Is
Beirut Burning?
By Uri Avnery
27 July, 2006
Gush Shalom
Tel Aviv.
"It seems that Nasrallah
survived," Israeli newspapers announced, after 23 tons of bombs
were dropped on a site in Beirut, where the Hizbullah leader was supposedly
hiding in a bunker.
An interesting formulation.
A few hours after the bombing, Nazrallah had given an interview to Aljazeera
television. Not only did he look alive, but even composed and confident.
He spoke about the bombardment - proof that the interview was recorded
on the same day.
So what does "it seems
that" mean? Very simple: Nasrallah pretends to be alive, but you
can't believe an Arab. Everyone knows that Arabs always lie. That's
in their very nature, as Ehud Barak once pronounced.
The killing of the man is
a national aim, almost the main aim of the war. This is, perhaps, the
first war in history waged by a state in order to kill one person. Until
now, only the Mafia thought along those lines. Even the British in World
War II did not proclaim that their aim was to kill Hitler. On the contrary,
they wanted to catch him alive, in order to put him on trial. Probably
that's what the Americans wanted, too, in their war against Saddam Hussein.
But our ministers have officially
decided that that is the aim. There is not much novelty in that: successive
Israeli governments have adopted a policy of killing the leaders of
opposing groups. Our army has killed, among others, Hizbullah leader
Abbas Mussawi, PLO no. 2 Abu Jihad, as well as Sheik Ahmad Yassin and
other Hamas leaders. Almost all Palestinians, and not only they, are
convinced that Yassir Arafat was also murdered.
And the results? The place
of Mussawi was filled by Nasrallah, who is far more able. Sheik Yassin
was succeeded by far more radical leaders. Instead of Arafat we got
Hamas.
As in other political matters,
a primitive military mindset governs this reasoning too.
A person returning here after
a long absence and seeing our TV screens might get the impression that
a military junta is governing Israel, in the (former) South American
manner.
On all TV channels, every
evening, one sees a parade of military brass in uniform. They explain
not only the day's military actions, but also comment on political matters
and lay down the political and propaganda line.
During all the other hours
of broadcasting time, a dozen or so have-been generals repeat again
and again the message of the army commanders. (Some of them don't look
particularly intelligent - not to say downright stupid. It is frightening
to think that these people were once in a position to decide who would
live and who would die.)
True, we are a democracy.
The army is completely subject to the civilian establishment. According
to the law, the cabinet is the "supreme commander" of the
army (which in Israel includes the navy and air force). But in practice,
today it is the top brass who decide all political and military matters.
When Dan Halutz tells the ministers that the military command has decided
on this or that operation, no minister dares to express opposition.
Certainly not the hapless Labor Party ministers.
Ehud Olmert presents himself
as the heir to Churchill ("blood, sweat and tears"). That's
quite pathetic enough. Then Amir Peretz puffs up his chest and shoots
threats in all directions, and that's even more pathetic, if that's
possible. He resembles nothing so much as a fly standing on the ear
of an ox and proclaiming: "we are ploughing!"
The Chief-of-Staff announced
last week with satisfaction: "The army enjoys the full backing
of the government!" That is also an interesting formulation. It
implies that the army decides what to do, and the government provides
"backing". And that's how it is, of course.
Now it is not a secret anymore:
this war has been planned for a long time. The military correspondents
proudly reported this week that the army has been exercising for this
war in all its details for several years. Only a month ago, there was
a large war game to rehearse the entrance of land forces into South
Lebanon - at a time when both the politicians and the generals were
declaring that "we shall never again get into the Lebanon quagmire.
We shall never again introduce land forces there." Now we are in
the quagmire, and large land forces are operating in the area.
The other side, too, has
been preparing this war for years. Not only did they build caches of
thousands of missiles, but they have also prepared an elaborate system
of Vietnam-style bunkers, tunnels and caves. Our soldiers are now encountering
this system and paying a high price. As always, our army has treated
"the Arabs" with disdain and discounted their military capabilities.
That is one of the problems
of the military mentality. Talleyrand was not wrong when he said that
"war is much too serious a thing to be left to military men."
The mentality of the generals, resulting from their education and profession,
is by nature force-oriented, simplistic, one-dimensional, not to say
primitive. It is based on the belief that all problems can be solved
by force, and if that does not work - then by more force.
