[PEN-L:30227] Israel academic on Iraq war

["ken hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Reposted from Portside...cheers, Ken Hanly

No Thank You, Mr. President
===========================
Lev Grinberg*

Following end of the '67 battles, the Israeli
government decided to knock down the barriers
separating Eastern Jerusalem and annex the eastern
Palestinian neighborhoods. Expecting immediate American
pressure to withdraw from the conquered territories,
the government rushed in and took control. The pressure
never came. That expectation was based on past
experience: In 1956 the US forced Israel to withdraw
from the Sinai Desert back to the international border,
in three months. In 1967, though, surprisingly, no such
demand was made. On the contrary - the Americans
allowed Israel to start a construction lunge, building
neighborhoods in Eastern Jerusalem, settlements in the
West Bank, in Sinai, and in the Golan Heights. Not only
was there no pressure to withdraw, but Israel received
a generous three billion dollars funding yearly, which
went mainly to subsidize the American weapon industry.

The difference between 1956 and 1967 is in the
political context. In 1956 Israel attacked Egypt in
cooperation with the UK and France, who were grabbing
to get the Suez Canal back under their control, after
being nationalized two years earlier by Gamal Abd el-
Nasser. The US and the USSR, WWII victors, were
interested in blocking the declining empires of Great
Britain and France, while encouraging the independence
of the post-colonial world. And so Israel was punished
on the attack in 1956, and made to retreat. In 1967, on
the other hand, the US and USSR were deep in the Cold
War, and the cooperation between the USSR, Egypt and
Syria encouraged the US to support and boost the
military power of Israel. The Israelis, who felt
threatened and surrounded by enemies till then, and who
still had not overcome the Holocaust's trauma, were
thrilled by the backing of the mighty US, and blinded
by the power. Some took it as divine influence and
turned to messianic beliefs, and yet others saw it in
terms of pure military force and developed a shallow,
pervasively militaristic outlook. However, in effect,
Israel became trapped by the US: it has become the
spearhead of American presence in the Middle East,
which carries with it a dear price of aggression,
arrogance, and continuing conflict. Already in 1973 it
became clear that the "aerial arms train" sent by the
US could not save the 2700 Israeli soldiers, victims of
a moronic policy relying solely on military force. In
other words, the American support was a historical
disaster to Israel.

The occupation and settlement regime that followed, for
35 years now, corrupted Israel morally and politically.
The messianic-religious and military elites shape the
discourse of Israeli politics, and no policy holds
against their interests. President Bush's current
policy brings Israel even closer to danger, greater
than ever before, in leaps and bounds, without any
public debate, since the Israeli government depends on
the US and cannot object. After Sharon received full
backing for canceling the Oslo agreements, disbanding
the Palestinian Authority, re-conquering the Gaza
strip, de-legitimizing Arafat and turning the
Palestinian cities to no more than large prisons, how
can he object to attacking Iraq?

The Israeli government is the only government in the
world that unconditionally stands by the Bush
administration in attacking Iraq, though her citizens
are the only ones expected to be hurt by this war,
almost certainly. Ariel Sharon proudly declared that
"Israel is the best prepared nation in the world for a
chemical or biological attack" (Yediot Aharonot,
6.9.02). What he did not add is that its civilians are
the only ones in the world under real threat of being
hit by chemical and biological weapons. There is no
doubt that if the Iraqi people suffer serious damage
from the US, the majority of Arab nations will largely
view using unconventional warfare on Israel as
legitimate. There is also no doubt that if Israel will
be attacked by chemical or biological missiles, the
majority of the Israeli public will support a nuclear
strike on Iraq. Sharon will certainly take the chance
to mass-deport Palestinians into Jordan, a move that
the current IDF chief of staff recently hinted upon
when he defined the Palestinians as a "cancer,"
offering "amputation" as a possible solution (Haaretz,
31.8.02).

The consequences of an American strike on Iraq would
undoubtedly be a disaster to the entire Middle East, at
the very least. Any reasonable Israeli must object to a
war endangering him and his family, that can spell a
disaster to the future of his country. But we are stuck
in the same 35-year-old problem: our government is run
by messianic-nationalists and a war-craving military
elite, who get support and encouragement from the
extremist conservatives of the Bush administration. We
are captives of the US, unable to say No. There is no
political force able to defend the vital interests of
the state of Israel and its citizens, because the US
has invested large funds and prestige in Israel, and
now it wants to get some profit back. We must stand
against this war, as independent Israeli citizens. The
US is not doing us any favor - it is endangering us for
it's own aggressive interests as a financial and
military superpower. We have to say: No Thank You, Mr.
President!

-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Lev Grinberg is a political sociologist, senior
lecturer in the Behavioral Science department of Ben
Gurion University.

==============================