by Noam Chomsky
The Times commented editorially that the result “would come close to ending in a Greater Israel. A pro-American coalition of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon would then acquiesce in the destruction of the P.L.O. and Israel’s absorption of the West Bank and Golan Heights [and, we may add, the Gaza Strip]. And the coalition would use its financial strength to make Syria acquiesce as well.” It then concludes that “Syria holds the key to Lebanon’s independence… And if the Syrians refuse to budge and cause Israel to stay in southern Lebanon, the onus for a tragic partition will be where it belongs,” while “The P.L.O., Jordan and Saudi Arabia have to accept their historic responsibility for rejecting the Reagan plan and losing the territory.”196 We have already discussed the latter point; see chapter 6, section 3.1. The import of the former is also clear enough: unless Syria accepts a Greater Israel within an American-dominated regional alliance, as the Times accurately outlines it, they bear the onus for partition of Lebanon and what may happen next.
All of this again reflects the assumptions revealed throughout. As an American client, Israel inherits the right of aggression, so that the call for its unconditional withdrawal by the government of Lebanon and the United Nations may be dismissed as absurd—or to be more accurate, is not even noticed. Specifically, Israel had the right to destroy the society of the Palestinians and much of Lebanon as well; to impose the rule of its right-wing Christian allies along with “Moslem privileged classes” (Thomas Friedman; see chapter 5, section 4.6.3); and to use its power to compel them to sign a virtual treaty that in effect endorses the takeover of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights while establishing arrangements in southern Lebanon that secure Israel’s long-term dominance and that pave the way for new massacres and perhaps mass expulsion of the Palestinians, now defenseless in the face of the most brutal terrorist groups to have appeared in Lebanon, with Israel’s constant support. Having achieved these goals, the conquerors were persuaded to agree to a partial withdrawal, a concession hailed by the paymasters as yet another proof of Israel’s honor or even “sublimity.” If Syria rejects the arrangements imposed on Lebanon by Israel with U.S. assistance, that will stand as further proof of Arab perfidy; naturally one would not expect the Israeli invaders to withdraw unconditionally after a comparable Syrian-Lebanese agreement imposed under the Russian aegis, but it is irresponsible to apply to ourselves or our clients the standards demanded of others (putting aside here the different circumstances of the entry to Lebanon of these foreign forces, discussed earlier;* the question of the occupied territories; and the question, now unanswerable, of whether Syria would have withdrawn its forces in the summer of 1982 when its six-year mandate expired, had Israel not chosen that moment to invade).
Similar logic applies in other situations. Shortly after Israel announced its magnanimity in agreeing to a partial withdrawal from Lebanon under the conditions reviewed, the USSR announced that “Kabul has expressed its readiness, in agreement with the USSR, for withdrawal of the total, limited Soviet contingent from [Afghan] territory and even expressed their willingness to give a timetable in this regard.” The USSR is of course prepared to withdraw completely in conformity with the wishes of the legitimate government of Afghanistan, though there remains the problem of “guaranteeing nonintervention in Afghanistan from the terrorities of other states,” intervention which “is taking place every day, which should be stopped,” the Soviet spokesman asserted— referring to “intervention” by U.S.-backed guerrillas based in Pakistan, who carry out violence and disruption. We are all supposed to be deeply impressed.197
Note that Israel has not only succeeded in realizing the basic goals of * Recall that Syria entered Lebanon at the request of the government and with the acquiescence of the U.S. and Israel, since Syria intervened to fight against the Lebanese Muslim-Palestinian coalition, later turning against the Phalange and carving out an area under its own control. See chapter 5, section 3.2; and section 6.2, on the Lebanese reaction to the Israeli invasion.
its invasion of Lebanon and in imposing its September 1982 demands, but also in separating the Lebanese question from the problem of the occupied territories, which it can proceed to take over without interference; see chapter 3, section 2.2.3. This result was achieved thanks to the success in interpreting Israel’s rejection of the rejectionist Reagan plan with U.S. support as the fault of the PLO and the Arab states, as already discussed. A side benefit, for the U.S. government, is that Moscow can now be denounced for having “again cast itself as a spoiler of the American peace initiative for the Middle East” while Secretary of Defense Weinberger issues stern warnings to the USSR and its “proxies.” The negotiations pointedly excluded Syria. Syria was simply presented with a fait accompli which, it could be presumed, would be unacceptable, in substance and in manner. It would surely have been possible to conduct these negotiations in a framework that included Syria, with an eye to realizing the scheduled Syrian withdrawal that was aborted by Israel’s invasion and its attack on Syrian forces (see section 2.2). It would also have been possible to engage the Soviet Union in the arrangements, in accord with the express wishes of the government of Lebanon,198 again a step that would have enhanced the possibilities of mutual withdrawal. Instead of pursuing such options, Shultz chose instead to adopt a course that was designed to ensure an immediate Syrian rejection, with the political capital that could be gained from it, and also to minimize the likelihood of eventual Syrian compliance, thus increasing the probability that Israel will not withdraw and that a state of confrontation will persist.