That is well illustrated
by the planning and execution of the current war. This was based on
the assumption that if we cause terrible suffering to the population,
they will rise up and demand the removal of Hizbullah. A minimal understanding
of mass psychology would suggest the opposite. The killing of hundreds
of Lebanese civilians, belonging to all the ethno-religious communities,
the turning of the lives of the others into hell, and the destruction
of the life-supporting infrastructure of Lebanese society will arouse
a groundswell of fury and hatred - against Israel, and not against the
heroes, as they see them, who sacrifice their lives in their defense.
The result will be a strengthening
of Hizbullah, not only today, but for years to come. Perhaps that will
be the main outcome of the war, more important than all the military
achievements, if any. And not only in Lebanon, but throughout the Arab
and Muslim world.
Faced with the horrors that
are shown on all television and many computer screens, world opinion
is also changing. What was seen at the beginning as a justified response
to the capture of the two soldiers now looks like the barbaric actions
of a brutal war-machine. The elephant in a china shop.
Thousands of e-mail distribution
lists have circulated a horrible series of photos of mutilated babies
and children. At the end, there is a macabre photo: jolly Israeli children
writing "greetings" on the artillery shells that are about
to be fired. Then there appears a message: "Thanks to the children
of Israel for this nice gift. Thanks to the world that does nothing.
Signed: the children of Lebanon and Palestine."
The woman who heads the United
Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has already
defined these acts as war crimes - something that may in future mean
trouble for Israeli army officers.
In general, when army officers
are determining the policy of a nation, serious moral problems arise.
In war, a commander is obliged
to take hard decisions. He sends soldiers into battle, knowing that
many will not return and others will be maimed for life. He hardens
his heart. As General Amos Yaron told his officers after the Sabra and
Shatila massacre: "Our senses have been blunted!"
Years of the occupation regime
in the Palestinian territories have caused a terrible callousness as
far as human lives are concerned. The killing of ten to twenty Palestinians
every day, including women and children, as happens now in Gaza, does
not agitate anyone. It doesn't even make the headlines. Gradually, even
routine expressions like "We regretwe had no intentionthe most
moral army in the world" and all the other trite phrases are not
heard anymore.
Now this numbness is revealing
itself in Lebanon. Air Force officers, calm and comfortable, sit in
front of the cameras and speak about "bundles of targets",
as if they were talking about a technical problem, and not about living
human beings. They speak about driving hundreds of thousands of human
beings from their homes as an imposing military achievement, and do
not hide their satisfaction in face of human beings whose whole life
has been destroyed. The word that is most popular with the generals
at this time is "pulverize" - we pulverize, they are being
pulverized, neighborhoods are pulverized, buildings are pulverized,
people are pulverized.
Even the launching of rockets
at our towns and villages does not justify this ignoring of moral considerations
in fighting the war. There were other ways of responding to the Hizbullah
provocation, without turning Lebanon into rubble. The moral numbness
will be transformed into grievous political damage, both immediate and
long term. Only a fool or worse ignores moral values - in the end, they
always take revenge.
IT IS almost banal to say
that it is easier to start a war than to finish it. One knows how it
starts, it is impossible to know how it will end.
Wars take place in the realm
of uncertainty. Unforeseen things happen. Even the greatest captains
in history could not control the wars they started. War has its own
laws.
We started a war of days.
It turned into a war of weeks. Now they are speaking of a war of months.
Our army started a "surgical" action of the Air Force, afterwards
it sent small units into Lebanon, now whole brigades are fighting there,
and reservists are being called up in large numbers for a wholesale
1982-style invasion. Some people already foresee that the war may roll
towards a confrontation with Syria.
All this time, the United
States has been using all its might in order to prevent the cessation
of hostilities. All signs indicate that it is pushing Israel towards
a war with Syria - a country that has ballistic missiles with chemical
and biological warheads.
Only one thing is already
certain on the 11th day of the war: Nothing good will come of it. Whatever
happens - Hizbullah will emerge strengthened. If there had been hopes
in the past that Lebanon would slowly become a normal country, where
Hizbullah would be deprived of a pretext for maintaining a military
force of its own, we have now provided the organization with the perfect
justification: Israel is destroying Lebanon, only Hizbullah is fighting
to defend the country.
As for deterrence: a war
in which our huge military machine cannot overcome a small guerilla
organization in 11 days of total war certainly has not rehabilitated
its deterrent power. In this respect, it is not important how long this
war will last and what will be its results - the fact that a few thousand
fighters have withstood the Israeli army for 11 days and more, has already
been imprinted in the consciousness of hundred of millions of Arabs
and Muslims.
From this war nothing good
will come - not for Israel, not for Lebanon and not for Palestine. The
"New Middle East" that will be its result will be a worse
place to live in.