by Noam Chomsky
As noted earlier, a kind of balance of terror had been achieved in the * The phrase is common in the Israeli press. It is again curious to see how readily the terminology of the Nazis has been adopted in Israeli and American Zionist rhetoric; see p. 150*.
course of the bloody civil war in Lebanon between the PalestinianMuslim National Front coalition and the Phalangist-dominated Christian right. To achieve its two primary aims in Lebanon—namely, to demolish any organized form of Palestinian existence and to impose a “new order”—it was imperative for Israel to destroy this balance and toleave power completely in the hands of the Phalangists, and in the south, its Haddadist client or perhaps new ones, to be created. This goal was easily achieved, given Israel’s immense military superiority. The end result is expected to be “a conservative alliance dominated by Maronite Christians but also including Moslem privileged classes,” now that the Palestinians and their local Muslim allies have been destroyed and disarmed81
In the Jerusalem Post, David Bernstein observed that “When Israel invaded Lebanon earlier this year and routed that country’s PLO-Moslem alliance it totally destroyed the balance of forces between Moslem and Christian that had prevented either from gaining absolute control over the country,” leaving the Phalange and Haddad as the dominant military forces. “The country’s large Moslem and Palestinian refugee populations were left almost completely defenceless, at the mercy of their Christian foes and dependent on the ability of the Israel Defence Forces and the largely ineffectual Lebanese Army to protect them,” though “for a reason or reasons yet to be adequately explained, the IDF proved unequal to the task” in Beirut in September—curiously, the only task to which it proved unequal, though Bernstein does not speculate as to why.82 We return to the question. Whatever the mysterious reasons for the sudden and unusual incompetence of the IDF, the goal of placing power in the hands of Israel’s allies while the Muslim and Palestinian population is left defenseless against forces that have long proven their skill at massacring defenseless people (with Israel’s backing) appeared to have been achieved by late August 1982.
Apart from having “completely destroyed the partial and delicate equilibrium that had existed in Lebanon,” the Israeli invasion, as intended, demolished the basis for organized social life among the half million or so Palestinian refugees. “Everyone now knows that in Lebanon the PLO had, to all intents and purposes, set up a Palestinian state: a state with its own army, with a system of civil administration, welfare and educational institutions and even the characteristics of its own economy, which was only partially integrated with that of their host country” and which existed in “a certain equilibrium” with it,83 not without periodic and sometimes bitter conflict, in part, through the fulfilment of Abba Eban’s “rational prospect.” This too is gone.
The invasion had some other merits as well. As noted earlier, Israel is now heavily reliant on military exports. While the bombing of Beirut was at its height, the Israeli military industries (Ta’as) “came out with an extensive publicity campaign in the international press [Aviation Week, etc.] to extend the scope of sales of its bombs.” The main feature was a display showing a jet plane dropping bombs with the heading: “Bombs you can count on to do what they’re supposed to do. That’s the only kind of bomb we make.”84
4.7 The Green Light from Washington While Israel may indeed be the world’s fourth greatest military power, as the experts claim, this can be true only insofar as it is an appendage to the United States—it would not be quite fair to speak of it as a 51st state as some do, since none of the 50 states receive comparable benefits from the federal government. Despite the weakness of the enemy, the invasion of Lebanon too was predicated on American support, which was quite clearly forthcoming. As Meir Pail writes, “All signs indicate that the U.S. gave reasonable political backing to the IDF invasion of Lebanon, even when it became clear that it was delivering quite a heavy blow both in land and air to the Syrians in Lebanon.”85 The Reagan administration recognized that there were “strong feelings among members of Congress as well as the American people” against the Israeli invasion, in the words of White House counselor Edwin Meese; “this is a problem to be solved,” he added, though there would be no “recriminations” by the Administration against Israel because it had “good reasons” for going into Lebanon.86 Note that it was not a matter of the “pluralist consensus” dragging the government reluctantly towards support of Israel’s aggression; rather, the problem was to create a consensus in favor of the invasion that the government supported (though less fervently than the Democratic opposition). Supporters of Israel recognized the problem, and regularly appealed to the contribution of Israel to fortifying U.S. power in the region in their attempts to garner support for the invasion in newspaper ads, letters, editorial statements (e.g., in the New Republic, repeatedly), and so on. A number of examples have already been given. It is interesting that among the signers of such statements were some who in other contexts have expressed a degree of concern over the manifestations of U.S. power. Another intriguing argument was that Israel had strengthened the U.S. by demonstrating the superiority of U.S. over Russian arms, from which it should follow that the immense “defense” build-up should be reexamined, though this conclusion, having only rationality in its favor, was not drawn.