While the Reagan Administration would no doubt be pleased to see Syria withdraw under the conditions it has established (in effect, following American orders) and may even try to facilitate such withdrawal in the longer term, nevertheless the Syrian refusal guaranteed by the framework for negotiations accords well with its broader aims. From its outset, the Administration has sought international confrontations—anywhere will do—that can be blamed on the “Great Satan” and its “proxies.” The reasons derive in part from the domestic programs of transferring resources to the wealthy and expanding the Pentagon system of state intervention in the economy, a topic that would take us too far afield.199 As in the case of the Reagan plan for the occupied territories, so also in the case of the “Shultz plan” for Lebanon, a program designed to minimize the chances for success has considerable utility if it can be presented in such a way as to place the blame for failure on official enemies and thus to restore eroding support for the U.S.-Israel military alliance, with all that goes with it, while also shoring up the statist-militarist consensus at home. A further gain may be that the PLO might adopt a more militant posture, abandoning its unwelcome evolution towards political accommodation (now perceived as having been effectively blocked by U.S.-Israeli rejectionism), which was becoming something of a problem for the leaders of the rejectionist camp; see chapter 5, section 4.6.1. American diplomacy, as expressed in the Reagan and Shultz plans and the means by which they were pursued, has thus attained its short-term goals, thanks to the effectiveness of the ideological institutions, with the price to be paid by the Palestinians and, given the implications for the region and indeed far beyond, ultimately many others as well.
It is intriguing to see how the terms of discussion have shifted since Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982. The May 1983 agreement is based on the principle that Israel need not withdraw its military forces unless Syria and the PLO withdraw. In the United States, this principle is accepted as just, virtually without question. Given this assumption, if the agreement is not implemented, Israel will also have the right to undertake what will be called “security measures” in the area under its control, gradually integrating the “North Bank,” if it so desires. Notice that if indeed Israel has a right to maintain military forces in Lebanon as long as Syria and the PLO do, as is now assumed, then Israel presumably had a right to introduce these forces into Lebanon in 1982 to bring about the conditions now recognized to be le
gitimate; that is, it had the right to invade Lebanon and take over the territory it now holds, merely because of the presence of Syrian and PLO forces in Lebanon. This proposition was then advanced by no one, apart from elements regarded as extremist. A principle from which it follows is now adopted by virtually everyone, without question. This radical shift in assumptions demonstrates, once again, the utility of force and violence in international affairs, at least, its utility within the ideological system of the patron who backs and finances the aggression.
In fact, any concession that Israel would have been able to extract as a condition for its withdrawal would amount to a ratification of its right of aggression; and indeed, the acceptance of what it has already accomplished and the dismissal without comment of the demand of former Prime Minister Saeb Salam and others that Israel pay reparations for the consequences of its aggression already amount to a ratification of this right.
If there is a massacre and expulsion of defenseless Palestinians as a further result of the “Peace for Galilee” operation and the imprisonment of much of the male population, that will stand as additional proof of PLO cynicism and Arab barbarity, an additional reason why Israel cannot withdraw from the occupied territories. One can virtually write the articles and editorials in advance. Throughout, the claim has been that Israel has the right to impose conditions on Lebanon for its own “security.” It is by now completely ignored that the 1981 Habib ceasefire effectively guaranteed Israel’s security, one of the main reasons why Israel felt that it had to invade Lebanon to undermine the increasing political legitimacy of the PLO (again, putting aside much else, such as the actual history of the 1970s in southern Lebanon, discussed earlier). It is, in fact, another striking testimony to American racism on this issue that it is Israel, not the Palestinians, that is considered to be facing a security problem that must somehow be overcome.
One may anticipate that Syria will not willingly accept the arrangements outlined in the New York Times editorial cited above, that “terrorism” (or resistance) will continue in areas of Lebanon occupied by the IDF and its clients, and perhaps even that “terrorism” will continue or increase in “the Land of Israel,” as has, in fact, already been reported.200 We turn in the next chapter to possible further consequences.
Notes—Chapter 6
Aftermath 1. S. M. Dubnow. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland (Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia. 1920), vol III, chapter XXXIII.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.; Lucas, Israel.
4. Max L. Margolis and Alexander Marx. A History of the Jewish People (Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1927, pp. 710-11).
5. Chaim Nachman Bialik, “On the Slaughter,” translated by T. Carmi, ed. The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (New York, Viking, 1981)
6. See Yehoshua Sobol, “History Repeats Itself,” Al Hamishmar weekly, Sept. 24, 1982; Israel Press Briefs. See also B. Michael, “We Only Kill Children by Accident,” Ha’aretz, June 18, 1982 (Israeli Mirror), a bitter commentary on “purity of arms” beginning with a quote from Bialik’s poem “City of Slaughter,” another poem on the Kishinev massacre.
7. See chapter 4, section 4.2.2.
8. For a particularly shameful episode, which outraged Israeli doves, see Mattityahu Peled, New Outlook, March 1981; TNCW, pp. 271-2.
9. Le Monde, Aug. 28, 1982.
10. Elias Freij, Mayor of Bethlehem, the last remaining elected mayor of a major town; New York Times, Jan. 26, 1983. The Times devoted 100 words to his comments, emphasizing his advocacy of negotiations between Israel and the PLO on the basis of the Reagan plan, and his advice to the PLO to announce their acceptance of this position.
