by Noam Chomsky
Bar-On may incidentally be right in saying that “anyone who visited Southern Lebanon” could see the facts that he describes, the results of what Meir Pail calls “the ‘smash-up’ technique” used “to raze” the areas to be occupied “in various ways: in air, naval and artillery bombardment, and with tanks, rockets and mechanical equipment.”198 But it is also true that many who visited the area explicitly denied these facts and condemned the American media as dupes or liars or worse for partially
111.
reporting them. In any event, so Eichmann’s prosecutor informs us, the “gang of thugs” has now been replaced by the Phalange and Haddad—the humanists of Tel al Zaatar, Khiyam, and other noteworthy incidents—backed by the IDF, which has some tales of its own to tell, and the cancer has been removed. As for the terror that had “metastasized” throughout the world, there were early claims that Israel had captured innumerable “international terrorists” from Europe and elsewhere who were being groomed by the PLO. The careful reader of the press was later to learn, in the small print buried in other stories, that these much-publicized reports were false. Israeli intelligence officials conceded that “they had seized no Western European or Japanese terrorists, only 28 Turks, in their occupation of Palestinian camps and bases”; “despite some erroneous statements in the early days of the war that European terrorists had been taken prisoner, no member of a major international terrorist organization was captured by the invading Israeli army,”* an
* There is more to the story of terrorism in Europe than what is reported in the U.S. The Palestinian role has been very widely publicized, but it is barely known here that Israel has been accused of direct involvement in terrorism in Europe, and that the Israeli secret services have been condemned for terrorist acts in the courts in Norway and Italy (in the former case, for killing the wrong person in error, and in the latter, in connection with the murder of Palestinian poet Wael Zuaiter). It has also been reported that right-wing European terrorists have had close dealings with the Phalange and have spent time in Phalange and Haddad areas (see, e.g.. Economist, Oct. 11, 1980, citing the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior; Zu Haderekh (Rakah, Communist), July 29, 1981, quoting from the West German journal of former anti-Nazi resisters; the same report alleges that terrorists who were identified as trained by the PLO were in fact captured by the PLO when they left Phalange territory). In their recent spate of confessions,
Israeli specialist on terrorism reported, speculating that they might have left in May, “when war appeared imminent.”199 The comparisons brought to mind by Gideon Hausner’s words did not go unnoticed in Israel, for example, by the paratrooper just quoted (note 196), who “cannot help remembering what was done to my people during the Second World War,” and by a fair number of others who expressed their dismay in the press or in demonstrations. For many, there were chilling reminders of not-so-distant history when roles were reversed, extending concerns that had already been aroused, and clearly articulated, over developments in Israel and the occupied territories in the past few years (see chapter 4). In a huge government-sponsored demonstration in support of Operation “Peace for Galilee,” one sign particularly struck reporters, standing out from the others with red letters and in many copies: “One people, One Army, One Government.” A Hebrew-speaking journalist from a German television company
leading Red Brigadists have alleged that the Israeli Mossad sought to assist them, providing them with information about targets of assassination as part of what an Italian judge called a “diabolic plan” to destabilize Italy. A Radical Party (i.e., liberal) parliamentarian charged that the Mossad “was not at all disinterested in the elimination of Aldo Moro, considered by Israel as an excessively ‘pro-Arab’ statesman.” Cited by Lisa Palmieri-Billig, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 1, 1982, as evidence of “vilification of Israel” in Italy; another example of such ‘vilification,” according to the Post, was a statement by President Pertini expressing support for Israel but also calling for a Palestinian “homeland.” On the testimony of Red Brigadists, see Panorama, January 11, 1982 (Italian). For more information, see Livia Rokach, “Israeli Terror in Europe,” The Dawn (Al Fajr), Oct. 16. 1981. An Italian parliamentary inquiry confirmed Mossad efforts to aid the Red Brigades in an apparent effort to destabilize Italy. Roger Cohen, Reuter, Boston Globe, June 4, 1983.
