August 14, 2006
I n
the face of a major Israeli war of aggression against Lebanon many
politicians and pundits have sought to justify the Israeli actions,
throwing in an occasional lame rebuke. It is instructive to dissect some
of the commonly heard mantras that have been repeated ad nauseam, before
being replaced by others.
When Defense is Offensive
"Israel has the right to defend herself"
has certainly been one of the most often repeated insufferable mantras.
In recent weeks, nearly all US Congressmen and Senators are on record
stating this, and none did so in a more craven fashion than US Senator
Hillary Clinton. [1] A bit of context may be useful to
interpret this mantra. What these Congressmen and Senators are
justifying is not the "defense" of Israel, but an obscene Israeli war of
aggression that may actually destroy an entire country. When General Dan
Halutz, the Israeli military supremo, states that Israeli bombing is
going to turn back the clock twenty years on Lebanon, then it is very
clear what this war is about: terrorizing the civilian population (a.k.a,
"draining the swamp"), destroying villages, creating hundreds of
thousands of refugees, demolishing the infrastructure (electricity
generators, telephone exchanges, water filtration and pumps),
demolishing key industrial plants (milk factories, pharmaceutical
plants), bombing refugee camps, dropping 24 tons of explosives on a
populated area [2]… this constitutes war crimes (or
worse), and the generals and politicians responsible for this belong in
a war crimes tribunal. The United States politicians who proffered the
"green light" and expedited the delivery of more bombs also belong in
the same dock, because they are abetting Israeli war crimes. The leaders
of the Jewish-American organizations lobbying to stretch out Israel's
carte blanche period also deserve to be indicted for serious crimes.
[3]
It is important to note that aggressors
don't have a right to "self-defense." [4] Israel is not
entitled to "defense" when it has invaded Palestinian, Lebanese or
Syrian land and has dispossessed the native Palestinian population. Any
violence used to perpetuate Israeli conquests is at best illegitimate,
but most likely a serious crime.
The corollary to Israel's "right to defend
herself" (which really means that Israel is allowed to attack others) is
that Israel's victims are not granted the right to defend themselves
(this is portrayed as attacking Israel). Using the pervasive racist
language, there are calls to "defang" Hezbollah since it is intolerable
for ziocons and their media surrogates to consider any Lebanese or
Palestinian groups having any weapons, let alone missiles that can land
on the other side of the border. And to boot, any act of resistance is
labeled "terrorism", and an entire people are branded likewise. The
ziocon/Israeli insistence on labeling Hezbollah or Hamas "terrorist"
organizations is massively hypocritical, yet both the United States and
Europe have played along with this charade.
The Shallow Dip
The only US or European official
admonishment against Israeli depredations is that they aren't
"proportionate". Politicians and some of the principal human rights
organizations prefer this type of language because it enables them to
support the main transgression, yet appear to utter some criticism.
[5] However, a simple analogy may elucidate Western
("our") hypocrisy. The calls for proportionality are akin to cautioning
a rapist not to penetrate too deep. The rape as such isn't denounced,
but a suggestion is made that maybe the rapist should engage in a
shallow f***. If the rapist does transgress, then there will be polite
calls to pull it out a bit; this is known in the parlance as "calls for
restraint". Again, the "proportionate" admonishment grants the right for
the principal crimes to be perpetrated; it just urges Israel to be more
circumspect about its depredations in order not to embarrass its
American and zionist cheerleaders.
The calls for proportionality are actually
even more hypocritical because they are often paired with calls for the
resistance forces to stop fighting back. [6] In terms
of the rape analogy, the victim is told to shut up and cooperate.
Did Anyone Say "War Crimes"?
It is almost impossible to find any US or
European official commentator willing to suggest that the Israeli
actions amount to war crimes. When Jan Egeland, UN
Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, toured Southern Beirut
he could only state that what he witnessed suggested that Israeli
actions had "violated humanitarian law". This is a common euphemism to
avoid the use of the term "war crimes". The contrast with how Serbian
transgressions were dealt with is instructive; here without an
investigation or confirmation, the "war crimes" accusation was readily
used. A different standard applies when it comes to Israel.
Not only did Egeland use euphemisms to
describe the destruction he saw, but he then stated that an
investigation was necessary to determine if there were military targets
under the rubble. Rows of apartment buildings were flattened but Egeland
still manages to utter this type of nonsense. Again, this is a simple
ruse used to avoid issuing a clear accusation against Israel. One
explanation for Egeland's unwillingness to be more categorical may be
that if he manages to avert any serious criticism of Israel, then maybe
he will be in contention for the UN Secretary General position.