11. Manchester Guardian weekly, Sept. 19, 1982.
12. Ze’ev Schiff, “An Excuse in Justification of the War,” “Three Separate Wars,” Ha’aretz, Jan. 10, 11, 1983.
13. Nahum Barnea, “The Mood of the Center: Schiff against Sharon,” Koteret Rashit, Dec. 1, 1982.
14. “After Lebanon: a conversation,” interview with Henry Kissinger, Economist, Nov. 13, 1982. For more on this odd figure of twentieth century America, see the references of chapter 3, note 68, and Seymour
M. Hersh, The Price of Power: Kissinger in Nixon’s White House (Summit, 1983), a welcome departure from the hagiography to which much of even the allegedly critical commentary descends.
15. Nicholas Veliotes, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-Seventh Congress, First Session, Oct. 21, 1981 (U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1982, p. 25).
16. Amos Perlmutter, “Begin’s Rhetoric and Sharon’s Tactics”; Harold H. Saundcr5, “An lsraeli-Palestinian Peace,” Foreign Affairs, Fall 1982.
17. See chapter 4, note 57 and text.
18. For the text of President Reagan’s address, see New York Times, Sept. 2, 1982. Also Sept. 9, 1982, for the text of the “Talking Points” sent to Menachem Begin. Charles Mohr reports (New York Times, Sept. 3) that the State Department indicated that the U.S. plan envisioned some withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
19. On Labor’s initial public reaction, see New York Times, Sept. 4. 1982. On Labor’s actual views, see pp. 70. 75*, 108, 112-3, 164, 202. On the PLO reaction see Henry Tanner, New York Times, Sept. 5, reporting “a favorable if guarded response” on the part of PLO spokesmen, including Arafat’s statement that a federation with Jordan was acceptable in principle. “Most Arab experts are convinced that Mr. Arafat is looking for a peaceful solution of the Middle East conflict,” Tanner adds. He also cites Palestinians who were in Beirut through the war on Arafat’s enhanced status within the PLO, as a result of the war. The New York Times, Sept. 6, published the text of a letter from Elias Freij to the White House, expressing his support for the plan, and the President’s reply. On the Palestine National Council reaction, see Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, Feb. 22, 23; wire services, Boston Globe, Feb. 22; Trudy Rubin, Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 23; Jonathan C. Randal, Washington Post, Feb. 23, 1982.
20. Editorial, New York Times, Sept. 5, 1982; Anthony Lewis, “Down the Middle,” New York Times, Sept. 6, 1982; editorial, New York Times, Feb. 24, 1983. There is an excellent and balanced discussion of the matter by Stephen Chapman, “The PLO and the Reagan Plan,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 27, 1983, the only one I found in the mass media. Chapman observes correctly that the New York Times reaction to the PLO’s position would have been applicable in the same terms to positions taken by the Zionist organization in its early years, and takes note of the PLO steps towards political accommodation (specifically, the January 1976 proposal that has been erased from history elsewhere) and the harsh rejection of their conciliatory efforts.
21. New York Times, April 11; for some background discussion, see Trudy Rubin, Christian Science Monitor, April 11. New York Times editorial, “A Worthy but Tragic Failure,” and David K. Shipler, “In Israel, Relief for Begin: Hussein’s Decision Has Ended Any Debate on Possibility of Giving Up the West Bank,” April 12; New York Times editorial, “The Jordan Door Slams Shut,” April 17; New Republic, “The Death Of A Plan...,” May 2, 1983; The same issue contains a noteworthy review by Kenneth Lynn lauding a novel ridiculing Islam and the entire “Arab world” (including Iran!), written in approximately the style of Der Stuermer on Jews and Judaism; whether the novel by Richard Grenier is accurately represented, I do not know.
22. Ha’aretz, Sept. 6, 1982; Amos Levav, Ma’ariv, Sept. 2, 1982. See also “Israel to Finance More Settlements in Occupied Lands,” New York Times, Sept. 6, 1982, reporting the approval of ten new settlements “ignoring President Reagan’s call for a freeze” and also the “strongly worded statement” by the Reagan Administration condemning the new settlement plan. On Aridor, Ne’eman and Ravid, see Ha’aretz, Aug. 31; Zvi Barel, Ha’aretz, Aug. 26; Ha’aretz, Aug. 25, 1982 (Israeli Mirror).
23. Zvi Barel, “Green Patrol also in the [West] Bank,�
�� Ha’aretz, Jan. 28, 1983; Yediot Ahronot, international edition, Feb. 11, 1983.
24. Many examples are given in testimony recorded by the Ad Hoc Committee for the Investigation of Bedouin Problems (Beersheva) and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. There has also been extensive reporting in the Hebrew press. See also Yitzhak Bailey, “Contrary to our Ideals,” Jerusalem Post, June 6 1978; Lesley Hazleton, “Forgotten Israelis,” New York Review, May 29, 1980, and many other reports. See also pp. 105f., 194.
