Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Sharon is the right man for the Job
From its very early days, Zionist thoughts are divided into two major
schools. The heavy-handed school, which adopts military solution toward
any of the regional disagreements and conflicts. This school was initiated by
the revisionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky. In 1923 Jabotinsky published two
articles headed the "Iron Wall". In the papers Jabotinsky argues that the
Arab would never accept the existence of a Jewish state, hence, the Jews
must "erect an iron wall of Jewish military force". Following this very
philosophy, Zionism must enjoy an overwhelmingly superior base of power
that will reduce any Arabic tendency for resistance
schools. The heavy-handed school, which adopts military solution toward
any of the regional disagreements and conflicts. This school was initiated by
the revisionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky. In 1923 Jabotinsky published two
articles headed the "Iron Wall". In the papers Jabotinsky argues that the
Arab would never accept the existence of a Jewish state, hence, the Jews
must "erect an iron wall of Jewish military force". Following this very
philosophy, Zionism must enjoy an overwhelmingly superior base of power
that will reduce any Arabic tendency for resistance
Sharon is the right man for the Job
Gilad Atzmon
From its very early days, Zionist thoughts are divided into two major
schools. The heavy-handed school, which adopts military solution toward
any of the regional disagreements and conflicts. This school was initiated by
the revisionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky. In 1923 Jabotinsky published two
articles headed the "Iron Wall". In the papers Jabotinsky argues that the
Arab would never accept the existence of a Jewish state, hence, the Jews
must "erect an iron wall of Jewish military force". Following this very
philosophy, Zionism must enjoy an overwhelmingly superior base of power
that will reduce any Arabic tendency for resistance.
The other school is the school of reconciliation presented by moderate
Zionist such as Moshe Sharet. This school tends to believe that all the
regional regimes and political forces are capable of accepting the
existence of the Jewish state. Therefore, according to Sharet, all available
diplomatic efforts should be spent in order to achieve reconciliation with
the Arab World.
These two conflicting ideologies are apparent from the very early days of
Zionism, Furthermore, soon after the declaration of the state of Israel
they turn into a harsh political debate. In practice, Ben Gurion, the first
Israeli PM clearly adopted Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" philosophy. On the
surface, this move appears to be a bizarre political move since
Javotinsky's philosophy, represented very much the rival political thoughts to Ben
Gurion 's own party. An analysis of the Israeli maneuvers and operation mode in
the 1948 war provide us with a clear picture of the Israeli endorsement of a
clear military option alongside a denial of any diplomatic solution.
In order to implement the miltary option that is a result of the "Iron
Wall" philosophy, Ben Gurion instructed the IDF to adopt an offensive military
doctrine, a doctrine which will provide the region with a mighty
presentation of the Israeli overwhelmingly military superiority. The
doctrine is based over two basic presuppositions:
1. Any confrontation between the Arab and Israelis must take place
over Arab land. In other words, the Israeli offensive must brings the
battle to the Arab territories before the battle even starts
2. Because of the relatively limited financial means of the Israel,
any confrontation must bring victorious results in the shortest possible
time. In other words, The Israeli army must impose the most devastating
damage over its Arab enemies.
The Israeli military and political leaders were soon to define a criterion
which measures the success of the Israeli arm forces implementation of the
offensive doctrine. This criterion was defined as the IDF "force of
deterrence". It is a scale that determines the Arab unwillingness to
fight. Less encouraged the Arab to fight, higher in scale is the IDF's "force of
deterrence".
For Ben Gurion and his followers it was a must to provide the Arab world
with a clear Israeli determination for militant solution. Any given battle
must be ended with a clear cut Israeli victory, more than that the Arabs
must regard any confrontation as if it leads them toward a clear
self-defeat. The measure of success of the Israeli offensive mode is a
function of the reduction of the Arabs willingness to fight. This mode of
Israeli military pattern was evidential from the early stage of 1948 war,
a war that provided the Palestinian civil population with the Israeli clear
violation of any human code. The war was ended with more than 700.000
Palestinian refugees and armistice between Israel and it neighbors that
was regarded by the Arabs as a clear military defeat.
Already in the early fifties Israel has managed to improve the offensive
doct rine one stage further. I am referring here to the retaliation mode
that was characterized by a sever lack of proportion. According to Ben Gurion,
any lost of Jewish life must be retaliate in an overwhelming scale and
measures. Following Ben Gurion, Arabs must learn that Jewish blood value
is far higher than their own. In order to achieve the best possible results,
a young assertive, aggressive and ambitious commander named Ariel Sharon was
called for action. He was asked to form a small special commando unit
that will present the Arab enemy (innocent civilians usually), with a the full
scale of Israeli conviction and determination to win in any condition.
In 1953, following a murderous attack of a mother and her two children by
Palestinian inflitrators that passed the Israeli Border near to the
Jordanian village of Quibya. Sharon's and his commando unit now named
"the 101", were called for action. Sharon was ordered to penetrate to the
village of Quibya, to blow as many houses and to inflict as many
casualties on its habitant. Sharon was the very right man for the Job. The raid was a
complete success. Very much like Jennie refugee camp that was completely
destroyed over its inhabitant, Quibya was reduced to pile of rubble, more
than fifty houses were destroyed. 61 civilians, most of them women and
children had been killed. UN observer that visited the site came to a
clear conclusion that the villagers were forced to stay in their houses while
those were blown over them. The Quibya massacre raised an international
condemnation including an anti Israeli resolution in the UN Security
Council. In a debate within the Israeli government Moshe Sharet the
moderate foreign minister, called to issue an official statement expressing regret
over the action. Ben Gurion the PM had a different idea, In a radio
broadcast the day after, he denied IDF involvement in the raid, he lied
and blamed the action on Israeli villagers that retaliate beyond endurance. As
we know Sharon's military career was not affected at all, as a matter of
fact, very much the opposite. Sharon and "the 101" turned to be the symbol
of the new Hebraic military man, a murderous soldier that attack beyond
the enemy line, a soldier that represent the ultimate devotion to orders even
if it means divorcing himself from any familiar concept of mercy and
humanity. Not only that Sharon career was not affected, in practice, he was seen as
the most promising Israeli young officer. In military terms he became a
shining meteor, his promotion within the army ranks was the fastest
possible. It won't be irrational to assume that this sort of swift
promotion came to encourage other young officers to follow Sharon's and "the 101"
murderous pattern. Historically, the Quibya massacre was first in a chain
of retaliation raids conducted by the Israeli army. Those raids shaped the
Israeli offensive philosophy into a new form of murderous art. A pattern
of thought that led to an endless confrontation with the Arab world but
furthermore, it contributed toward a continuous transformation of the
Israelis into a ignorant society. A society that is concerned solely with
its own interest while denying any of the Others.