“immediately translated it to her friends, pointing out its similarity to the Nazi slogan: ‘Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer’,” the Labor Party journal reported.200 Letters appeared in the press from the generation of Holocaust survivors expressing fear and concern over what they felt was happening. One, Dr. Shlomo Shmelzman, was forbidden by the directors of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Center to conduct a hunger strike there—his son was serving with the paratroopers in Lebanon. He wrote a letter to the press announcing his hunger strike in protest against the Lebanon war:
In my childhood I have suffered fear, hunger and humiliation when I passed from the Warsaw Ghetto, through labor camps, to Buchenwald. Today, as a citizen of Israel, I cannot accept the systematic destruction of cities, towns, and refugee camps. I cannot accept the technocratic cruelty of the bombing, destroying and killing of human beings.
I hear too many familiar sounds today, sounds which are being amplified by the war. I hear “dirty Arabs” and I remember “dirty Jews.” I hear about “closed areas” and I remember ghettos and camps. I hear “two-legged beasts201”* and I remember “Untermenschen.” I hear about tightening the siege, clearing the area, pounding the city into
* The reference is to Menachem Begin’s statement in the Knesset, widely quoted in Israel and Europe since, interpreted as a description of Palestinians as “twolegged beasts.” The government of Israel protested that this is a misinterpretation, and that Begin’s “description is applicable to whosoever sinks to such moral depths that by killing or threatening to kill a Jewish child, he proves himself bereft of any semblance of humanity” (my emphasis). This clarification elicited several bitter rejoinders, raising the obvious question.
submission and I remember suffering, destruction, death, blood and murder... Too many things in Israel remind me of too many other things from my childhood.202
Many agreed with Meir Pail, who saw “disturbing signs that we are becoming spiritual slaves to the culture of physical force,” or with Boaz Evron, who wrote that “the true symbol of the state is no longer the Menorah with seven candlesticks; the true symbol is the fist.”203
Such voices will not be heard if “supporters of Israel” have their way, and those who choose not to see will continue to be responsible for much grief and suffering.
Like Colonel Dov Yirmiah and many other soldiers, the paratrooper quoted above derides the “talk about the purity of our arms and about our humane fighters” (see Yirmiah’s comments cited on p. 239 on the “false” and “sickening” phrase “purity of arms” and the “cynical” lies about the “humane” Israeli soldier), repeated with much respect by Americans taken on guided tours by the Israeli military; for example, the inimitable Martin Peretz, who presents this Truth on the authority of selected Israeli soldiers and an IDF education officer, dismissing evidence to the contrary on the grounds that “Arabs exaggerate” and the media are committed to “deceit” or are simply anti-Israel.204 A comparable conclusion based on such evidence would be dismissed with ridicule in the case of any other state (always apart from one’s own).
But let us look further. The IDF education officer on whose testimony Peretz bases his conclusion about “purity of arms” is Shlomo Avineri, whom Peretz presents as a critic of Begin’s policies, hence highly credible in this regard. What is more, this critic of Begin was invited to conduct “‘fully free and open’ discussions with officers and ordinary soldiers [at the front] on various vexing topics, including whether it would be right or wrong for Israel to move against West Beirut.” “The army doesn’t fear these discussions,” Avineri informed Peretz, “even though it knows that the officers who conduct them,
being mostly intelligentsia, are mostly critics of the government or actually on the left.” The fact that such a strong critic of Begin’s policies as Shlomo Avineri is invited to discuss such “vexing topics” as an invasion of West Beirut surely demonstrates the uniquely democratic and open character of the Israeli army, according to Peretz.
