Israel's thirst for blood in Gaza and Beirut
Israel's thirst for blood in Gaza and Beirut
Gilad Atzmon
Kuklinsky © 2001
Gilad Atzmon looks at Israel's war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon from the perspective of the Israeli national psyche, which rates politicians according to how much Arab blood they spell.
Two weeks ago, Palestinian militants abducted a legitimate military target, an Israeli soldier. Yesterday [Wednesday 12 July], Hezbollah guerrillas mounted a similar, well-orchestrated heroic attack. Both attacks were intended to send a message of resistance: Israel will never succeed in imposing its sickening notion of unilateral "peace".
[More:]
The unilateral disengagement may have put a spell on the Israeli voters as well as some Zionised Western leaders such as George Bush, Tony Blair and Angela Merkel. However, the inhabitants of Gaza and the villagers of southern Lebanon are somewhat less impressed with the Israeli inclination towards peace. In Gaza and in southern Lebanon, it is quite clear that Arab resistance forces will oppose the unilateral Israeli agenda until the end of time. They all know that, to the extent that it takes two to tango, there will never be peace until the Palestinian cause is properly addressed.
In short, the different forms of unilateral Israeli disengagements, from Lebanon, to Gaza to even the West Bank (to come) will not provide Israel with peace. Quite the opposite. Arabs are no fools, they know very well that Israel escaped from Lebanon after being militarily humiliated for two decades. They know as well that Ariel Sharon ran away from Gaza not exactly because he was searching for peace. Palestinians also know that it is just a question of time before the same thing happens in the West Bank. In fact, since 1973 Israel's power of deterrence has been shrinking. Since 1973 Israel hasn't managed to defeat any of its enemies. On the contrary, time after time it is the enemies of Israel who have been able to dictate Israeli political and tactical manoeuvres. In the last two weeks, it has been two relatively small paramilitary organizations using guerrilla techniques who managed to bring Israel to unleash its full military might against innocent civilians both in Gaza and in Lebanon.
Yet, the Israeli reaction to the attacks by Palestinian militants and Hezbollah is rather bizarre. Although both the Palestinian militants and Hezbollah attacked legitimate military targets, Israel's retaliation was clearly aimed at civilians, civil infrastructure and the mass killing of the innocent population. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is not really the way to win a war or confront the particular kind of combat known as guerrilla warfare.
I would argue that, once again, the Israeli government has served us with a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the collective Israeli psyche. I will try to elaborate on this issue.
Owing to certain historical circumstances, the Israeli army was originally formed to combat Arab armies. It was designed to win conventional war in the battlefield. It was also designed to sap the will of Israel's neighbours through overwhelming air superiority and the threat of nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War, things changed. Israel isn't threatened any more by its neighbouring states. Moreover, in the most recent years it has become clear that it is actually the Palestinian people who will eventually shatter the dream of a Jewish national state.
Strangely enough, Israel has never adopted or revised its military doctrine to fit into the new emerging conditions. Indeed, it retrained large parts of its fighting units as police forces, converting some tanks into police vehicles. Yet, it has never fundamentally revamped its doctrine. Very much like the Wehrmacht at the time of World War II, the Israeli army continues to follow a classic offensive military doctrine. So, instead of winning in the battlefield, the Israeli army is now hopelessly exhausting itself on two fronts fighting relatively small paramilitary organizations. But the situation can get worse. It is quite possible that heroic Palestinian militancy will spread to the West Bank. When this happens, the Israeli army will find itself engaged in a total war just a few kilometres from Israel's most densely populated centres. Seemingly, the so-called "strongest army in the Middle East" is fighting a desperate war it can never win, neither tactically nor morally.
Tactically, we have enough historical examples to conclude that no colonial army has ever won a guerrilla war. The reason is simple: the more destruction a colonial army spreads, the more popular the guerrilla fighters become among their adjacent supportive population. This is absolutely the case in Gaza and in Beirut today. The more carnage there is in Gaza, the stronger Hamas will become. The more bombs that drop over Beirut airport, the more will young men join Hezbollah.