When we scrutinize the Israeli political history, we can clearly see that
from an Israeli internal political perspectives, the offensive doctrine
enjoy two major advantages: First, it communicate with the Arabs in the
only language the Arabs understand, i.e. violence. Second, It provokes a
strong outraged condemnation among the international community, something that is
translated within Israel into an immediate political gain.
Regarding the first one, it is hard to believe but the vast majority of
the Israeli people do believe that the Arabs understand violence only.
Therefore, along the history of Israel we can see very little diplomatic
tendency toward peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Even the
Oslo negotiation was taking place within a very specific historical
circumstances in which the PLO was facing a political and financial
disaster (following the support of Sadam Husien in the Golf War). If this is not
enough it was clear that from the very first stages of Oslo implementations,
The Israelis used the military threat as a mean of pressure against the
Palestinian Authority and Palestinian people. When we overview the
personal biography of the Israeli cabinet members in the past and at the present,
we find out that the vast majority of them are ex-military men. It is clear
that only a state that decide to live on the sward and deeply believe in
military solution, can put so many generals in its cabinet and PM seats.
Referring to the second advantage might be a bit embarrassing. Evidently,
Israeli Prime Ministers love to be condemned by the international
community. It is obvious that Israeli leaderships learned how to transform foreign
condemnation into a clear political gain. Undoubtedly, in Israel, any
foreign criticism of Israel is conditionally interpreted as a "gentile
pathological Anti -Semitic behavior". Every Israeli leading politician
learns how to use this very tool in his very first days in office. The
main pattern was delivered by Ben Gurion: "It doesn't matter what the gentile
says, what is matter is what the Jews are doing". Within such an ignorant
statement the Israeli PM managed to provide his voters with an instant
remembrance of the history of Jewish persecution, it pushes the Jewish
people deeper into their safe haven of complete segregation that leads
toward the denial of the outer world. Moreover, since in Hebrew, the word
gentile (goy) is a clear devastating derogative, Ben Gurion's call to
ignore the gentile clearly leads Israelis to celebrate their superiority over the
rest of the human kind. It must be clear that Ben Gurion statement is a
call for Israelis to unit behind their leadership and to reject any sort
of foreign criticism. To conclude this point I would claim that in the case
of Israel, the offensive doctrine leaves the international community
completely helpless. On the one hand, lack of criticism is taken by the Israeli
public as an approval or a sign of weakness. On the other hand, any international
condemnation leads eventually toward a growing of public support toward
the political leadership. This fact might explain the Israeli politics
continuos shift to the right. But it explain the international community lack of
means against the Israeli oppression and atrocities.
If we review Sharon's military and political career we find out that he
follows his mentor, Ben Gurion religiously. Clearly, Sharon adopted the
offensive doctrine as a single mode of behavior both in political and
military terms. As mentioned before, Sharon was the leading figure in
forming and shaping the Israeli retaliation raids and commando attack.
This strategy leads to the Israeli deep commando penetration into the Sinai
desert in the "Suez Operation" (1956). Under Colonel Sharon recommendation
Israeli paratroopers landed in the 'Mitle Pass' at the heart of Sinai
desert in order to cause heavy loses to the Egyptian army. In practice, the
battle cost too many Israeli lives, within short time Israel had to pull back its
forces from Sinai. In total, the operation was regarded as waste of human
lives. In 73 war, General Sharon lead is brigade across the Suez Canal,
again, the battle cost too many Israeli lives. Within the battle Sharon
refused his higher command to show restrain. Sharon believed that Israeli
soldier on the western bank of the Suez will bring the Egyptian on their
knees. In practice it pulled some heavy international pressure. Soon,
Israel had to withdraw its forces. Furthermore, The cease-fire talks lead to
peace talks (1977) in which Israel had "lost" Sinai completely.
In Lebanon war (1982), Sharon, the minister of defense, leads the cabinet
to believe that the Palestinian issue can be grounded forever by a military
assault against the PLO in Lebanon. Clearly, he is determined generate a
light conflict, a mini war, with the Syrian in order to wipe the Syrian
forces out of southern Lebanon.. As we know already, the Israeli offensive
doctrine does not differentiate between Arabs. In the eyes of the "Iron
Wall", Arabs are all the same, you kill as many as you can. From the
very early stage of the Lebanese campaign it was clear that Israel is drawn
into a vicious civil war between the different Lebanese ethnic and religious
groups. As predicted by some Israeli intelligence expert, within short
time after the invasion of Lebanon the most terrible massacre of Palestinian
refugees in Sabra and Shatila took place. The devastating massacre was
carried out by Christian militias that got the approval to enter the camp
from the Israeli high command. While Israeli forces were not involved
directly in the massacre itself, Israel was clearly responsible for any
atrocities taking action within its invaded territory. As expected, The
massacre was extremely condemned by the international community. In
Israel, the left movement "Peace Now" managed to bring thousands of people to the
street to demonstrate against the government. In a speech to the Israeli
parliament, reflecting upon the left opposition to the Lebanese campaign,
Menachem Begin the PM, complained that, "gentiles kill gentiles and the
Jews are blaming each other". Again and again we face the same Israeli right
wing pattern, Begin used the international outraged reaction in order to
delegitimate the Israeli left. In other words Menachem Begin clearly,
blamed the left for collaboration with the "gentiles" against the Jewish Sharon.> Again we can see that an Israeli offense that generate an international> outraged response is turned within Israel into a political weapon against any left opposition and human call. It is important to mention that
following the international outraged to Sabra and Shatila events and
thanks to a very strong left campaign, Menachem Begin agreed eventualiy to a
public inquiries into the events. The comity found Sharon unequipped for
ministerial duties. In the short term it regarded as a victory of sense.