It is probable that the occasional show of displeasure by the President was one of the means selected to solve the problem of the shaky domestic consensus. Knowledgeable Israeli observers did not take this display very seriously—nor should they, as long as the diplomatic support is steady and aid continues to flow. “Ronald Reagan played his part well,” the Labor Party journal Davar wrote, commenting on the visit to the U.S. by Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir that ended with a photograph at the White House with Reagan looking somber instead of smiling at his guest, a symbolic “message” that elicited much commentary by Washington watchers in the U.S. media—the counterpart of Kreminologists who pore over pictures of Soviet rulers to try to determine who is in favor today. Israeli Washington watchers interpreted the message differently, and more realistically. “I think that [Shamir’s] visit was extremely positive,” the Washington correspondent of Davar continued, even though it offered the U.S. administration the opportunity to “come down on Israel” in public. “This fact in itself— though it is not comfortable and pleasant—does not harm us from a practical point of view. The [U.S.] government is compelled to make a public show of a hard line towards Israel-in part to respond to public pressure and also to deflect the pressures from the Arabs—and to use the same opportunity to extricate itself from the image of a participant in the Israeli operation.” In private discussions with government officials and Congress (including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who is reputed to be the Administration’s sharpest critic of Israel), the Davar correspondent claims, Shamir was told that it is time to “finish quickly with this matter of West Beirut.” The expert opinion conveyed to Shamir by his American contacts was that a quick military blow will be acceptable in Washington. “This is the background for the decision of the Israeli government to carry out, starting yesterday, what its leaders prefer to call ‘different means’ for solving the Beirut problem”—more intensive bombardment, presumably.87
The conclusion seems eminently reasonable, given what is now known. Recall also Reagan’s careful avoidance of the issue of settlements in his private discussions with Menachem Begin, one of the ways of signalling that public rhetoric on that issue is not to be taken very seriously either.88 The more significant component of the message is obviously the increasing flow of aid, as already discussed.
Immediately prior to the Israeli invasion, General Sharon visited Washington where, he claims, he informed Defense Secretary Weinberger that Israel “must act in Lebanon.” Pentagon figures “reveal a massive surge of military supplies from the United States to Israel in the first three months of [1982]—as Israel planned the invasion of Lebanon,” plans that were perfectly evident, as alre
ady noted. Delivery of military goods was almost 50% greater than in the preceding year, including equipment effectively used in Lebanon. Pentagon spokesmen confirm that these deliveries continued through June at a very high level (though not subsequently, it is claimed), including “smart bombs,” used with “devastating” effect in Beirut; one such bomb caused the instant destruction of an entire building killing 100 people in an apparent effort to finish off Yasser Arafat, who was thought to be there.89
The last example is instructive in itself, and also because of the way it came to be used by Israeli propagandists here. According to Ha’aretz, the bomb, which instantly destroyed an 8-story building in West Beirut, was a “blast bomb” or “vacuum bomb” of a type denied to Israel by President Carter but apparently supplied by Reagan. Ha’aretz proceeds to explain that the bomb ignites aviation fuel in such a way as to cause a vacuum, creating “immense pressure” and causing a large building to implode, destroying everything within.* Apart from its destructive capacity, the bomb is useful as a terror weapon. The use of such “illegal” terror weapons is described in Al Hamishmar as an expression
* The Ha’aretz account is cited in Libération (Paris), Aug. 12; Jean Gueyras describes the use and psychological effect of this ‘terror” weapon in Le Monde, Aug. 11. I noticed no discussion of the weapon, or the Israeli reports concerning it, in the American press.
