized more than once that it is willing to return the two prisoners it captured and to stop its rocket attacks, but Israel refuses to agree to mutuality. The prisoners would have to be exchanged for some prisoners in Israeli jails — a deal Israel accepted several times in the past, but refused this time in order to launch a war. And the rockets would be stilled if Israel agrees to halt its bombing and shelling of Lebanese villages, according to the latest statement on the subject Aug. 3 by Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. Tel Aviv ignores these and earlier offers (a) because it wants the war to continue until it annihilates Hezbollah and (b) because it “won’t talk to terrorists.”
It is worth recalling in this connection that Hezbollah has insisted from the start that the two soldiers were captured in a gunfight inside Lebanon, not in Israel. Forbes reported July 12 that the capture prompted a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.”
The French news agency AFP reported the same day that “according to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab, near to the border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated in middle of morning.” Hezbollah itself announced the capture July 12 in these words: "Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place." The Lebanese defense organization then requested a prisoner exchange, to which it is said Israel responded by firing at its positions, thus touching off the cross-border rockets and bombs from both sides.
Hezbollah, incidentally, observed the two-day “suspension of air strikes” initiated by Tel Aviv this week after the Qana massacre by halting the firing of rockets into Israel. Israel itself repeatedly broke its temporary “truce” by continuing to send jet bombers into Lebanon.
No one denies that rockets have been fired at Israel from Lebanon — but look at what Israel is firing into Lebanon! So far, many more civilians have died in Lebanon (over 900, according to the Beirut government Aug. 3) than in Israel (officially 56, but it is not clear whether this includes Israeli soldiers as well as civilians). One-third of Lebanon’s dead are children under the age of 12. A quarter of Lebanon’s population has become refugees and a great many of them have had their homes destroyed.
Israel is obviously targeting civilians, and appears to be bragging about it. "One who goes to sleep with rockets,” said Dan Gillerman, Israeli’s UN ambassador, referring to the myth that virtually all the residents of southern Lebanon are hiding rockets in their bedrooms, “shouldn't be surprised if he doesn't wake up in the morning." Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, the army chief of staff, said Israel was going "to turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years" — a task that requires destroying much of the country’s civilian infrastructure, a war crime that has been taking place for several weeks. Another general was quoted in the mass circulation newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth as saying, “Every village from which a Katyusha is fired must be destroyed" — a phrase evoking orders given German troops at the Russian front. "Everyone in southern Lebanon,” insisted Justice Minister Haim Ramon July 27, “is a terrorist and is connected to Hezbollah," knowing full well he was in effect sentencing innocent civilians to death.
Does this extreme disproportion count for nothing? How many eyes for an eye will Israel demand? And most importantly in terms of context, who is oppressing whom in this general situation — or doesn’t that matter if the victims are Arabs?
Human Rights Watch released a lengthy investigative report on the fighting Aug. 3 (see story below) stating that it "found numerous cases in which the IDF [Israeli army] launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians."
And as Jimmy Carter, a long-time friend of the Israeli people, put it: “It is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response.” People throughout the world seem to understand this, judging by the extraordinary support developing for Hezbollah in Arab and Islamic quarters, and the considerable opposition toward Israel and the U.S. that has been generated in recent days throughout the world, though far less so in America, of course.
The UN and the international community — particularly the European Union nations which are considered allies of Tel Aviv — have been arguing for an immediate cease-fire throughout the last weeks, mainly because of the brutality of Israel’s offensive in Lebanon. But the Bush Administration subverted these efforts in order to provide more time for Israel to crush Hezbollah, which has turned out to be a formidable opponent. I wonder how quickly the U.S. would have demanded a cease-fire had Hezbollah possessed jet fighter bombers, large artillery pieces, smart bombs and guided missiles, tanks and the backing of a superpower.