In the long term it was regarded by the right wing as an approval for Sharon
conviction to the "Iron Wall" philosophy. In other words it made him ready
to be the Israeli Prime Minister when time comes..
The result of the Lebanon war are not yet cleared since the war is not
over. What we can say for sure is that it took the Israeli forces almost
twenty years to get out of Lebanon. Undoubtedly , while being in Lebanon,
Israeli army has managed to lose its "power of deterrence". The Israeli
army, the most equipped army in the middle-east found itself completely
defeated by the Hizbulah, a small devoted group of gorilla fighters. In
the shades of the growing Israeli defeat in Lebanon, the Palestinian people
within the occupied territories have started to redevelop their
nationalistic aspirations. Eventually in 1987 this aspiration had matured
into a Palestinian uprising, The first Intifada.
Since Lebanon war the Israeli "power of deterrence" deteriorated
continuously. Clearly, the IDF never managed to establish a successful
fighting skills to confront the Lebanese civil resistance. If this is not
enough, following the Oslo accord the Israeli civilian faced a growing
threat of terror inside Israel. For the first time the Israeli history,
Israeli civil population found itself within a war zone. This fact is
very crucial to understand. Within the Israeli self-image, It is the Arab> civilians who are supposed to die, definitely not Israelis. In the Israeli eyes, Jewish civilians are not supposed to die in the conflict because of two main reasons: 1. It remind them of the holocaust in which Jews were
dying only because the are Jews. 2. It is very much against the idea
"offensive doctrine". As we remember, Israeli got used to the fact that
any confrontation with the Arab world is always taking place over Arab land.
Suddenly, the confrontation have started to take place in the center of
the Israeli cities. This fact was regarded by most of the Israelis as a
catastrophe and completely unacceptable. In the light of the Palestinian
terror, a very strong right wing slogan was brought along: "Let the IDF
win" which means. Let us raise the "power of deterrence", let us get back into
our offensive doctrine. Let us pass the war from our city centers into the
Palestinian towns. Let us make sure that we destroy the Palestinian will
to fight. Let us get out of control, let us get mad. Let us erect again the
"Iron Wall" Who is the right man for the job? No doubt, Mr Ariel Sharon.
The master of offensive doctrine. Israel most celebrated war criminal. Arik,
who proved to be the man who does not know no mercy. We have to admit The
Israelis were right, it took Sharon just about a year in office to commit
the great massacre in Jenin.
It is a must to scrutinize the Jenin events within the offensive
prospects. The operation in the refugee camp was, 'more or less', the embodiment of
what offensive doctrine is all about. It was taking place on an, more or
less, enemy land. It was, more or less, very fast and it was, 'more or
less' , a "clear cut" victory. Apparently, the 'more or less' is crucial. Jenin
is not an enemy land. It is an Israeli invaded territory. Strangely enough,
it appears as if the Israeli colonial forces are the first colonialist to
destroy and demolish their own colonies. Clearly, it took the Israeli a
bit too long to confess that the battle in Jenin was over. Clearly, the might
of the Israeli armed forces was not enough to brake the spirit of the very
few determined Palestinian freedom fighters Last but not least, if it was a
clear victory. But at the same time, it is very unclear who is the
winner. Is it the Israelis? I would not say so, as T. Larsen the UN envoy to the
middle east put it: "in Jenin Israel has lost its moral ground". For such
a clear statement Mr. Larsen became a persona non grata in the Jewish state.
If anything, it is clear that after Jenin, After presenting the Israelis
with real fierce fighting, the Palestinians are determined to fight more
than forever.
I will try to follow the Jenin battle and to analyze the Israeli decision
making in the light of the offensive paradigm. On the morning of April 3rd
Israeli ground forces entered into Jenin refugee camp and from the very
early moment it clear that this time the encounter some fierce Palestinian
fighting. The Israeli high command naturally provided some more support.
More tanks and helicopter gun ships were sent to support the battling
ground forces. At this point it is important to mention that it is very unusual
to use tanks and helicopter gun ships in highly populated arias but within
the Offensive doctrine, the end (victory) is far more important than the means
(war crimes). At the meantime, Israeli commanders on the ground are
getting under sever pressure to complete their mission. They use heavier weapon
and fire, they care less and less about who is getting killed as long as they
are Arabs. Clearly, as a result, more civilians get hit, the scene on the
ground start to look a bit anaesthetic. The Israeli high command decides
to seal the aria. Press and rescue forces are not allowed in. Now the forces
on the ground are working against time. They must provide a clear-cut
conclusion. Naturaly, they decide to wipe out the all aria that is
suspected to be a "pocket of resistance". In doing so they kill many civilians,
mainly old and disabled people that could not run away. When the battle is over
jenin is a slaughter house, the streets are the most horrifying seen man
can think of. Civilian crops are all over the place, many Palestinian are
wounded blooding to death. Still, red cross and rescue forces are not
allowed in. The Israeli must decide whether to be Human and to save those
who can be saved or whether to try to conceal the evidences of an
unacceptable shocking inhuman crime. Naturally, following Sharon's
overwhelming history of crimes against humanity, a decision is taken to
bulldoze the center of Jenin refugee camp. The Israelis turn it into a
"Palestinian Ground Zero". Occupied houses are destroyed over their
habitants. Very much like Quibya slauther fifty years earlier Sharon
commits in Jenin a very similar crime. Although the similarities are very obvious,
the are still some light differences that should be elaborated. In Quibya
Sharon was a platoon commander, In Jenin he an elected prime minister, he
committs is crime in the name of the all Israeli people. As expected, as
soon as International criticism was heard, Sharon defines the current
battle as the "existential war of the all Jewish nation". So from now on,
accor ding to Sharon, the massacre in Jenin was done not only in the name
of the Israelis but in the name of the all Jewish people. If this is not
enough, Sharon declares that he is conducting a holy war against terror.