[7]
Admonishing "Both Sides"
Amnesty International, the Mother Theresa
of human rights, issued a few press releases about the Israeli attacks
on Gaza and Lebanon. With ample evidence of Israeli crimes, any
meaningful criticism of Israel should include clear references to
specific war crimes. However, true to form, AI avoids accusing Israel by
issuing a legalistic paper on the laws of war, and then stating that a
prohibition for a given act applies to "both sides"! Even though
Israelis have virtually destroyed Lebanon and caused massive damage to
the entire infrastructure on which civilian life depends, AI issues a
generic list of possible war crimes without direct references to actual
deeds. [8] AI is not an anti-war organization, and in
these press releases it doesn't oppose the war per se or condemn the
Israeli acts of aggression, instead it pontificates on how the
belligerents should conduct war. AI's statements are not much different
from those urging proportionality.
Amnesty International is a lame
organization with a curious propensity for remaining virtually silent
when confronted with crimes perpetrated by the United States, Britain or
Israel. Despite occasional posturing, AI has virtually ignored the
crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. [9] Furthermore,
AI's stance pertaining to Lebanon or Iraq is also muddled: it doesn't
condemn and oppose the acts of aggression against these countries;
instead it simply seeks to circumscribe the means of war.
Pinpoint vs. Indiscriminate Hypocrisy
Both Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch have condemned Hezbollah's use of Katyusha missiles. These
are considered "indiscriminate" in effect due to the nature of the
weapon and the fact that it can't be aimed accurately; AI has gone so
far as to state that the use of Katyushas constitutes a war crime.
[10] On the other hand, Israel demonstrates that its
weaponry is very precise, to the extent that two ambulances were hit
with missiles through the center of the Red Cross symbol.
[11] It is clear that even with accurate weapons one can commit
indiscriminate destruction -- and certainly this has been on display in
Lebanon. However, because Israelis use precision weapons some observers
aren't willing to condemn Israeli bombing attacks and hide behind
suggestions that military targets may have been in the vicinity -- the
victims are portrayed as "collateral damage". Thus the massacre in Qana
was not immediately condemned because the various pundits appearing on
CNN or BBC suggested that Hezbollah targets may have been nearby. In
other words, one can easily find categorical denunciations of
"indiscriminate" weaponry (i.e., Hezbollah's Katyushas) while one will
only hear very cautious statements about Israeli "precision" weapons.
They are Hiding! Now Blame the Victim
An often-heard absolution of the Israeli
bombing of civilians is that Hezbollah or Hamas "hide among
civilians". It is very easy to determine what would happen to
Palestinian or Lebanese resistance groups if they were exposed, and thus
suggestions that any group should fight the Israelis while standing in
an open field are hypocritical. The mantra "hiding among civilians" is
all about justifying Israeli bombing of civilians. It also blames the
victim -- because they should never have allowed the "militants" to
stand next to them, etc. We have witnessed this type of justification
for the murder of civilians before: during the intifada when Israeli
soldiers started to kill many Palestinian children there were similar
suggestions that "militants" were using children as shields, or that the
children had been ordered to confront the soldiers. Presto! In Israeli
eyes and those of their apologists it was now justified to murder
children.
Amnesty International weighs in by
categorically stating that Hezbollah military presence in civilian areas
amounts to a war crime. [12] Yet AI's pontificating
ignores the fact that current Israeli (and US) military tactics require
the widespread use of terror against the population. This was certainly
confirmed when Gen. Dan Halutz stated that "no one will be safe in
Lebanon." [13] While AI considers the presence of
resistance fighters in Lebanese, Palestinian or Iraqi cities a war
crime, it has yet to issue a pixel of criticism of the overall Israeli
policy of terrorizing the Lebanese or Palestinian population. AI
"understands" war; it only seeks the aggressors to comply with its silly
list of restrictions.
Juicy Ironies: Where was the Weasel?
The current war against Lebanon has given
rise to a series of amusing ironies. When Elie Wiesel, the professional
holocaust survivor, discusses the holocaust, he often admonishes
Europeans' failure to intervene when it became evident that the
holocaust was taking place. There is a collective responsibility for
preventing crimes -- fine, point well taken. However, in late June 2006
the Israeli military attacked Gaza, killing many, demolishing the
infrastructure, imposing a siege, etc. Here in plain view were crimes
perpetrated against 1.5 million Palestinians, and yet "we" didn't move
to do something about it. At the same time, it is highly likely that the
Hezbollah action against some Israeli soldiers was a response to the
Israeli crimes against Palestinians. While the Wiesel-stripe moralizers
didn't have anything to say about Israeli crimes, it was Hezbollah that
responded -- they acted against the crimes perpetrated against their
Palestinian brothers. [14] Applying the weasel logic
about the holocaust, maybe we should be applauding the Hezbollah
actions; instead, Wiesel and his ilk's response have been mostly silent
about Israeli crimes. A perusal of statements issued by various
Holocaust Studies centers reveals virtually no statements about Israeli
crimes; the only statements in evidence are about the crimes in
Darfur. If one were to shut down all the Holocaust Studies centers, one
wouldn't notice the difference -- they are irrelevant.
Cruel Irony: No More Prisoners
Israelis justify their attacks against
Gaza and Lebanon on the basis of a few soldiers who were captured. It
quickly became apparent that this was a propaganda ruse used to justify
its attacks, and soon afterwards mention of the captured soldiers was
dropped. However, one of the ironies of the Israeli reaction to the
capture of its soldiers is that it encourages others to kill Israeli
soldiers instead of taking them prisoner. From now on the best course of
action for resistance fighters is to simply shoot the soldiers they
manage to vanquish. But, then, Hezbollah or Hamas will be demonized for
"not taking any prisoners"...
It is the Premises, Stupid!
Western media and political discourse have
demonstrated an avoidance of responsibility for crimes by hiding behind
euphemisms, false mantras, or naked hypocrisy; there is ample evidence
of this during the recent Israeli attacks against Gaza and Lebanon. In
order to stop the war of aggression against the Palestinians and the
Lebanese, it is important to highlight the hypocrisy, replace euphemisms
with clear words and to debunk the false mantras. The demolition of the
latter requires overturning the premises of the commentary about the war
and about Israel itself.
One often finds American or British
politicians reciting false mantras, and this is a major part of the
problem; they operate on the basis of illegitimate premises. Possibly
the most pernicious false mantra -- recited almost as in a
trance-inducing ritual -- is that "Israel has a right to
exist". American, British and other Western politicians have rubbed
Palestinian noses in the dirt because their politicians haven’t
swallowed the pernicious demand that they also accept "Israel's right to
exist". However, it is curious that Israel is the only country for which
"a right to exist" is an issue and it reveals a well founded sense of
insecurity. Israel has simultaneously ethnically cleansed the native
population (the Palestinians) and threatened or attacked its
neighbors. What Israeli depredations make evident is that it is a
colonial state that doesn’t belong to the area; Israel is a cruel
historical aberration in the 21st century. It is high time that the key
false mantra, "Israel has a right to exist", be replaced with "Israel
has a right to exist only if it addresses the injustices it has
perpetrated and stops attacking its neighbors". If Israel fails to do
this and continues on its present path, then the only decent solution is
to dissolve that state. Pariah states don’t deserve to exist.
Paul de Rooij
can be reached at: proox@hotmail.com.
(NB: all e-mails with attachments will be automatically deleted.)
Copyright © 2006 Paul de Rooij
ENDNOTES
[1] Hillary Clinton's support for Israel
knows no bounds -- it must be interpreted by her as a requirement to
stand for office and "become presidential material".
[2] The initial report about major blasts in South Beirut stated that
25 tons of explosives had been dropped... subsequent reports reduced
this number, and one can now find accounts of 24, 23, and 22 tons of
explosives.
[3] Ori Nir, "Bush Urged To Give Israel More Time for Attacks",
Forward, 21 July 2006. What the Jewish leaders are lobbying for is
for the period of unrestrained terror against the Lebanese population to
be extended. And then they worry that someone might hate them, but this
is then called "anti-semitism".
[4] Michael Mandel, How America gets away with Murder: Illegal wars,
collateral damage, and Crimes against humanity, Pluto Press 2004.