of a “fascist tendency.”90 The New Republic devoted an article to deriding a UPI report (no publication cited) that Israel had used a “vacuum bomb” to destroy the building. The article, by Laurence Grafstein, alleges that UPI was “snookered by a pro,” and that the vacuum bomb “exists only in the mind of [the Soviet news agency] Tass,” quoting an unidentified “Pentagon spokesman.” Editor Martin Peretz then used the UPI dispatch to show that “it’s easy to get an anti-Israeli story published,” another example of the anti-Israel bias of the press, repeating that “there’s no such thing as a vacuum bomb” and that the “tale” that there is “had been exposed” in Grafstein’s article.91 Both Grafstein and Peretz are careful to conceal the fact that a description of the nature of the device, reporting its use on this occasion, and a condemnation of its use, appeared in the mainstream Israeli press, which presumably is neither “anti-Israel” nor “pro-PLO” (I say “presumably,” because it is not clear that Peretz would accept this conclusion, given that it is denied by extreme chauvinist elements in Israel, as we shall see). What the example shows, as usual, is not that the American press is “anti-Israel”—a charge too ludicrous to discuss—but that it is highly protective of Israel, failing to report atrocities amply covered in the Israeli press. It is interesting that the fact is illustrated by the very example selected by “supporters of Israel” to demonstrate the contrary, once their deception is exposed.
Returning to the U.S. government attitude towards the invasion, after a briefing by national security adviser William Clark, Jimmy Carter refused to divulge its contents but stated that “The only thing I can say is that the word I got from very knowledgeable people in Israel is that ‘we have a green light from Washington’.” Alexander Haig, who was Secretary of State at the time, angrily denied this charge (“a grotesque and outrageous proposition,” “totally untrue”) and then proceeded to confirm it, saying: “The Israelis had made it very clear that their limit of toleration had been exceeded, and that at the next provocation they were going to react. They told us that. The President knew that.” It is unlikely that even the Secretary of State was totally unaware of the facts concerning “provocation” and “toleration” in 1981-2. The State Department press office, asked to supply some evidence for the official stance that Washington did not back the invasion, was unable to cite a single official statement opposing it apart from the support, quickly withdrawn, for the first UN Security Council Resolution calling on Israel to terminate its aggression.92
The affair is reminiscent of the U.S. backing for the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor and the subsequent near-genocidal massacre. In that case too the U.S. government pretended ignorance of the invasion plans and also claimed that the U.S. had imposed an embargo on arms after the aggression. The latter claim was false (furthermore, under the Human Rights Administration the arms flow, which had never been reduced, was substantially increased to enable Indonesia to consummate the slaughter), and the former, always incredible (except to the U.S. press), has since been thoroughly demolished. In that case too the U.S. blocked UN action to stop the aggression, a story that UN Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan recounts with pride in his memoirs. Diplomatic cables that have since surfaced reveal that the U.S. Ambassador to Jakarta expressed his hope, several months earlier, that if Indonesia intervened as planned it would do so “effectively, quickly and not use our equipment,” very much the reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon; the concern over the use of U.S. equipment is farcical in both cases given the dependence of the aggressors on U.S. supplies, and is to be understood as a hope that Congress will not act to enforce treaty obligations that these weapons are to be used only in self-defense.*
*See TNCW, chapter 13. See Ze’ev Schiff, “Green Light, Lebanon,” for further 5. War is Peace
O
n June 6, 1982, a massive Israeli expeditionary force began the long expected invasion, Operation “Peace for Galilee,” a phrase “which sounds as if it comes directly out of the pages of 1984,” as one Israeli commentator wrote:
Only in the language of 1984 is war—peace and warfare—humane. One may mention, of course, that only in the Orwellian language of 1984 can occupation be liberal, and there is indeed a connection between the “liberal occupation” [the Labor Party boast] and a war which equals peace.93
Excuses and explanations were discarded almost as quickly as they were produced: the Argov assassination attempt, defense of the border settlements, a 25-mile limit. In fact, the army headed straight for Beirut and the Beirut-Damascus highway, in accordance with plans that had long been prepared and that were known in advance to the Labor opposition (see section 6.3). Former chief of military intelligence Aharon Yariv of the Labor Party stated: “I know in fact that going to Beirut was included in the original military plan,”94 despite the pretense to the contrary, dutifully repeated by the U.S. government, which could hardly have been in much doubt about the facts if U.S. intelligence was not on vacation.