Unfortunately, there are some problems in this demonstration, and in reliance on Avineri as an authority on “purity of arms.” Peretz neglects to report the opinions of this critical dove. Others have, for example, Meron Benvenisti (see chapter 4, section 4.2), who, as an IDF lecturer, sat through Avineri’s “training sessions” for these lecturers and reports their contents in an open letter accusing Avineri of “lack of intellectual honesty.” Avineri informed the IDF lecturers in July that “under the given conditions there is no alternative to the conquest of Beirut by force,” thus joining the hawkish wing of Likud and setting himself in opposition to the Labor Party. When asked about the political and human cost, he responded that “this question is no concern of the lecturers.” He furthermore explained “that the Americans would agree after the fact to the conquest of West Beirut by force.” When participants objected to his “shocking presentation,” he “burst out and insisted that whoever is unable to go out and to encourage soldiers to perform their duty (that is, the conquest of West Beirut) is not entitled to appear before them.”205 Once again, the facts that Peretz suppresses are highly relevant to the point he is attempting to establish (recall the incident of the “vacuum bomb”; section 4.7). Knowing the contents of Avineri’s instructions to the IDF lecturers one might draw a rather different conclusion about the significance of his being invited to discuss such “vexing topics” as the invasion of West Beirut, and about his credibility as an authority on “purity of arms.
It is worth noting that Peretz’s demonstration of Israeli adherence to the doctrine of “purity of arms” is taken quite seriously in the U.S., even among liberal doves. Few have been so outspoken in criticism of Israeli expansionism as Rabbi Balfour Brickner, a member of the Advisory Committee of the peace group Clergy and Laity Concerned (CALC) and a peace activist for many years. In the CALC journal he writes of his anguish over what happened in Lebanon in 1982. but not before establishing the ground rules:
But, I believe every word of what others have reported re Israel’s conduct of the war and PLO atrocity (the most persuasive of these reports was Martin Peretz’s “Lebanon Eyewitness”…)… I am persuaded that Israel’s soldiers practiced “tohar haneshek”—the morality of arms—with zeal and extreme sensitivity. I am convinced that they took great care to avoid abusing the strength their weapons gave them.
Note that he remained “persuaded” even after the terror bombing and siege of West Beirut, and that the “others” who have reported do not include Israeli soldiers returning from the front or Israeli journalists, some already cited. He also writes that within the PLO only “a small moderate element” is “prepared to support a two-state solution” (clearly false) and that “though the cease fire was holding and had held for over a year, terrorists did continue to rain rocket fire on Israel’s northern border communities”; the second of these two inconsistent statements is false, except with reference to the clearly retaliatory strikes of May and June 1982, the first symbolic and after extensive Israeli provocation, including murderous bombardment, here unmentioned. As for the IDF soldiers, “In the annals of military combat, their behavior is unique,” with “no abuse of civilian populations,” “no reported instances of looting…[and] a care not to needlessly destroy civilian property.”206 We have reviewed evidence bearing on the veracity of most of these claims, and will turn to the remainder in section 8.1.
Though Shlomo Avineri’s views on the war, as presented to the IDF lecturers, are essentially those of Begin and Sharon, he is regularly presented here as a critical dove. A look at what he actually says is interesting. Writing to an American audience, this noted scholar explained that “the Palestinians have always adopted the line of maximum no-compromise with Zionism and with Israel” (on the facts, see chapter 3), though their current willingness to consider a cease-fire “may be the first sign of sanity” (as contrasted with their strict observance of the July 1981 cease-fire, which caused such distress in Israel). “With the decimation of the PLO in Lebanon, Israel can now afford to be more self-assured and more generous,” achieving its “legitimate Jewish liaison with Judea and Samaria” and allowing “the bulk of the West Bank and Gaza” to be attached to Jordan, while the East Bank becomes “the area in which the Palestinian refugees could be rehabilitated.” He subsequently explained that “as long as the PLO held sway in Beirut, moderate Palestinians were effectively deterred by PLO threats and terrorism from coming forward with plans that did not mesh with the ideology calling for the destruction of Israel” (such as, for example, the January 1976 plan for a peaceful two-state settlement prepared by the PLO). Others often regarded as doves agreed, for example, Raanan Weitz, the head of the rural settlement department of the Jewish Agency, who proposed that “water can be brought from the Litani River, in Lebanon, to arid regions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,” while Jewish settlement remains at least along the Jordan River, “constituting a part of the state of Israel,” and presumably in other areas of the West Bank and Gaza being settled under the auspices of the agency that he directs. 207
As for the government of Israel, it held fast throughout to its resolution “that the fight against the PLO permits no compromise—because the PLO wants it that way” (compare the facts reviewed in chapter 3), that the PLO threat is “political no less than military,” and that the PLO must not be permitted to exist as a “political body.” The PLO men who “have entrenched themselves in the heart of residential West Beirut” have “again…created acute danger to the safety of the Lebanese as well as Palestinian men, women and children from behind whom these PLO forces are sending out volleys of artillery and small-arms fire against the Lebanese and Israeli forces in East Beirut and beyond” in “blatant violation of the rules of warfare.”208 The emphasis on the “threat” posed by the existence of the PLO as a “political body” is quite appropriate. One may plausibly read this as confirming evidence, from the highest source, for the thesis of Porath and others concerning the origins of the war, already discussed; reading this quite typical statement, one may also recall the regular indignation over the alleged refusal of the PLO (and the Arabs generally) to accept the existence of Israel, the heart of the Middle East problem, it is commonly argued. One might have hoped, however, that the government of Israel would at least have stopped short of accusing the PLO of attacking Israeli forces in Beirut.