We must remember that this kind of approach aims at the American population,
Sharon becomes American messenger, or at least American platoon. As we can
clearly see, both world Jewry and American administration prevent
themselves from criticizing Sharon publicly, hence, we can conclude that Sharon is
committing his war crimes both in the name of the Jewish people and the
American nation unless prove different. Unless some major Rabbis will
stand up and firmly denounce Sharon atrocities significantly, unless the
American administration will decide to stop to support the Jewish state. Unless
these two happened soon we can clearly believe Sharon that he is acting in the
name of the Jewish people and the American nation.
Clearly, we can see that in Israeli eyes, Sharon is the right man for the
job. He is the embodiment of everything Israel is about. He is offensive,
murderous and righteous. Sharon proved again that he himself acts as an
"Iron Wall". The real and only question that is left for us is whether we
want to live in a world in which Israel, a criminal offensive state, is
accepted among the nations.
Gilad Atzmon
From its very early days, Zionist thoughts are divided into two major
schools. The heavy-handed school, which adopts military solution toward
any of the regional disagreements and conflicts. This school was initiated by
the revisionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky. In 1923 Jabotinsky published two
articles headed the "Iron Wall". In the papers Jabotinsky argues that the
Arab would never accept the existence of a Jewish state, hence, the Jews
must "erect an iron wall of Jewish military force". Following this very
philosophy, Zionism must enjoy an overwhelmingly superior base of power
that will reduce any Arabic tendency for resistance.
The other school is the school of reconciliation presented by moderate
Zionist such as Moshe Sharet. This school tends to believe that all the
regional regimes and political forces are capable of accepting the
existence of the Jewish state. Therefore, according to Sharet, all available
diplomatic efforts should be spent in order to achieve reconciliation with
the Arab World.
These two conflicting ideologies are apparent from the very early days of
Zionism, Furthermore, soon after the declaration of the state of Israel
they turn into a harsh political debate. In practice, Ben Gurion, the first
Israeli PM clearly adopted Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" philosophy. On the
surface, this move appears to be a bizarre political move since
Javotinsky's philosophy, represented very much the rival political thoughts to Ben
Gurion 's own party. An analysis of the Israeli maneuvers and operation mode in
the 1948 war provide us with a clear picture of the Israeli endorsement of a
clear military option alongside a denial of any diplomatic solution.
In order to implement the miltary option that is a result of the "Iron
Wall" philosophy, Ben Gurion instructed the IDF to adopt an offensive military
doctrine, a doctrine which will provide the region with a mighty
presentation of the Israeli overwhelmingly military superiority. The
doctrine is based over two basic presuppositions:
1. Any confrontation between the Arab and Israelis must take place
over Arab land. In other words, the Israeli offensive must brings the
battle to the Arab territories before the battle even starts
2. Because of the relatively limited financial means of the Israel,
any confrontation must bring victorious results in the shortest possible
time. In other words, The Israeli army must impose the most devastating
damage over its Arab enemies.
The Israeli military and political leaders were soon to define a criterion
which measures the success of the Israeli arm forces implementation of the
offensive doctrine. This criterion was defined as the IDF "force of
deterrence". It is a scale that determines the Arab unwillingness to
fight. Less encouraged the Arab to fight, higher in scale is the IDF's "force of
deterrence".
For Ben Gurion and his followers it was a must to provide the Arab world
with a clear Israeli determination for militant solution. Any given battle
must be ended with a clear cut Israeli victory, more than that the Arabs
must regard any confrontation as if it leads them toward a clear
self-defeat. The measure of success of the Israeli offensive mode is a
function of the reduction of the Arabs willingness to fight. This mode of
Israeli military pattern was evidential from the early stage of 1948 war,
a war that provided the Palestinian civil population with the Israeli clear
violation of any human code. The war was ended with more than 700.000
Palestinian refugees and armistice between Israel and it neighbors that
was regarded by the Arabs as a clear military defeat.
Already in the early fifties Israel has managed to improve the offensive
doct rine one stage further. I am referring here to the retaliation mode
that was characterized by a sever lack of proportion. According to Ben Gurion,
any lost of Jewish life must be retaliate in an overwhelming scale and
measures. Following Ben Gurion, Arabs must learn that Jewish blood value
is far higher than their own. In order to achieve the best possible results,
a young assertive, aggressive and ambitious commander named Ariel Sharon was
called for action. He was asked to form a small special commando unit
that will present the Arab enemy (innocent civilians usually), with a the full
scale of Israeli conviction and determination to win in any condition.
In 1953, following a murderous attack of a mother and her two children by
Palestinian inflitrators that passed the Israeli Border near to the
Jordanian village of Quibya. Sharon's and his commando unit now named
"the 101", were called for action. Sharon was ordered to penetrate to the
village of Quibya, to blow as many houses and to inflict as many
casualties on its habitant. Sharon was the very right man for the Job. The raid was a
complete success. Very much like Jennie refugee camp that was completely
destroyed over its inhabitant, Quibya was reduced to pile of rubble, more
than fifty houses were destroyed. 61 civilians, most of them women and
children had been killed. UN observer that visited the site came to a
clear conclusion that the villagers were forced to stay in their houses while
those were blown over them. The Quibya massacre raised an international
condemnation including an anti Israeli resolution in the UN Security
Council. In a debate within the Israeli government Moshe Sharet the
moderate foreign minister, called to issue an official statement expressing regret
over the action. Ben Gurion the PM had a different idea, In a radio
broadcast the day after, he denied IDF involvement in the raid, he lied
and blamed the action on Israeli villagers that retaliate beyond endurance. As
we know Sharon's military career was not affected at all, as a matter of
fact, very much the opposite. Sharon and "the 101" turned to be the symbol
of the new Hebraic military man, a murderous soldier that attack beyond
the enemy line, a soldier that represent the ultimate devotion to orders even
if it means divorcing himself from any familiar concept of mercy and
humanity. Not only that Sharon career was not affected, in practice, he was seen as
the most promising Israeli young officer. In military terms he became a
shining meteor, his promotion within the army ranks was the fastest
possible. It won't be irrational to assume that this sort of swift
promotion came to encourage other young officers to follow Sharon's and "the 101"
murderous pattern. Historically, the Quibya massacre was first in a chain
of retaliation raids conducted by the Israeli army. Those raids shaped the
Israeli offensive philosophy into a new form of murderous art. A pattern
of thought that led to an endless confrontation with the Arab world but
furthermore, it contributed toward a continuous transformation of the
Israelis into a ignorant society. A society that is concerned solely with
its own interest while denying any of the Others.
