Israels Terrorism
by Gabriel Ash
The Israeli defense doctrine, old as Israel itself, considers
bombing of civilian targets a means for pressuring militants and
uncooperative governments. So Israel bombs bridges and villages in
South Lebanon, power plants in Gaza, orchards, fields, schools,
hospitals, residential neighborhoods, beach barbecue parties, etc.
Everything is a legitimate target. Israeli ministers announce
publicly that their chief strategy is to cause civilian suffering.
Every day sees its Guernica, and the U.N., which proudly displays a
reproduction of the painting, is mum in the face of a hundred
Guernicas.
To be clear, Israels actions fit the very definition of terrorism.
Doubly so now, since the bombing campaign is a response to attacks
on Israeli soldiers, not civilians. The ever more morally bankrupt
international community sees nothing, hears nothing, and says
nothing. Dont take my word for it. An aide of the Israeli PM said
recently: We are acting there [in Gaza] in an unprecedented
manner; were firing hundreds of artillery shells, attacking from
the air, sea and land and the world remains silent.
Having been so encouraged by the worlds indifference to the
bombing of Gaza, Israel is giving Lebanon the same murderous
treatment. Putin and Chirac have managed to assemble some moderate
testiness. The rest of the world called for restraint. When the
mission statement is to exact revenge and kill civilians, whats
restraint?
According to the EU, Hamas has to renounce violence to become a
responsible government. And Hizbullah has to release the captured
soldiers. The Israeli government, on the other hand, although
responsible for an unending campaign of terrorism, need not
renounce violence, nor release any of its political prisoners. The
brotherhood of money and white skin is proving again to be thicker
than blood.
Hizbullahs intervention proved again it is the only power that
wouldnt stay silent in the face of Israeli barbarism. Since Israel
recognizes neither international laws nor international borders,
there was nothing morally wrong in Hizbullahs fighters crossing
the border into Israel to raid a military patrol. Israel should not
enjoy the defense of principles it doesnt respect. With its latest
raid, Hizbullah consolidated its position as the leading popular
voice in the Middle East, displaying tactical brilliance,
solidarity, and a refusal to be bribed or cowered that is putting
the rest of the world -- the Arab puppet governments as well as
Europes hypocrites -- to shame. To boot, Hizbullah is also putting
to shame other Muslim radicals, most notably the Iraqi thugs and
Al-Qaeda, both by successfully raiding legitimate military targets
and by feeding a broad popular consensus that cuts across the
Sunni-Shia divide.
However, courage and legitimacy aside, it is anybodys guess
whether the leadership of Hizbullah foresaw that Israel would go
postal and open a full-blown air war against Lebanon, shooting
civilians in cars like ducks. If they did not, they were certainly
shortsighted, and if they did, they were reckless.
Nevertheless, it is far from clear who wins when the dust settles.
While guaranteed to suffer severe damage, Hizbullah still has the
odds on its side. When Israel invaded Lebanon for the umpteenth
time, government officials announced that Israels goal was nothing
less than the disarming of Hizbullah and the setting of new rules
of the game. That pronouncement sounds awfully reminiscent of
Sharons stated goal for invading Lebanon in 1982, to create a new
order in Lebanon. What are the chances that Olmert will have
better success than Sharon? Slim. Hizbullah will nor disarm
willfully. Who will disarm it? There are three candidates, and none
of them looks too promising.
Israel: Israel can re-occupy Lebanon. That would certainly be a
setback to Hizbullah, which would lose men, installations, and
freedom of operation. But can Israel destroy Hizbullah? Note that
Israel is unable to destroy Hamas, a much weaker organization, on a
much smaller territory. No matter how much violence it used, Israel
couldnt prevent Hamas from launching rockets and gaining
popularity. Will Israel be more successful in Lebanon?
The International Community: One could see France and the U.S.
occupying Lebanon, probably under the guise of some invitation from
the Christian minority, or a call for U.N. peacekeeping a la
Haiti. Assuming Western powers are stupid (or cornered) enough to
take the bait, can they achieve in Lebanon what Israel, with a lot
more commitment, couldnt? A Western occupation of Lebanon is
likely to turn the whole Middle East into one long crusaders vs.
Muslims crescent. Does the West have the stomach for that? Does it
have a reasonable chance of winning?
The Cedar Revolution: The most promising alternative, for the
West, is to empower some local stooges that would rule the new
Lebanon colony for Western and Israeli interests. That is the
Wests favorite strategy, currently tried in many places around the
globe. But Shiites are a poor, radical, bitter and armed majority
in Lebanon. It would take more than a few Starbucks customers to
subdue them. The anti-Hizbullah coalition is small and weak. Its
unity is doubtful and its willingness to fight far from evident.
Hizbullah, on the other hand, will have not only well-disciplined
cadres and massive popular support, but also the support of Syria
and Iran.
Israel could seek to cause as much damage as possible to
Hizbullahs infrastructure with aerial assaults, then call it
victory. But the blow to Hizbullah would not be enough to put an
end to its operations, probably leaving Olmert in the unpleasant
position of having to declare impotence. Hence the scenario of a
full-blown war is extremely plausible. Such a war will eventually
involve an Israeli invasion seeking to severely weakens Hizbullah,
followed by an international peacekeeping force that replaces
Israel and nurtures a government of Lebanese collaborators. In the
rosiest scenario that government eventually gains the ability to
repress the majority of the Lebanese population with only Western
financial support. At that point the peacekeepers withdraw and
Lebanon joins the dubious fraternity of Egypt and Jordan, safe
Western puppet regimes.
A not-so-slight complication of this classic colonial scenario is
the fact that Hizbullah is not an isolated resistance movement;
rather it enjoys the international support of Iran and Syria, as
well as strong ties with the Iraqi Shia militias, Hamas, and the
Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, in the context of a growing
resource conflict between the superpowers, Iran could eventually
receive covert support from Russia and/or China, in ways
reminiscent of the support the Afghani Mujahaddin (and Bin Laden)
received from the U.S. Thus, a successful repression of Hizbullah
is likely to require at some point dealing a severe blow to Syria
and Iran, and such a blow could require a proxy war between the
U.S., Russia and China.
To put it differently, the Israel-Hizbullah war can remain
contained, or it can end in a decisive manner. But it cannot both
remain contained and end in a decisive manner.
(In light of this, one must read skeptically Western editorials
calling on Israel to exercise caution, avoid overreaching and limit
itself to targeting Hizbullah only are a miserable attempt to
defend Israel while keeping up the pretense of opposing the
targeting of civilians. The fact is the collateral damage is not
a result of Israels failure to minimize the damage to civilian
bystanders. Since Israel can only achieve its aims by widening the
scope of the war and forcing other parties to get involved, damage
to civilians is not a by-product but the core of Israels strategy
of escalation. The longer other parties fail to get involved, the
more civilians will die. The New York Times is right that such
indiscriminate murder strengthens Hamas and Hizbullah, but the
problem is not one that Israel can rectify by changing its tactics.
The problem is Israel itself and its true goals.)
Article Con't
http://dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash18.htm