Perhaps one can expect nothing more of the government. What then was the role of Israel’s opposition party throughout the war? There should be few illusions in the light of its record when in office, particularly in the bloody 1950s and the expansionist post-1967 period. Amiram Cohen gives a detailed accounting of the deliberations of the Labor Party leadership during the critical events of 1982, based on interviews with high level officials, including the leadership itself.209 Prior to the war, the leadership strongly opposed the military action that every knowledgeable observer knew was being prepared. Chaim Bar-Lev stated on April 9 that “the present conditions do not justify military action that will engage us in war,” and Mordechai Gur, another former Chief of Staff, wrote in Ma’ariv that current tensions are not related only to terrorist activities but to “the intention to change the political map of Lebanon.” Yitzhak Rabin warned against actions that would disturb the cease-fire and opposed “a massive attack against the terrorists in Lebanon.” Israel should observe the cease-fire strictly, he wrote in Davar on May 14, “as long as the terrorist organizations are observing it.”
Two months before the war, Begin informed the Labor Party leadership of the “large plan”: conquest of southern Lebanon up to the BeirutDamascus highway and a link-up with the Phalangists. A month later they were presented wit
h the “small plan”: the pretense concerning a 25-mile security zone. Labor agreed to support Operation “Peace for Galilee,” though “when the tanks began to move it was well-known to the leadership where they were heading…just as the officers and the soldiers knew.” On June 5, Peres outlined to the Labor leadership the content of the “large plan,” which he and others knew was to be implemented. While some conveyed their objections internally, apart from Yossi Sarid and Shulamith Aloni Labor voted with Likud to support the operation, knowing perfectly well that the official explanation about the 25-mile limit was a fraud (at least, the leadership knew). For the first two weeks of the war, Labor was silent. They continued to support the war, with two qualifications: Labor opposed conflict with the Syrians—an aspect of the war to which I will turn in the next chapter— and the entry into Beirut, though even in this regard there were exceptions, among them, Chaim Bar-Lev, Secretary-General of the Labor Party, who approved the invasion of West Beirut after the Gemayel assassination in September.210
Throughout, Cohen continues, Labor anticipated that the consequences of the war for Israel would be grim in all respects, but they kept silent. One factor was their conviction that “the U.S. gave the green light and Haig was able ‘to live’ even with an entry into Beirut.” See section 4.7. Apart from that, “nothing succeeds like success.” Labor temporized, waiting to see “how things would turn out.” To oppose the war was considered politically impossible, given poll results indicating that 98% of the Likud and 91% of the Labor Alignment supporters backed the war and regarded it as justified. The Labor Alignment refused to take to the streets in support of those who demonstrated against expansion of the war. Rabin regarded the war as justified after “the terrorists bombarded the Galilee settlements” (in retaliation for the heavy bombing of Lebanon on June 4-5; such retaliation, after the unprovoked murder of several hundred people, evidently proves that “the terrorists” continue to be “two-legged beasts,” in Begin’s rhetoric). Chaim Herzog (elected President in March 1983) went so far as to favor even the conquest of Beirut.