When we scrutinize the Israeli political history, we can clearly see that
from an Israeli internal political perspectives, the offensive doctrine
enjoy two major advantages: First, it communicate with the Arabs in the
only language the Arabs understand, i.e. violence. Second, It provokes a
strong outraged condemnation among the international community, something that is
translated within Israel into an immediate political gain.
Regarding the first one, it is hard to believe but the vast majority of
the Israeli people do believe that the Arabs understand violence only.
Therefore, along the history of Israel we can see very little diplomatic
tendency toward peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Even the
Oslo negotiation was taking place within a very specific historical
circumstances in which the PLO was facing a political and financial
disaster (following the support of Sadam Husien in the Golf War). If this is not
enough it was clear that from the very first stages of Oslo implementations,
The Israelis used the military threat as a mean of pressure against the
Palestinian Authority and Palestinian people. When we overview the
personal biography of the Israeli cabinet members in the past and at the present,
we find out that the vast majority of them are ex-military men. It is clear
that only a state that decide to live on the sward and deeply believe in
military solution, can put so many generals in its cabinet and PM seats.
Referring to the second advantage might be a bit embarrassing. Evidently,
Israeli Prime Ministers love to be condemned by the international
community. It is obvious that Israeli leaderships learned how to transform foreign
condemnation into a clear political gain. Undoubtedly, in Israel, any
foreign criticism of Israel is conditionally interpreted as a "gentile
pathological Anti -Semitic behavior". Every Israeli leading politician
learns how to use this very tool in his very first days in office. The
main pattern was delivered by Ben Gurion: "It doesn't matter what the gentile
says, what is matter is what the Jews are doing". Within such an ignorant
statement the Israeli PM managed to provide his voters with an instant
remembrance of the history of Jewish persecution, it pushes the Jewish
people deeper into their safe haven of complete segregation that leads
toward the denial of the outer world. Moreover, since in Hebrew, the word
gentile (goy) is a clear devastating derogative, Ben Gurion's call to
ignore the gentile clearly leads Israelis to celebrate their superiority over the
rest of the human kind. It must be clear that Ben Gurion statement is a
call for Israelis to unit behind their leadership and to reject any sort
of foreign criticism. To conclude this point I would claim that in the case
of Israel, the offensive doctrine leaves the international community
completely helpless. On the one hand, lack of criticism is taken by the Israeli
public as an approval or a sign of weakness. On the other hand, any international
condemnation leads eventually toward a growing of public support toward
the political leadership. This fact might explain the Israeli politics
continuos shift to the right. But it explain the international community lack of
means against the Israeli oppression and atrocities.
If we review Sharon's military and political career we find out that he
follows his mentor, Ben Gurion religiously. Clearly, Sharon adopted the
offensive doctrine as a single mode of behavior both in political and
military terms. As mentioned before, Sharon was the leading figure in
forming and shaping the Israeli retaliation raids and commando attack.
This strategy leads to the Israeli deep commando penetration into the Sinai
desert in the "Suez Operation" (1956). Under Colonel Sharon recommendation
Israeli paratroopers landed in the 'Mitle Pass' at the heart of Sinai
desert in order to cause heavy loses to the Egyptian army. In practice, the
battle cost too many Israeli lives, within short time Israel had to pull back its
forces from Sinai. In total, the operation was regarded as waste of human
lives. In 73 war, General Sharon lead is brigade across the Suez Canal,
again, the battle cost too many Israeli lives. Within the battle Sharon
refused his higher command to show restrain. Sharon believed that Israeli
soldier on the western bank of the Suez will bring the Egyptian on their
knees. In practice it pulled some heavy international pressure. Soon,
Israel had to withdraw its forces. Furthermore, The cease-fire talks lead to
peace talks (1977) in which Israel had "lost" Sinai completely.
In Lebanon war (1982), Sharon, the minister of defense, leads the cabinet
to believe that the Palestinian issue can be grounded forever by a military
assault against the PLO in Lebanon. Clearly, he is determined generate a
light conflict, a mini war, with the Syrian in order to wipe the Syrian
forces out of southern Lebanon.. As we know already, the Israeli offensive
doctrine does not differentiate between Arabs. In the eyes of the "Iron
Wall", Arabs are all the same, you kill as many as you can. From the
very early stage of the Lebanese campaign it was clear that Israel is drawn
into a vicious civil war between the different Lebanese ethnic and religious
groups. As predicted by some Israeli intelligence expert, within short
time after the invasion of Lebanon the most terrible massacre of Palestinian
refugees in Sabra and Shatila took place. The devastating massacre was
carried out by Christian militias that got the approval to enter the camp
from the Israeli high command. While Israeli forces were not involved
directly in the massacre itself, Israel was clearly responsible for any
atrocities taking action within its invaded territory. As expected, The
massacre was extremely condemned by the international community. In
Israel, the left movement "Peace Now" managed to bring thousands of people to the
street to demonstrate against the government. In a speech to the Israeli
parliament, reflecting upon the left opposition to the Lebanese campaign,
Menachem Begin the PM, complained that, "gentiles kill gentiles and the
Jews are blaming each other". Again and again we face the same Israeli right
wing pattern, Begin used the international outraged reaction in order to
delegitimate the Israeli left. In other words Menachem Begin clearly,
blamed the left for collaboration with the "gentiles" against the Jewish Sharon.> Again we can see that an Israeli offense that generate an international> outraged response is turned within Israel into a political weapon against any left opposition and human call. It is important to mention that
following the international outraged to Sabra and Shatila events and
thanks to a very strong left campaign, Menachem Begin agreed eventualiy to a
public inquiries into the events. The comity found Sharon unequipped for
ministerial duties. In the short term it regarded as a victory of sense.