The UN Security Council has been ineffective so far but Secretary-General Kofi Annan appears to be making serious efforts to galvanize world and public opinion in support of a fast cease-fire. Annan has implied what every international lawyer well knows: punishing the civilian population of a country for what its leaders allegedly are doing contravenes the Geneva Convention and is legally a war crime.
Fortunately, the international outcry is becoming impossible for Washington and Tel Aviv to ignore and at least a temporary secession of fighting is expected soon. The notion of having an international force enter Lebanon to “disarm Hezbollah,” however, is preposterous. Hezbollah, even if it eventually suffers many casualties from Israel’s onslaught, will remain and grow stronger as Lebanon’s independent defense force, unless the Beirut government invites all its fighters into the Lebanese army, which Israel would hardly accept. The only way to settle this situation is through serious negotiations between the belligerents. (For a truly interesting take on Hezbollah, see the article below titled “A Look at Hezbollah.”)
Obviously Tel Aviv — with approval from the imperial hegemon in Washington — is operating on a preconceived plan to destroy both Hezbollah and Hamas. The San Francisco Chronicle confirmed this suspicion July 21 with an article from Jerusalem beginning: “Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago.” It’s not just Hezbollah and Hamas, according to the statement from Roy, Chomsky, Pinter, et al, who stated that the “political aim” of Israel’s actions over the years, including this latest episode, “is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.”
The White House is motivated by objectives beyond that of destroying Hezbollah, which it would consider a major victory in the project to extend total U.S. hegemony over the Middle East known as the “war on terrorism.” That objective is to situate a government thoroughly subordinate to Washington and Tel Aviv in Beirut. Washington believed that would eventuate after it forced Syria to quit Lebanon 15 months ago, ignoring that, if anything, Damascus was a force for stability. But Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who the White House evidently believed would become its marionette, clearly disappointed the Bush Administration and visibly perturbed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by having the effrontery to denounce Israel for destroying his country.
Instead of trying to attain a peace, the U.S. was swiftly shipping many more laser-guided “smart” bombs and 600-pound “bunker-buster” bombs to Israel to enable it to continue punishing Lebanon and its people. According to a statement July 26 from the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Bush Administration is breaking the law by re-supplying armaments to Israel because the Arms Export Control Act bans the sale of weapons used to attack civilians. As such, concluded the progressive civil liberties organization, the U.S. is now legally “complicit in the death of innocent people” in Lebanon.
Ignored by many supporters of Israel in this entire affair is the fact that the Palestinian people, including Hamas, genuinely believe they are fighting a war of liberation against an oppressive government, and that Hezbollah is under the impression that it is offering solidarity to an oppressed people.
Even if Israel succeeds in crushing Hamas and Hezbollah, which is not likely, that outcome would neither end Palestinian resistance nor diminish Israel’s perennial sense of insecurity. The fight will go on. Only a fair settlement will bring peace. But that means Israel will have to drop its self-serving complaint that it has “no negotiating partner.” Quoting Avnery again, real peace will be attained when Israel agrees to negotiate in good faith “with the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, and with Hamas and Hezbollah — because it’s only with enemies that one makes peace.” One negotiates with the partners that exist, or there are no negotiations — which it seems is the reason the Olmert government has rejected the only partners available. Until this changes, nothing changes.
There is a cause and an effect to the present conflict. The cause is long-term Israeli subjugation, maltreatment and humiliation of the Palestinian masses. The effect is uprisings and attempts to fight back by any means available. If the Israeli or American people were in a similar situation, would they not rise up? As a secularist with left politics I am not in ideological agreement with either Hamas or Hezbollah, but as an anti-imperialist I recognize the right of oppressed people to rebel and to accept help from allies.
“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.” It’s time to end the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza. It’s time to withdraw from the occupied territories. It’s time to negotiate an honorable understanding with the Palestinian people. And it’s time for the people of Lebanon, of Palestine and of Israel to live in peace. At issue is whether Israel will seize the time.
e-mail:
