Although I am finally starting to see a little more realism regarding Israeli policy in the Middle East, there is still too much reflexive pro-Israeli sentiment both among the U.S. populace and in the popular press. For example, when Jimmy Carter wrote Peace, Not Apartheid he was viciously and falsely accused of anti-semitism and his views were misrepresented. Many people defended Israel's attack on and invasion of Lebanon and overlooked or disregarded its overreaction and depredations against civilians. The same is true of their recent attack in Gaza. Here are some facts/events that are often left out when discussing Israel's policies in the region.
First, often ignored is the background to the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state. (I have used There Could Have Been Peace by Jon Kimche and The Arab-Israeli Dilemma by Fred Khouri for background) Prior to 1919 only a small percentage of those living in the area that is now Israel were Jewish. Most were Arabs whose families had lived there for hundreds of years. The Zionist movement diddn't begin until the late 1890's under Theodor Herzl. At the time what was then known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. Only in 1917 did the Zionist movement gain any traction with the proclamation of the Balfour Declaration, named after the British Foreign Minister. The Balfour Declaration promised the Jews a home in the area of Palestine. The Balfour Declaration was made because Britain was economically on her last legs and hoped to get financial support(loans) from rich Jews, especially in the United States, so that they could carry on with World War I. At the time Britain made this promise, it had already made a secret treaty with France (Sykes-Picot) to divide up the Ottoman Empire and was making promises of independence to the indiginous Arabs to get their support in fighting the Turks. When Britain made the Balfour Declaration it was about land and people under the legal jurisdiction of another country and without consultation or prior notification of those people actually living there. Had the Allied Powers not won World War I, the Balfour Declaration would have been meaningless. As it was, it was undercut by the Sykes- Picot Treaty and was in violation of Wilson's 14 Points. To say that Jews had a valid legal claim to the land, therefore, is very debatable. Following World War I, Palestine was a British mandate which meant it was a colony for all intents and purposes but, in theory, Britain was controlling it in order to prepare it for independence at some future date. Although Jewish in-migration picked up considerably after World War I, at no time did Jews comprise a majority of the population before the establishment of Israel. I think that Palestinians and Arabs make a good point when they say, "yes the Jews were persecuted and suffered horribly before and during World War II, but why reward them by taking our land without our permisssion? We had nothing to do with their mistreatment and nothing to do with the Holocaust." Too often people in this country, with their sympathy for Israel, ignore or are unaware of the suffering and injustice meted out on the Palestinians.
I will not go into the whole history, but I do recommend that you read a balanced account. Because of how this issue has been politicized in this country, I prefer reading material from British or European writers. I especially recommend anything by Robert Fisk, a British correspondent who has spent almost 30 years based in Lebanon and has covered the Middle East for a couple of different English papers and written two excellent books. I highly recommend Pity the Nation by Fisk.
Here are some common misconceptions. One I often see is that Israel has always been attacked first and has been the victim of aggression at least four times: 1947, 1956, 1967, and 1973. In fact, in 1956 Israel invaded Egypt in concert with the British and French attack on Egypt who were mad at Nasser for nationalizing the Suez Canal. In 1967, while Egypt had blockaded Eilat and the Red Sea, at no time did Egypt initiate military action against Israel. Israel undertook a pre-emptive strike and we know now that Egypt had never intended to attack or invade Israel. Although it is often claimed that the Egyptian attack in 1973 was aimed at destroying Israel, in fact, Nasser's aim was to retake the Sinai that had been conquered by Israel in 1967. A good military history is Elusive Victory by Trevor Dupuy.
During its recent attacks on Lebanon and in Gaza, Israel has been accused of using white phosphorus and anti-personnel bombs in civilian areas, both violations of international law. In fact, not only did Israel use those illegal munitions, it also did so in Lebanon in the early 1980's. Israel also employed at least one car bomb in Beirut. Robert Fisk personally observed all these things. During its occupation of Lebanon in the early 1980's, Israeli forces transported Lebanese militia and then watched as they slaughtered at least 1,000 mostly women, children and old men in two Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Chitala. Because they carted off the bodies and buried them in mass graves, the actual number will never be known. The Israeli Defense Minister was censured by an Israeli investigatory board for allowing this to happen. That official was Ariel Sharon (see Pity the Nation, passim, for these and other atrocities). Former Israeli Prime Minister Begin was the leader of Irgun, a terrorist group which blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 civilians in 1946. The Jews, in fact, were the first to employ terror tactics in Palestine (see Fisk's The War for Civilization, p. 373 for Begin's role with Irgun).
During it's most recent invasion of Lebanon, Israel used the kidnapping of one of its soldiers as the justification for its invasion and air attacks. According to Time magazine, the day after the kidnapping, the Israeli Air Force made over 1,000 sorties over Lebanon (a sortie is one flight by one plane. One plane can make several sorties per day). Knowing what I know about military history and military bureaucracy, it would be impossible to have 1,000 sorties in the first day unless it had been pre-planned. Thus, it seems almost certain that the kidnapping was used as a pretext for something that had already been planned. A recent column by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times claimed that the Israel attack/invasion of Lebanon was in response to Hezbollah rocket attacks, even though that was not the rationale at the time and over 99% of Hezbollah rockets were fired after Israel began its attacks. Much has been made of the rocket attacks from Hezbollah on Israel during this most recent Israeli attack on Lebanon. However, if each sortie on the first day dropped only one 500 pound bomb, the tonnage dropped in the first day of air raids equalled all the tonnage of Hezbollah rockets shot into Israel during the entire operation. Those rockets were terribly unreliable and as likely to land in the middle of nowhere as to strike anything of value. John Roberts of CNN gave a number of reports during this time from near an Israeli artillery battery. According to my calculations, one 155mm howitzer firing one shell every minute for 12 hours a day, would drop as much tonnage on Lebanon in 10 days as all the Hezbollah rockets combined. The fighting went on for more than 50 days. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, to guess that Israel probably dropped/shot from 50 to 100 times the weight in munitions on Lebanon as Hezbollah fired into Israel.
Reports are now coming out about the recent Israel attack on Gaza. Israeli soldiers are now reporting that charges by Palestinians in Gaza about Israeli atrocities were accurate. These included the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians walking along the street and rules of engagement that allowed soldiers entering buildings to fire indiscriminately on occupants, i.e., civilians. A recent report also said that Army rabbis were telling troops things like Arabs were less than human, all people in Gaza were terrorists and that their invasion was sanctioned by God (see the L.A. Times March 20-25, 2009 for these various stories).
I go into all this because it is too often ignored in this country and too many people give Israel a free pass. I agree with what Robert Fisk wrote in, I think, Pity the Nation: "In the Middle East there is no right and wrong, there is only wrong." There is plenty of blame for everyone. Personally, I believe that Israel should be given a guarantee but its boundaries should be the same as the pre-1967 ones. Palestinians will have to give up the right of return but Israel will have to give up West Bank settlements, turn over the houses there to Palestinians and Palestinians should get a monetary compensation for giving up the right of return. What most people don't recognize is that, in military terms in the Middle East, Israel is a great power and the Arab states are secondary powers. To put my variation on Lord Acton's famous dictum, unchecked power almost inevitably leads to the abuse of power. Israel's military power has been largely unchecked for the last 30 years and its behavior reflects that.
I will be out of town for several days and not be able to post until next week. Depending on events, I plan to write on A New Middle East Policy for the U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment