The Arab Thought Forum (ATF) is committed to the belief that state structures must be developed to serve and be responsive to an active and critical public, which is conscious of its obligations and duties, as well as its rights and entitlements

[            Home           ]



Calender of Events



 About Us   Programs   Forums   Publications   Articles   Analysis Papers   Contact Us 

Home > Access >

From my home, I saw what the 'war on terror' meant

2006-07-18

14 July 2006
Robert Fisk
the Independent

All night I heard the jets, whispering high above the Mediterranean. It lasted for hours, little fireflies that were watching Beirut, waiting for dawn perhaps, because it was then that they descended.
They came first to the little village of Dweir near Nabatiya in southern Lebanon where an Israeli plane dropped a bomb on to the home of a Shia Muslim cleric. He was killed. So was his wife. So were eight of his children. One was decapitated. All they could find of a baby was its head and torso which a young villager brandished in fury in front of the cameras. Then the planes visited another home in Dweir and disposed of a family of seven.

It was a brisk start to Day Two of Israel‘s latest "war on terror", a conflict that uses some of the same language – and a few of the same lies – as George Bush‘s larger "war on terror". For just as we "degraded" Iraq – in 1991 as well as 2003 – so yesterday it was Lebanon‘s turn to be "degraded". That means not only physical death but economic death and it arrived at Beirut‘s gleaming new £300m international airport just before 6am as passengers prepared to board flights to London and Paris.

From my home, I heard the F-16 which suddenly appeared over the newest runway and fired a spread of rockets into it, ripping up 20 metresCairo, no flight, Dubai, no flight, Baghdad – from the cauldron into the fire if anyone had chosen to take it – no flight. Someone was playing "Don‘t Cry For Me, Argentina" over the public address system.
Then the Israelis went for the Hizbollah television station, Al-Manar, clipping off its antenna with a missile but failing to put the station off air. That might be a more understandable target – "Manar", after all, broadcasts Hizbollah propaganda. But was it really designed to find or recover the two Israeli soldiers captured on Wednesday? Or to take revenge for the nine Israelis killed in the same incident, one of the blackest days in recent Israeli Army history although not as black as it was for the 36 Lebanese civilians killed in the previous 24 hours.

An Israeli woman was also killed by a Hizbollah rocket fired into Israel. So, in the grim exchange rate of these wretched conflicts, one Israeli death equals just over three Lebanese; it‘s a fair bet the exchange rate will grow more murderous.
And by afternoon, the threats had grown worse. Israel would not "sit idly by". It ordered the entire population of the southern suburbs – home to Hizbollah‘s headquarters – to flee their homes by 3pm.
Save for a few hundred families, they stubbornly refused to leave. Everywhere in Lebanon could now be a target, the Israelis announced. If Israel bombed the suburbs, the Hizbollah roared, it would fire its long-range Katyushas at the Israeli city of Haifa. One of them had apparently already damaged an Israeli air base at Miron, a fact concealed at the time by Israeli censors.

It certainly frightened Lebanon‘s Gulf tourists who packed the roads from Bhamdoun in their 4x4s, fleeing for the safety of Syria and flights home from Damascus. Another little economic death for Lebanon. But what did all this mean, this ranting and threatening? I sat at home in the early afternoon, going through my files of Israeli statements. It turned out that Israel had threatened not to "sit idly by" (or occasionally "stand idly by") in Lebanon on at least six occasions in the past 26 years, most famously when the late Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin promised that he would not "stand idly by" while Christians were threatened here in 1980 – only to withdraw his soldiers and leave the Christians to their bloody fate three years later.