In the long term it was regarded by the right wing as an approval for Sharon
conviction to the "Iron Wall" philosophy. In other words it made him ready
to be the Israeli Prime Minister when time comes..
The result of the Lebanon war are not yet cleared since the war is not
over. What we can say for sure is that it took the Israeli forces almost
twenty years to get out of Lebanon. Undoubtedly , while being in Lebanon,
Israeli army has managed to lose its "power of deterrence". The Israeli
army, the most equipped army in the middle-east found itself completely
defeated by the Hizbulah, a small devoted group of gorilla fighters. In
the shades of the growing Israeli defeat in Lebanon, the Palestinian people
within the occupied territories have started to redevelop their
nationalistic aspirations. Eventually in 1987 this aspiration had matured
into a Palestinian uprising, The first Intifada.
Since Lebanon war the Israeli "power of deterrence" deteriorated
continuously. Clearly, the IDF never managed to establish a successful
fighting skills to confront the Lebanese civil resistance. If this is not
enough, following the Oslo accord the Israeli civilian faced a growing
threat of terror inside Israel. For the first time the Israeli history,
Israeli civil population found itself within a war zone. This fact is
very crucial to understand. Within the Israeli self-image, It is the Arab> civilians who are supposed to die, definitely not Israelis. In the Israeli eyes, Jewish civilians are not supposed to die in the conflict because of two main reasons: 1. It remind them of the holocaust in which Jews were
dying only because the are Jews. 2. It is very much against the idea
"offensive doctrine". As we remember, Israeli got used to the fact that
any confrontation with the Arab world is always taking place over Arab land.
Suddenly, the confrontation have started to take place in the center of
the Israeli cities. This fact was regarded by most of the Israelis as a
catastrophe and completely unacceptable. In the light of the Palestinian
terror, a very strong right wing slogan was brought along: "Let the IDF
win" which means. Let us raise the "power of deterrence", let us get back into
our offensive doctrine. Let us pass the war from our city centers into the
Palestinian towns. Let us make sure that we destroy the Palestinian will
to fight. Let us get out of control, let us get mad. Let us erect again the
"Iron Wall" Who is the right man for the job? No doubt, Mr Ariel Sharon.
The master of offensive doctrine. Israel most celebrated war criminal. Arik,
who proved to be the man who does not know no mercy. We have to admit The
Israelis were right, it took Sharon just about a year in office to commit
the great massacre in Jenin.
It is a must to scrutinize the Jenin events within the offensive
prospects. The operation in the refugee camp was, 'more or less', the embodiment of
what offensive doctrine is all about. It was taking place on an, more or
less, enemy land. It was, more or less, very fast and it was, 'more or
less' , a "clear cut" victory. Apparently, the 'more or less' is crucial. Jenin
is not an enemy land. It is an Israeli invaded territory. Strangely enough,
it appears as if the Israeli colonial forces are the first colonialist to
destroy and demolish their own colonies. Clearly, it took the Israeli a
bit too long to confess that the battle in Jenin was over. Clearly, the might
of the Israeli armed forces was not enough to brake the spirit of the very
few determined Palestinian freedom fighters Last but not least, if it was a
clear victory. But at the same time, it is very unclear who is the
winner. Is it the Israelis? I would not say so, as T. Larsen the UN envoy to the
middle east put it: "in Jenin Israel has lost its moral ground". For such
a clear statement Mr. Larsen became a persona non grata in the Jewish state.
If anything, it is clear that after Jenin, After presenting the Israelis
with real fierce fighting, the Palestinians are determined to fight more
than forever.
I will try to follow the Jenin battle and to analyze the Israeli decision
making in the light of the offensive paradigm. On the morning of April 3rd
Israeli ground forces entered into Jenin refugee camp and from the very
early moment it clear that this time the encounter some fierce Palestinian
fighting. The Israeli high command naturally provided some more support.
More tanks and helicopter gun ships were sent to support the battling
ground forces. At this point it is important to mention that it is very unusual
to use tanks and helicopter gun ships in highly populated arias but within
the Offensive doctrine, the end (victory) is far more important than the means
(war crimes). At the meantime, Israeli commanders on the ground are
getting under sever pressure to complete their mission. They use heavier weapon
and fire, they care less and less about who is getting killed as long as they
are Arabs. Clearly, as a result, more civilians get hit, the scene on the
ground start to look a bit anaesthetic. The Israeli high command decides
to seal the aria. Press and rescue forces are not allowed in. Now the forces
on the ground are working against time. They must provide a clear-cut
conclusion. Naturaly, they decide to wipe out the all aria that is
suspected to be a "pocket of resistance". In doing so they kill many civilians,
mainly old and disabled people that could not run away. When the battle is over
jenin is a slaughter house, the streets are the most horrifying seen man
can think of. Civilian crops are all over the place, many Palestinian are
wounded blooding to death. Still, red cross and rescue forces are not
allowed in. The Israeli must decide whether to be Human and to save those
who can be saved or whether to try to conceal the evidences of an
unacceptable shocking inhuman crime. Naturally, following Sharon's
overwhelming history of crimes against humanity, a decision is taken to
bulldoze the center of Jenin refugee camp. The Israelis turn it into a
"Palestinian Ground Zero". Occupied houses are destroyed over their
habitants. Very much like Quibya slauther fifty years earlier Sharon
commits in Jenin a very similar crime. Although the similarities are very obvious,
the are still some light differences that should be elaborated. In Quibya
Sharon was a platoon commander, In Jenin he an elected prime minister, he
committs is crime in the name of the all Israeli people. As expected, as
soon as International criticism was heard, Sharon defines the current
battle as the "existential war of the all Jewish nation". So from now on,
accor ding to Sharon, the massacre in Jenin was done not only in the name
of the Israelis but in the name of the all Jewish people. If this is not
enough, Sharon declares that he is conducting a holy war against terror.