[5] Kim Howell, a British diplomat, was featured for his emotional
outburst and disgust at the Israeli demolition of Lebanon. However, in
the same passage he stated that "Israel has a right to defend
herself". Howell may express his disgust, but then he should be
consistent -- he should be against Israeli aggression, and then not
justify any level of aggression by suggesting it is "defense". A few
days later Jack Straw, the former British Foreign Secretary, made
similar remarks. NB: the man who was co-responsible to launch the war of
aggression against Iraq in 2003 was now adding his lame protestations
against Tony Blair. What makes Straw special is that he doesn't seem to
notice his own hypocrisy.
[6] See for example MDE 15/064/2006, where AI states: "... Israel must
also respect the principle of proportionality when targeting any
military objectives or civilian objectives that may be used for military
purposes," said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's
Middle East Programme. "Hizbullah must stop launching attacks against
Israeli civilians and it must treat humanely the two Israeli soldiers it
captured on 12 July and grant them immediate access to the International
Committee of the Red Cross."
[7] NB: The leading contender is Terje Roed-Larsen who is known for his
outspoken pro-Israeli stance. See: Azmi Bishara, "Blackmail
by Bombs," Al Ahram, 20 July 2006.
"Roed-Larsen's visit was not a
fact-finding mission. Sending Roed-Larsen was in itself a political
statement. He is not only the Israeli Labour Party's man on the conflict
with the Palestinians, he is also the spokesman of the Israeli position
with respect to the Lebanese resistance. He is the one who is after
blood-money to compensate for Barak's loss of honour after withdrawing
from Lebanon and the one who was called in to supervise the
implementation of Resolution 1559. Larsen has not only drawn a red line
at crossing the blue line, he regards the Lebanese resistance as a local
militia. He is also a foremost exponent of that now old term, 'the New
Middle East', by which is meant, at best, the normalisation of Arab
relations, i.e. according inter-Arab relations no more priority than
bilateral relations between individual Arab states and Israel."
And then Roed-Larsen is the principal UN
operator to arrive in Beirut for shuttle diplomacy with the
Israelis. While meeting the Israelis Roed-Larsen was in a jovial
all-smiles mood -- just the attitude needed to stop a war of aggression.
[8] AI, Israel and Hezbollah must spare civilians, MDE 15/070/2006, 26
July 2006. There is also a summary issued by Irene Khan, the AI supremo.
[9] To verify this statement one can read these articles:
-
Dennis Bernstein and Francis Boyle, "Amnesty
on Jenin: an interview," CovertAction Quarterly, Summer
2002, pp. 9 -- 12, 27. (important article).
-
Paul de Rooij, "Amnesty
International & Israel: Say it isn't so!," CounterPunch, 31
Oct. 2002.
-
Paul de Rooij, "Amnesty
International: The Case of a Rape Foretold," Dissident Voice,
23 Nov. 2006.
-
Paul de Rooij, "Amnesty
International: A False Beacon?," Dissident Voice, 22 Oct.
2004.
[10] Amnesty is utilizing
a wrong description for the Katyushas; they are not very accurate -- but
that is very different from "indiscriminate". Precision weapons can also
be "indiscriminate". Thus areas can be blanketed with cluster bombs, yet
these could have been delivered with pinpoint accuracy. Unfortunately,
AI and HRW's use of the word "indiscriminate" is meant to convey an
emotive reaction to the use of Hezbollah weapons; Israeli weapons are
seldom described in this fashion. For example, many Lebanese were killed
by landmines planted by Israel in Southern Lebanon -- it is estimated
that there are 300,000 of them. However, one seldom finds reports on the
landmine fields, and the language used to describe them is factual, not
emotive.
[11] The reason the ICRC (Red Cross) had for many years rejected the
Israeli application for the membership of its Magen David Adom (MDA)
society was the frequent destruction and obstruction of the Palestinian
ambulances, and general interference with the delivery of emergency
medical attention. Although in Lebanon Israel has demonstrated that it
is still willing to target ambulances and demolish hospitals, the ICRC
has yet to issue a peep about this -- there is nothing about reviewing
or reconsidering the MDA's ICRC membership.
[12] AI, Israel and Hezbollah must spare civilians, MDE 15/070/2006, 26
July 2006. See section under "Human shields".
[13] NB: this is the same terminology used at the beginning of the
"Shock and Awe" campaign against Iraq in 2003.
[14] Note that Hezbollah has in the past responded to Israeli
depredations against Palestinians. For example, Sharon's provocation at
the Al Aqsa mosque also elicited a response from Hezbollah. See here:
George Monbiot, "Israel
responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong,"
The Guardian, 8 August 2006.
|