But it goes further. Both the Palestinian militants and Hezbollah were very clever in choosing pure military targets. While, in the past, the Palestinian paramilitary groups were typically associated with suicidal attacks against Israeli civilians, this time it was Israeli soldiers and pure military posts that were targeted. In other words, it is rather impossible to dismiss the fact that Palestinian militants and Hezbollah were actually operating as legitimate paramilitary resistance groups fighting against a colonial army and occupation forces.
However, reading the news from the Middle East, it seems obvious that the Israeli government has no clear agenda to counter the current daring military operations against its army and, if this isn't enough, the Israeli army has no means to counter such guerrilla assaults. Today's merciless collateral damage in Beirut and Gaza proves that, at least militarily, Israel is in total despair. It has neither a political nor a military answer to counter Arab resistance. But here comes the catch: Israel doesn't need an answer as such, it isn't even looking for one.
Israel is a racially orientated democracy. Its leaders are engaged in one thing only: the maintenance of their political power. As far as the Israeli political game is concerned, the rule is very simple: the more Arab blood you have on your hands the more you are suited to get on with your governing job. This rule obviously helped Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu. Olmert and Amir Peretz are still quite far behind. Both the prime minister and his defence minister lack real experience in military and security matters. Hence, they have a lot of catching up to do.
In other words, Peretz and Olmert have to provide the Israeli people with a glorious spectacle of merciless retaliation. They have to prove to their keen voters that they have internalized the literal biblical meaning of "an eye for an eye". Looking at the carnage in Beirut today, it somehow seems as if they are even trying to give the old Hebraic saying a new meaning. As devastating as it may sound, this is exactly what the Israelis want them to do. Within democratic Israel, the biblical call, "pour out your fury upon the goyim", is translated into a Jewish secular pragmatic political practice. This isn't sad. This is a real tragedy. And I wonder whether there is anyone out there who is still spellbound by the unilateral Israeli peace agenda?
Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born musician and writer, and a proponent of a secular and democratic one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which the two peoples live in one state as citizens with equal rights and responsibilities.
Gilad Atzmon
Kuklinsky © 2001
Gilad Atzmon looks at Israel's war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon from the perspective of the Israeli national psyche, which rates politicians according to how much Arab blood they spell.
Two weeks ago, Palestinian militants abducted a legitimate military target, an Israeli soldier. Yesterday [Wednesday 12 July], Hezbollah guerrillas mounted a similar, well-orchestrated heroic attack. Both attacks were intended to send a message of resistance: Israel will never succeed in imposing its sickening notion of unilateral "peace".
[More:]
The unilateral disengagement may have put a spell on the Israeli voters as well as some Zionised Western leaders such as George Bush, Tony Blair and Angela Merkel. However, the inhabitants of Gaza and the villagers of southern Lebanon are somewhat less impressed with the Israeli inclination towards peace. In Gaza and in southern Lebanon, it is quite clear that Arab resistance forces will oppose the unilateral Israeli agenda until the end of time. They all know that, to the extent that it takes two to tango, there will never be peace until the Palestinian cause is properly addressed.
In short, the different forms of unilateral Israeli disengagements, from Lebanon, to Gaza to even the West Bank (to come) will not provide Israel with peace. Quite the opposite. Arabs are no fools, they know very well that Israel escaped from Lebanon after being militarily humiliated for two decades. They know as well that Ariel Sharon ran away from Gaza not exactly because he was searching for peace. Palestinians also know that it is just a question of time before the same thing happens in the West Bank. In fact, since 1973 Israel's power of deterrence has been shrinking. Since 1973 Israel hasn't managed to defeat any of its enemies. On the contrary, time after time it is the enemies of Israel who have been able to dictate Israeli political and tactical manoeuvres. In the last two weeks, it has been two relatively small paramilitary organizations using guerrilla techniques who managed to bring Israel to unleash its full military might against innocent civilians both in Gaza and in Lebanon.