We must remember that this kind of approach aims at the American population,
Sharon becomes American messenger, or at least American platoon. As we can
clearly see, both world Jewry and American administration prevent
themselves from criticizing Sharon publicly, hence, we can conclude that Sharon is
committing his war crimes both in the name of the Jewish people and the
American nation unless prove different. Unless some major Rabbis will
stand up and firmly denounce Sharon atrocities significantly, unless the
American administration will decide to stop to support the Jewish state. Unless
these two happened soon we can clearly believe Sharon that he is acting in the
name of the Jewish people and the American nation.
Clearly, we can see that in Israeli eyes, Sharon is the right man for the
job. He is the embodiment of everything Israel is about. He is offensive,
murderous and righteous. Sharon proved again that he himself acts as an
"Iron Wall". The real and only question that is left for us is whether we
want to live in a world in which Israel, a criminal offensive state, is
accepted among the nations.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
gilad, baby, blow that horn, blow it hard and blow those warmongering. libelling and slandering islamophobic zionists away!!!
if Gaza is to be a huge penal colony with little self-determination, than the relocation of the crazed settlers is merely a tactical and strategic move to save the Israeli army tons of money and cash defending a spec of fundamentalists in a sea of Palestinians. if that's the case, then little good will come of it for the residents
we'll see what that grossly obese midget does in the next few years, and then make up our minds. one act does not make a salvation
Since talked about peace agreements over the past few decades always go back to the Green Line and giving the West Bank back to the Palestinians I'm curious to know why peopel are willing to go live in the West Bank.
The religious settlers make sense. Before the recent conflicts immigrants fooled into being pawns in a diplomatic game between the Israeli government and Palestinian leadership also make sense (although in recent years you would think it would be harder to fool people into living the West Bank since the issue with living there seems pretty obvious). Aside from religious crazies and recent immigrants who were tricker whats the major reason people woudl choose to live in an area outside of Israel proper? Ive heard it was for cheep housing but when you factor in the chance of getting killed in fighting, having your house destroyed following peace negotiatons and most of the world seeing your choice of home as illegal doesnt really seem to make the economic argument a plausable one.
in reference to the 25% thing always thrown around, note:
A May 2005 survey by the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa found many Israelis in agreement with some of Halfon's views: 56 percent wanted more religion in secular schools and 33 percent wanted Israel to be governed under Halacha, Jewish religious law.
In the same survey, 39 percent said they favored the concept of "Greater Israel" -- which would incorporate the occupied territories and more -- even at the expense of the state's democratic system. And 40 percent rejected giving any of Israel's current territory to Palestinians, even as part of a full peace agreement.
The Green line is nothing magical, its just where the Israeli army and the Jordanian army were when the shooting stopped in '67. As for getting killed, fear nothing but G-d.
The religious stuff only account to 25% of the settlers according to the post above. In terms of having a suburban home to commute from, I dont see how that woudl fully explain to live in a place where one stands to lose ones home if there is ever peace and one risks ones life if there isnt peace.
"The Green line is nothing magical, its just where the Israeli army and the Jordanian army were when the shooting stopped in '67. As for getting killed, fear nothing but G-d."
Its nothing magical but it is the internationally recognized border. If you dont respect the Green Line then you would have to say that all those Palestinians born in the West Bank (or at least those born near the border) are really Israelis and shuold have full rights as such. The risk that claims to Palestinian territory would either set Israel up as racist (denying many born in Israel real citizenship), or make Jews a minorty in Israel was part of the reason the Israeli government pulled out of Gaza since claims to Palestinian land also are claims to Palestinians as Israeli citizens.
"The Green line is nothing magical, its just where the Israeli army and the Jordanian army were when the shooting stopped in '67. As for getting killed, fear nothing but G-d."
Alot of those Palestinians born in the West Bank still retain Jordanian citizenship. After the Six Day War, alot of grass roots Arab leaders in the West Bank that advocated working closely with Israel to get muncipal servces like water, electricity etc, in order to better peoples' lives were assasinated by Arafat's guys. After a few of those,the rest played along. The Israeli government pulled out of Gaza, as far as I can tell, for stragic reasons. Gaza was part of Egypt till '67 and when Egypt took back the Sinai in '79 (more territory than the West Bank and Gaza combined), they wanted no part of Gaza. It was never "Palestinian land". I don't know if Gazans retain Egytian citizenship.
People live all kinds of dangerous places. Is Richmond more dangerous than the West Bank? Is the constant threat of random Arab violence the same as civilized diplomacy?
Not really. Population growth among Palestinians is very high and most of the population was born after the war. You can try to argue that some Palestinians are Jordanians if they had Jordanian citizenship before the Occupation started but you cant pretend to make that claim for the majority who are either born in terrirtory that is not Israel or are born in territory that is Israel. If the Green line isnt a border and parts of the West Bank are part of Israel than many Palestinians are being born in Israel and denied their rightful citizenship. If the Green line is a border then the settlemements are outside of Israeli jurisdication and are illegal (or at least should have permission from the government of the West Bank to exist).
Even if you claim that some Palestinians who were born Jordanians but have never left their houses in what you now claim to be part of Israel, then you have Israeli annexation of land containing Jordanians which would usuallu suggest that the citizenship of the annexed Palestinians would also have to change. You cant annex land and then turn around and complain that there are noncitizens living on your land; annexation may be illegal but you would at least assume that annexation of land must include annexation of the population living on the land too.
Maybe not but I couldnt see people from San Diego living across the border in houses not approved of by the Mexican government just due to economics. If Israel has already annexed the settlement land then that should be stated as things are now I have never seen any international organization (left right or center) that lists any West Bank land as part of Israel proper.