The Lebanese are always left to their fate. Israel‘s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, says he holds the Lebanese government responsible for the attacks on the border that breached the international frontier on Wednesday. But Mr Olmert and everyone knows that the weak and fractious government of the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora isn‘t capable of controlling a single militiaman, let alone the Hizbollah. Yet wasn‘t this the same set of Lebanese political leaders congratulated by the United States last year for its democratic elections and its freedom from Syria? Indeed, a man who sees Bush as a friend – perhaps "saw" is a better word – is Saad Hariri, son of the ex-Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri who built much of the infrastructure that Israel is now destroying and whose murder last year – by Syrian agents? – supposedly outraged Mr Bush. Yesterday morning, Saad Hariri, the son, was flying into Beirut when America‘s Israeli allies arrived to bomb the airport. He had to turn round as his aircraft skulked off to Cyprus for refuge. But it was the undercurrent of terror-speak that was particularly frightening yesterday.

Lebanon was an "axis of terror", Israel was "fighting terror on all fronts". During the morning, I had to cut across an interview with an Australian radio station when an Israeli reporter stated – totally untruthfully – that there were Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon and that not all Syria‘s troops had left. And the reason why the Israelis had attacked Beirut‘s infinitely secure and carefully monitored airport, used by diplomats and European leaders, a facility as safe as any in Europe? Because, so said the Israelis, it was "a central hub for the transfer of weapons and supplies to the Hizbollah terrorist organisation." If the Israelis really want to know where that hub is, they should be looking at Damascus airport. But they do know that, don‘t they?

And so it is terror, terror, terror again and Lebanon is once more to be depicted as the mythic terror centre of the Middle East along, I suppose with Gaza. And the West Bank. And Syria. And, of course, Iraq. And Iran. And Afghanistan. And who knows where next?

July 14, 2006
Israel‘s State-Sponsored Terrorism
Marwan Bishara, The Nation
 
The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has exploited the capture of Army Corporal Gilad Shalit to restore the country‘s diminished deterrence against militant Palestinian factions, to break the elected Hamas government and to impose its unilateral territorial solution on the West Bank. But when the dust finally settles, Israel‘s offensive against the besieged territories--and now Lebanon--will have left the region with more destruction and death and the Israeli government with the same strategic deadlock. That‘s why instead of lashing out against their neighbors, Israelis must end the vicious cycle of provocations and retaliations, and pursue meaningful negotiations to end the occupation.
The Olmert government bases its campaign against Palestinian civilian infrastructure on three fallacies: that Israel does not initiate violence but retaliates to protect its citizens--in this case a captured soldier; that its response is measured and not meant to harm the broader population; and that it does not negotiate with those it deems terrorists. But Israel‘s offensive did not start last week. The three-month-old Israeli government is responsible for the killing eighty or more Palestinians, some of whom were children, in attacks aimed at carrying out illegal extrajudicial assassinations and other punishments.
Hamas has maintained a one-sided cease-fire for the past sixteen months, but continued Israeli attacks made Palestinian retaliation only a question of time. (Palestinian factions not under Hamas‘s control had been firing home-made rockets across the border off and on during this period--almost always with little or no damage or casualties--but these factions maintained that the attacks were in response to Israeli provocations.)

Since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000, repeated Israeli bombardments and targeted assassinations against Palestinians have aggravated the violence and led to Israeli deaths. In fact, according to the US academic Steve Niva , who has been documenting the intifada, many major Palestinian suicide bombings since 2001 have come in retaliation for Israeli assassinations, many of which occurred when the Palestinians were mulling over or abiding by self-imposed restraint.

To give three examples: On July 31, 2001, Israel‘s assassination of the two leading Hamas militants in Nablus ended a nearly two-month Hamas cease-fire, leading to the terrible August 9 Hamas suicide bombing in a Jerusalem pizzeria. On July 22, 2002, an Israeli air attack on a crowded apartment block in Gaza City killed a senior Hamas leader, Salah Shehada, and fourteen civilians, nine of them children, hours before a widely reported unilateral cease-fire declaration. A suicide bombing followed on August 4. On June 10, 2003, Israel‘s attempted assassination of the senior Hamas political leader in Gaza, Abdel-Aziz al-Rantisi, which wounded him and killed four Palestinian civilians, led to a bus bombing in Jerusalem on June 11 that killed sixteen Israelis. Although Israel‘s provocations don‘t justify suicide bombings, they demonstrate how its deterrence has lost its effectiveness and why the source of terrorism lies first and foremost in its aggression and occupation. In this context, affected Palestinian civilians see themselves not as "collateral damage" but as victims of state terrorism.

As for the nature of its "retaliation," one could hardly refer to Israel‘s destruction of the civic infrastructure of 1.3 million Palestinians as "measured." The Israeli army began last week‘s offensive on the Gaza Strip by bombing bridges, roads and electric supplies, and by arresting nearly one-third of Hamas‘s West Bank-based parliamentarians and ministers (according to the Israeli press, the security services are holding the elected Palestinian officials as bargaining chips with Hamas).

The nature of the Israeli offensive is to punish, overwhelm and deter with disproportionate force, regardless of the suffering of the general public. Cutting off basic services of the Palestinians is not only unjustified, it is collective punishment of a civilian population--illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The asymmetry between Israeli and Palestinian firepower mustn‘t be translated into asymmetry between the value of Israeli and Palestinian life. The Palestinians have captured one Israeli soldier, but Israel holds more than 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, about 900 of whom are under "administrative detention," i.e., without trial. It has held some of these prisoners for longer than three years. Those in the international community calling for the IDF soldier‘s release need to address, at minimum, the ordeal of Palestinian women and children in Israeli jails.

The Israeli government, like any other, has the right and indeed the duty to protect its people, but not at the high expense of the Palestinians, whose government‘s credibility also rests on defending its people. The use of military force to scare and overawe a civilian population for political ends--in this case, to pressure the Palestinian Authority or undermine the Hamas government--is the very definition of state terrorism.

In its thirty-nine years of occupation, Israel‘s attempts to tame or intimidate the Palestinians have instead led to their incitement and radicalization. Isn‘t it time for Israel to change course? After all, in a minuscule territory where the longest distance separating an Israeli and Palestinian area is no more than nine kilometers, Israelis will never be secure if the Palestinians are utterly insecure. That‘s why Israel‘s harsh responses to Palestinian militancy have generally increased, not reduced, the threat to Israelis. While from 1978 to 1987 eighty-two Israelis were killed in Palestinian attacks, that figure jumped to more than 400 the following decade. And in less than two years of the second intifada (September 29, 2000, to May 29, 2002), more than 450 Israelis and 1,250 Palestinians were slain, mostly civilians on both sides.

Lastly, regarding its refusal to bargain with "terrorists," Israel‘s previous dealings with Lebanon‘s Hezbollah paint a different picture. Israel‘s bombardment of Beirut‘s electric generators and its Operation "Grapes of Wrath" in 1996, which led to the Qana massacre, failed, like many other operations, to deter the Lebanese resistance, which eventually forced Israel to negotiate through a third party with those it deemed "Islamist terrorists" and release hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners from its jails in exchange for the remains of dead Israeli soldiers.

The ongoing saga has once again demonstrated the absurdity of unilateralism as a viable and secure solution. And yet, the Olmert government is using the kidnapping of the soldier to undermine the historic agreement Hamas has reached with PA President Mahmoud Abbas‘s Fatah party over a unity government and de facto recognition of and negotiations with Israel, its sworn enemy.

Whether we like it or not, Hamas, like Hezbollah, is mostly a byproduct of an oppressive occupation, not the other way around. That‘s why refraining from excessive use of force and concentrating all efforts on a negotiated end to the occupation is paramount. Otherwise, Israel will only increase Hamas‘s popularity and push it back to clandestinity and war.

Marwan Bishara, a Palestinian writer and editorialist, is a lecturer at the American University of Paris and the author of Palestine/Israel: Peace or Apartheid (Zed).

Independent Media Institute.


Main Page

Send to Friend

Print
 Site Map       Copyright       Feedback