Yet, the Israeli reaction to the attacks by Palestinian militants and Hezbollah is rather bizarre. Although both the Palestinian militants and Hezbollah attacked legitimate military targets, Israel's retaliation was clearly aimed at civilians, civil infrastructure and the mass killing of the innocent population. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is not really the way to win a war or confront the particular kind of combat known as guerrilla warfare.
I would argue that, once again, the Israeli government has served us with a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the collective Israeli psyche. I will try to elaborate on this issue.
Owing to certain historical circumstances, the Israeli army was originally formed to combat Arab armies. It was designed to win conventional war in the battlefield. It was also designed to sap the will of Israel's neighbours through overwhelming air superiority and the threat of nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War, things changed. Israel isn't threatened any more by its neighbouring states. Moreover, in the most recent years it has become clear that it is actually the Palestinian people who will eventually shatter the dream of a Jewish national state.
Strangely enough, Israel has never adopted or revised its military doctrine to fit into the new emerging conditions. Indeed, it retrained large parts of its fighting units as police forces, converting some tanks into police vehicles. Yet, it has never fundamentally revamped its doctrine. Very much like the Wehrmacht at the time of World War II, the Israeli army continues to follow a classic offensive military doctrine. So, instead of winning in the battlefield, the Israeli army is now hopelessly exhausting itself on two fronts fighting relatively small paramilitary organizations. But the situation can get worse. It is quite possible that heroic Palestinian militancy will spread to the West Bank. When this happens, the Israeli army will find itself engaged in a total war just a few kilometres from Israel's most densely populated centres. Seemingly, the so-called "strongest army in the Middle East" is fighting a desperate war it can never win, neither tactically nor morally.
Tactically, we have enough historical examples to conclude that no colonial army has ever won a guerrilla war. The reason is simple: the more destruction a colonial army spreads, the more popular the guerrilla fighters become among their adjacent supportive population. This is absolutely the case in Gaza and in Beirut today. The more carnage there is in Gaza, the stronger Hamas will become. The more bombs that drop over Beirut airport, the more will young men join Hezbollah.
But it goes further. Both the Palestinian militants and Hezbollah were very clever in choosing pure military targets. While, in the past, the Palestinian paramilitary groups were typically associated with suicidal attacks against Israeli civilians, this time it was Israeli soldiers and pure military posts that were targeted. In other words, it is rather impossible to dismiss the fact that Palestinian militants and Hezbollah were actually operating as legitimate paramilitary resistance groups fighting against a colonial army and occupation forces.
However, reading the news from the Middle East, it seems obvious that the Israeli government has no clear agenda to counter the current daring military operations against its army and, if this isn't enough, the Israeli army has no means to counter such guerrilla assaults. Today's merciless collateral damage in Beirut and Gaza proves that, at least militarily, Israel is in total despair. It has neither a political nor a military answer to counter Arab resistance. But here comes the catch: Israel doesn't need an answer as such, it isn't even looking for one.
Israel is a racially orientated democracy. Its leaders are engaged in one thing only: the maintenance of their political power. As far as the Israeli political game is concerned, the rule is very simple: the more Arab blood you have on your hands the more you are suited to get on with your governing job. This rule obviously helped Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu. Olmert and Amir Peretz are still quite far behind. Both the prime minister and his defence minister lack real experience in military and security matters. Hence, they have a lot of catching up to do.
In other words, Peretz and Olmert have to provide the Israeli people with a glorious spectacle of merciless retaliation. They have to prove to their keen voters that they have internalized the literal biblical meaning of "an eye for an eye". Looking at the carnage in Beirut today, it somehow seems as if they are even trying to give the old Hebraic saying a new meaning. As devastating as it may sound, this is exactly what the Israelis want them to do. Within democratic Israel, the biblical call, "pour out your fury upon the goyim", is translated into a Jewish secular pragmatic political practice. This isn't sad. This is a real tragedy. And I wonder whether there is anyone out there who is still spellbound by the unilateral Israeli peace agenda?
Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born musician and writer, and a proponent of a secular and democratic one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which the two peoples live in one state as citizens with equal rights and responsibilities.
posted by Joseph Khoury at 3:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home