I personally have nothing against religious settlers who want to live in the West Bank for religious reasons. Many early religious Zionists moved to what is now Israel (and the West Bank) to settle foir religious reasons by buying land and making sure their settlements were legal under the Ottoman Empire. The problem with the current settlements is that they are treated as part of Israel despite the fact that the local population living around the settlements are not granted Israeli citizenship and frequently have their homes and property destroyed in the name of protecting the settlers.
“The Government of the West Bank” raises some really interesting questions. Israel tried to return the West Bank etc after the Six Day war in exchange for peace but received”the three no’s of Khartoum”(no peace, no negotiation, no recognition) instead. Jordan ceded all of their rights to the West Bank, I think in the ‘80's. Israel ceded or tried to cede governance of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority in ‘93 under Oslo. So “government of the West Bank” beyond a municipal level is really unclear at the moment. Certainly though, it was never a nation of Palestine.
That depends on the laws of Jordan. Yes, most countries dont automatically make everyone born in the country a citizen but few countries would deny someone who has lived in the same placed for 2-3 generations citizenship in the land where they have been living. Of course Israel hasnt annexed the West Bank and the Green Line really is an international border. The status of the Wets Bank can be argued about but since it hasnt been annexed its not part of Israel no matter who you want to blame for its current state. To argue that because a Palestinian leadership did so and so awhile ago a current people can never be citizens on their own land its ridiculous; Israel has always recognized those Arabs who stayed in Israel in 1948 as Israeli citizens so I would guess that the Israeli Supreme Court (with resistance from right-wingers) would recognize as new citizens any Palestiinians who may get stuck in Israel if there is an attempt to redraw the borders and not have it be on the Green Line. Unlike the right-wing the Israeli Supreme Court often recognizes rights of all citizens Arab or Jew and the only result that can come from settlements intended as facts on the ground to prevent a West Bank Palestinian state is the eventually assimilation of Palestinians into Israeli society as citizens (there is no way the Israeli Surpreme Court would ever agree to an ethnic cleansing like explusion of Palestinians to Jordan which is what annexation of land without annexation of the people would mean).
Like it or not, the expansion of settlements in the West Bank will mean the end of Israel's existance as a majority Jewish state. Sharon recognized this danger with Gaza and I think those who are willing to look at the reality of the stuation realize that blame games dont really lead anywhere and at some point there will either be two states or one and a single state will mean major changes with Israel looking a lot like Lebanon's multireligious power sharing government.
If Arab violence continues, I predict that it will drive Israeli politics further right. Remember, it was the current intifada that caused the election of Likud over Labor. If that were to occurr, I predict a full blown war would errupt leading to a third Nakhba. Thats not acceptable, but possible.
So it seems that all thats reasonable might be a two state solution,but that might take generations. There wasn't enough prep for Oslo.
"If Arab violence continues, I predict that it will drive Israeli politics further right."
What he meant:
"If we can succeed in finding some inscrutable way to turn the screws even tighter on the Palestinians, we can drive them to total desperation and suicidal violence again, and then WE GET TO NUKE THEM FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yippee!!! Yahoo!! G-d helps those who hold the nukes!!"
What he said:
"There wasn't enough prep for Oslo."
What he meant:
"Unfortunately, we didn't have enough time to knock Sharon over on his ass and pile on top of him and shove the barrel of an elephant gun two feet up his fat hairy nose while doing the same to every single human cockroach in Gaza and the West Bank. Then we could have just gently whispered in their ears "now you're going to do exactly as we say..." Man, those are some slippery buggers, you know it?!! That and these goddamn peace assholes keep watching us!! I just CAN'T WAIT for G-d to cleanse the earth of all but the Chosen People!!"
Then there's this garbage:
"Remember, it was the current intifada that caused the election of Likud over Labor."
Uh, not so fast, pal! Sharon's maneuvering into office and the outbreak of the present intifadah are totally intertwined. Most sources (except zionists, who always lie) date the uprising to September 28, 2000, the day of Sharon's politically motivated "visit" to the Temple Mount (thumbing his nose at Palestinians collectively) surrounded by a massive security entourage. I believe this was during midday prayers. The people of Palestine were outraged by this affront. It was quite the publicity stunt for Sharon, though, who was campaigning intensely at the time and because of this inflammatory stunt ran away with the "fuck the Palestinians" vote. That's, what, 80% of Israel, PJ? Between Sharon and Netanyahu, whoever took the bolder "fuck the Palestinians" position was going to win. That's what it's like in a country of bigots.
http://mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/mideast.html
http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue30/honig30.htm
I don't think Sharon really needed to resort to this Temple Mount stunt, anyway. He was already the sure-fire "fuck the Palestinians" shoo-in. In Israel, his name is virtually synonymous with state terror against Palestinians. Back in the '80s Israelis still had enough sense to be livid about his confirmed role in the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. Israelis rose up to condemn him, participating in the largest protests in Israel's history (PJ will now coat all this in greazy zionist lies, of course). Nobody's forgotten this stuff. Zionists have a long history of elevating their most ruthless criminals into public office.
http://users.rcn.com/salski/No27Folder/Israel_bin_Laden.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/irae-j21.shtml
Sharon a serial war criminal:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml
Yitzhak Shamir a bonafide terrorist:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Yitzhak-Shamir
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/folke.html
Menachem Begin a terrorist:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story703.html
Hey look, "?" guy, this PJ clown is pumping you with all the standard grease-coated garbage zionists always feed the unwary. If you want to learn the TRUTH about Israel-Palestine, go to the library, and even there be careful what you read. These jerks write books too. Meanwhile, the most fitting way to treat these zionist thought-cops who've infested IMCs everywhere is with CONSTANT CONTEMPTUOUS ABUSE. Career liars should never be tolerated anywhere.
Oh, and PJ, please observe what I've done above: back myself up with credible sources. I look forward to seeing you do the same in your reply
@%<
Reality remains though, if the Palestinians continue not to honor their commitment to non-violence, the inevitable response will be violence. Can anyone rule out the possibility that future Palestinian violence in the form of a third intifada will lead to a third Nakhba? Thats why if the Palestinians truly want peace, its time for them to honor their promises and work towards a two state solution, even if it takes two more generations to accomplish.