discussion of the tacit authorization from Washington of the invasion it knew to be imminent.
5.1 Extermination of the Two-Legged Beasts The first target was the Palestinian camp of Rashidiyeh south of Tyre, much of which, by the second day of the invasion, “had become a field of rubble.” There was ineffectual resistance, but as an officer of the UN peace-keeping force swept aside in the Israeli invasion later remarked: “It was like shooting sparrows with cannon.” The 9000 residents of the camp—which had been regularly bombed and shelled for years from land, sea and air—either fled, or were herded to the beach where they could watch the destruction of much of what remained by the Israeli forces. All teen-age and adult males were blindfolded and bound, and taken to camps, where little has been heard about them since.95
This is typical of what happened throughout southern Lebanon. The Palestinian camps were demolished, largely bulldozed to the ground if not destroyed by bombardment; and the population was dispersed or (in the case of the male population) imprisoned. Reporters were generally not allowed in the Palestinian camps, where the destruction was worst, to keep them from witnessing what had happened and was being done. There were occasional reports. David Shipler described how after the camps were captured the army proceeded to destroy what was left. An army officer, “when asked why bulldozers were knocking down houses in which women and children were living,” responded by saying: “they are all terrorists.”96 His statement accurately summarizes Israel’s strategy and the assumptions that underlie it, over many years.
There was little criticism here of Israel’s destruction of the “nests of terrorists,” or of the wholesale
transfer of the male population to prison camps in Lebanon and Israel—or to their treatment, discussed below. Again, one imagines that if such treatment had been meted out to Jews after, say, a Syrian conquest of Northern Israel, the reaction would have been different, and few would have hesitated to recall the Nazi monsters. In fact, we need not merely imagine. When a PLO terrorist group took Israeli teen-age members of a paramilitary (Gadna) group hostage at Ma’alot, that was rightly denounced as a vicious criminal act. Since then, it has become virtually the symbol of the inhuman barbarism of the “two-legged beasts.” But when Israeli troops cart off the Palestinian male population from 15 to 60 (along with many thousands of Lebanese) to concentration camps, treating them in a manner to which we return, that is ignored, and the few timid queries are almost drowned in the applause—to which we also return—for Israel’s display of humanitarian zeal and moral perfection, while aid is increased in honor of this achievement. It is a scene that should give Americans pause, and lead them to raise some questions about themselves.
Israel’s strategy was to drive the Palestinians to largely-Muslim West Beirut (apart from those who were killed, dispersed or imprisoned), then to besiege the city, cutting off water, food, medical supplies and electricity, and to subject it to increasingly heavy bombardment. Naturally, the native Lebanese population was also severely battered. These measures had little impact on the PLO guerrilla fighters in Beirut, but civilians suffered increasingly brutal punishment. The correct calculation was that by this device, the PLO would be compelled to leave West Beirut to save it from total annihilation.97 It was assumed, also correctly, that American intellectuals could be found to carry out the task of showing that this too was a remarkable exercise in humanity and a historically unique display of “purity of arms,” even having the audacity to claim that it was the PLO, not the Israeli attackers, who were “holding the city and its population hostage”—a charge duly intoned by New York Times editors and many others. (See section 8.2.3.)
